CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
Bill C-360. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16868
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16868
Bill C-361. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16869
Bill C-362. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted. 16869
Bill C-99. Report stage 16869
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 16869
Motions Nos. 1 and 5 16870
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16871
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 16875
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 16875
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16876
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16879
(Motion No. 2 negatived.) 16881
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16881
Division on motion deferred 16884
Division on motion deferred 16884
Bill C-107. Report stage 16884
Motion for concurrence 16884
(Motion agreed to.) 16884
Motion for third reading 16884
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16895
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16896
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16898
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 16899
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16901
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16902
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16902
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16902
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16902
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16903
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16904
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16904
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16904
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16904
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16904
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16905
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16905
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16905
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16905
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16905
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16906
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 16906
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16906
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16907
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16907
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16907
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16908
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16908
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16908
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16908
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16908
Bill C-107. Consideration resumed of report stage. 16909
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16909
Division on motion deferred 16911
Bill C-78. Report stage 16911
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16914
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16914
(Motion agreed to.) 16916
Bill C-78. Report Stage 16916
Division on motion deferred 16918
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16921
Division on motion deferred. 16922
Bill C-109. Motion for second reading 16922
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16922
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16930
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 140; Nays, 91 16930
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 16931
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16931
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 141; Nays, 91 16931
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 16932
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of report stage. 16932
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 187; Nays, 45 16932
Bill C-100. Consideration resumed at secondreading 16933
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 142; Nays, 87 16934
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 16935
Bill C-52. Consideration resumed of report stage 16935
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 39;Nays, 190 16935
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 88;Nays, 141 16936
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148;Nays, 81 16938
(Motion agreed to.) 16939
(Motion No. 4 negatived.) 16939
Motion No. 6 agreed to on division: Yeas, 141;Nays, 88 16939
Motion No. 8 negatived on division: Yeas, 46;Nays, 183 16940
(Motion No. 9 negatived.) 16941
Motion for concurrence 16941
(Motion agreed to.) 16941
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed at third reading 16942
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 81;Nays, 147 16942
Bill C-99. Consideration resumed at report stage 16943
Motion negatived on the following division: Yeas, 46;Nays, 183 16943
Motion for concurrence 16943
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 182; Nays, 47 16943
Bill C-107. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16944
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 187; Nays, 42 16945
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 16946
Bill C-78. Report stage (with amendment) 16946
(Motion Nos. 1 and 2 negatived.) 16946
Motion for concurrence 16946
(Motion agreed to.) 16946
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16952
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 16954
16867
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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 21 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 1993 I had the privilege of
announcing the Canada Remembers program. There have been
literally hundreds of events commemorating events that led to the
end of the second world war.
I had the privilege of leading a number of pilgrimages through
Italy, France, Belgium and Holland. Indeed they were very
touching events.
I remember standing outside Belgium with a number of
Canadian veterans and marching into the city. In the city the people
were singing ``O Canada'' and their greatest desire was to touch a
Canadian veteran.
In Vlissingen, the Netherlands over 100,000 people came to say
thank you to the allied veterans.
(1005 )
The most touching event for Canadian veterans was in
Apledoorn where between 300,000 and 500,000 people came to say
thank you to the Canadian veterans.
Now I have the privilege of leading a delegation to the far east,
to Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. In 1941 about 2,000
Canadians of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles left
Vancouver for Hong Kong. More than one-quarter of these
veterans died either on the battlefield or in prison camps.
About 10,000 Canadians served in the far east during the second
world war, and over 1,000 paid the supreme sacrifice. We will be
visiting a number of those graves in commemoration of these
people. We will also be visiting memorials in Rangoon, Singapore
and Yokohama. These memorials bear the name of the Canadian
veteran who has no known grave.
In 1995 when we are looking ahead it is so important to look
back to 1945 and really understand what price was paid for
freedom and democracy. This pilgrimage is the last event for the
Canada Remembers program. There have been so many events
throughout this country from the largest provincial organization to
the smallest community organization, all of which did nothing but
add to the knowledge and the great respect we have for our
Canadian veterans. These people can be justly proud and I thank
them very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this morning on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois
concerning the pilgrimage to the far east which will be undertaken
later this week by the secretary of state, along with several
parliamentarians and a group of veterans. The purpose of that trip
will be to provide the veterans with the opportunity to honour the
memory of their fallen comrades in Commonwealth cemeteries in
Hong Kong, Burma, Singapore and Japan.
It is important for the vital role played by our veterans in the
defence of freedom to be properly commemorated, particularly this
year, which marks the fiftieth anniversary of V-E Day. We have
already had a number of opportunities to recall to mind the selfless
sacrifice of the men and women to whom we owe our heritage of
freedom and democracy. This morning I would like to again
express our gratitude to all of those who laid down their lives, and
all those who were prepared to lay down their lives, in defence of
that cause.
Such was the price of our allegiance to the values of democracy
and peace and it is precisely because our young servicemen shared
those values that they fought to uphold them throughout the world.
More than 100,000 young Quebecers and Canadians lost their lives
during the two world wars, and many hundreds more in Korea and
various peacekeeping operations.
16868
Today, we want to honour, more specifically, the war effort of
our veterans in Hong Kong and other parts of the far east during
the second world war. Ten thousand fighting men and women
served there, and nearly a thousand did not return home. As the
secretary of state rightly pointed out, the war effort in the far east
was primarily an air war. The battles there were vital to the
triumph of freedom and democracy.
Our soldiers were actively involved in reconnaissance,
transportation, fighter and bomber squadrons. RCAF air crews and
ground crews supported Commonwealth land forces in the war in
the Pacific. We want to express our heartfelt gratitude to them.
This pilgrimage is one of a number that have been made to
different parts of the world, particularly Europe, where Canadians
and Quebecers helped liberate Belgium, France, Italy and the
Netherlands. The celebrations for V-E Day were particularly
emotional.
(1010)
The significant loss of human life and the horror of the suffering
of our veterans in the far east, including all the members of
Canada's troops of Chinese or Japanese extraction, must not be left
to fade with time.
This heritage must be passed on to the very young. We are
therefore delighted to learn that four young people will take part in
the pilgrimage. They are at the same age that the veterans were
when they left to defend our freedom.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to support this initiative.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was 13 years old when the second world war ended; 9
when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and the war in the Pacific
commenced. Young as I was, with an aunt, an uncle and a cousin
already in Canada's armed forces, Pearl Harbour impacted strongly
on my family and on me.
For the men of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles the
overwhelming numbers of Japanese attacking Hong Kong made the
battle short but the ensuing years in prisoner of war camps long and
arduous.
Overworked, underfed, exposed and vulnerable to tropical
diseases and without adequate medical care, almost as many died
in those camps as had been killed in the fight.
History tells us that the Japanese met their strongest resistance
where men of the Royal Rifles and Winnipeg Grenadiers held the
ground.
More than 500 of those who sailed for Hong Kong did not return.
Those who did suffered abuse and deprivation which would affect
them for the rest of their lives.
In the air, whether flying the hump in transport aircraft, in
bombers carrying the fight to the enemy or in fighters defending
our forces against enemy air attack, the Royal Canadian Air Force
made a vital contribution to the successful resolution of that war.
I was delighted to see on the list of 40 veterans whom we will
accompany on this pilgrimage the name of a pilot with whom I
served during my career in the air force. Until I saw his name
among the veterans I had no idea he had flown in that campaign. He
is not one to trumpet his accomplishments. We have not seen each
other for many years and I look forward with great anticipation to
meeting him again. I look forward to meeting and coming to know
all these veterans who gave so much for Canadians and the world
during that difficult time.
1994 marked the 75th anniversary of the end of the first world
war and the 50th anniversary of events leading to the end of the
second world war. 1995 has seen ceremonies commemorating
events late in the war and finally victory in Europe.
This pilgrimage on which we embark tomorrow will visit
cemeteries where Canadians lie in Burma, now Myanmar,
Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo.
I will take great pride in joining our veterans of those campaigns
as we pay tribute to their many comrades who made the ultimate
sacrifice and did not return.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-360, an act to amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act (deduction re other income).
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon.
member for Prince George-Peace River, for seconding the bill.
It is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill which calls
for amending the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Members opposite know how the Reform Party and indeed the
overwhelming majority of Canadians feel about the rich MP gold
plated pension scheme.
My private member's bill proposes to introduce an MP pension
clawback which would apply to former parliamentarians. It would
work on exactly the same principle as the old age security clawback
applies to senior citizens. Former parliamentarians earning more
than $53,215 in the private sector would have a portion of their MP
pensions clawed back.
It is time for this kind of legislation. Canadians are calling for
legislation which reflects fairness from their elected
representatives.
16869
(1015 )
I ask members from all parties to give serious consideration to
this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-361, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act (crown corporations).
He said: Madam Speaker, my bill will make all crown
corporations subject to the Access to Information Act. These would
be corporations like the post office and CMHC. At present, these
corporations are exempt from access to information even though
they are subsidized with tax dollars. This bill will open
corporations to the public and make them more accountable to
Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act
(confidence votes).
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill if enacted would amend the
Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.
It would end the uncertainty over when our general elections
would be called. Provisions in this bill would call for the general
elections to be held every four years. This would in no way
contravene our Constitution. No constitutional amendments are
required because the Governor General still has the authority to
determine whether or not that election shall be called.
There are also amendments to the Canada Elections Act that
would clarify when a byelection would be called. It would ensure
that in constituencies where members no longer represent their
constituents because they have either been appointed to the Senate,
as we have seen in the past, or they have passed away, timely
byelections would be called on fixed dates.
Provisions in this bill would come into play if there was a crisis
thus giving the bill the flexibility to be very usable.
I ask that all members of the House give serious consideration to
this bill. If the bill passes, we would know that the next general
election would be held on October 20, 1997.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has
been signed by a number of Canadians from Waterloo, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill,
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1020 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the House
that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial
statement, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.
_____________________________________________
16869
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-99, an act to
amend the Small Business Loans Act, as reported (with
amendments) from a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will now read the
Speaker's ruling.
[English]
There are six motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for report stage of Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small
Business Loans Act.
16870
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for the purposes of debate.
The vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 5.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
[Translation]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately. I shall
now put Motions Nos. 1 and 5 to the House.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-99, in Clause 1, be amended:
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 1, with the following:
``(d) ninety per cent, or such other percentage as is fixed by the committee of the
House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry, of any
loss sus-''; and
(b) by replacing line 1, on page 2, with the following:
``(c) or, where a percentage is fixed by the committee described in this
paragraph,''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-99 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 4, the following
new Clause:
``4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to industry may, for the purposes of paragraph 3(1)(d), fix the
percentage of any loss that the Minister is liable to pay.''
-He said: Madam Speaker, thank you for your co-operation.
Our set of amendments consists of three groups. There are six
amendments, and I will now speak to Group No. 1, as agreed.
In this first group, there are two elements that reflect the spirit of
our amendments. One concerns the change in coverage now
provided under the act. The government currently guarantees 90
per cent of loans made under the Small Business Loans Act, but
that same government now wants to cap coverage at 85 per cent.
The other aspect concerns our role as legislators, in Parliament
and in committee. In clause 1(1)(d), and we will get back to this
later on, the government's share will be prescribed, and we feel that
is wrong. To get back to the loan guarantees provided under the
Small Business Loans Act, which will be reduced from 90 per cent
to 85 per cent, a difference of 5 per cent, this means the government
is in a way backing out, is reducing its contribution to this
legislation, and this increases the lender's liability by 5 per cent.
(1025)
The implications of this measure, although not dramatic, are
nevertheless very serious, because there is a message here for small
lending institutions, especially in Quebec where there is a credit
union in every town. Since the risk to the lender increases, small
lending institutions that do not provide more than 10, 15 or 20
loans per year may think twice. We fear that this may cause bank
managers to be more cautious, to be psychologically inclined to
direct loans to less risky businesses, because the lender will, in
theory, still run a greater risk.
This, in our opinion, will cause banks to favour less risky
businesses. This runs somewhat counter to the economic
development needs of our society, which is increasingly focused on
high-tech companies in preparing for the future. These companies
represent a risk in themselves because, as we know, contrary to
traditional businesses, high-tech companies often have nothing to
reassure lending institutions because their operating strength is
based on their owner-managers' knowledge and expertise, on
intangible values, and not on the usual buildings or facilities.
Reducing government coverage indirectly penalizes high-tech
companies, which represent an extra risk for the banks. This has
already been clearly identified as a problem during the industry
committee's proceedings, because we know that the banks are
generally reluctant, perhaps with good reason, to finance these
high-tech companies.
This, we also fear, will penalize new businesses without any
experience or history that have not yet proven themselves. These
businesses represent an extra risk for lenders. Reduced coverage
will make it harder for them and for the banks to accurately assess
the situation, since any banker knows that lending to a new,
unproven business without annual statements for the previous years
will make the matter even more difficult.
Perhaps I should have pointed out earlier that we should keep in
mind that what this bill implies comes from the last speech of the
finance minister, in which he suggested rather strongly that the
Small Business Loans Act program should be self-financing.
This is the articulation of this political will. We members of the
Bloc Quebecois realize that this is a legislation, a small business
assistance program with a price. In 1993, bad debts that had to be
absorbed by the federal government totalled $32 million and, with
the envelop growing from $4 billion to $12 billion, losses could
rise to $100 million.
There may be food for thought here, serious thought. That is
what the official opposition has in mind when suggesting that,
16871
before amending this act to limit its scope and introducing concepts
such as self-financing, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted
to identify the benefits arising from this legislation. We at least
need to know how many jobs are created, what the government's
tax return on its investment is-since the loss incurred as a result of
the implementation of this act could be likened to an
investment-and what indirect taxes are indirectly created by the
implementation of the act, taxes that otherwise would not have to
be paid.
So, before the scope of this act is restricted, we in the committee
would have liked, and that was part of our recommendations, to see
a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the government did not
follow our advice and is now going ahead by reducing, as we can
see, coverage by five per cent.
(1030)
The other aspect of Group No. 1, which is also found in Group
No. 2, relates to clause 1(d), which reads:
Subsection 3(1) of the Small Business Loans Act is amended by striking out
the word ``or'' at the end of the paragraph (a) and by replacing paragraph (b)
with the following:
(d) eighty-five per cent, or such other percentage as is prescribed-
It is that ``as is prescribed'' provision that we object to and that
we oppose. As you may have noticed, the official opposition-we
all do-feels that the role of parliamentarians, including that of
Parliament as legislator and that of the committees, is neglected
and belittled. This bill should be a good opportunity to enhance the
role of parliamentarians and committees, and this is why we
condemn the fact that the government intends to resort to
regulations.
All the polls show that we must enhance the role of elected
representatives. We were elected through a democratic process, we
have things to say, and we all represent our constituents. We are
here to express their views. Yet, the system relies less and less on
the expertise and sensitivity of parliamentarians. If we are not the
ones who can influence decisions, then who can? It is the
bureaucracy, the lobbies and those who have money, as the current
Quebec premier so accurately pointed out in his review of the
referendum results.
Given how much money circulates in our economic system, it is
easy to see the power of money. That is confirmed once again.
Indeed, if the government does not work openly with the
institutions that we represent, than it works on the sly and resorts to
its authority. With that provision, we will only find out after the
fact that the government decided to change its coverage. By
resorting to regulations, if the government wants to ensure
self-financing and realizes that implementing the act is too costly,
it can simply decide that its coverage will no longer be 85 per cent
but, rather, 80, 75 or 70 per cent, without any discussion. All of us
here will simply be put before a fait accompli, and that is not good
for any self-respecting democracy.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the
member for Trois-Rivières. Quite frankly, there are some points the
member makes that are quite valid. I would like to dwell on the
first point for a couple of minutes, and that has to do with the
reduction in the government's liability from 90 per cent on the
small business loan guarantee to 85 per cent.
Last year the government liability for the Small Business Loans
Act float was approximately $100 million. That is what it cost.
Effectively, what we are doing with this amendment to the bill,
which the Bloc does not support, is reducing the liability from $100
million to $95 million. In other words, by lowering the exposure of
the government we are going to save $5 million.
The member for Trois-Rivières makes a very interesting point.
Will that five per cent threshold cause banks to not look as hard or
take as much of a chance with those smaller, more innovative,
knowledge based firms? I am not sure that it will not.
(1035)
Two weeks ago we heard in the industry committee that the
small business float for all banks in Canada was $28 billion, a one
per cent increase in the float over the year before. The banks of
Canada that make loans under the Small Business Loans Act were
guaranteed, prior to this legislation, 90 per cent of that loan by the
crown. The float right now is around $4 billion to $5 billion. If we
deduct that Government of Canada guarantee to the banks on those
loans, then effectively we have not had a real increase in the small
business loan activity in this country in the last two years.
We have to be very careful. I am not going to support the
member's motion to reduce the crown's exposure. The member
from Trois-Rivières wants the government to go on the hook for
another $5 million. I am not going to support that. Because of the
pressure from the Reform Party, our government is on a fiscal
obsession with the deficit and the debt. I hope this path will head to
a quicker economic recovery. But I share the view of the Bloc
member for Trois-Rivières that we are going to have to be vigilant,
because if we lower the government guarantee to the banks we may
see a lot of good opportunities go by the wayside. The banks might
not come to the party. We need small business going full throttle in
the country.
I think the member's motion gives us an interesting concern,
which we register. But we must at the same time balance our
responsibility with reducing the cost of managing the program to
the taxpayer. We will try it, and if we see that the activity on the
Small Business Loans Act does not continue at the same rate or if
there is not the same action on the Small Business Loans Act, then
as a committee and as a government we can ask the minister to
reopen the file. But we must give it a chance in the interest of fiscal
restraint and make sure that the bill is focused on cost recovery.
16872
I must say that the member for Trois-Rivières has done a
fabulous job in the industry committee in the last two years. Instead
of his party being called the Bloc Quebecois, I wish they were
called the Bloc Canadien. If they were called the Bloc Canadien,
then imagine the thrust we could get going in the House and the
stimulation to the economy.
(1040 )
Who knows, once the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois
moves to Quebec City perhaps we will get a conversion going and
the Bloc can become the Bloc Canadien. I sense there are a lot of
members in the Bloc who really do by and large share some of the
values and some of the things we all aspire to in the House for all of
Canada.
The second part of the member's point is about giving the
industry committee the authority to amend this bill. That would be
equivalent to changing the whole system of government. We all
know our system of government gives the Prime Minister and his
cabinet the executive responsibility to put legislation forward. We
members of Parliament have the ability and the opportunity to
provide input and to amend, as we are doing here today.
The reason we do not have any motions being put forward today
by the Reform Party is because the motions and ideas of the
Reform critic for industry were accepted in committee and have
become part of the bill. It is not as if members of Parliament do not
have the-
Mr. Penson: It was the first time.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): No, it was not the first
time. We have accepted many of the good ideas of the member
from Okanagan.
The point I am trying to make is the government would not
abrogate to committees of the House its executive responsibility.
The member for Trois-Rivières is asking the executive of the
Government of Canada to just give its executive responsibility to
the industry committee. We could not support such an idea,
because ultimately the Prime Minister and the cabinet, the
government, are responsible.
Mr. Hermanson: They call the shots.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): That is right. We can
have input, but that is the way we are governed in this country and
that is the way it will have to stay.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the debate on this very interesting
motion. In some ways it sounds very good in principle. In another
sense, I have great difficulty with it.
I would like to review some of the provisions of the Small
Business Loans Act itself and what it is doing. I noticed the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry alluded to the
exposure of the government and the liability that is incurred on
behalf of the government for the people of Canada under the Small
Business Loans Act. It is rather substantial. Last spring the $4
billion ceiling was increased to $12 billion, which is a threefold
increase. It is very interesting that at that time the government's
liability was 90 per cent of that $4 billion, which works out to about
$3.6 billion. That costs roughly $100 million a year in terms of the
non-payment or the defaults on various loans.
The current amendment proposes to reduce the liability for the
$12 billion ceiling to 85 per cent, which still means a liability for
the government of approximately $11.2 billion or $11.3 billion. If
that proportion of $100 million goes with a $4 billion ceiling, this
could now go to $300 million with this new ceiling, which is pretty
substantial. We have to be very careful about this.
We have to recognize that Professors Haines and Riding did a
very interesting study about small business loans and what
happens. The cap of the individual borrower under the Small
Business Loans Act is now $250,000; it was $125,000. The ceiling
or the size of the business has increased. It was limited to any
business that had $2 million or less of sales on an annual basis. The
new ceiling goes up to $5 million.
(1045)
It is very interesting what this study of Haines-Riding showed. It
showed that businesses below the $2 million ceiling had a default
rate of somewhere between 7 and 8 per cent. Those with sales
between $2 million and $5 million had a default rate of 14.7 per
cent, which is much greater.
We can see the exposure under the new provisions, under the
new ceilings, are rather interesting because they increase the risk to
which the government has exposed itself.
To combat that the bill comes forward and says that there will be
an administration fee. As we all know there is a 2 per cent
registration fee right off the top which is added to the principal.
Then there is a 1.75 per cent fee in terms of cost to make the costs
of defaults and various other administrative items recoverable. It
was not good enough that it resulted in a $100 million loss. That
has been increased by another 1.25 per cent which means a total of
3 per cent. The 1.25 per cent can be recovered in only one way, and
that is through interest rates.
The earlier situation was that the Small Business Loans Act used
the prime rate that could be increased by 1.75 per cent. It went up to
6.75 per cent. Now it is 3 per cent above prime, which means that
we will probably run the new small business loans under that
provision.
16873
To give us the context of what is happening, the liability of the
government is increased under the Small Business Loans Act by
about 300 per cent over what it was before. It is our responsibility
as elected representatives of our constituents to protect their
interests. If we are exposing their risk from $4 billion to $12
billion, it should not be delegated to the executive council of the
government. It should be the responsibility of parliamentarians in
the House of Commons.
The bill had the provision that it should be delegated to the
executive council. We proposed an amendment. The hon.
parliamentary secretary referred to the amendment in his
presentation a few moments ago. It was accepted by the committee.
It has now been taken out of the bill so that parliamentarians have
control over fixing whether it will be 90 per cent or any other
percentage. It is a real positive move for democracy.
When I look at the amendment before us I notice that it has been
adulterated because it is neither fish nor fowl at this point. It is
being proposed that parliamentarians in the House of Commons
should not have control but the committee should have control.
Admittedly the committee is made up of parliamentarians elected
from all parties represented in the House. They are elected
representatives of the constituents.
However when we are talking about $12 billion it is a lot of
money. I do not think a committee should have the authority to
make those kinds of decisions on behalf of Parliament. If we
thought the executive council should not have that kind of power, it
is much less that a committee of the House should have the
authority.
While the direction of giving authority to the people is a good
one and while the intent is noble, the way it is being proposed will
not achieve what we really need. We need to recognize that as
representatives who have been elected by the people we represent
them in a threefold way. First, we represent them because of the
party we are a member of that presented the candidates to the
people. They knew we were to present certain things. I appreciate
the parliamentary secretary's statement that gave us credit for the
fact that the Reform Party is here to bring about an awareness of the
fiscal responsibility and the need to get our house in order
financially. That is absolutely superb. We need to do that.
(1050)
The difference I have with the hon. member opposite is that it is
not an obsession. That is a reality. That is something we have to
come to grips with. It is high time that we do it just as soon as we
can. If truth is an obsession it is time we were all obsessed because
truth is what we need. That is the first point.
As we represent our people we have another responsibility to
detect very clearly what they feel about certain kinds of issues.
They want a voice and they have told us clearly that we have to get
our financial house in order. That was not a mandate that we in the
Reform Party said we would have, but the people told us quite
independent of it being a Reform platform that it was what they
wanted us to do.
Second, as representatives we actually go out and represent the
people in what they think. Finally, we apply our best judgment to
ordinary everyday housekeeping items where we do the things that
have to be looked after.
This is a very critical and important issue. To put this into the
context of only a one-industry committee is not enough. The whole
House of Commons is involved in financial issues of major import
affecting small business, the engine that generates about 85 per
cent of new employment in Canada. It is the issue.
Also that group, especially the high tech group, is bringing about
innovations to make our economy grow. There is no question that
today we will move faster and faster not because we are so smart
but because we bring about new innovations, new applications of
new knowledge. That is what we need to do. The small business
component is the absolute number one component in the economy
that will help Canada grow to where it becomes a truly competitive
industrial nation in the world. That is where we need to move.
I appreciate the opportunity the motion has given me to express
some ideas although I oppose the motion not because we do not
need to deal with small business and not because we do not need
representatives of the people but because the method is wrong.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate at report stage of Bill C-99,
specifically Motions Nos. 1 and 5 brought forward by the member
for Trois-Rivières.
I was interested in the member's speech. He discussed the need
to defend lenders. It seems unusual to me. Sometimes when I look
at the Small Business Loans Act the question that comes readily to
mind is why the Government of Canada has to encourage and
guarantee lending to small business, which is the obligation of our
financial community.
I was very surprised to hear the member defending moving the
guarantee from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. He defended the
potential liability for another 5 per cent on these loans to lenders.
The banks of the country have reported something in the
neighbourhood of $1 billion worth of profits. It is apropos that as
legislators and parliamentarians we are concerned about the small
and medium size business communities and where they fit.
The question could well be why the guarantee is at 85 per cent.
The intent of the legislation is to recognize a liability exists for the
Government of Canada in terms of these loans. As far as I can
understand, the guarantee has been amended to 85 per cent
basically to allow more lending to occur. The growth in the SBLA
program has been remarkable. In that sense it has been very
successful in channelling investment loans to small and medium
16874
size businesses. By leaving the guarantee at the 90 per cent level,
loan losses could well exceed $100 million a year.
(1055)
As we have heard from the hon. member from Okanagan the
government is committed to reducing our expenditures and our risk
to loss. He spoke about a maximum liability of something in the
neighbourhood of $12 billion. That is erroneous. That kind of risk
would be like giving somebody an $85,000 mortgage on a
$100,000 house and expecting to lose the entire $85,000. Most of
the small business community could look at that situation and
realize it is an unrealistic assumption.
Most of the loan loss provisions that have resulted in losses to
the government are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2.5 per
cent. That is not unreasonable in the lending business, which gets
me back to my original question of why we cannot encourage our
financial institutions to be more aggressive in lending to small and
medium size businesses rather than require the federal government
to guarantee the loans.
The hon. member mentioned a number of other issues, not the
least of which was investment in new and emerging technologies.
Certainly that is a good point. The history of the loans has been that
they are used for capital additions to small and medium size
businesses, basically equipment, real estate and so on. The aspect
of new technology still befuddles the investment community
generally. We need to look for new and different types of sources of
capital for small and medium size businesses. I suspect small and
medium size businesses and the SBLA program do not look to this
source of capital to finance emerging technologies.
About a year ago I had the opportunity to tour the Royal Bank. I
talked to some of the portfolio managers and listened to their
concerns about emerging technologies. I still believe that the
financial community has not come to grips with how to deal with
emerging technology. It is still very much focused on the concept
of security, based on what it was doing 10 or 20 years ago, looking
for hard assets as security for the loans.
The most prevalent asset was real estate. I do not have to tell my
colleagues what has happened in the real estate industry in the last
five years. The banks, in an effort not to be burned twice, are
getting back to using real estate as a security item, which has
compounded the problems of small and medium size businesses.
The banks are refusing to enter even traditional markets because
they do not know from where they will get security.
Through the Small Business Loans Act the government has
attempted to inspire financial institutions to come forward and lend
to small and medium size businesses. Most businesses will be
smaller, based on some of the changes to the act. When we are
talking about sales of $5 million and so forth a lot of people in the
riding of Durham do not think that is small business; they think it is
big business.
The changes to the SBLA will allow it to be more focused on
genuine small businesses. The question is how big businesses
occur. They occur from the emergence of small businesses that are
allowed to grow within the system. The Small Business Loans Act
has really been a hand up for some small businesses. As the hon.
member for Broadview-Greenwood suggested, it may well be the
only hand up that exists between the financial sector and small and
medium size businesses.
(1100 )
The second part of the motion deals with the possibility of
having the industry committee approve changes in the guarantee
aspect of these provisions. One thing that small business needs is
flexibility and rapidity in decision making.
I question whether it is in the purview of the committee system
to undertake this sort of review process knowing the heavy
workload the committee constantly has in this place. I also question
whether it is within the competence of the committee to make those
kinds of decisions.
In order for the committee to change these kinds of guarantees it
would need rapid and up to date information about the experience
of loan losses. It would have to be able to understand emerging
tendencies within the lending business.
I really question whether it would be a service to small and
medium size businesses which would find a great lag in being able
to have a flexible relationship with the government. I think the
government is attempting to be very flexible in allowing this plan
to emerge and foster support of small business.
In conclusion, I am opposed to both of these motions for the
reasons I have mentioned.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The vote is on Motion No.
1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
16875
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare Motion No. 1
lost. Therefore, Motion No. 5 is lost as well.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We will now proceed to
Group No. 2.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-99, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 25, on page 2, with
the following:
``Minister the annual administration fee fixed by the committee of the House
of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry,''.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-99, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 28, on page
4, with the following:
``paragraphe 3(4)(c)(i), the time when the annual administration fee fixed by
the committee referred to in section 7.1, is payable;''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-99 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 4, the following
new Clause:
``4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 7:
7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)(c)(i), fix the
annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual
administration fee.''
(1105)
-He said: Madam Speaker, I realize these amendments are
rather technical and dry but they are nevertheless important, and
they take the same approach as the amendment we introduced
earlier when we condemned the use of the word prescribe and the
whole regulatory process and mechanism that entails.
However, before I continue, I would like to thank the
parliamentary secretary for his kind words, which I appreciated. I
want to return the compliment, because I think we should realize
the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry is not only a
very good parliamentarian but also an outstanding asset to our
work in committee.
I would also like to comment on what he said about establishing
a bloc canadien. In fact, in the forties there was a ``bloc populaire''
to defend the interests of Quebecers. In the nineties, and English
Canada is not about to forget it, we saw the birth of a bloc
québécois. To continue the musings of the parliamentary secretary,
we might see the birth of a bloc canadien very shortly in Canada,
after Quebec becomes sovereign, a bloc that would be foster the
best possible relations with a sovereign Quebec, including an
economic and political partnership, which we support because it is
sensible, it is the way to mutual respect between good neighbours
and recognition of the equality of the two peoples here in America
who are different from the United States, who are different from
Europe and who represent certain cultures on this planet, since
Canada is also a distinct society. If there is enough good will on
both sides in the months and years to come-and our contribution
to the industry committee is a good example of that, we will be able
to work together for the well-being and prosperity of our respective
peoples.
I would like to comment on the remarks of my colleague
opposite, who expresses surprise at the spirit of our amendment on
the reduction of government coverage, claiming that we wanted to
protect lenders rather than borrowers. I think we have to face the
fact lenders are reluctant when it comes to small business. That is
the reason for a small business loan act. We know there is a
reluctance and that the government wants to keep the legislation
but to distance itself from it by reducing its coverage. I think this
will be to the detriment of what is increasingly the motor of
economic development: the small and medium business, the
SMBs. This is why we are being very careful in this. We want to
ensure the continuation of the coverage currently offered to the
more vulnerable small borrowers, the ones threatening to lenders.
So, getting back to the spirit of this second bloc, it is to reinforce,
as mentioned earlier, the roles of parliamentarians. In any civilized
society, as ours claims to be, where there is representation by
election, I believe there has long been a certain malaise over the
role of those elected to Parliament. The role of parliamentarians is
becoming more increasingly insignificant. And I think this is one
of those times when we are reminded that things could be done
differently. Over the course of several decades, the public service
has progressively become heavy, especially at the top. As was
mentioned earlier, the executive branch assumed a great deal of
power, and while Parliament is certainly a place for debate, it has
very little power, and that is what we are condemning and want to
change. There is also continuity.
I think that anyone who has seen the Bloc Quebecois at work in
the various committees can appreciate the logic underlying our
remarks and contribution, in ensuring, rather like I am doing this
morning, that parliamentarians have greater power to influence the
decision making process so that the public interest remains first
and foremost, at the expense, if need be, of other interests, which,
as you know full well, have other ways of making themselves
heard.
16876
(1110)
Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary criticize our
amendment proposal, saying that, should coverage be reduced, as
we in the official opposition are concerned it will, the industry
committee will make appropriate representations to the Minister of
Industry to have this issue reviewed. That is not much, in terms of
power.
This means that, when a problem is reported, the industry
committee will come to agreement and quietly make
representations to the minister, asking him: ``Would you please
stop doing this, Sir; you are hurting our constituents''.
Parliamentarians certainly do not have much power, in such
instances.
This is what we deplore and want to change by introducing an
amendment which, as we can see, has unfortunately not garnered
unanimous support in this House. Even the Reform Party is not
very keen on our proposal. This is unfortunate because it discredits
our role once again, given what that role should be. This is not only
the case in the Parliament of Canada, but in all British legislatures
where, over the decades, elected representatives were gradually
stripped of certain powers because of the size of the bureaucracy, to
the benefit of technocrats who want to work behind close doors. It
goes without saying that it is easier to resort to regulations and
orders in council.
I remember the debate on Bill C-88 dealing with internal trade. It
provides that the federal government can, through orders in
council, take action against the party deemed at fault. Using orders
in council means that there is no public debate. It means that we
cannot even discuss the issue on behalf of the province deemed to
be unco-operative or at fault. The elected representatives of that
province would not even be allowed to make public
representations, because the issue would have been settled through
an order in council. This, in my view, is rather ominous. This is
why we moved these three amendments, which essentially seek to
eliminate the use of regulations and replace it with a committee
decision. More specifically, Motion No. 6 seeks to add a new
clause 7.1 which reads:
7.1 The committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters
relating to industry may, for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(4)(c)(i), fix the
annual administration fee or the method of calculating the annual
administration fee.
As things now stand, the minister is keeping this power for
himself without too much consultation and is being very discreet
about it. So much the better for those who will be aware of that, and
too bad for the others.
Instead of that, it is possible to rely on the existing political
structure, and to proceed in a manner which is more transparent and
more public. This is what we hope to achieve with these
amendments.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have always been an advocate
that members of Parliament can play a meaningful role in
amending or designing legislation in the House of Commons.
Therefore, I do not share the view of the Bloc member for
Trois-Rivières. It is important that we explain to Canadians how as
individual MPs we can have an impact on the system.
If I have a particular view of how the Small Business Loans Act
should be amended, then I should sit down with colleagues on both
sides of the House and develop a consensus. Quite often when we
can get a consensus it has always been my experience that unless it
is something that really upsets the fiscal framework of the country
most ministers accept good ideas from their parliamentary
committees.
(1115)
I have never experienced a situation in which a minister who had
constantly ignored the advice of his political confreres on a
constant basis whether in the House, in committee or in caucus still
succeeded as a minister. I have never known ministers to succeed if
genuine requests from MPs to their departments are ignored. If
they are ignored it is the MPs' fault.
Mr. Strahl: Ask the Minister of Justice if he listens.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I presume the hon.
member is talking about gun control. The Minister of Justice did
listen. This was a balancing act he had to perform. He had to make
a very tough decision. Do we think for a minute the Minister of
Justice did not balance in his decision making process the
difficulties rural members were having versus the concerns urban
members had?
An hon. member: He ignored them completely.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The judge is out on
whether he ignored rural MPs or whether this situation will succeed
in gun control. That is a fair example. It was a tough decision.
By and large on ideas not as controversial, when we get a
consensus ministers tend to listen.
It is very important that we take notice of the Bloc's point on the
control the bureaucracy has in this community. I have been
working around this town since 1979. I came here as a young
political assistant, not a bureaucrat. I was amazed at the way the
bureaucrats, the public servants, operated and managed
departments within government. We call it the machinery of
government.
I had a terrific experience working in the Prime Minister's office
for almost four years. I was amazed even in that office when we
16877
wanted things done the public service had this capacity to actually
control the tempo of implementation. I coined an expression back
in 1981 called the MAD treatment, maximum administrative
delay. They were good public servants. It was just part of the
culture. It was part of the thought process that even though the
political will wants a particular policy implemented, before we
actually put it into the factory and implement it we must do further
analysis. We must check this, we must check that. The delay was
enough to drive one nuts.
The member for Trois-Rivieres has given us a very important
point on which we must be ever vigilant. Those of us who are
elected, who are accountable, have to make sure the things
approved in the House are implemented and not steered off and
done in a way the bureaucracy thinks should be done.
I do not share the member's view when he says we do not have
an opportunity for input. I think we do. If we are passionate about
our ideas and we get support from other colleagues usually they can
be implemented.
(1120 )
It is not always easy. I could give a personal example and pass it
on to the members opposite on the whole issue of tax reform. I have
been working on the issue of tax reform for six years, the single tax
system.
I was hoping that with 50-odd members from the Reform Party
who apparently believed in tax reform we would have much more
energy in support of the notion of comprehensive tax reform, but
that has fizzled. Obviously I have not done a good enough job on
that issue in convincing other colleagues we need comprehensive
tax reform. We are not talking about it enough, debating it enough
or selling it to the rest of the decision makers in the Chamber.
An hon. member: Convince the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): We cannot simply
convince the Minister of Finance. This is where we go to the
member for Trois-Rivières' point about the technocrats, the
bureaucrats. What we really should be doing is lobbying as elected
men and women. We should lobby the finance department.
How many members have taken the time to go to the finance
department, sit down with a senior bureaucrat and talk to him or her
about their ideas for tax reform? Those public servants cannot
refuse to see elected members of Parliament.
Mr. Strahl: They do it to me all the time.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): If they are refusing to
see the member, he should go to the minister. They do not refuse to
see the lobbyists so I cannot imagine a public servant refusing to
meet with a member of Parliament. I find that crazy.
If a member tells me of any public servant who refuses to meet
with an elected person I will stand up in the House and we will talk
about it. Even before I will, the Prime Minister will go berserk. As
someone who has been in nine different government departments,
the Prime Minister understands the public service is there to
implement the political will of the approved legislation in the
House. If there is resistance to it, it is our fault to allow the
resistance.
I appreciate the comment from my colleague from
Trois-Rivières that we should be ever vigilant as we deal with the
public service in the way it manages some of these pieces of
legislation we approve in the House. However, I do not share his
view that members of Parliament cannot have a substantial role in
amending and designing legislation. For that reason we will not be
supporting this motion.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to debate the motions placed by the Bloc. I listened to the
eloquent defence of Parliament by the previous speaker. I
wondered why in his eloquent defence he would be opposed to the
idea that Parliament make the decisions regarding the levels of the
fees and so on charged within Bill C-99.
The member also told us about how difficult it is to get through
the civil service, how difficult the bureaucracy is to move and the
challenges we as members of Parliament face in achieving these
things. Yet he gave no indication whatsoever that he was prepared
to recognize these decisions should be made right here on the floor
of the House rather than some back room by some unelected
unknown bureaucrat we cannot even find much less influence as far
as making these decisions.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I would like to humbly correct the member
because I did not in any way, shape or form say the elected people
in the House do not have an influence on the way bills are designed
and approved.
(1125 )
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I advise the member that
decisions regarding the level of fees should be made right here on
the floor of the House. We should not be delegating the authority to
some bureaucratic who is nameless, unelected and unknown, who
advises his minister that he thinks they should vary or increase the
fee and the minister does it. This is how the bill reads.
The Bloc is trying to change the motion so that a committee of
the House would make that decision in lieu of the minister by order
in council.
Unfortunately we cannot support the motion by the Bloc even
though we feel the decision should be made right here on the floor
of the House because unfortunately the Bloc does not understand
the rules of the House. Committees do not make decisions. All
committees can do is report back to the House. Committees do not
have the authority to make legislative decisions.
16878
Any motion approved on the floor of the House is not legislation
by itself. It is only an expression of the House. We only approve
legislation. We cannot initiate legislation through a committee.
That is where the Bloc is totally misinformed and cannot
understand the rules of the House, which leads me to the question
of separation. When Bloc members want to separate from the rest
of the country they have no understanding of the process. The
referendum they had in Quebec last month was ruled illegal by
a court in their own province, and yet they proceeded with the
referendum anyway.
We now find they do not understand the rules of the House,
where they expect committees to make legislation. It is little
wonder we have a party that cannot understand how to enjoy life
within the confederation and would rather head off on its own. I am
concerned for the people of Quebec if they are to be led by a group
with no concept of how to live within a set of rules.
Getting back to the legislation and getting back to more
relevance, we want to see decisions made by members of
Parliament. We do not want to delegate the authority to the minister
who acts on the advice of some bureaucrat. We want to see the
minister make up his mind and bring a proposal to the House in the
form of legislation. We look at it, debate it and vote on it. If it is
approved that is fine, but we do not want to give him a carte
blanche to vary the rules at his whim without debate, without the
public at large realizing what is going on. That is why we have to
oppose the motions proposed.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to once again enter the debate on Motion No. 6.
I listened to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières talking about
how different Quebec and its people are from the rest of the
country. The Small Business Loans Act shows us very realistically
how we are all similar. The problems of small and medium size
businesses whether in Montreal or Chicoutimi, Oshawa or
Vancouver are very much the same. Small and medium size
businesses have difficulty obtaining access to capital.
Clearly it is important for us as a country to look at as big a
market, as big a capital access as we possibly can and to assist
small and medium size businesses. What are we talking about
here? Ultimately, we are talking about jobs and the ability to create
jobs.
(1130)
I was very interested recently to read a summary by the Quebec
Manufacturers Association that stated that Quebec is the least
attractive jurisdiction in Canada in which to do business. This is
not something that has been created by the federal system; it is
something that has been created within the province of Quebec. I
addressed some manufacturers from Ontario this week and asked
them how we could assist our fellow business people within that
province overcome some of the problems of high wage structures,
high interest rates, and so forth that the manufacturers of Quebec
are having, which means an inability to create jobs in that province.
This motion deals with the ability of making the administrative
changes to acts within the purview of the committee system. What
we have to do is ask ourselves what is our role as parliamentarians.
Psychologically, it sounds very good to say that we should be
involved with every decision of government, possibly every change
in the Income Tax Act, possibly every idiosyncracy or change in
the Environmental Protection Act, fee structures that are
administered by Canada Post. There are all kinds of administrative
actions that occur on a daily basis.
When I practised as a chartered accountant I had a list of
complaints, and I agree that the system is too complex. I had a
stack of information that came in every week of changes within the
system, a stack of about four or five inches. If that is to be the
purview of the committees, I do not think they will get much work
done.
The other aspect of this is that we need to empower somebody
with responsibility, somebody who is answerable, somebody who
can appear before the committee and answer for decisions that are
being made. I question whether on a daily basis we can have
members of Parliament involved in all of these individual
decisions. On paper it sounds very good, but the reality will be that
we are going to delay the decision making.
For instance, on administration fees, the object of that exercise
was to basically make the administration of those loans break even
for the government, for the government to have no costs involved,
covering our loan losses, et cetera. For the committee to make
rational decisions on an ongoing basis, they would have to know
almost on a weekly basis the administration of those loans, the
numbers that have gone into default, the industries that are being
pressured, and so forth to know whether to increase or decrease
fees in certain areas.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that
committees do not meet that often. The reality is that Parliament is
only in session less than half of the year. How could it possibly
react on a daily or weekly basis to these kinds of changes? That is
not the purpose of Parliament or even the purpose of the committee
system.
Once again, I am opposed to this group of motions. If we want to
improve the committee system, we should ask whether the reviews
the committees enter into are efficient and adequate, whether the
powers of investigation are adequate and whether they exercise
them adequately. Those are really properly the issues that would
face parliamentarians on how to make this place more efficient and
more democratic.
16879
There is room for possibly strengthening the committee system,
and I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for making that point.
A lot of people in this country would like to see the committee
system strengthened to use the talents of members of Parliament
to their optimum benefit. Quite frankly, approving administration
fees I do not think is one of them.
There is another important aspect we overlook about the
administration fee. It has been the complaint of the SBLA program
that it was essentially the prime borrowers, well heeled companies,
that were getting the loans. In other words, these people could
possibly get loans on their own without that guarantee but chose to
get the guarantee because it was a cheap source of capital for them,
with a government guarantee attached to it. By increasing this fee
that will no longer be an advantage to them.
(1135)
As a consequence, what we have done is opened up a significant
amount of capital for small and medium size businesses. What this
means is that those companies that can afford to pay regular rates
of interest will be unattracted because of this fee structure and will
go off and borrow through the normal financial channels without
the SBLA guarantee. The companies that will be left will in fact be
those emerging companies, the ones that find difficulty in getting
access to loans.
Time and time again on the industry committee and through our
report, Taking Care of Small Business, we have been told by small
business that the most important thing is access to capital and not
necessarily the cost. Of course there is a point at which the cost of
capital becomes prohibitive, but those small emerging companies,
the ones we are looking toward as creating new jobs and new
industries, are going to have better access to funds under this
system. This sounds ironic, because the fees are slightly higher, but
it will open up an area for small and medium size business that
does not currently exist.
Getting back to the original motion, I think it will be a detriment
to those industries if for some reason the administration fee is
somehow logged into a committee that is cumbersome and takes a
long time to react. It is wise that the government leave that decision
making possibly with a bureaucrat. That bureaucrat from time to
time and at the discretion of the committee can appear before the
committee and explain his actions. If for whatever reasons we find
him negligent, we can get rid of him and hire somebody who is
better. I believe that is more appropriately the administration of the
committee system.
In conclusion, very simply, I am opposed to Motion No. 6
because I do not believe it is in the best interests of small and
medium size business.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-99 and related
amendments 2, 4, and 6 put forth by our colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois.
The backbone of our economy is made up of the small and
medium size businesses in this country. They are the ones who
truly create longlasting jobs within Canada. They are the ones who
create real employment in our country. They form an essential part
of our tax base in areas of innovation, science, technology, finance,
and many other areas. They are something we Canadians should be
proud of.
The small to medium size businesses are finding it increasingly
difficult in Canada to function because of the high tax loads, the red
tape they are forced to struggle under, and the difficulty they have
in securing loans. Lending institutions within Canada are
historically very conservative. Therefore, individuals in this
country who bring forth many good ideas find it difficult if not
impossible to have their efforts actually go to fruition. This is an
enormous loss for Canada.
One just needs to look in the areas of medicine, science,
technology, and the pharmaceutical industry to see good ideas
going nowhere or in fact being sold to companies in other parts of
the world. I recently read some very interesting information on
this. I read about incredible ideas being born within our own
country and being sent to other countries, where they become
productive, profitable, and contribute to the society by providing
long term, high tech, high paying jobs for people in other countries.
This is indeed a sad thing.
Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act,
comprises efforts to put this program on the road to cost recovery.
Everyone in this House approves of this. However, we are also
addressing the amendments put forth by the Bloc Quebecois. We
oppose these amendments because they bring the power of
determining liability directly to the committee, instead of bringing
it down to the area in this government that is closest to the public,
and that is the House of Commons.
(1140 )
I would like to congratulate my colleague from Okanagan
Centre, who put forth amendments that were adopted by the
committee that would bring the decision making process closer to
the people, and that is the House of Commons.
I find it quite strange that members of the Bloc Quebecois are
putting forth amendments but are not addressing some of the large
issues that are affecting their province. Sadly, Quebec in recent
times has seen economic destitution and social problems unrivalled
in its history. It is easy for the Bloc Quebecois and other separatist
forces to blame history and Ottawa for these problems. But I ask
16880
my honourable friends in the Bloc Quebecois, does not
responsibility for some of these problems rest on their own
shoulders? Is it not the intent of the separatist forces to carve
Quebec out of Canada? Are they not at least partly, if not largely,
responsible for the terrible economic and social destitution we see
in many areas of Quebec? One just has to visit the eastern part of
Montreal to see this in real life.
I hope the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois will look toward
building a united Canada and addressing the economic and social
problems that affect all of us within the context of this country. I
find it extremely strange that they say that if they did not have to
give their tax base to Ottawa they would be a lot better off. I ask
them to wake up and look at the fact that net transfer payments go
to Quebec and not to Ottawa. I ask them to remember that before
they continue to pursue their course.
I would also like to address some of the problems that are
affecting small and medium size businesses and put forth some
constructive solutions. As I said before, small and medium size
businesses are have increasingly difficult times because of the high
tax loads they are forced to work under. This is indicative of the
government's huge tax loads. With these huge tax loads, the high
debt and deficit we have incurred, we are forced to pay off
increasingly larger amounts of interest on these debts. As a result,
interest rates in the country are higher than they ought to be and tax
rates are also higher than they should be. It makes it very difficult
for these companies to compete in other countries.
The industry committee supported the fact that federal,
provincial, and municipal governments should get their fiscal
houses in order so that interest rates may be brought down and
more money made available to companies, making a stronger,
healthier dollar. It would provide an element of stability that is
essential if small and medium size businesses are to be effective
competitors in the future.
In talking to business, we have found that one of the greatest
obstacles they face is the red tape they must endure. It is
extraordinarily strange that the great ideas put forth in this country
have to pass through so many loopholes to get to where they can be
effective that many do not achieve their ultimate end. Red tape that
is supposed to work for businesses is in effect choking them. We
need to take a very close and hard look at this. We need to work
with the finance and revenue departments to determine ways in
which we can decrease the red tape and make businesses more
effective and virile competitors in this country.
I would also like to raise the issue of using tax incentives to
make more capital available to businesses. Indeed, the industry
committee looked at this and suggested that decreasing capital
gains tax rates for long term investment in Canadian small and
medium size businesses would be an effective way to provide these
companies with money to invest to build their businesses.
Maintaining the $500,000 capital gains exemption is also a useful
technique. If that were applied to small and medium size
businesses, it would provide more capital for them.
(1145 )
Relaxing the use of RRSPs in investing in one's own business is
another measure which would put the responsibility back on those
brave men and women who like to go it alone and try to make a
private business work. They could use their own funds to invest in
their business.
We also need to find ways in which the public can invest in
Canadian companies. We need to define new financial relationships
for the government, the banks and the private sector.
We can look at many examples. Germany and Japan are two
giants which have managed to capture large segments of markets
throughout the world. In part that is due to the unique relationship
which the private sector has with the lending institutions in their
respective countries. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. There
are many examples in the world of these ideas being put into effect
to support business.
In summary, small and medium size businesses are the backbone
of the Canadian economy. They are an invaluable source of taxes
for the federal and provincial governments. They are the primary
employers. Without these institutions the employment rate would
be much higher. They provide long term, long lasting, high paying
jobs for Canadians. It is the responsibility of the government and
opposition members to support measures which would maximize
the effectiveness of small and medium size businesses. Let us look
at other parts of the world and find ways in which we can support
the backbone of Canada's economy.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
16881
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost on division.
Therefore, Motions Nos. 4 and 6 are also lost.
(Motion No. 2 negatived.)
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-99, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 4, with
the following:
``ty taken''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this opportunity to discuss
the third and last group which deals with the above amendment and
for which some background may be useful.
Clause 4(1) of the bill reads as follows:
4(1) Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after
paragraph (e):
(e.1) prescribing the terms and conditions on which a lender may release any
security, including a personal guarantee, taken for the repayment of a
business improvement loan;
(1150)
That is a sore point with us, and that is what we want to change
through this amendment. In fact, the proposed amendment is
entirely in line with the message we got during the last federal
election campaign, when the Liberal Party of Canada had already
said in its famous red book that if it were elected, it would ensure
that no personal guarantees were required for loans under the Small
Business Loans Act.
However, whether it was divine or some other kind of
intervention, whether it was a lack of political will or loss of
memory-Alzheimer's not being restricted to humans, even
institutions will forget, and I think this is very disturbing in the
present case-I think the government forgot a promise that must
have been welcomed by the business community, especially small
business entrepreneurs who are directly affected by the Small
Business Loans Act. The promise was that from now on, the Small
Business Loans Act would no longer require personal guarantees.
The Liberals forgot, and it is our job to remind them of one of the
few promises in the red book that made sense. Asking the borrower
for a personal guarantee under the Small Business Loans Act is,
like the hon. member for Champlain said earlier, like having a
belt-the government guarantee-and asking for suspenders
because you are afraid the belt will break and the loan will
otherwise be a write-off.
With the 90 per cent guarantee the lender used to have and which
will now be 85 per cent, the lender could still expect to avoid
severe losses after agreeing to lend money to a small business.
However, if the lender can also ask for a personal guarantee, in
most cases a home, a bank account, a car or part of the assets of the
entrepreur and business owner, we are seeing a kind of security that
may be unnecessary and provides what may be excessive
guarantees for the lender.
As the hon. member for Durham mentioned earlier, there is
always an element of risk involved, and the lender should be
prepared to share the risk. In this area, 15 per cent may be riskier
than 10 per cent, especially in the case of new or high tech
businesses, as we pointed out, but to ask for personal guarantees as
well is something to which we object, and we hope the government
considers and endorses this amendment.
Another direct advantage is that, if personal guarantees such as a
house were not required as security under the Small Business
Loans Act, because the government provides a guarantee to the
bankers-these assets in the possession of the borrower, in the
possession of the manager of the small business, particularly in the
case of high tech or exporting companies, which make lenders feel
insecure-if those assets were freed up and not used as security,
they could be presented to lenders to facilitate obtaining a loan, as
security in any negotiations or transactions other than those under
the SBLA, the Small Business Loans Act.
The borrower could therefore use these personal assets not
required as security to plan future business development,
particularly in the case of small high tech or export businesses,
where lenders might justifiably feel insecure about the operation or
the very nature of the business' activities. Often lenders are not
familiar with high tech and export businesses, whose accounts
receivable are outside the country and not always easily checked.
The Export Development Corporation is involved as well, but
here again with additional administrative costs and delays.
(1155)
Thus, by eliminating the personal guarantees now required under
the SBLA, they could be placed in another context for use by the
borrower as security with a lender. This is what we hope the
government will accept, and that is why we have presented this
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for people to
understand that to be eligible for a small business loan under the
current system the loan has to be applied toward certain conditions.
For example, it is not to be used for working capital; it is to be used
for the purchase of equipment, leaseholds, things that have true and
sustained value.
If a loan is in default under the Small Business Loans Act, that
equipment has a value. It can be sold. When the value of that
equipment or leaseholds that have been sold has been realized, the
16882
amount that is left over is subject to a 25 per cent personal
guarantee.
For example, if you have a loan of $100,000 for equipment,
under the Small Business Loans Act you have to have a minimum
of approximately 15 to 20 per cent. The amount of exposure right
off the bat is $80,000. Of course, you are in the process of paying it
down almost immediately because it is always part of a
programmed return. If your business goes bad and you at least
realize half of the value of the equipment, then your exposure on
that $100,000 is approximately $30,000. Then, from a personal
guarantee you are only exposed to 25 per cent of that.
Because of the way banks have been dealing in Canada
traditionally, there is this mindset right now that when you go to get
a loan they want your home, they want your RRSPs, they want your
life insurance as security. They want four and five times security
for the loan. That is not what we are talking about here.
We are saying under the Small Business Loans Act the personal
guarantee is limited to 25 per cent of the amount that is left over
after everything has been liquidated. From a normal commercial
business point of view I do not see that as a bad thing. It is a big
improvement over the traditional type of security that banks would
want on most other small business loans.
We are not going to support this motion. The bill is designed in a
way that gives much greater flexibility. Once the loan repayment
reaches a certain level, where there is security in the assets to cover
the exposure, under the current act the personal guarantee, the25 per cent, can be released. Once their exposure was reduced most
banks would release the personal guarantee. I believe that is fair
and that we should not change that aspect of the bill.
(1200)
The member for Trois-Rivières has put forward good ideas and
thought provoking points. However, on balance the design of the
bill is quite solid and will probably do the job we intend it to do.
As this is the last motion, I should like to say that the industry
committee is very good. It has had a very tight focus on the issue of
access to capital by small business. This is the third time in less
than three years the bill has been through the House of Commons.
It was amended three years ago by the then Conservative
government. By the way, it went through all three readings in the
House in one day. We supported the Conservative government in
amending the bill three years ago because we believed in the
importance of the issue of access to capital and some kind of
instrument that would act as a catalyst to sensitize the banks and to
push the banks forward.
As much as I support the bill, I am becoming a little concerned
that we are creating too much of a crutch for the banking
institution. I listened to the critic from the Reform Party this
morning. He mentioned that the float capacity in the last two years
under the legislation had gone up from $3.5 billion to $12 billion.
The total small business float last year for all financial institutions
and small businesses in Canada was $28 billion. Now we are
suddenly letting the small business float go up to $12 billion, and
this is the one the crown guarantees.
In my judgment we are doing the work the banks should be
doing. We are taking all the risks of decision making away from
banks.
Mr. Hermanson: Why?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The member asks why
we are doing it. It is because we realize that small business
represents our greatest hope for taking people off unemployment
insurance, taking them off welfare and getting them back into a
productive state in life where they have dignity and are paying
taxes. When we get this fiscal framework together small business
represents our greatest hope. The greatest difficulty of small
business is getting access to capital.
We are urging, hoping and coaxing banks to get into the small
business game, but it is not easy. We have to be a catalyst along the
way. I am being very candid in my belief that we must have a heads
up on the issue because we are essentially making the work of
banks a lot easier by increasing the float to such a large amount and
giving that guarantee. We had to do it to spark small business loans
activity. It was not happening. What else are we to do? Are we to
bring back the Bank Act and dictate to the banks to whom they
should lend money? We cannot do that.
Mr. Strahl: We need more banks, more competition.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I hear from
the Reform Party that we need more banks. I could not agree more.
We need more competition in the banks. The problem is how we do
that. If they know of a way or have a formula to create more
competition for major financial institutions without putting the
treasury of Canada at any greater risk we would be the first to
listen. The minister responsible for financial institutions is in the
House. He would love to hear how to create more competition for
financial institutions within the framework of ensuring the
financial exposure of the treasury is not put at greater risk.
(1205)
The minister responsible for financial institutions is from the
banking community but he is not from the establishment. He has
always been a reformer-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): -and a challenger of the
status quo of banks. He has always been there for small business.
Speaking of the word reform, a number of us over here are quite
proud to be called Liberal reformers.
16883
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we may
have to stray again from the narrowness of the debate on the
motion to amend the clause regarding security. Getting back to
the motion before us, we must recognize that we need some rules
or guidelines by which security may be varied as the loan is
reduced. As the hon. member mentioned, it is only prudent after
a loan has been reduced by a reasonable amount that we may want
to release some of the security taken to grant the loan such as the
person's house, car, equipment, office building and everything
else.
These types of comments are appropriate to ensure that the
financing of small businesses, if they want to raise additional
capital at a later date, can be accommodated without being ground
down by inappropriate rules and regulations when the loans have
been reduced in an orderly fashion.
Speaking in a wider context on the bill, I mention again that I
still do not think the point got across to hon. members opposite.
They talk about the treasury's involvement as a catalyst for small
business lending; about not wanting to put the treasury at too much
risk but nonetheless having a role to play; and about the banks
perhaps getting off too easy because of the Small Business Loans
Act.
I reiterate that the bill will turn the Small Business Loans Act
into a no cost service by the government. That strikes me as being
strange. I cannot really understand the logic of it. The amendments
to the act will require that borrowers carry the cost. Borrowers will
have to pay a fee to the banks. The banks will take the fee and pass
it on to the government. The government will take the money it has
collected and reimburse the banks for what they have lost. That is
the end of the line.
Who is left with the tab? The borrowers, the guys who are trying
to create jobs, will be left holding the bill to subsidize those that
tried but failed, to subsidize the banks that made a wrong decision
and to let the government off the hook so that it can say what a
wonderful service it is providing in that $12 billion of loans to
small business have been guaranteed. Who is paying? It is not the
government. It is a tax on successful small business borrowers who
have had to pay an administrative fee in addition to interest to
subsidize banks and let the government off the hook.
(1210)
As I said before, and I will say it again, a dollar in the hands of
an investor, a businessman or a consumer is far better spent than a
dollar channelled through a bureaucrat. I cannot think of any
greater illustration of the bill. It has been designed to fulfil the
process we are absolutely opposed to. It will channel the money
through a bureaucrat and back to the private sector at no cost to the
government. Who ends up paying the bill? It is the private sector.
The small businessman is being asked to carry an additional loan in
the name of allowing the government to take credit for providing
something it is not providing.
I am fully in favour of helping small business. I had an
accounting business before I became a politician. I served small
business people in my community. I was a fan and still am a fan of
small businesses. They are the generators of employment. They are
the innovators, the creators and the people who see a niche, develop
it and make money. They are the ones who are the driving force of
the economy, the ones we depend upon to employ people so that
taxes can be paid. They are the people who have given us our
standard of living and our prosperity.
Again they are being loaded down with another tax so the
government can take credit for helping small business. Small
businesses certainly need a hand. They need to be motivated as
much as possible. We have to encourage lower taxation and
encourage them to meet the new challenges because they are the
ones who ultimately accept the risk. They are the ones who lose
their life savings, their houses, their businesses and their
investments; they lose everything. They are the ones who are
prepared to put their financial lives on the line. Many do and
unfortunately many fail.
As I have also said before and will say again, the cost of
eliminating failure is equal to the price of success. We cannot have
a success story without having some failures. Our challenge is to
try to reduce the failures but we will never eliminate them.
If the government thinks by churning money through its books
the system will be made better, I suggest we have a new method of
rethinking how we are to motivate society, to live up to the
challenges of the 21st century, to live up to the global economy, to
market Canadian expertise and talent around the world and to
generate an increased gross domestic product which will allow us
to come to terms with our debt and our deficit.
These are the challenges we should be addressing, not the idea of
smoke and mirrors through the SBLA.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
16884
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
(1215)
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent among the parties to defer the vote just requested.
The Deputy Speaker: Under this section it is required that the
whips of all parties agree. It is acceptable to all of the whips?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the
chief government whip with the agreement of the whips of all
recognized parties has requested that the division on the question
now before the House stand deferred until the end of Government
Orders today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-107, an act
respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty
Commission, as reported without amendment from the committee.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that the Bill C-107 be concurred
in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerrard (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that the bill be now read the third
time and passed.
(1220)
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud today to initiate the final stage in the House of
passing Bill C-107 into law. It is a day which I am pleased has
come at last.
I am grateful for the non-partisan approach taken by parties
opposite on this bill. The history of the British Columbia Treaty
Commission has been one of partnership among people of diverse
political stripes, and I am glad that spirit has continued in the
House.
The tone set in this debate reflects and reinforces all of those
who across the years and across party lines have joined hands in a
common cause. That cause is simple: to bring justice to aboriginal
peoples and certainty to British Columbia.
During the course of debate on the bill we have heard the
historical incidents which have made the legislation necessary. We
have seen that only a handful of First Nations in British Columbia
ever signed treaties with the crown. As a result, 124 years after
becoming a province, the key questions of aboriginal title over land
and resources remain unresolved, and the majority of British
Columbia remains subject to outstanding aboriginal land claims.
With those claims come uncertainty and confusion.
We have also seen the historic step taken by the Government of
British Columbia in 1990 to agree to the negotiation of treaties and
the subsequent establishment of a task force to make
recommendations on the process and mandate for treaty
negotiations. We have heard of the key recommendation of that
task force: the creation of an arm's length B.C. Treaty
Commission.
Since its creation in 1992 the commission has received
statements of intent to negotiate from 47 First Nations,
representing over 70 per cent of First Nations in British Columbia.
Clearly there was a need for this type of process, a need now being
met.
Today we honour the commitment made by our predecessors to
establish the commission in legislation. However, the bill is about
more than just creating a certain status for the commission. It is
about creating opportunity for all British Columbians.
Because the failure to deal with these issues has greatly limited
opportunity in B.C., the uncertainty over ownership of land and
resources has exacted a high cost. Uncertainty has meant lost
investment.
The Price Waterhouse study, referenced in second reading
debate, prepared in 1990 estimated that $1 billion in investment in
the forestry and mining sectors had not occurred because of
unresolved land claims. Three hundred jobs had not been created
16885
and $125 million in capital investments had not been made. Since
the time of that study the price has continued to be paid year in and
year out. It is a price we can no longer afford and it is a price we
will no longer have to pay.
Settling land and resource issues will create an environment for
investment and increased local economic activity. Therefore I
commend members from all sides of the House for their support of
the legislation. Certainty will be good news for the forest worker
and the miner. Certainty will mean an expanded tax base, as the
infusion of settlement funds stimulates economic activity and
creates jobs. Certainty will mean lower social costs associated with
poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. It will
mean an end of conflict and litigation and the beginning of
co-operation and negotiation.
(1225 )
The mandate of the B.C. Treaty Commission is straightforward.
It is to facilitate, not negotiate, modern day treaties. Its main
functions are to assess the readiness of parties to negotiate, allocate
negotiation funding to aboriginal groups, assist parties to obtain
dispute resolution services and monitor and report on the status of
negotiations.
Because these negotiations will affect all British Columbians,
we have established a province-wide consultation process so that
all interests will still be heard.
This consultation process, as I indicated at an earlier stage of
debate, operates at two levels. The first is a 31-member treaty
negotiation advisory commission, which brings together the
perspectives of municipalities, business, labour, fishing, wildlife,
forestry and environmental groups to the treaty making process.
The second level brings the diverse interests of the various
regions of B.C. to bear on the land claims process. Regional
advisory committees are being struck in each treaty negotiation
area so that local voices may be heard. These committees work
directly with federal and provincial negotiating teams.
As land claims issues are resolved, the land base and access to
resources they provide will establish a foundation on which
aboriginal peoples can build self-sufficient communities. The
growth of strong, self-reliant, economically vibrant aboriginal
communities strengthens us all because it will bring positive
economic spillover into non-aboriginal communities.
For too long the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia have
been denied both their rights from the past and their hopes for the
future. For too long we have denied ourselves the contributions
they can make. With the rights and obligations clearly defined by
treaties, all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will
be able to get on with realizing the potential of their province and
expanding their opportunities for advancement.
On August 10 our government released its approach on the
inherent right of aboriginal self-government and presented the
principles which will guide the negotiations. In the case of British
Columbia, the policy provides that negotiations on
self-government will take place at the same table as discussions on
land and resources. In other words, the process and structures
already in place for treaty negotiations will also be used to
negotiate self-government issues.
These two sets of discussions, self-government on one hand and
land and resources use on the other, complement each other
perfectly. Treaties will clarify and define the issues and
self-government will establish the authority to manage them.
What this means is that for the first time the parties will be able
to have all of their issues dealt with at one table, under one set of
negotiations. This will be more cost effective, as it eliminates
overlap and duplication and permits a much more comprehensive
approach.
I spoke earlier of the high cost associated with leaving these
issues in British Columbia unresolved. If the price is high for the
general population, for aboriginal peoples it has been yet higher.
For aboriginal peoples it has meant great hardship and grinding
poverty. It has meant generations of frustration, of dreams deferred
and promises unkept. It has meant a quality of life few of us can
imagine and none of us should accept.
Some of those conditions are appalling. Diseases such as
hepatitis and tuberculosis, virtually eradicated in the
non-aboriginal population, persist in aboriginal communities.
Death by fire is three and a half times the non-aboriginal level
because of unsafe housing and the lack of proper sanitation.
Aboriginal peoples are more than three times as likely to die a
violent death and about twice as likely to die before the age of 65.
The suicide rate among aboriginal peoples is 50 per cent higher
than non-aboriginal peoples. That difference is even more
pronounced in the 15 to 25 age group.
(1230)
This country simply cannot afford to lose another generation of
aboriginal peoples able and willing to make their contributions. We
cannot afford to continue to condemn aboriginal peoples to lesser
lives in a lesser land.
I do not mean to suggest that all of this will be magically solved
with the passing of this legislation, but it will constitute a true
beginning. It will take us off the rutted road of confrontation and
litigation. It will send a signal to all parties that this is how we
resolve problems in this country.
This legislation does several things. It ends uncertainty. It
honours our obligations. It creates hope for tomorrow. It also does
something else, something even more important. It confirms
16886
negotiation over confrontation, consultation over litigation. It
stands as a vivid reminder of what can be achieved by men and
women of understanding. It is an eloquent reminder that progress is
possible, that persistence prevails. It is a testament to the simple
fact that more can be achieved by joining hands than by shaking
fists.
This must always be our approach, but it is an approach which is
by no means automatic. It is one we must work to adopt. That is
why legislation such as this is so important. It creates a process and
a forum for negotiation.
If we fail to demonstrate our resolve to negotiate, we leave the
field and the resolution to those with little regard for the law to
those who seek solutions through less democratic and less peaceful
means.
We should not underestimate the historic qualities as well as the
substantive importance of this bill. To all of those who have fought
so hard for so long to see it through, I offer my admiration and
appreciation. I again want to thank this House for its wisdom and
its support.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-107 at third
reading.
When this bill was at second reading, I talked about my very
extraordinary trip to western Canada this year. I visited several
First Nations in western Canada, including the Nisga'a, the
Chilcotin and the Carrier-Sekani.
I will not go over this trip again, but I think it is important to
address the situation of the Nisga'a because the current debate on
the proposed legislation to recognize the British Columbia Treaty
Commission has some precedents.
I think it is worth mentioning that the Nisga'a have succeeded in
negotiating agreements, probably because of their perseverance
and determination. They may be the precursors of what is before us
today, which follows an act of the legislature of British Columbia
and a resolution of a summit of official representatives of the First
Nations.
All this was achieved, and we must, I think, recognize the
Nisga'a's commitment to try to negotiate agreements.
(1235)
When I visited the Nisga'a last summer, negotiations were
unfortunately at a standstill and people were somewhat
discouraged because these negotiations had been going on for 19
years; people were working very hard to get things moving again.
I am happy to see that things are starting to move again. Only 20
minutes ago, I talked with the chief negotiator, Nelson Leeson, who
is chairman of the Nisga'a education committee and their
negotiator in this matter. They have a negotiation meeting today
and I will be happy to give the House a progress report on these
talks.
But why spend so much time on the Nisga'a? Of course, they are
precursors to the process we are reviewing today. But, moreover,
the Nisga'a hold the key to negotiations in British Columbia. Most
of the First Nations I met with last summer told me, ``You know,
Mr. Bachand, if the Nisga'a negotiations do not resume, the other
nations will be wasting their time. It is useless; we would have no
faith in the proposed process if we see that 19 years of negotiations
have failed''.
That is why it is important to always start our speeches on the
British Columbia Treaty Commission by supporting the cause of
the Nisga'a and what has been done so far.
Only 20 minutes ago, I was given a brief update on the
negotiations. I can report that there does not seem to be a problem
with self-government for instance. Ninety-eight per cent of the
objectives relating to self-government were achieved.
A final agreement on self-government is imminent. One
stumbling block seems to be fisheries, and commercial fisheries in
particular, because of licensing requirements and, unfortunately, as
we known, fish stocks are dwindling. Fishing licences have been
issued and licensing authorities are looking into the possibility of
transferring a number of them to first nations. As we speak, there is
a bit of a problem there.
This matter has not yet been settled for good. Another major
problem is the apparent lack of firm offers concerning land claims.
Many difficulties emerged regarding land claims. I will explain in a
moment. At times, B.C. columnists even suggested that it made no
sense, as first nations ended up claiming 125 per cent of the
territory because of overlap. So, there is a great deal of qualifying
to do there.
I think that both provincial and federal authorities might be
afraid of giving up too much land. All of this needs to be put in
perspective. That is how negotiations go; it is better to start by
asking for a little more rather than less.
The Nisga'as are one case where, as I will explain in a moment
also, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that they indeed had
title to all the lands they claimed. As we will see in a moment, the
Nisga'as are claiming self-government and title over only 8 per
cent of their claim site and certain things already granted by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
I felt it was important to open the debate on the Nisga'a case. In
British Columbia, there are some 200 reserves. There is a very rich
aboriginal culture in that province, with 200 native reserves or
communities and eight language groups. In addition, aboriginal
16887
people who share common interests often get together in groups
known as regional councils or band councils. There are nearly 30
such aboriginal councils.
This goes to show that aboriginal culture is pervasive and very
strong in British Columbia. It came as a surprise to me. We are not
used to seeing every second store on main street a native one, as is
the case in Vancouver for instance.
(1240)
This shows how predominant the aboriginal culture is in that part
of the country. It is important to do a bit of history here. At one
time, that region was one of the most populated on the American
continent. Europeans settled there 140 years ago. Yet, and unlike in
other parts of the country, only 15 agreements were signed during
that period in western Canada.
Fourteen of these treaties relate to Vancouver Island. They were
signed by the Hudson's Bay Company. These are
pre-Confederation treaties, dating back to before 1867. The only
post-Confederation treaty is Treaty No. 8, signed in 1899. In
central Canada, treaties were numbered from one to ten. Only one
of these treaties, namely Treaty No. 8, relates to British Columbia
and part of Alberta.
Treaties were also signed elsewhere in Canada, including some
in Quebec, such as the Murray treaty, as well as other important
ones. However, it seems that, during those 140 years, people tried
to avoid negotiating anything in western Canada. They did not wish
to recognize the contribution of aboriginal peoples to the European
culture. They did not want to negotiate,so they just ignored the
issue. Ultimately, that approach brought about more serious
problems. Indeed, problems do not go away if you bury your head
in the sand or ignore them.
It is important to keep that historical context in mind. Over time,
some changes were made.
As I said earlier, the Nisga'as helped clear the road to
negotiation. The Calder case was probably instrumental in the
negotiation of territorial claims. At the time, in 1973, that decision
was hailed as a victory for aboriginals since the Supreme Court
confirmed their claim on aboriginal titles.
Following that decision, the federal government came to the
conclusion that, since the Supreme Court had ruled that the claims
on aboriginal titles were valid, it might as well start negotiating.
Negotiations slowly got underway and the Nisga'as were the first
ones to participate in the process.
There were other historic advances in terms of aboriginal values
and culture and negotiations with aboriginal peoples, including the
patriation of the Constitution in 1982, and I am referring to the
often quoted section 35 which contains some recognition and
affirmation of the existence of aboriginal, Inuit and Metis rights
and treaties.
Of course there were other judgments that point out that a treaty
is not necessarily a contract as we know it. It is not necessarily a
document bearing the signatures of Europeans and aboriginal
peoples. In many cases the oral aspect of treaties is recognized.
This is not to say that aboriginal peoples were illiterate, because
that is not the case. They had their own language, their own
linguistic roots, but the language of the white man was not like
theirs, and so when they had to sign a treaty, they would say: ``We
agree; let us have a verbal agreement, since we cannot sign in your
language, the way you sign''.
For me it would be like signing a contract with the Inuit. I do not
know whether you ever saw Inuktitut, but I would not know what I
was signing, and I think that is what happened at the time. The
courts in their wisdom judged that treaties have a certain oral
value; it is not only the signature that counts.
So in 1982 this was recognized by section 35 of the Constitution.
In 1989, political action was stepped up, especially in British
Columbia. It was decided to create a Department of Indian Affairs.
This was quite a step. The government had no one who was
responsible for conducting negotiations with the aboriginal people,
although the problem had been around for 100 or 120 years.
In 1989, they really started to tackle the problem in British
Columbia by establishing the Department of Indian Affairs.
(1245)
Furthermore, the Premier of the province appointed a Premier's
council for aboriginal affairs. So there was a new awareness
following all the legal discussions and the problems generated by a
failure to negotiate, problems that were becoming increasingly
obvious. A decision was finally made to sit down and deal with the
matter once and for all.
The cabinet urged the provincial government to change its past
policies. In 1989, the Premier's council told the government:
``Listen, we have to change our attitude and our perception of
negotiating which is 120 years old and which has meant we simply
ignored the problems''. So they sat down and started to settle land
claims. At that point they set up a task force which I see as the
predecessor of the commission we are discussing today. They set
up a task force whose members identified the need to conclude
creative and far-sighted treaties with the First Nations, the
provincial government and the federal government.
The treaties had to include three parties: the First Nations, the
federal government with its fiduciary responsibility for the First
Nations, and the provincial government, because it was often on
provincial land that the federal government exercised powers in
16888
areas that were the responsibility of the province. The report called
for a new partnership to recognize the importance of Canada's
natives and First Nations, based on voluntary, properly conducted
talks in which the natives, the province and the federal
governments would negotiate as equals.
The agreement in principle between the three parties I referred to
earlier-the federal government, the province and the First
Nations-was signed in September 1992. The legal entity
empowered to sign for the First Nations is called the summit. This
agreement implements the 19 recommendations made by the task
force, including Recommendation No. 3. That is why I referred to it
as a precedent earlier.
Recommendation No. 3 of the task force was to form a British
Columbia treaty commission, which was done. The agreement also
outlined the commission's role, mandate and operation. The
purpose of Bill C-107 is to establish this commission on a legal
basis. On May 26, 1993, the province followed up by tabling a
proposal to create the commission. It has already passed an act to
that effect. As for the First Nations Summit, it has already ratified
the proposal through a recommendation signed by summit
participants.
The parties were willing to go ahead. The only thing missing was
the federal legislation before us today, which, I hope, will be
passed as soon as possible, although some of the work has already
started. I think it is important for the House to adopt this legislation
once and for all, to prove that the third signatory to these
agreements, the federal government, is acting properly, and that is
the purpose of the bill before us today.
So why should we negotiate treaties? I think that we should put
things in their historical context. Commissioners have pointed out
that, if the role of treaties and their historical context were
explained clearly to B.C. residents, they would be much more open
to the land claim settlement process. In my introduction, I talked
about overlapping land claims covering 125 per cent of the
territory.
Just the same, there are individuals who are, in my opinion,
adding fuel to the fire in B.C. right now by saying: ``Look, we
cannot give the natives the whole thing''. I must stress the fact that
this is an initial bargaining position. I believe the provincial
government promised to reply: ``Look, we cannot give you more
than 5 per cent of the land. We shall see''.
In other words, the federal government's opening position is five
per cent, as opposed to 125 per cent for the First Nations. As usual
in any negotiation they will settle somewhere in the middle. For the
time being, I think that what matters is that the government sit
across the First Nations at the negotiation table, listen to what they
are asking for and see what we can offer. That is when negotiations
are most valuable.
It is also very important that treaties be negotiated to prevent
challenge strategies. Events like those that took place at Gustafsen
Lake or, in Quebec, at Oka and Kanesatake, must not be allowed to
happen again if it can at all be helped.
(1250)
It is therefore important that indications be given that the legal
dispute and tangle can soon be resolved once and for all, not by
force, endless legal controversy or roadblocks, but rather through
negotiation.
At present, in B.C., there are even non-native groups who are
quite familiar with the negotiation process and are siding with the
natives to force the appropriate authorities to reach agreements
once and for all, in the hope of avoiding unfortunate incidents such
as roadblocks and illegal land occupation, which often lead to
disaster and crystallization in relations between natives and
non-natives.
Why negotiate treaties? To avoid confrontation and promote a
peaceful settlement around negotiation tables.
In that context, the role of the commission is to facilitate the
negotiation of treaties. It does not participate directly in
negotiations, but, if they stall, it must step in, try to sort out the
problem and basically act like a mediator by bringing parties
together.
The commission is made up of five commissioners. This is
important. Two of these commissioners are appointed by the First
Nations Summit. This is almost a majority, since one
commissioner is appointed by the federal government and one by
the provincial government, while the chief commissioner is
selected by these four commissioners. The chief commissioner will
be selected because of his expertise and may often be an aboriginal
who has a great deal of knowledge regarding treaty negotiations.
Consequently, aboriginals will have a strong representation.
The commission approves the participation of first nations and
organizes an initial meeting between the parties. I will try to
explain this six-stage process and discuss it at length later. It is
interesting to note that, when the parties meet for the first time,
traditional ceremonies often take place. This helps government
officials become acquainted with aboriginal culture. It is also a way
for aboriginals to show that there is no animosity. Their culture
includes certain traditions which are quite fascinating. Often,
inviting someone to a traditional ceremony is a gift, as well as an
indication of the open-mindedness of aboriginal people. Such
ceremonies are common procedure during initial meetings.
The commission then puts in place the structures that will ensure
smooth negotiations. Obviously, the commission has certain tools
available to it. It can provide loans and contributions to first
nations. That program is funded by both levels of government. The
commission also provides expertise to solve disputes and ensure
progress in the negotiations. This is more or less the role of
16889
mediator to which I alluded earlier. Finally, the commission acts as
keeper of the process.
It goes without saying that it does not participate in treaty
negotiations. None of the commissioners sits at the negotiating
table with a nation which has opted to use the BC Treaty
Commission process.
The Commission is also required to produce annual reports.
According to the first report, apparently, 42 first nations, groups or
tribal councils have indicated a desire to establish negotiations. It
should be pointed out that the Nisga'a will not fall under the
commission's jurisdiction, because both levels of government have
agreed that the negotiations had been long underway. Because they
were so far advanced, there was no question of their being started
over again or integrated at the stage they had reached. The decision
was made to move ahead.
I have already told you what stage the negotiations had reached.
The aboriginal nations of British Columbia breathed a great sigh of
relief to see that the negotiations with the Nisga'a are moving
forward.
Before I begin to talk about the six distinct steps in the process, I
must also point out the optional nature of the process. In other
words, a BC nation can decide not to make use of this negotiating
mechanism but to explore other paths. To date, however, it seems
that the first nations are greeting the process with a great deal of
approval and are readily integrating themselves into the process.
(1255)
The first step of the process is to file a statement of intent to
negotiate. The First Nation concerned identifies itself, the people it
will represent, its geographic area, and the territory it claims as its
ancestral land. It appoints a resource person with whom the two
levels of government will get in touch. Often, the important thing
in negotiations is to know who to contact in case there is a hitch or
if further details are required. In the first step of the process, it is
clearly specified that the First Nations must meet these conditions.
The second step consists in preparing for negotiations. A first
meeting must be held within 45 days of the first contact. As I
pointed out earlier, this first meeting is usually held on the
ancestral land. It starts with a traditional ceremony to which the
negotiators and the various observers involved are invited.
At this stage, the First Nation is asked to appoint a negotiator
with a full and specific mandate. It must get resources from the
commission, adopt a ratification process, and identify the
substantive and procedural issues to be negotiated.
Another very important point is that it must identify and file its
claims on its ancestral lands. Reference was made earlier to
overlapping aboriginal land claims. Negotiating first nations are
required to consult neighbouring nations to make sure that their
land claim does not encroach on other nations' claims. It is
important that this be done early on, and negotiations cannot
resume as long as this requirement is not met.
Governments must also consult non-natives and ensure that
appropriate information is gathered. This too is important in my
view because all the people living on a first nation's ancestral lands
are not necessarily native people. There may also be non-natives,
European families who, in many cases, settled there many decades
ago, perhaps 120 years ago, sometimes at the very beginning of the
colony.
There people feel rather insecure. That is why this is so
important. At this stage of the game, commissioners should be
consulting non-natives and gathering information to be prepared to
answer any question that may come their way.
Once the commission is satisfied that the three parties to the
negotiations meet the requirements, negotiations on the master
agreement begin. Stage 3 is the negotiation of a master agreement.
At this stage negotiation goals and objectives are set and a time
frame suggested, but of all the negotiations under way none have
gone further than stage 3.
In fact, none of the 42 first nations I mentioned earlier, who are
taking part in the process, have gone past stage 3. The closest one is
the Nisga'a. Earlier today, I spoke to Chief Leeson, who told me
that they hope to sign an agreement in principle before Christmas.
Although such an agreement would not be binding, they hope to
have it. Even though this is an unusual process, some form of
negotiations existed before. The Nisga'a are now at the agreement
in principle stage, and they hope to have such an agreement before
Christmas. We all hope that they do.
Negotiating an agreement in principle means negotiating
substantive issues. For example, it means finalizing the agreements
on self-government and territorial claims, defining the real basis of
the treaty that will follow, and discussing what is to be included in
that treaty. This all takes place at stage 4.
Stage 5 involves the negotiations to finalize a treaty. This is the
stage at which a treaty officializes the content of the agreement in
principle. All that was agreed to is finally put together and
confirmed in a treaty. Following that stage, the treaty is signed and
officially ratified.
Stage 6 is, of course, the implementation of the final treaty.
(1300)
I must mention here a criticism that was made. Some aboriginal
nations told me that, indeed, negotiation, and not confrontation,
was the way of the future. However, given this series of stages and
the fact that it took 19 years for the Nisga'a to reach stage four,
16890
some think that setting up the British Columbia Treaty
Commission is a delaying tactic.
That criticism must be pointed out. I share that concern, to some
extent. However, it seems to me that the investment made in
establishing that commission is worth it, both in terms of time and
ideas put forward. I think this is better than letting each community
in British Columbia, and there are 200, progress at its own pace,
which would hardly be conducive to orderly negotiations. Some
people might use this as an excuse to say: Listen, next door they are
getting nowhere fast and the same here, so we do not want to
negotiate any more.
In this way the process is more uniform. Perhaps it will take a
little longer, but I think it is worth it and time will tell us we were
right. Treaties will be signed on a peaceful basis, and I think the
confrontation that has existed in British Columbia for 120 years
will finally disappear. Time will tell us we were right and that
negotiating is more important than protests.
Of the 43 First Nations participating in the process today, 14
have finished stage one. Seven have finished stage two and are now
negotiating a framework agreement, 11 have basically finished
stage two; according to the commissioners, these 18 First Nations
are expected to reach stage four by 1995-96.
The process is picking up speed, and it is a process that is
supported by the First Nations and will become fully operational in
the months to come.
No group has yet finished stage four. I also want to say that the
First Nations have my full support. If they ever reach an impasse,
in a democracy, in the House of Commons, there is an official
opposition, and I want to take this opportunity to tell people, and I
admit it has happened before, that when negotiations reach an
impasse, the First Nations of British Columbia can count on my
full support. I could intervene within the limits set in a democracy,
by going to the minister or the provincial authorities to ensure
negotiations are successful.
Incidentally, I also looked up some recommendations the
commission made in its annual report, which I feel are important.
The first recommendation made by the commissioners is that
federal legislation should be passed and federal and provincial laws
ratified as soon as possible to give the British Columbia Treaty
Commission the status of a corporate entity. That is what we are
doing today. The commission will be recognized as a corporate
entity once we have passed Bill C-107.
The second recommendation is also very important. The
commissioners recommend that the parties to the agreement and
the negotiating parties continue to make every effort to ensure that
the public is better informed and that the parties to the agreement
are more involved in educating the public. Any initiative in this
respect is to take place at the provincial, regional and local levels.
This is one thing the Nisga'a pointed out to me the last time I
was there. They told me it was important to get a lot more
information out to the public, because there are people whose
interests do not coincide with those of the First Nations and who, as
I said earlier, were fanning the flames of controversy. They claim
that land claims cover 125 per cent of the province, that aboriginal
people want all the land, and so forth.
The Nisga'a saw to it that their part of the contract was fulfilled,
that is to say they informed non aboriginals and the population in
general of the appropriate nature of their claims, of the
appropriateness of dealing with them on the same footing. I think
they did just that. But from what I know about the process to date,
the federal and provincial governments have not made much
progress in raising public awareness of the relevancy of the process
I explained just now.
(1305)
If the process is properly explained and the people of British
Columbia can be confident that the aboriginal people do not pose a
threat, this should speed up the process, preparing the ground for
negotiation.
It is important to acknowledge that, if the climate for
negotiations is propitious, the process progresses a lot better than if
it is tense and government officials are told, ``Now listen, we
cannot go too fast because our people are not all that much in
favour''.
It is very important for this public awareness to be, not just
maintained, but stepped up, particularly by governments.
Another recommendation which struck me, and I feel I must
raise it here, is that the Government of Canada and the Government
of British Columbia use all methods of consultation available to
them to let the community as a whole know that it has been
understood and its concerns taken into account.
My colleague has just spoken of a degree of uncertainty. There
are all kinds of companies out there and what struck me on my last
trip was the speed with which natural resources are being taken out
of the area. It is as if the companies on these ancestral lands said:
``We are in a race, because once these lands are transferred to the
native people, we will not be able to continue our present
operations''.
I saw up to 500 logging trucks a day coming off Chilcotin,
Nisga'a and Carrier-Sekani land. That really impressed me. It
really disappointed me as well, and I even mentioned it to the
Premier of British Columbia and to the Minister of Indian Affairs.
To my mind, those forests were being clear cut and would have a
hard time recovering. Moreover, for the trees coming out of B.C.
of late, no money is going to the first nations.
16891
It seems to me, that the whole question of natural resource
development could be included in the upcoming treaty discussions.
In fact, we are looking into the possibility of joint management in
the House standing committee. We will therefore conclude our
work, but, in the meantime, I think it important to point out to the
principal groups developing natural resources, particularly, that
there is no danger, in our opinion.
The taxes they currently pay to develop these resources could be
paid to the native peoples rather than to the provincial or federal
governments. This is the sort of discussion being held, and I think it
important that these financial groups be part of the process and not
consider negotiations on these ancestral lands as a threat to their
business. The entire community must know this as must the special
interest groups.
In conclusion-I see my time is just about up-our objective is
to put an end to 140 years of injustice. We are very lucky that the
first nations have this mentality of sharing. You know that, when
the Europeans appeared, regardless of where in Canada they
appeared, the native peoples always said: ``Look, the land belongs
to everyone, so let us share it together''.
We have been lucky up to now to have the use of this land, but I
think an injustice has been done to the native peoples in their being
confined to small reserves with few natural resources and not
enough of a land base to enable them to take control of their lives.
The extent of their dependency is rather outrageous, in my
opinion, because they are always depending on government grants.
This means they are unable to really fly on their own and to take
control of their lives. I think the process before us today will enable
them to take off. We are lucky, as I said earlier, that they have
agreed to share this land with us without violent challenges. We
have had some of late, but they have to stop. We cannot have them.
(1310)
The most logical and sure way to avoid any reoccurrences of
such unfortunate situations is the process of negotiation before us.
So let us avoid roadblocks and events such as at Gustafsen Lake
and Oka. Let us exchange aggression and argument for discussion
and negotiation.
I wish the first nations of British Columbia good luck. The Bloc
Quebecois will support Bill C-107.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the
establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission.
I noticed at the beginning of the previous speaker's speech he
talked quite a bit about the Nisga'a negotiations. I would like to
point out that the Nisga'a negotiations are not part of the B.C.
treaty process under the B.C. Treaty Commission as they predate it
and are not subject to the same terms of reference.
There has been a high degree of increased public awareness of
the ramifications of the B.C. treaty negotiations in the last two
years in British Columbia. It has now risen to be the number one
issue in the public mind in British Columbia.
The opposition political parties at the provincial level are
adopting treaty policies very different from what has gone on up
until now and very different from the federal government. There
are concerns about the costs and the length of time the negotiations
are going to be taking. There are concerns regarding the negotiating
mandate of the two senior levels of government. There are also
concerns regarding the consultation and ratification process for any
negotiated treaties.
As we talked about the Nisga'a agreement earlier, this is a
precedent setting agreement outside of the B.C. treaty process and
at this point it will not necessarily be adopted by an incoming B.C.
government. We are in the circumstance of having a government
that is currently in the last year of its mandate and the other two
major parties vying for government have made that statement.
Against this backdrop of a precedent setting negotiation which
has largely been cloaked in secrecy and mystery, that is the Nisga'a
negotiations, we do have this B.C. treaty process. The terms of
reference for the Nisga'a negotiations certainly allow for a much
greater degree of openness than has been demonstrated to date. In
an overall context, this is not a good start.
Some of the history of the B.C. Treaty Commission is that in
December 1991 British Columbia accepted all the
recommendations of a task force. Those recommendations led to
Canada and B.C. beginning formal negotiations on the roles and
responsibilities of the two governments within treaty negotiations,
including cost sharing. This was culminated in March 1992.
In September 1992, Canada, B.C. and the First Nations Summit
leadership formally supported the establishment of a B.C. treaty
commission and signed a B.C. treaty commission agreement. In
April 1993 commissioners were appointed on an interim basis by
provincial and federal orders in council and by First Nations
Summit resolution.
In May 1993 the provincial legislation received royal assent
which was pending federal legislation. The Governments of
Canada and British Columbia then successfully concluded cost
sharing negotiations in June 1993. This allowed for the treaty
commission to open its doors in December 1993.
16892
(1315 )
Virtually all of these actions, save the very last, occurred prior to
the last federal election in October 1993.
Currently an estimated 77 per cent of the British Columbia bands
are involved and signed up in this process. There are 196 bands in
British Columbia. As I mentioned earlier, the Nishga negotiations
are completely outside of the B.C. treaty process. All the remaining
bands in British Columbia that are not a part of the B.C. treaty
process have no option: they either go with the B.C. treaty process
or there is no other negotiating option for them. Those are the terms
of reference. This is problematic for those 23 per cent of B.C.
bands that have concerns and do not want to enter into the process.
There is one major omission, which is not mandated by the act,
by Bill C-107, which we are discussing today, and that is the
consultation process. There has been a separate set of agreements.
In July 1993 the federal and provincial governments announced the
establishment of a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory
committee to advise ministers in the treaty negotiations. That
committee is not referred to in any way, shape, or form in Bill
C-107; it has no recognition. In addition, regional advisory
committees are being struck in each treaty negotiation area to
represent local interests. There is much unhappiness about the
consultation process and about the ratification process at this time.
I would like to point out that in the term of this 35th Parliament
we have had previous legislation dealing with aboriginal issues. We
have had the Yukon self-government and land claims agreements.
We have had the Sahtu agreement in the western Arctic. We have
had the Pictou Landing compensation agreement in Nova Scotia for
environmental damage at the reserve level. We have had the Split
Lake compensation agreement in Manitoba. And now we have this
enabling legislation, which has been very late in following the
provincial legislation and the agreement.
The reason I mentioned all of that is because each of these bills,
every piece of aboriginal legislation that has come before the
House in this 35th Parliament, predates the last federal election in
terms of when the agreements were reached. There has not been
one piece of legislation from this department in this Parliament.
In preparing to look at Bill C-107, one of the necessary steps is
to talk to legislative counsel. Legislative counsel advises that no
legislative changes are possible to Bill C-107 because neither the
federal nor provincial governments can make unilateral changes,
and the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement, the tripartite
agreement between the federal, provincial, and First Nations
Summit, which was signed in September 1992, and also the
provincial enabling legislation override the ability to make
changes. The only way a change could be made is if those
agreements were also changed. This is really a reverse onus on this
Parliament in many respects.
I have some concerns about this bill, many of which are quite
basic. Who would enter into an agreement in which there is no
satisfactory amending clause? Who would enter into an agreement
in which there is no satisfactory cancellation clause? In both cases
this bill comes up lacking. The agreement leads one to assume a
lot.
(1320 )
If a band enters into the process, it receives funding that is 80 per
cent repayable upon completion of negotiations. In effect, they are
being given a loan to set off against the eventual settlement
package. The agreement is silent in terms of what happens to these
moneys should the band or the tribal council not complete
negotiations. The act is also silent about those bands that do not
enter into the process and may not want to enter into the process.
There is no alternative open to them.
The First Nations Summit organization and their appointment of
representatives is open to any band, whether they are participating
or not. I find this a little strange. It is a very fluid thing. They are
not elected. It is very difficult to pin down. And the compensation
packages for the summit commissioners have no transparency
whatsoever in terms of the arrangements for these appointments or
the compensation for these appointments.
Clause 22 of the proposed act states that nothing in the act
prevents the three parties from amending the agreement of
September 1992. I mentioned this earlier. This is very problematic,
because this very agreement has been shown to compromise
Parliament's ability to amend the very act we are being asked to
pass at third reading. Therefore this is an unacceptable reverse
onus, in my view.
I have other concerns. The municipal level of government is not
recognized in the act. They are simply a sidebar arrangement
through the provincial negotiators. Also, funding of recognized
interests beyond the bands is not addressed in the act. There is
$15.3 million a year going into funding of the aboriginal
negotiating parties. Right now, through the provincial government
the municipalities are receiving $250,000 per year. They have
many concerns about that.
From their meeting last month, the Union of B.C. Municipalities
is certainly expressing great displeasure about what this process
has done. They have a responsibility to take part to represent their
interests. They have no choice but to get involved, because they are
very much impacted. The ten regional groups that now represent
municipal interests in the treaty talks are capped at a $250,000
funding level. According to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the
16893
municipalities are having to fund this thing out of local taxpayer
funds to make up the difference.
The federal and provincial governments have spent more than
$30 million on the negotiations since they began in 1993. Some of
the municipalities in the lower mainland have competing
aboriginal claims. Rather than having to deal with one set of
claims, they have to deal with multiple claims over the same piece
of ground. This is becoming very expensive for the municipalities.
It is an unfair burden and one that should be addressed in this bill.
The bill is silent on the municipal role.
There is no reference in the bill to readiness guidelines for the
regional advisory committees. They are not in the terms of
reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This has proven to be
very problematic as well.
(1325 )
We have readiness guidelines for the other parties, but not for the
advisory groups at the local level. Because the readiness guidelines
are not there, there is a tendency for senior governments and the
negotiating parties to set a few people in place at the local level and
then carry on with negotiations. As the keeper of the process, the
B.C. Treaty Commission should have terms of reference that also
include readiness guidelines for the consultation groups. That is not
addressed. It is not there. And because it is not there this is not
happening.
It was identified in the 1993 and 1994 B.C. Treaty Commission
annual reports that there was no federal enabling legislation for the
B.C. Treaty Commission. As as result, the B.C. Treaty Commission
had major concerns. I asked what the reason was for the lengthy
delay in bringing forth the federal legislation. Apparently it is
related to summit concerns over the wording of one clause in the
bill. I have to ask, how can one party's concern over one clause
hang up or protract this legislation for more than two years?
The province has negotiated interim agreements, which have
compromised the B.C. Treaty Commission process. The B.C.
Treaty Commission made that statement in its 1993 annual report.
The bill does not empower the B.C. Treaty Commission to deal
with that kind of concern.
In summary, Canada and British Columbia have budgeted $77.6
million over the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98 to the process.
Given the weaknesses inherent in the bill, I will not be able to
support the legislation.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to
join in the third reading debate on Bill C-107, an act respecting the
establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission. It is helpful to have
the co-operation of the opposition members in support of the bill.
The events of the last few months, whether in B.C. or elsewhere,
are convincing that issues of aboriginal rights and land claims can
only be resolved through negotiation. It is very important to get on
with the process. The sooner we can get the land claims settled, the
faster we can get on with economic development and other
government issues.
I want to talk about the process upon which we have embarked in
British Columbia and also about the importance of the economic
development aspects, which need to coincide with this process, and
the role in particular, in view of my position as Secretary of State
for Science, Research and Development, of science and technology
in promoting economic development for First Nations people.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
recently visited British Columbia several times, the latest being
November 24. During the summer he met with the First Nations
Summit to report on the inherent right of self-government policy
and he formally signed two of the four framework agreements. The
signing of framework agreements with the Champagne and
Aishihik, the Sechelt and the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en First Nations
are visible examples of the benefits and results of resolving these
issues through negotiation.
(1330 )
Many other First Nations are working on framework agreement
negotiations or completing the readiness stage. The government is
committed to moving negotiations to conclusion rather than
pursuing endless negotiations. That is evident from these recently
signed agreements.
About 140 of the almost 200 B.C. First Nations want to sit at the
table with federal and provincial governments to solve these issues.
That represents over 70 per cent of the First Nations of British
Columbia. Of the 47 nations in the process 25 have completed the
readiness requirements. In 12 of those the 2 governments have also
met our readiness requirements and 9 have completed or are
working on framework agreements.
Clearly this process deserves the support of the House so that it
can continue toward its goal of reaching acceptable, affordable and
fair settlements.
It is important to note that we need fair settlements for all British
Columbians and for all Canadians. That is the basis on which we
must work.
It is important that third party interests be well taken care of in
this process and indeed they are being taken care of. The British
Columbia Treaty Commission process is the product of extensive
consultations. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments
established a task force to come up with a made in British
Columbia approach to map out a negotiation process that could
accommodate the many First Nations in British Columbia that
wanted to negotiate settlements.
16894
The recommendations of the task force were accepted by both
governments and the representatives of the First Nations. One of
the key recommendations was the establishment of the British
Columbia Treaty Commission as an independent keeper of the
process.
The task force also made several recommendations on public
information and education as well as on consultation. The members
recognize that treaty negotiations will succeed if both aboriginal
and non-aboriginal communities understand why we need treaties
and what those treaties mean.
As the negotiations for framework agreements proceed,
governments must obtain background information on the
communities, people and interests likely to be affected by the
negotiations and establish mechanisms for consultation with
non-aboriginal interests. These are among the criteria the treaty
commission considers when it assesses the readiness of the parties
to begin working toward a framework agreement.
In other words the commission will not give the green light to
negotiate unless proper consultation mechanisms are in place.
There is already a province-wide treaty negotiation advisory
committee which my colleague spoke of but for each claim
regional and even local committees are established, and these
committees are becoming more and more active as parties move
into the framework negotiations.
To date there are advisory committees up and running in
Bulkley-Skeena, in Lilloolet-Pemberton, Westbank-Kelowna, the
Lower Mainland, on Southeast Vancouver island, the west coast of
Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.
Regional advisory committees are also being formed in Central
Cariboo, Kitimat-Skeena, Central Coast, the Desolation Sound area
and in the Prince George and Nechako Valley. Clearly third party
interests are a central part of the treaty making process in British
Columbia.
It seems the demands of some to halt the negotiation process
seem aimed at avoiding the issue rather than finding workable and
honourable agreements.
The government remains firmly committed to negotiating
treaties with First Nations across Canada where needed. We will
stay focused on that objective because it is the only way
uncertainty can be ended and all British Columbians can benefit.
I will speak for a few minutes on the importance of this process
in going forward in economic development and in particular in the
potential in the area of science and technology and
telecommunications for economic development for First Nations
people in British Columbia and elsewhere.
It is important we get through this process, that we sort out the
settlements and finalize the situation. It is also important that we
start building the economic framework and in particular the
telecommunications. The telecommunications, the information
highway infrastructure which the government has promoted from
the moment we were elected is vitally important for communities
in rural and remote regions of Canada and particularly for First
Nations communities.
(1335)
As we outlined early on in our mandate, this information
highway infrastructure is essential for jobs and learning in rural
areas. It is essential we move quickly in areas of access and it is
fundamentally important that we move quickly in developing
Canadian content. We need aboriginal First Nation content so First
Nations people are not only receivers but providers of content in an
increasingly important way.
One major effort we have made is in the SchoolNet process. This
process is one to which we are committed to ensure that schools in
all First Nations communities are linked to SchoolNet and to the
Internet and can join the information highway as one important
step not only in learning but in community development as we have
moved into the community access program.
In British Columbia there are some important advantages in
technology becoming available with ATM networks giving broad
band, multimedia access on the information highway.
As recently as last week I was in British Columbia to announce
the establishment of the telelearning network centre of excellence,
linking communities across Canada and centred at Simon Fraser
University. The development of teaching materials on the
information highway using the worldwide web and other
multimedia tools will enable delivery of learning and jobs at a
distance.
In this context it is important to realize a big change is occurring.
Universities like Simon Fraser are already putting courses on to the
worldwide web so they can be taken from anywhere around the
world. In a few years a number of courses will be dramatically
increased and therefore the possibility of taking courses and
learning materials from anywhere in Canada, from any First
Nations community in Canada, will be there and realized.
The people at Simon Fraser are already working on the
possibility of having all courses on the worldwide web by the year
2000. If that happens, what a remarkable achievement and what
important new access to learning and post-secondary education it
would give to people across Canada.
There is another side to the question. Even as the learning
material becomes more available it is now more possible and more
important to develop learning materials based in and coming from
the First Nations people of Canada. This is also an important
objective of the SchoolNet program and an important objective of
economic development, to enable teaching materials to be shared
from one First Nations community to another to develop content
16895
and learning materials which can be very important as cultural
expression for First Nations people into the next century.
As we proceed in settling land claims, providing the framework,
it is also important we proceed with economic development, with
the information highway so that it will allow people across the
country and particularly First Nations people access to the
information they need when they need it and where they need it.
This will allow better management of natural resources and a
remarkable new array of economic development opportunities and
jobs, particularly in remote locations, as is already starting to
happen in small communities in northern British Columbia and
remote communities in Newfoundland, setting up businesses on the
information highway and worldwide web and to operate around the
world.
It is a very different world from what we have lived in, one
fundamental reason it is important to move quickly to settle land
claims so we can move forward in development, learning and in
new possibilities.
(1340 )
I urge my hon. colleagues to show support for this process,
which will bring certainty to the province of British Columbia and
renewed hope and prosperity to the people of British Columbia and
particularly First Nations' people.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's
comments. He said the whole business of the Indian question and
what to do about land claims, self-government and these types of
issues will be resolved only through negotiation.
That is true. That is something we can all agree on. But if that is
true, why have so many of the Indian bands in British Columbia
either backed away from this process or not participated to begin
with?
One of the reasons we are opposed to this treaty process is that
the only examples we can see are the ones history has taught us.
Treaties enshrine special rights. They enshrine racism because
certain rights are attributed to one group of Canadians based solely
on their race.
The Reform Party believes the ultimate goal of any negotiations,
as the hon. member said and I agree, is we must get to the point at
which we can negotiate an end to these issues and put them to rest.
The end goal must be the equality of all Canadian citizens, not
further inequality, not enshrining inequality in agreements.
Another point is the finality. We believe on this side of the House
these must be final agreements. They must bring about
extinguishment of special rights and they must be final.
Once again when we look at history and at what happened with
the settlements in the northern territories, we do not see that
finality. Rather, there are clauses in those agreements whereby any
future negotiations that bring about benefits south of 60 could also
accrue to those bands that have already completed negotiations in
the territories. We do not have finality. Canadians do not know
what the final bill will be.
One of the reasons the Charlottetown accord was defeated was
the ambiguity of the Indian questions. In other words, what did
native self-government really mean? How would it come about?
I heard my hon. colleague putting forward the Reform
perspective that what we need is a very clear definition of whether
self-government will be based on a municipal model or some third
level of government. These are the types of questions Canadians
want answered.
Where is the involvement of the third party during these
negotiations, private landowners? There are a whole bunch of
questions not answered and not adequately addressed by this treaty
negotiation process presently underway and which this bill would
enshrine.
In a constituent survey in my spring householder I asked a
number of questions on native land claims because I wanted
feedback from the citizens of Prince George-Peace River. The
first question was: Does government have an obligation to
negotiate modern day treaties with natives?
This is exactly what we are talking about today with this bill. It is
interesting that although the returns were low, the sample size was
low, of the more than 500 people who returned the questionnaire
two to one voted no. They said we are not obligated to negotiate
treaties.
For that reason and the others I outlined I will be joining with my
Reform colleagues in opposition to this bill.
(1345 )
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, let me rise to reply to the questions
raised by the hon. member.
It is fundamental that we have a process of negotiation. It is also
important that we have a framework so that there are not 200
separate processes going on simultaneously in British Columbia.
We need a framework in which we can negotiate with British
Columbia First Nations in order to move this process forward as
rapidly as possible.
16896
More than 70 per cent of the First Nations in British Columbia
are involved in the process. Therefore, the concern that huge
numbers will be left out will likely be mitigated. We will see what
happens as we proceed further.
On the question of finality, in the end the process on which we
are embarked will have an outcome which gives much greater
certainty than we have at the moment. As a result of this process,
we will be able to give important consideration to the situation in
British Columbia for a stable and good future for both First Nations
people and non-First Nations people and that will be a building
block on which all British Columbians will benefit in the long run.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I seem
to be the only one who would like to participate in this debate with
the hon. member.
I take exception to the point the member made that he believes
this process will bring greater stability and certainty for British
Columbia. That is certainly not what I have seen. I am not opposed
to negotiations if they lead to the type of agreements that all of us
and the vast majority of Canadians can ultimately support. My
great concern and the concerns expressed to me all of the time from
my constituents is that these processes are not doing that. They are
driving a further wedge between the Indian people and Canadians
at large.
A great concern of mine is that we are not bringing about finality
or extinguishment of special rights. We are just further enshrining
them.
Sometimes I question and am questioned as to whether we are
really addressing the concerns of the average Indian in this country
who in many cases is living in poverty on reserves. Or, are we
really addressing the concerns of the Indian leadership which in
many cases is vastly different from the primary concerns of the
individual Indian?
It is estimated that combined provincial and federal spending is
between $7 billion and $9 billion a year on Indian programs. When
I travel to the reserves in my constituency, which, I am assured by
colleagues in the House, are not that much unlike other
constituencies, I see very few examples of where that money is
being spent on the reserves.
I really question whether this process is the best way to address
the concerns of the average native in this country.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I have two quick comments in reply.
First, if the member is trying to suggest that we should go back
and start all over again, I think we have made a lot of progress. We
have a process which has been agreed to by the federal government,
the provincial government and more than 70 per cent of the First
Nations in British Columbia. It is a reasonable basis for proceeding
and I believe we should proceed.
Second, when I spoke I deliberately talked about economic
development, the information highway and the changing things
that are coming. These are also very important in making sure that
individuals and communities have the benefit of the changing
times in order to move forward and progress to a better 21st
century.
(1350 )
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-107, an act
respecting the B.C. Treaty Commission.
The aboriginal people tragically form some of the lowest
socioeconomic groups within Canada, a first world nation. Indeed
the incidence of violence, sexual abuse, crime, infant mortality,
suicide, substance abuse and unemployment are among the highest
of any sector within our country. It is not something our country
should be proud of, and indeed we are not. That is why we are here
today, to try to develop some sensible solutions to address these
tragic problems within our midst.
I have seen with tragic frequency these individuals shot, stabbed,
dying and sometimes dead from other people's hands and tragically
too often from their own. It is a situation that needs to be addressed.
It needed to be addressed yesterday but now we have an
opportunity to do something about it today.
The cultural and social genocide which is taking place among the
aboriginal people has been taking place for decades and continues
to this day. In part this is due to successive governments that have
continued in a paternalistic fashion toward the aboriginal people.
They have had unequal treatment for the aboriginal people.
Because this treatment is unequal, it is by its very nature racist in
that we are treating the aboriginal people in a different way. We do
not treat any other segment of our society that way.
The mindset has been to pour successive amounts of money into
the department of Indian affairs for the aboriginal people. We
continue to pour money down a black hole. If we look at the results
of where this money has gone and wonder whether it has really
gone to help the aboriginal people, if we go to the aboriginal people
on and off reserve we will see that sadly it has not.
By pouring money down this black sinkhole, successive
governments have created an institutionalized welfare state. If we
continue to give money to people without them working for it, we
erode the very soul within the individual. This does not matter if
the person is an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal. It is a basic human
characteristic. We cannot keep giving money to people and expect
them to have pride and self-respect. It is incredibly destructive to
the soul of a human being. It would happen to anybody, aboriginal
or non-aboriginal, who is subjected to this.
16897
It is often said that the aboriginal communities have lost their
pride and self-respect. Part of the responsibility lies in the fact
that we have created this institutionalized welfare state, that we
have continued to support people in this manner. It has done them
a great disservice. Therefore we see the sad destruction of a
beautiful culture and beautiful people. A person cannot get pride
and self-respect by having someone give it to him. That person
must earn it himself.
Essential to this is having the ability to earn the funds to support
yourself and your family and people. If you can do this, then from
that you will develop the pride and self-respect in yourself and
therefore the community around you. That is absolutely
fundamentally important in my opinion.
I spoke with an individual who is responsible for the B.C. treaty
process in my area. This man was in charge of it. After listening to
him for one hour on what they were going to do, I asked a very
simple question: Will the negotiation of these treaties help the
aboriginal on or off reserve who is part of that lowest
socioeconomic group I spoke about earlier? He answered that he
did not know.
It is not good enough to pursue a course of trying to help people
who are suffering from those tragic things I mentioned earlier when
it is not known that it is going to help anybody. Why are we
pursuing this course?
(1355 )
Perhaps we are doing this to assuage a guilt complex we have
from what has gone on historically. If that is the case, I think we
should end it. It is not respectful to the aboriginal people and it is
not respectful to us. We have to look forward to a new day, a new
era, a new age when aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can have
respect for themselves and each other, when we can all live under
circumstances that we do not need to be embarrassed about.
I have many concerns about the B.C. treaty negotiation process.
First is the cost. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
establish these treaties. Where is the money coming from? All
levels of government do not have the funds to pay for this. It is a
simple question for which I would like a simple answer. Where is
the accountability coming from? These moneys are going to be
given to groups of people with no accountability whatsoever.
Accountability must be built into the system.
One of the complaints I have is not politically correct to speak
of. I have spoken to a number of aboriginal people who have come
to my office complaining that large sums of money given to bands
by the federal government have disappeared. The money has
disappeared into the hands of band elders and band leaders.
Nobody speaks for those aboriginal people who are not in that
leadership. They need that money and they need it to work for them
effectively and positively for the future. In too many cases that is
not occurring.
Second, there are a lot of questions surrounding the issue of
giving the resource management to the aboriginal people. What
happens to the rights of the non-aboriginal people who also have
interests in these areas? They talk about crown lands and the fact
that these areas are going to be given over to aboriginal people. The
fact remains there are a lot of non-aboriginal people who lease
these areas from the federal government. What is going to happen
to them?
Also, look at the mismanagement which has taken place in some
areas where aboriginal people have managed the resources. Look at
the Stoney Creek reserve where large tracts of land were given out
for timber rights and huge tracts of land were decimated.
Look at the aboriginal fishing strategy on the west coast. The
AFS has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. An individual's
racial grouping cannot be used as a licence to trash and destroy a
resource. Unfortunately part of the responsibility of the decimation
in the west coast fishery lies at the feet of the aboriginal people.
There is no question that non-aboriginals have been poaching too.
However, a significant number of people within the aboriginal
community have been using the AFS to destroy a precious
resource.
Who speaks for the aboriginal people who are law abiding, who
respect the resource and who are interested in preserving that
resource for future generations? Absolutely nobody speaks about
them. A number of aboriginal people have approached me and said:
``These aboriginal people are using the AFS for their own gain at
the expense of us who are trying to manage and use the resource in
a sustainable fashion''. This has to be said. Where are the
environmental safeguards that are going to take place when whole
resources are being taken over and given to a group of people?
Third, what are the rights of the non-aboriginal people who live
near lands that are being given to the aboriginal people? I have
significant concerns in my own area. Many municipalities have
mentioned that they have their own municipal plans that deal with
the future of their area. There are a number of areas that-
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you will have the floor right
after question period when we resume debate. You still have plenty
of time remaining.
It being 2 p.m. we are going to proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
16897
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November has been proclaimed awareness month for
cardiopulmonary resuscitation, better known as CPR.
16898
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Canada
and the leading cause of death among older women. More than
60,000 Canadians die every year from heart attacks and strokes.
The basic skills of CPR can be learned in as little as four hours,
yet fewer than 3 per cent of all Canadians can perform it. Therefore
Health Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, together with
the Red Cross Society, St. John Ambulance, the Canadian Ski
Patrol, the Royal Lifesaving Society of Canada, and the Advanced
Coronary Treatment Foundation encourage all Canadians to take
the time to learn CPR.
On behalf of the members of the House, I would like to support
the initiatives of CPR awareness month and urge all Canadians to
familiarize themselves with CPR. We should all know that a few
hours of training could save the life of someone we love.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the great
riding of Yellowhead is home to Canada's royal family of rodeo,
the Hay family from Mayerthorpe.
This family has a long and distinguished career in professional
rodeo. Fred, the dad of the family, busted broncs until 1983, and his
son Rod is a four-time Canadian finals rodeo champion. Now his
brother Denny is continuing the Hay family winning tradition by
capturing the first ever CFR saddle bronc title in Edmonton
recently. It was a lifelong dream for Denny to win the national title.
He began busting broncs when he was just eight years old. Now
Denny and his brother Rod are off to compete in the national finals
rodeo in Las Vegas, the only pair of brothers from Canada ever to
compete in this world class event.
I am sure all members will join me in wishing Denny and Rod
lots of luck when they take on the world's best. Good luck, Denny
and Rod.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in view of
the proposals made yesterday by the Prime Minister, Quebecers
can now see for themselves that the federal government has no
intention of responding to the legitimate aspirations of the people
of Quebec.
It has become obvious that Ottawa never intended to renew
federalism, as the proposals which have been put on the table
amply show. Quebecers will never accept to have the wool pulled
over their eyes in such a manner, and they will reject these empty
proposals outright.
Quebecers who voted no at the last referendum, but who wanted
real changes, will be even more disappointed and will feel
betrayed once again by a prime minister who could not care less
about their aspirations. As for those who voted yes, these proposals
only confirm what they already knew. Ottawa's proposals will
never meet Quebec's expectations, Quebecers bar none know it full
well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP federal caucus calls on the Liberal government to realize that
it cannot save Canada if it is busy undermining its foundations at
the same time.
Recognizing Quebec's distinct society when the socioeconomic
and institutional realities that make Canada distinct from the U.S.
are being harmonized or rationalized out of existence is a tragic
irony. Talking about vetoes and sovereignty is a cruel joke when we
have abandoned real control of our lives to the global marketplace
and the money speculators, not to mention that the veto proposal
completely misunderstands western Canada and should have
recognized B.C. as a region. Finally devolution of training as a
facade for federal offloading and the privatization of labour market
strategies is further cause for cynicism.
The Prime Minister should give Canadians something to believe
in other than the bottom line mentality and they will be in a better
frame of mind to deal with what Quebec and the rest of Canada
need to do to keep Canada united.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week's Campaign 2000 report of a drop in the number of poor
children in Canada is good news, but there remain nearly 1.4
million children who do not have the adequate food, shelter,
clothing, and social environment their peers enjoy.
Poverty is a serious threat to the growth, development, and social
well-being of children and therefore merits the continuing attention
of all levels of government. Therefore I have introduced a private
member's motion to encourage the government to create a special
Canada children's future fund. This is to ensure that the elimination
of child poverty remains at the forefront of our national agenda
even during tough economic times.
I look forward to the full support of the House. All children
deserve a secure and stable tomorrow, for they hold in their hands
the future of our nation.
16899
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the
recent Commonwealth conference the Prime Minister reacted to
the execution of Ogoni playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa by calling on
the assembled heads of government to speak out with one voice in
the face of flagrant violations of democratic principles and basic
tenets of justice.
(1405 )
Following up actions with words, the Prime Minister pushed for
an unprecedented suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth
in the face of its flagrant violation of human rights and yet another
example of the utter contempt held by General Abacha's regime for
world opinion.
In light of this, I urge my colleagues in the Government of
Canada to take this condemnation one step further by sending a
stern message to the Government of Nigeria by cancelling all of its
oil imports and imposing economic sanctions.
In light of these events, the citizens of the world must also send a
message to multinational companies such as Royal Dutch Shell that
they are responsible for more than simply maintaining the bottom
line of their balance sheets. These companies must adopt
environmental standards for their operations, especially in
societies where opposition to their operations is repressed.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 17 a group of maritimers met in Truro to discuss the
concept of economic and political union of the maritime or Atlantic
provinces.
Business people, academics, labour leaders, and even a few
politicians agreed that union is an old idea, going back to 1807,
whose time has finally come. We must join together to eliminate
wasteful duplication and provide lean government with cohesive
policies for all Atlantic Canadians. We must join together to create
new economic opportunities for our region and renew a sense of
pride in our people. We must join together so that our voice is truly
heard at the national level and our concerns are understood and
respected.
The Truro meeting is only a beginning. An Atlantic union must
be driven by the people of Atlantic Canada, not the politicians. The
Prime Minister has shown that Confederation is not static. Changes
can and must be made to improve the operation of our institutions
and the quality of life for our people.
Opinion polls over the last number of years show that the people
of Atlantic Canada consistently support union. They are ahead of
the politicians on this issue now, as they have been in the past. We
would serve them poorly if we did not make every effort-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1982, as a result of the unilateral patriation of
the Constitution, Quebec lost its veto, a right it had as one of the
founding nations of Canada. Since them, every Quebec government
had demanded that the federal government rectify the situation.
What is the Prime Minister offering us today? Crumbs. A mere
bill, which could be struck down by the next government, creating
a regional veto right which completely dilutes Quebec's claims.
And there is more. It will be possible to amend the Constitution
through a national referendum and sidestep Quebec's National
Assembly. This is a far cry from the pre-1982 situation when the
National Assembly had a constitutional veto right.
Come on now. Does the Prime Minister really believe that
Quebecers will be satisfied with mere symbols which bring about
no change whatsoever?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Americans subsidize their dairy farmers to the tune of $3.6 billion,
yet they are challenging our high tariffs on dairy and other supply
managed products. They have asked for a NAFTA panel to rule in
their favour.
If the Americans win, our supply managed farmers will face
open competition overnight and Canadian dairy and poultry
producers may be devastated. Two billion dollars' worth of dairy
quotas will become worthless, thousands of farmers could be
forced out of business, and many rural communities would be
severely affected.
I ask the Minister of International Trade to be proactive rather
than reactive and initiate a negotiated settlement, point out the sky
high American subsidies and offer to reduce some of our tariffs in
return for subsidy reduction in the United States.
I ask the government to negotiate, because too much is at stake
to play at winner take all. It is entirely possible that the NAFTA
panel may say ``Canada, you lose''.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the deep concerns of
16900
many of my constituents, especially in the districts of Cudworth,
Wakaw, and Humboldt, regarding pornography.
I have received many little white ribbons in recognition of
WRAP week, ``White Ribbons Against Pornography''. The letter I
received from Lana Reding explains it best. Lana wrote: ``We feel
that not enough is being done to protect families against abuse and
pornography, especially our children, who are our future. In our
church, St. Michael's Parish, we pinned white ribbons on our
parishioners and they returned them the following week. Also our
town of Cudworth declared that October 22 to 29 be recognized as
WRAP week. There is far too much pornography on TV, in
magazines, and books, exposing our children to sex, violence, and
crimes. They need to be protected from much of this. We hope you
will pass these ribbons along to our Prime Minister and express our
concern regarding WRAP week''.
(1410 )
It is only when people like Lana Reding get involved in the
process that meaningful change can occur. I commend my
constituents for their efforts.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday on change in the
federal system honours the referendum commitments and also
provides a lead up to the mandatory constitutional conference of
1997.
The initiative on distinct society reflects already existing law of
the Constitution; that on regional veto commits the federal
government but creates no additional constitutional barriers for
provincial governments; that on manpower training signals the new
co-operative federalism, with its emphasis on functional power
sharing and flexible decision making on common social problems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, as he had promised during the recent referendum
campaign in Quebec, the Prime Minister of Canada outlined the
first elements of the strategy to renew Canadian federalism.
Through this proposal, we are tackling head-on the notions of
distinct society, regional veto and job training. It shows that this
government responds to the legitimate demands expressed by all
Canadians.
Yesterday, Quebecers found out that, more than ever before, they
can count on the Prime Minister of Canada and his government to
address the issues they care about.
Yesterday, all Canadians learned that when their Prime Minister
promises something, he delivers.
[English]
Yesterday Quebecers received yet another confirmation that the
Prime Minister of Canada is listening to their concerns and that
they can count on the government to address the issues that are
important to Quebec.
Quebecers once again see proof that when their Prime Minister
promises something, he delivers.
The Speaker: I would remind you, colleagues, to please use the
titles of members rather than their names.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, we
mourn the senseless death of Odette Pinard, an officer in the
Montreal Urban Community police department.
A mother of three young children, Mrs. Pinard had worked as a
police officer for nearly 10 years. She could have looked forward to
a successful career in the Montreal Urban Community police
department.
I would like to offer our sincere condolences to her family, her
friends and all her colleagues in Montreal. Her death reminds us of
both the fragility of life and the difficult work done every day by
police officers, particularly those in our major centres.
When we ask the police to help us and protect our communities,
our homes and our lives, we are in fact asking policemen and
women to do a job, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Odette
Pinard's death reminds us of their courage and dedication, for
which we are all grateful.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
simple message, and even the fisheries minister's blowhard
rhetoric and double talk cannot stifle it. Fishermen across Atlantic
Canada are protesting the government's broken promise of ``no tax
increases''.
From St. John's to Saint John, from Glace Bay to Yarmouth, the
cry ``Axe the fish tax'' is being heard. And since that cry is falling
on deaf ears, Reform, along with local citizens, have unveiled a
billboard in Yarmouth protesting this unfair tax, one of many
billboards in Atlantic Canada that will remind thousands and
thousands of passers-by that the so-called fee is in fact a tax. This
16901
tax will rob Yarmouth of $3 million, southwest Nova Scotia of $18
million, and rob Atlantic Canada of $50 million.
There is no excuse for broken promises. There is no excuse for a
new tax. There is no excuse the government can offer fishermen
whose pockets are being picked.
Leave the money at home. Mr. Minister, axe the Tobin tax.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, by announcing the details of his three main initiatives for
change yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada kept his
referendum promises.
Yesterday, the Government of Canada tabled a motion to ensure
that the Quebec's distinct society be recognized in the Canadian
federation. Legislation establishing a regional right of veto will be
introduced to give Canadians from all four major regions of the
country the assurance that no constitutional change will be made
without their consent. The Government of Canada will withdraw
from manpower training; the provinces will then be quite free to
develop their own policies and programs in that area.
These first three initiatives clearly show that we are committed
to helping build a Canada that better meets to the needs and
aspirations of its people and is more sensitive to them.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada's press conference was
barely over when positive feedback started pouring from Quebec.
Reacting to our Prime Minister's proposals, the leader of the
Quebec Liberal Party said: ``First of all, we have to salute the
Prime Minister of Canada's willingness to act. It is a first step in a
process that should start now''.
This initial reaction of the Leader of the Official Opposition in
Quebec tends to prove that our government has correctly heard and
understood the desire for change expressed by the people in the
referendum.
Let us hope that, as the official opposition in the National
Assembly, the Quebec Liberal Party will be able to convince the
PQ government to set aside its separatist obsession and help renew
the Canadian federation, as requested by the people of Quebec.
16901
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister hastily announced measures
with which he intends to meet his referendum commitments. In
fact, he is trying to fool the public, but Quebecers will not be fooled
by these cunningly worded resolutions on the distinct identity of
Quebec, any more than they will be by the sham veto he proposes.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that
the cabinet committee on constitutional change only recently
started its work and that the timeframe for unemployment
insurance reform has again been changed as a result of his
statement yesterday, will he acknowledge that his improvised
announcement is intended to counter increasingly overt criticism of
his leadership and his failure to deliver the goods?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we acted quickly. I had a text when I spoke to Canadians
on the Tuesday and Wednesday of the last week before the
referendum. What I did today was keep the promises I made to the
Canadian people and especially to the people of Quebec, that is
take steps to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and ensure that
in future, there will be no changes in the Constitution without the
consent of Quebecers.
During the past four weeks the committee has had time to review
everything I mentioned at the time, and that is what I delivered.
As for unemployment insurance reform, it will come. The bill
will be tabled Friday, and the Leader of the Opposition will have all
the details. However, as we have said on many occasions in this
House, we decided that we would respect jurisdictions and that
there was no longer any need for the federal government to be
directly involved in manpower training programs. We intend to
make the money available to clients who are our responsibility so
they can receive these services from their provincial government.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps it would be useful to recall that the man who just
spoke is the main artisan of the forced patriation of the 1982
Constitution and of the demise of Meech Lake.
We know that nearly half of Quebecers supported sovereignty in
the referendum and that many others voted for a thorough overhaul
of the federal system. That being the case, what makes the Prime
Minister think that Quebecers will be satisfied with a mere
resolution that is meaningless as far as Quebec's distinct identity is
concerned?
16902
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition feels that a resolution of
the House of Commons is not enough, he should tell the House
that as soon as he is premier of Quebec, he will support a
constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society. If he does, I will assume my responsibilities as Prime
Minister and discuss it with the provincial governments.
I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition wants to entrench
the concept of distinct society in the Constitution, the provincial
Premiers will recognize his request. I think we could have a
constitutional amendment very quickly. It could be done in a matter
of months.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if I ever take on the duties referred to by the Prime
Minister, I would consider it an insult to my position and to
Quebecers to accept a solution that is unacceptable. Even his ally,
Mr. Johnson, would refuse.
How can the Prime Minister expect Quebec to take seriously a
resolution that falls far short of the proposal in the Charlottetown
Accord which was rejected in no uncertain terms by Quebecers in
the 1992 referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I and my party are in favour of recognizing Quebec as a
society that is distinct because of the French language, the culture
that is specific to Quebec and the fact that in Quebec we have
always had a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code. So everyone
knows this is a fact that can be easily recognized in the
Constitution.
However, today it seems quite clear that the Leader of the
Opposition is not interested in having Canada recognize Quebec as
a distinct society.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his last
minute improvised announcement, the Prime Minister remained
true to himself in proposing to recognize Quebec as a distinct
society, purely symbolically, through a simple parliamentary
motion, which will give Quebec neither special status nor
additional power.
How can the Prime Minister seriously think he is satisfying
Quebecers, nearly 50 per cent of whom voted for sovereignty in the
last referendum, with a simple resolution of the House of
Commons symbolically recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec
but without any additional power? Is this not an insult to their
intelligence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the insult will come when the Bloc Quebecois
votes in this House, based on what we see today, against the notion
of distinct society for Quebec. If the Bloc Quebecois really wants it
to become a constitutional proposal, they should pressure the future
head of the Government of Quebec to pass a resolution in the
Parliament of Quebec, and then we will see it is passed, and
convince the provinces to pass it.
However, if the current Government of Quebec-or the January
government-does not want Quebec to be a distinct society under
the Constitution, there is nothing I can do.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect for the Prime Minister, I have strong doubts that the
future Premier of Quebec will agree to something Mr. Bourassa
turned down at the time.
After hastily tabling his proposal, without awaiting the report of
the phoney committee headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs and without consulting his partners in English Canada, how
does the Prime Minister think he will convince Quebecers of the
seriousness of his actions? Will he admit to badly playing his last
card, which looks oddly like a two of spades?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can hardly wait for the member for Roberval to rise in
this House and vote against the distinct society. For the first time
we have an opportunity to speak clearly, not in the context of a
thousand things, but on a very clear issue-
Mr. Bouchard: It is a sham.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -a very clear issue: Is Quebec
a distinct society because of its language, its culture and its Civil
Code?
Mr. Bouchard: The Napoleonic Code.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I am not ashamed to admit I
know that Quebec's Civil Code dates back to the Napoleonic Code.
If it offends the Leader of the Opposition, too bad for him. It is a
fact of history. I can hardly wait to rise in this House and vote for
Quebec's recognition as a distinct society, and I will watch the
Leader of the Opposition vote against it, with a smile on my face.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too have reviewed the Prime Minister's November 27
statement on unity measures and find the lack of content almost
unbelievable.
(1425 )
Canadians inside and outside Quebec want fresh thinking. They
want realism, not symbolism. They want a fundamental change in
the way the federation operates. Instead the Prime Minister has
offered them the tired old thinking and formulas for failure that
doomed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and almost
lost the referendum on October 30.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is this all there is,
recycled amending formulas, hollow symbolism from failed
accords and lip service to decentralization? Is this really the best
that
16903
the Prime Minister of Canada can offer on the subject of national
unity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made a speech in Montreal that was very clear. It was in
written form and I am pleased the leader of the third party read it. It
is exactly what I promised.
I said that the Quebec people because of their language, culture
and the civil code are different from the rest of Canada. I have no
problem with that.
I am offering a possibility for the rest of Canada to have
something to say in the evolution of Canada as proposed by the
leader of the third party who talked about regions in his document
called ``New Confederation'' and said that all regions were entitled
to equal status in constitutional negotiations. That is exactly what
we offered the four regions of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): We will
have a lot more to say on that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
The contents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were
flawed because the process for developing the contents were
flawed. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were top down, closed
door, politician driven approaches to change which failed to carry
the judgment of Canadians because Canadians were not involved.
Yet in coming up with this package the Prime Minister has not
only ignored the lessons of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. He has
taken a huge step backward. He involved fewer Canadians in
developing this Quebec package than the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown gang did in theirs.
Is the Prime Minister following any recognized process at all, or
is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? If there is a
process, why is there no meaningful role in the process for the
provinces or the people of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made some commitments in Montreal on behalf of the
people of Canada.
Perhaps the leader of the third party does not agree with what I
said. Of course it was at a time when he was offering subsidies for
Quebecers to move out of Quebec. That was his solution to national
unity.
We want to fulfil our commitments and get back very quickly to
dealing with the real problems of the country: jobs and growth.
However, because the leader of the third party cannot attack the
government on the substance of the operation of the nation, he
would like to discuss the Constitution around the country. That is
not our intention. It is to deal with the economy and job creation
and dispose of these commitments within weeks.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister ignores questions about the lack of
content in his package. He ignores questions about the flawed
process. Maybe he will answer a question about the strategy
behind the package, which is bizarre to say the least.
The Prime Minister has apparently decided to build a case for
national unity on the concept of distinct society and a constitutional
veto, two areas where there is little public or provincial support. He
has chosen to ignore the one area where there is a real desire for
change both inside and outside Quebec, namely the realignment of
federal and provincial powers.
Is the symbolic tinkering with manpower training the
government's only response to Canadians' demand for a major
realignment of federal-provincial powers? Is that all there is?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the announcement I made on manpower training
yesterday there was a very big move of clarification. It is a
complaint that was mentioned by all the premiers over the last two
years. However, we had to wait for the Minister of Human
Resources Development, who will soon be tabling his bill on the
reforms to the unemployment insurance program, before
suggesting any reforms in that field.
(1430)
I have discussed the strategy with the premiers and with this
caucus. I know the Reform Party's position on this strategy is
exactly the same as that of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an
attempt to enlist the support of the premiers in English Canada, the
Prime Minister was forced to render Quebec's recognition as a
distinct society meaningless, so as not to violate the principle of
equality for the provinces.
This is so true that the so-called right of veto was offered to all
regions of Canada, while responsibility over manpower training,
which has yet to be defined, will be offered to every province.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that he was forced to render
Quebec's recognition as a distinct society both meaningless and
useless, so as to make it acceptable to the rest of Canada, which is
so attached to the principle of equality for the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that the Prime
Minister represents all Canadians, not just English-speaking
Canadians.
16904
I also want to tell him that Quebecers rejected the very
ambiguous separatist proposal. Now his party must comply with
the will of the people, which means it must work within Canada.
As for the regional veto proposal, it was accepted by all
Canadian premiers a long time ago. It makes perfect sense to me
that Ontario, with 40 per cent of the country's population, should
get such a veto, as well as two provinces representing a majority in
western Canada, and likewise in eastern Canada. Such a proposal
does not belittle anyone.
I think that, in Canada, we must all co-operate, and this is what
we are proposing to do with this offer. I can see the despondency of
Bloc Quebecois members who are about to vote against a distinct
society status for the province of Quebec.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Prime Minister put the whole burden of the proof on the
back of the Quebec government, considering that the premiers of
British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have serious reservations
about his proposal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member just criticized me for trying to propose a
regional veto, because some provinces would like a veto for each
and every province.
What we have done was to impose on the federal government a
technique to use our own veto right. If Quebec no longer has a veto
right as it thought it had once, it is because the PQ government of
the time opted for a formula different from the Victoria proposal
and, in doing so, eliminated the veto right that Quebec was seeking.
I can understand the despair of Bloc Quebecois members, who
can see that we are solving two problems at once, in that we are
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, while also taking action to
prevent any constitutional change without Quebec's consent. This
is a commitment that all members of this House will soon be
making. It will quite something to see the Bloc member oppose a
motion seeking to make it possible for Quebec to have a veto right.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1992 both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party fought for
national referendums on constitutional change. The current Prime
Minister was successful in having the Liberal Party pass a
resolution that stated: ``The Liberal Party of Canada stands for the
principle that the Constitution belongs first to the people and that
the people must have a say in how the Constitution is changed''.
Why then has the Prime Minister, instead of giving the people of
Canada a say through a national referendum, decided the
legislative assemblies, the direct notice of government and
provincial governments can have a veto over federal constitutional
change?
(1435 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not at the stage of changing the Constitution. We
are saying we are changing the way we, the federal government,
will use our veto powers.
The House of Commons has a veto power. We say which way we
will use it. The Constitution remains the same. The amending
formula is the same and there is no proposition at this time to
change the Constitution.
If the Government of Quebec were to say it is willing to change
the Constitution to have a distinct society, as it is written in the
Constitution at this time, we must have the consent of seven
provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question was not answered. Why has the federal government not
given the people of Canada a say in these kinds of changes through
a national referendum on its own ratification?
I point out to the Prime Minister that we asked him this question
about his Verdun speech on November 1. The Prime Minister said
to the leader of the Reform Party: ``The hon. leader of the third
party should take time to read my speech. I said it would be a veto
for the people of Quebec''.
Since the people of Quebec voted against separation, why has the
Prime Minister turned around and instead of giving the people a
veto, given a veto to the future premier of Quebec, the separatist
Leader of the Opposition?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the Reform Party there is a reality. Is the Government
of Quebec a legitimate government? Like the government of any
other province it as been elected and I have to respect that reality.
I would rather have another government, which would be
possible the day the Reform Party supports this party rather than
supporting the Bloc Quebecois in the House all the time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
immediately following the Prime Minister of Canada's
announcement, the provinces of Canada voiced reservations on
both the so-called right of veto and the scope of resolution on the
distinct character of Quebec. It was obvious that the premiers of
English Canada had not been forewarned of this initiative by the
federal government.
How can the Prime Minister have the gall to present his
initiatives of yesterday as the end result of his referendum promises
when, immediately following his announcement, a number of
16905
provinces in English Canada, including British Columbia and
Alberta, voiced serious reservations about the federal plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact that they have reservations does not mean I spoke
to them. I am simply saying that I made commitments in my
capacity as Prime Minister during the referendum campaign,
saying that I would deliver the goods. I have said that, in the past, I
and my party have recognized Quebec as a distinct society and that
we would recognize it as such in the future. That is what we shall
do in the very near future.
We are taking steps, and that is the commitment I have made, not
to change the Canadian Constitution without the consent of
Quebec. There will be legislation on this, in Parliament. I am most
anxious to see how the critic will vote, whether she will vote
against the decision of this Parliament not to change the
Constitution without the consent of Quebec.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand that the Prime Minister, as he did in 1980 following
the referendum, is in the process of acting unilaterally, attempting
to present not only Quebec but the other provinces as well with a
done deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am working within the federal jurisdiction. I am the
Prime Minister of Canada. I invite the members of this Parliament
to make a decision on the distinct society and on the right of veto
for the four regions of Canada, within the capacities of this
Parliament. There is nothing mysterious in that.
We, the members, are the ones who will all have to make up our
minds a few days from now. When everyone has voted, then it will
be a done deal, yes. The members of this Parliament, the large
majority, thanks to the Liberal Party of which I am the leader, will
have voted in favour of a distinct society and to ensure that the veto
will be shared with the four regions of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is creating a cloud of confusion on the
issue of a constitutional veto. Could he clarify for the benefit of his
own members, as well as ours, exactly what he means when he
talks about giving a veto to Quebec? Is he talking about giving a
veto to the Government of Quebec or is he talking about giving a
veto to the people of Quebec through a constitutional referendum?
Will he make it crystal clear what he means?
(1440 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I mean that the people of Quebec have a parliament and an
assembly where they have people elected. They will vote, just like
the people of Alberta will vote, through the members of their
legislature.
We say it is a desire of the House that we not proceed without the
approval of the four regions of Canada, as the hon. member is
asking in his program to recognize the four regions of Canada.
Quebec will vote on that. There might be a referendum, there might
not be a referendum, but under the Constitution when we amend the
Constitution it is always by a resolution of a legislative assembly
and the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us get this straight. When the Prime Minister talks
about giving a veto to Quebec he has just said that what he means is
giving a veto to the Government of Quebec. Will he confirm that in
other words he is proposing to give the separatist government of
Quebec a constitutional veto over the Constitution of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have never seen so little respect for democracy in my
life.
We are giving a veto. The veto is ours. We say we will not
impose on the people of Quebec or the people of Canada an
amendment to the Constitution that does not have the consensus of
Quebec, Ontario, the west and the east. This Parliament will decide
and we will establish the conditions.
However, we have this notion that suddenly a great friend of the
leader of the third party is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. They
used to have breakfast together; now we see them in the same bed.
Now to see him disappear is a bit disappointing. The reality is there
is a legitimate government in Quebec and it exists according to the
Constitution of Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, through his initiative announced yesterday, the Prime
Minister is offering Quebec a mere resolution of this House, in
which the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is simply a
symbolic recognition of an actual situation. They are telling
Quebec that it is distinct but, in fact, this changes nothing in terms
of power.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposed distinct society
resolution will give Quebec no special status or additional powers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society should
eventually be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, and the
courts will interpret it as they see fit. We in the government cannot
make decisions that are up to the courts. For the moment we have
instructed the Canadian Parliament, the executive branch of
Canada's government, to take this reality into account. This is
indeed a
16906
reality that we hope this Parliament will recognize, and we will
soon vote on it.
If the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want this to be
recognized in the Constitution, we will start talking. We have
already spoken with the provinces and, as I said yesterday, I am
sure that, if the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want
recognition as a distinct society to be enshrined in the Constitution,
the provinces will be happy to oblige, because, like me, they want
Quebec to remain a part of Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this, however, is different from the Meech Lake accord,
which required the courts to interpret the Constitution in light of
Quebec's distinctiveness. We are nowhere near there. We are still
dealing with the deflated Meech Lake balloon as seen by the Prime
Minister in 1990, when he killed the proposed reform. And he
knows it.
(1445)
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his minister-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister
stop shouting?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duceppe: Again-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Duceppe: I was getting to it, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and chairman of his phoney committee
to save Canada, to the effect that the proposed recognition as a
distinct society does not in itself involve new powers for Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what has always surprised me is that all PQ members in
the National Assembly voted against Meech. Every last one of
them.
It happened when the Leader of the Opposition decided to turn
his back on his friend, the then Prime Minister, to oppose the
Meech Lake agreement. I myself was not even a member of this
House at the time, so I do not know why I am being blamed for so
many things. Of course, it is easy to make accusations. The hon.
member should ask Mr. Parizeau and the other PQ members then
sitting in the National Assembly why they voted against Meech.
Today, I want to correct this whole situation and give Bloc
members an opportunity to vote for the recognition of Quebec as a
distinct society. We will see in a few days what they will do.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last weekend I met with constituents in my riding of Brant to
begin our prebudget consultations. Among many, many topics of
interest my electors registered their continuing concern about the
underground economy and its impact on our ability to manage the
deficit.
What has the minister done to date to control the leakage of
millions of dollars in revenue into the underground economy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and also for
the consistent support she has given to making the tax system more
efficient and fair over the last two years.
In fact, it is two years ago this week that I announced a series of
major initiatives to attack the underground economy. They are
specifically: more co-operation with the provinces, including
agreements on exchange of information; more co-operation with
industry associations, again with respect to information and also
assistance in our efforts; more service for ordinary Canadian
taxpayers; more publicity for people who unfortunately break the
law. I am happy to say these have resulted in substantial
improvements on the revenue side. Over those two years these
specific measures have totalled $1.1 billion of revenue that would
otherwise not have been collected.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Canadians buried the Charlottetown accord six feet under, I thought
I had seen the last of the elitist backroom boys, but I was wrong.
The Liberals have even one upped the Tories.
The sum total of this Prime Minister's consultation process was
this: an interim report from the national unity dream team; a couple
of heart to hearts with the dynamic duo of Pelletier and
Goldenberg; a few quick phone calls to the premiers; and a last
minute briefing of his very own caucus.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why were the Canadian
people, the people and not the governments, left out of the process
again? Will the people have a direct say on his government's
Quebec package?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada were very happy that we participated
in the
16907
referendum and helped to win it. At that time we were being
attacked daily by the Reform Party rather than receiving its help.
(1450 )
The people of Canada want us to get back to job creation and
growth. The people of Canada want the Prime Minister of Canada
who speaks for all Canadians to deliver on the goods he promised
in Montreal the week before the referendum.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Canada will be begging the question, why in the world
did he bring this up yesterday afternoon? Why do we not get on
with job creation? Let us do it.
The Prime Minister's style is often likened to that of Louis St.
Laurent but I think Louis XIV maybe is more like it. The Prime
Minister did not consult with Canadians. He did not consult with
the premiers. He did not even properly consult with his own caucus
who are watching this show today before announcing the Quebec
package. They know it and we know it. They have been talking to
us. What is worse is that the government does not trust the
Canadian people to give them the final word on these measures.
Will the government commit today to a free vote in the House of
Commons on its proposals? Will it then give the Canadian people a
direct and final say on the Quebec package?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we made this proposition because we made a commitment
on behalf of all Canadians one week before the referendum to do
something. This is extremely important after what the Canadian
people said at that time. Thousands of Canadians came from across
the land to say to the people of Quebec that they want Quebec to
remain in Confederation. They want to keep this country together.
The people of Canada want the Prime Minister to deliver the
goods. He will do that and quickly.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question also is for the Prime Minister. The very day that the Prime
Minister claims to recognize Quebec's distinct society status, he
refuses to follow up on the Quebec consensus to the effect that the
federal government must transfer to the province the powers and
resources related to manpower training. There is quite a
contradiction between these meaningless statements and the facts.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposal to give the
money allocated for training directly to the unemployed and bypass
the Quebec government and its manpower development
commission, which includes officials representing management,
the unions, the government and various other institutions, prevents
Quebec from implementing a true manpower and employment
policy, as requested by everyone?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not
have been listening very well to the words of the Prime Minister.
He said that we would be transferring responsibility of many of
the training programs. They show the reflection of the very
extensive discussions we have had across Canada which I wish the
Reform Party would acknowledge and receive. At the same time,
we would want to do that in full consenting agreement with the
provinces. We want to work with the provinces because we share
one fundamental objective which is to help people get back to work
and be employed.
I hope that when the hon. member's leader becomes the next
leader in the Government of Quebec he is prepared to live up to his
commitment which is to get away from any of these other
discussions and focus on the question of jobs. If he is prepared to
focus on jobs so are we and we think we can work together.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that
the government says it will keep the money, that it will, in fact, not
transfer any responsibility, and that it will continue to control the
content, standards and results, how can it call its initiative a
decentralization? There is a contradiction here between the
statements and the facts.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is so full of
misinformation and contradiction. It really is quite remarkable and
amazing how one person can be so wrong so many times.
The reality is that we said we want to find additional resources to
help people get back to work. The whole point of putting this in the
context of a major fundamental restructuring of the entire
employment insurance program is to find the resources to help
people get to work and to work with the provinces, communities
and businesses to make that happen.
(1455 )
The problem is that the hon. member is not interested in getting
people back to work. She is simply interested in dealing with a
bunch of abstract constitutional issues. More important, she simply
wants separation. She does not want employment for people in
Quebec.
16908
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
insist upon an answer to the questions I asked earlier in question
period.
The Prime Minister knows that the provinces of Canada already
have a say in constitutional change through the amending formula.
The people of Canada do not have a say. The Prime Minister has
promised repeatedly over the past three years to give the people a
say through referenda on constitutional change. Why is he backing
down on his promise to have national referenda on constitutional
change?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not very complicated. A vote will be held in the
House of Commons as quickly as possible. We will then return to
our work on jobs and growth. It will be easy. We will vote and then
we will return to the real problems of Canada.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
Prime Minister wanted to have a real agenda on jobs and growth he
should have presented one instead of presenting the bill on
constitutional change.
The people of Quebec voted against separation. The Government
of Quebec is ignoring those results and continuing to pursue
separation. Why is the Prime Minister in bed with the separatists
promising them a veto on constitutional change instead of the
people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want Canadians to suffer further discussions,
committee hearings, commissions and referenda on every little
comma in the Constitution. They do not want to hear about it.
I understand that the Reform Party is confused. Reformers want
to talk about it because their own agenda for the politics of Canada
has gone down the tube. Let them boil in their own juices.
The vote on the Constitution will be held very soon. After that
we will be addressing other very important problems. On Friday we
will table a very important reform with respect to jobs and growth.
I hope that the Reform Party, rather than asking questions, will vote
for it so that Canadians can benefit from the program in the near
future.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Today the hon. member for Skeena stars in an advertisement on
the government's proposed fishing licence fees. How does the
minister respond to allegations that licence fees are being applied
in a racist manner and that the Canada Oceans Act proposes the use
of politically appointed boards to manage the fishery?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true. Half-page ads at $7,700 per ad have been
taken out to support the Reform Party policy on the fishery,
pondering up visions of the federal government being engaged in a
``racist based fishery''.
I have in my hand a copy of a letter written to the hon. member
for Skeena and to the leader of the Reform Party by Michael
Belliveau, the executive secretary of the Maritime Fishermen's
Union. It states:
Dear Sir,
Who gave you the `god-given right' to poison attitudes towards First Nations
peoples? Your press release, `Tobin tax blatantly racist', is a disgrace and
Orwellian to boot-
Do not send us any more such contorted garbage''.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and everyone else will know that the western
part of Canada is made up of two very distinct regions: the prairies
of western Canada and the province of British Columbia, which is
the third largest province in Canada. It is a province with a distinct
history, a distinct geography and a distinct economy.
(1500 )
In determining the regional veto powers, why did the Prime
Minister ignore the people of British Columbia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are giving people of British Columbia more power
than they have now. Because they represent 47 per cent of the
population of the west, we are giving them a lot of power when we
talk about the number of people.
If the NDP government of British Columbia were not blocking
people coming into British Columbia who want to move there
because some might be on welfare, which is against the law of
mobility in Canada, very soon B.C. would have more than 50 per
cent of the population in the west. Then it would have its own veto.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members to the presence in
the gallery of His Excellency Jacek Buchacz, Minister of Foreign
Economic Relations of the Republic of Poland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
>
16909
16909
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-107, an act
respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty
Commission, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was speaking about the aspects of the rights of
non-aboriginal peoples living in areas adjacent to areas where land
claims are currently under negotiation.
(1505 )
There are some very grave concerns in my riding of
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and other western communities about
what happens when a municipality in the future puts forth a 10 or
15-year plan for the surrounding area and another group working
independently within its midst is able to completely change the
entire demographic of that area? This is but an example taking
place all across the country. Nowhere among these treaty rights is it
stated what the rights of non-aboriginal peoples are in areas
adjacent to the treaty areas.
Furthermore, a lot of these negotiations are taking place behind
closed doors and away from the eyes of the people who will be
affected by the decisions made by both the provincial and federal
levels of government.
It is grossly iniquitous that these decisions and negotiations take
place behind closed doors, in private and in camera. They must be
made full knowledge to the public. It is the aboriginals and
non-aboriginals who will be affected by these treaty negotiations.
Therefore that has to be built into these negotiations but it is not.
More than 50 per cent of aboriginal people live off reserve. How
do these treaty negotiations affect those individuals living off
reserve? Many aboriginal peoples living in urban areas suffer tragic
levels of substance abuse, violence and sexual abuse. It is tragic to
see the lives these individuals endure.
I ask those here in the House how these negotiations actually
affect the lives of these people? How does it improve their lives to
be able to dig themselves out of the sad situations they have found
themselves in? How does this give them the ability to stand on their
own two feet and take care of themselves? I have never heard an
explanation to this question regardless of whom I asked who was
involved in the treaty negotiations.
It is fundamental for any person, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to
take care of themselves that they have the skills to do this. One of
the roles of government can be to provide these skills and
opportunities to enable people to take care of themselves.
I wonder if these land claims will actually do that. I cannot see
that happening. For many of the people the earning power they
would require to earn money and fulfill the lifestyle they require
simply cannot be done on many of the areas being claimed today.
We support good skills training for aboriginals and
non-aboriginals alike. We support good social programs where
accountability has been built into the system. We support social
programs that address good counselling for the people who are
suffering. We support the elimination of the Indian Act, a
paternalistic and racist act.
Above all, if there is one principle that should override
everything, it is equality for all people. If we do not have equality
for all of us how can we have equality for any of us? It is
fundamental that we approach these negotiations with that
fundamental principle in mind. It is something that Canada and
Canadians have stood for through their entire history and
something that Canadians have died for to give us that right today. I
hope we do not abrogate that responsibility to our past by engaging
in activities that make sure some people are more equal than others.
We support the hereditary activity of aboriginal peoples: the
hunting, fishing and trapping under the treaty negotiations taking
place. It is a fundamental right of the aboriginal peoples. However,
we do not support utilizing those hereditary rights to be
manipulated in such a way that would enable resources to be
destroyed.
We support self-government for aboriginal people but at a
municipal level. At a municipal level it gives them, as it gives all of
us, the ability and right to determine destinies as individuals and as
groups.
(1510 )
We cannot have completely autonomous states. That would
result in the balkanization of Canada. The worst case scenario is
that we have hundreds of small, autonomous non-functional states.
That is the ultimate possibility that exists in these treaty
negotiations. It is important that we recognize this idea is fallacious
and cannot occur.
Everyone in the House wants to ensure the tragic situation that
many aboriginal people find themselves in is changed now. They
cry for help. It is a cry of desperation that must be answered.
It does not work to treat individuals in a paternalistic fashion.
They must be treated in the same fashion as we would treat
anybody else, as equals. We must provide these people with the
skills and ability to stand on their own two feet. By doing this they
would develop pride within themselves, pride in their communities
and pride between people.
If we can do this we would go a long way toward developing a
more peaceful, tolerant society between aboriginals and
non-aboriginals. Sadly the course that has been taken, rather than
bringing people together is causing deep divisions and rifts
between aborigi-
16910
nals and non-aboriginals. This is sad because there is much that can
be learned from all of our cultures. The aboriginal culture is a
beautiful culture and we need to learn much from it.
It is time we moved ahead toward a new era of respect for others,
respect for ourselves and equal treatment for all.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill C-107, an act to
establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission.
Bill C-107 is a fine piece of legislative engineering in theory.
The is are dotted and the ts are crossed. It has been translated in
both official languages. It has been printed and distributed in
incomprehensible legalese. However, there are three important
issues that call this legislation into question. First, 23 per cent of
the Indian nations are not involved, which constitutes 31,682
individuals.
Second, the public at large, which constitutes the majority of
British Columbians, 3 million people, is left out of the
negotiations. There is no room for its input into the process, nor are
there provisions for a grassroots referendum of all British
Columbians to ratify any negotiations. These two issues must be
addressed. They are vital to the continued well-being of the people
and the economy of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Third, no substantive amendments can be made to help correct
the above mentioned deficiencies in this legislation.
Let us look at each one of these points. Twenty-three per cent of
the B.C. Indian nations are not in the B.C. Treaty Commission
process. These include the Okanagan Tribal Council, consisting of
Indian bands from Osoyoos, Penticton, Upper and Lower
Similkameen and Okanagan, and the Upper and Lower Nicola
Indian bands and the Nicola Valley Tribal Council.
In other words, the Indians in my riding do not recognize the
B.C. Treaty Commission as facilitators of land claims. The Indians
within the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt riding have been
actively stepping outside the law to attempt to claim jurisdiction
over land.
Currently they are threatening violence over the Green Mountain
Road. They have been digging trenches along the road and are
wearing camouflage fatigues in true Oka and Gustafsen Lake style.
This form of confrontation is not new to the Indians in my riding.
Over the past couple of years numerous incidents such as the Apex
ski resort blockade have shown that formal civil negotiations
outlined as the duties of the B.C. Treaty Commission are redundant
and irrelevant to the Indians in my riding.
Currently they are in court fighting the B.C. government over
ownership of Green Mountain Road. They say they will enforce a
blockade of the road, win or lose. They claim they are willing to
fight and die for this road. The rest of my constituents feel the same
way the Indians do. In a survey conducted over the summer, 72 per
cent of those responding were opposed to the continuation of the
B.C. treaty process.
(1515)
This fall I approached the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development a number of times to encourage him to
come to Penticton to help resolve this situation. On October 23 I
wrote the minister on humanitarian grounds to tell him that a
dispute between the B.C. government and the Penticton Indians
was escalating. A roadblock was being threatened. In the letter I
asked him to go to Penticton on October 28, not as a negotiator, not
as a mediator, but as a sign of good faith to the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to try to get these people back
to the negotiating table.
I did not receive a letter or a response from the Minister of
Indian Affairs until today, November 28. He said that it would be
inappropriate for him to become involved, despite the effect this
dispute is having on the communities in my riding. He said he will
leave it to the province to negotiate with the Penticton Indian
bands.
This is pure nonsense. This is pure balderdash. The abdication of
the constitutional responsibility by this government, which is
responsible for Indians and land reserved to Indians, is totally
unacceptable.
To make matters worse, today I also find out that the Minister of
Indian Affairs this past weekend was in Kamloops, a three-hour
drive from Penticton. The minister did not even have the courtesy
to talk to the mayor of Penticton, to the Penticton Indian band, or to
any of the provincial people in the area. This again is totally
unacceptable.
I have a letter from the minister to the mayor of Penticton dated
August 21, 1995. In the letter he makes it clear that this road is still
federal property, not the property of the province or the Indian
band. So why will the minister not get involved? The Minister of
Indian Affairs is running out of excuses, and he always has them.
When there is a roadblock up, he says he will not come to
Penticton when there is a roadblock up. When the roadblock is
down, he says he will not come to Penticton when there is nothing
to talk about because there are no roadblocks. When there is a court
case going on, the Minister of Indian Affairs says he will not come
to Penticton because there is a court case going on. But when there
is no court case on the table, the minister still refuses to come to
Penticton and talk to the people and get the negotiation back on the
tracks.
16911
The only thing I have not heard from this minister is that he
cannot come to Penticton because he has to go to the parliamentary
dining room for a sandwich. I do expect I will get that excuse as
well.
The third problem with Bill C-107 is that the Reform Party
would like to make a number of amendments on behalf of their
constituents. I can bring to the table two deficiencies, which I have
previously spoken about. One example that comes to mind would
be an amendment to make the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities a fourth negotiating power alongside the federal
government, the B.C. government, and the B.C. summit. This
would provide a forum for the interests and concerns of millions of
British Columbians excluded from the current process.
With such a large proportion of B.C. territory up for grabs, the
interests and concerns of the grassroots British Columbians must
be heard and must be addressed.
Making an amendment of this nature is impossible. Bill C-107 is
based on a 1992 agreement between the federal government, the
B.C. government, and the B.C. Indians. This agreement is
absolutely cast in stone and it contains absolutely no amending
formula. All legislation that enacts the provisions of the agreement
is therefore closed to amendments as well. No amendments are
possible to the bill.
What has happened to our parliamentary democracy? As
member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, one
of my primary responsibilities is to review, debate, and if necessary
amend legislation based on the wishes of my constituents. Our
whole parliamentary process is set around these very important
functions.
Bills go through three separate readings, a committee hearing,
and a final report stage in the House of Commons to ensure that all
members of the House and members of the public have had time to
analyse legislation for faults.
(1520 )
There are a number of opportunities for members of Parliament
to bring forth amendments based on the concerns of constituents
and the Canadian public. The process is then repeated in the Senate.
This process is not perfect. Governments can refuse amendments.
This Liberal government is particularly noteworthy in this regard.
Governments can also rush legislation through the House without
adequate debate. In this regard, the Liberal government's track
record is appalling and a disgrace to the parliamentary legacy of
our forefathers.
Despite the lack of respect the Liberals have for our
parliamentary democracy, this system can be made to work.
However, with Bill C-107 there is no opportunity for members of
the House to offer amendments to this piece of legislation. I must
ask, why are we even bothering to debate this legislation? The
concerns I have for this bill are falling on deaf ears. It is shocking
that the Liberals have the gall to even present this bill in the House.
It might as well have gone straight over to the Governor General
for his approval.
Bill C-107 usurps the power of Parliament in a most
undemocratic manner. Parliament has become just a rubber stamp
for the whims of this Liberal government. The elected members of
the House are powerless to do their jobs. Every piece of legislation
must be open to amendment by elected representatives. This is the
very essence of our democracy. The alternative is a Liberal
dictatorship.
It is time for this government to restore some honour to the
House by removing this bill from the Order Paper. The three treaty
signators must go back to the negotiating table to make a new
agreement, which will allow the interests of all British Columbians
to be heard.
The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt have
instructed me to oppose Bill C-107.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The vote will be deferred until the end of
Government Orders today.
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable
certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
The Speaker: There are two motions in amendment standing on
the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-78. Motion No. 1
will be debated and voted on. Motion No. 2 will be debated and
voted on.
16912
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-78, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing line 32, on page 2, with the following:
``5.(1) Subject to this Act, the Commissioner''; and
(b) by adding after line 36, on page 2, the following:
``(2) Any decision made by the Commissioner, or by a member of the Force
on behalf of the Commissioner, under section 5, 9, 11 or 14 of this Act may be
reviewed by the Minister on application by a law enforcement agency.''
(1525 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House
today to address pressing issues on criminal justice, specifically
Bill C-78, the Witness Protection Program Act.
There is an urgent need for legislation of this nature. I can relate
to that on a personal level. For the past 22 years I have been a
police officer in the city of Calgary, serving my constituents as well
as the city in general. A good portion of that time has been devoted
to the investigation of major crime. I have gained practical insight
about how valuable witnesses are in the conduct of an
investigation.
There is no doubt in my mind that certain witnesses need to be
protected from potential harm, particularly when their testimony
relates to organized criminal activity such as drugs and alcohol,
tobacco smuggling operations, and trafficking or other conspiracies
to commit violent capital crimes.
The decision for one criminal to turn in other criminals can be a
difficult one, not only for police departments that have to handle
this individual but also for the criminal himself. If justice is to be
served, we must take strong measures to protect from any potential
harm those witnesses who step forward. They may come from one
of two categories: they may be active criminals themselves or they
may have inadvertently been caught in some criminal act in some
fashion, unknowingly.
Simply put, without the testimony of those individuals who
come forward to present their knowledge or experience of a
criminal activity or conspiracy to a police officer and eventually to
a court there would be no investigation, no charges, and ultimately
no convictions.
Violent and organized crime is on the rise in Canada. I do not
think this government understands that. No longer can politicians
live in denial of this reality. Wherever there is a dollar to be made
illegally, the criminal element will organize to beat the law.
A prime example of this organized criminal activity is
motorcycle gang violence and the resulting turf war spilling out
into the streets. We see that in Toronto and in Montreal. There is
little to do on the part of this government right now to change a lot
of that.
It is no secret in law enforcement circles that the Hell's Angels
are in an all out war with the Outlaws motorcycle gang over control
of the lucrative drug trade, prostitution, and a mass of contraband
smuggling and distribution business. The recent spate of bombings
and killings in Montreal and Toronto continues as kingpins make
money and people die. The carnage must stop if law and order is to
be restored on Canadian streets.
It is extremely unsettling that this government would not
acknowledge the new reality of organized criminal activity in our
country. Furthermore, this do-nothing government has jeopardized
the security of law-abiding citizens by burying their heads in the
sand and hoping that crime will disappear.
Consider that the budget for this witness protection program in
Canada will accommodate approximately 80 to 100 individuals in
any given year. That is very small. The budget established by the
Solicitor General of Canada, a mere $3.4 million, is fundamentally
inadequate, given the resources required to penetrate the culture of
organized crime and to properly identify and recruit criminals
willing to inform on their own kind.
(1530 )
The RCMP would intensify their efforts in this regard if more
resources were available. My chief concern is not only the witness
protection funding deficiencies, but also the lack of vision on the
part of the Solicitor General. Instead of funding special interest
lobbies who advocate criminal rights, the Solicitor General might
instruct his fat cat colleagues to consider the safety of the public for
a change.
Perhaps if the minister were to rescind his gold plated pension
and convince others in the government to do the same, the
government could then find the funds to give the RCMP the tools
they need to get the job done. But those pensions are near and dear
to the hearts of the government side.
Bill C-78 certainly is a step toward strengthening the RCMP
witness protection program as it exists presently. However, there
were some problems with the legislation before this bill came into
being, which have given rise to the amendments we are proposing
here today. The first is the absolute authority of the RCMP
commissioner in the decision making process in the following
areas: (a) to determine whether a witness should be admitted into
the program; (b) to terminate the protection of the witness if in the
opinion of the commissioner it is warranted; (c) to disclose the
identity and the location of the witness or the protectee; and (d) to
16913
make arrangements with other law enforcement agencies,
attorneys general of the provinces, or other provincial agencies.
With respect to the agreements that are struck between the
parties involved in the witness protection program, I wish to point
out that as it stands with this bill there is no resolution mechanism
or appeal procedure for agencies, agents, and protectees to air their
concerns beyond the commissioner. It is a crucial that a resolution
mechanism become part of this bill. I know personally of
disagreements arising between law enforcement agencies and the
RCMP, which ended abruptly upon the decision of the
commissioner. Take for example the concerns expressed by two
witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, one
of whom was a serving police officer representing dozens of police
agencies and officers across the country.
As it stands, the individual witness under protection is restricted
in taking up matters of concern regarding the conditions of
protection to the public complaints commission but not to the
Solicitor General's office. I submit that this process is totally
inadequate.
Most police departments have an informant control officer who
regulates the handling of an informant for the appropriate
department. This type of arrangement allows a process of appeal in
the event of an unsatisfactory decision on the part of the
commissioner and would be available to agreements between
individual police agencies and the RCMP via the informant control
officer. I submit that this provision would make the program much
more effective, thus enabling agencies greater flexibility in their
investigation of organized crime.
I have had an opportunity to visit various parts of this country
and specifically this province. Organized crime has a firm grip in
certain areas, and the police agencies can do little or nothing about
it. One such area several Reform MPs visited was the area of
Cornwall and the reserve of Akwesasne, where there is organized
smuggling and it is being distributed across this country.
A lot of people do not understand the effects of drug smuggling
as it applies to their own lives and their own communities. Drugs
that come through areas such as the Akwesasne reserve at Cornwall
and are distributed across the country do make it onto the streets of
our communities and into our schools.
I would strongly urge members to support this particular bill,
which brings forth more accountability to deal with crime of that
nature.
That is not the only area in the country that is subject to the will
of the organized criminal. Until we get some real firm legislation
and a strong commitment on the part of the Solicitor General to
increase the funding in this particular area to combat the organized
syndicate, we will not gain any headway and the streets of our
country will not be any safer.
(1535)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
heard my colleague talking about his motion and I cannot help
comparing it to a remake of an old B class movie.
What are we debating exactly? A bill and amendment motions
which, after all, will not prevent anybody from sleeping soundly
tonight. As a matter of fact, Bill C-78 is so boring that I find it
surprising that there are still some hon. members around still
awake.
The solicitor general has invented nothing. He simply follows
the international trend. Other countries have protection programs
for witnesses. Programs in place in the United States, in the United
Kingdom and in Australia have inspired the solicitor general for his
Bill C-78. As usual, Canada is trailing behind other countries. Yet
again it has failed to show leadership or innovation.
What is the purpose of Bill C-78? It proposes the establishment
of a program operated under the commissioner of the RCMP for the
protection of witnesses and informants as well as related or
associated persons who might be at risk. The protection may
include relocating the person, providing him or her with some
accommodation, a new identity, as well as counselling and the
necessary financial support for that purpose.
Motion No. 1 moved by the member for Calgary Northeast is by
far the best suggestion made by the Reform Party in a long time.
Unfortunately it is not new, since it had already been moved by the
Bloc Quebecois during clause by clause study of Bill C-78 by the
justice committee. It is well disguised but the principle remains the
same.
I had proposed to amend the Witness Protection Program Act so
as to prevent the Commissioner of the RCMP from being the judge,
jury and sole executioner of the program proposed by the Solicitor
General.
The idea behind our main and related motions was that the
Solicitor General was to be entirely responsible for the program.
This is one the numerous problems with Bill C-78. This legislation
provides that the program will be managed by the Commissioner of
the RCMP, the same commissioner who determines the
beneficiaries and the amount of protection they will be given.
How are the authorities who operate the program accountable for
their actions? The RCMP both manages the program and is
responsible for it. The RCMP is accountable unto itself. It is the
judge, the jury and the executioner at the same time.
Not only that, the government wanted to give the commissioner
judicial privilege. Fortunately, because of our protests in
committee, it did not.
16914
I tried to understand, but to no avail; the explanations given by
the Office of the Solicitor General were as nebulous as they were
convoluted.
As an aside, I wish to point out the deplorable effort made by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General to clarify the
question for the justice committee. When he appeared before the
committee, the parliamentary secretary did not know how to
answer my questions, especially those concerning the problem of
codefendents. Unable to answer my questions, the member
mumbled a few words before letting his officials do the work for
him. The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
appeared to be out of his depth.
The problem with an indictment dealing with two or more
defendents is that the Witness Protection Program can be used as a
negotiation tool.
Let us take the case of two accomplices charged with the same
murder. If we assume that proof beyond doubt is readily adduced,
but lacks a key element to bring about a guilty verdict, the
testimony of one of the accomplices could prove crucial to the
proceedings. The Crown cannot afford to weaken the credibility of
the judicial system if neither of the defendents can be compelled to
testify against the other one.
The Crown's alternative is to offer one of the accomplices a
reduced sentence or other benefits, in exchange for pleading guilty
to a lesser charge.
The other benefits which can be offered, in addition to a reduced
sentence, may vary from one judicial district to another.
(1540)
They generally deal with the length of the sentence and the
conditions of confinement. In return, the first accomplice will
testify against the second one, and instead of two acquittals, the
Crown will gloat it got two guilty verdicts. But there is a catch.
With Bill C-78, the Crown will have another present to offer
criminals in return for their co-operation.
Both individuals in my previous example are, I believe, equally
morally reprehensible. By offering the protection program to one
of them, but not to both, our judicial system will once again apply
double standards. A murderer could be protected by the program
while the accomplice he helped convict will languish in prison. The
public will not soon forget the Karla Homolka case.
To get back to the motion of the member for Calgary Northeast, I
remind the House that it is based, more or less, on principles
presented in committee by the Bloc Quebecois. I submitted several
amendments myself, several of them specifying that the solicitor
himself should be responsible for the witness protection program
and not the commissioner of the RCMP.
The Reform Party did not support any of these amendments and
today, they have the gall to make believe it is their idea. Since
imitation is a form of flattery, I thank my colleagues of the third
party. In spite of the Reform Party's opportunism, especially that of
the member for Calgary Northeast, I will vote for motion No. 1.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the
member for Saint-Hubert that the bill as tabled by the solicitor
general stresses the importance of guaranteeing sources and
witnesses the best possible protection.
Among the changes that should strengthen the program, we find
a clear definition of the eligibility criteria for witnesses and a more
transparent program management structure that would require
greater accountability from all those in charge. I want to repeat, to
be sure the situation is quite clear, that we will not support the
Reform Party motion.
[English]
I would like to add that pursuant to the RCMP Act, the Solicitor
General can provide advice to the commissioner of the RCMP
concerning matters of policy. The commissioner or his delegate is
in the best position to make these decisions concerning the day to
day running of the witness protection program.
Since 1984 the RCMP have provided protection to witnesses to
such a high professional level that there has never been an
individual killed or seriously injured while under their protection.
As a result of the bill, this highly effective program will operate
in a much more open and transparent manner, as I have just
indicated to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, thereby ensuring
that all participants are aware of both their rights and their
obligations under this program.
In conclusion, we will not be supporting this motion.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East, or West.
You look like the fellow from Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
only the beard. Regional disparities: I have no hair and he has
some.
Speaking to Bill C-78, the witness protection program, I must
say that I support this bill. It is nice to finally get the government to
move in a direction where even the victims in this country are
getting some support from the government. That is not much to be
said for a lot of the other crime bills in this country.
By the way, this bill originally came up in a private member's
bill from one of the Liberal backbenchers. I really think that
because an individual in the House was pushing it the government
decided to move ahead and try to take the glory. I want to give
16915
some appreciation to that Liberal member who initially brought up
the private member's bill that was dropped.
(1545)
Currently we are looking at several amendments, which I will
get to in a moment. There is no national bill for witness protection.
The RCMP and local forces may have their own, but very secretive,
with limited access to information as far as what the contents are.
Again, victims have little or no knowledge of what these bills are
and what rights they have. It is high time they did.
We know little of the programs. In fact, when we attempt to get
information in this country about witness protection there is very
little acknowledgement from the RCMP or any other policing
agency of what is available.
One of the Liberal members who usually talks while I am
speaking says there is a reason for that, but the fact is if this were
clear legislation then victims would have a little more knowledge
of what is due to them. It is high time this government got serious
about letting victims know what is available to them, without
disregarding their interests.
In this country we have seen provincial courts criticize the
RCMP for their witness protection. We have seen courts in this
country order protection for individuals. There was one very large
drug seizure case where the individuals had to go to court to get
protection. That should not be necessary in this country. It should
be made available to them, not through order and mandate in the
courts.
In 1993-94 we see that we spent $3.5 million on witness
protection. I think that is very light. If we are going to assist in
trying to prevent crime, or at least trying to rectify criminal
situations and incarcerate people for wrongdoing, we have to put
more support on the end of witness protection. This bill does that.
If the government needs money, which they do, they can take
some of it from the fines and the other revenues they get from other
policing activities, so it would be possible to finance some of this
business. As I understand it, the RCMP welcomes this, which is
good.
There are two amendments we are seeking in the bill. With the
inclusion of the first amendment there would be one more level of
appeal, not only for the protectee, who can now appeal his case to
the public complaints commissioner, but also for police agencies,
which for the first time are granted a level of appeal beyond the
commissioner or the minister.
As you know, there is an absolute authority granted to the
commissioner, as my colleague from Calgary has said, but it bears
repeating. This is an important aspect of the bill. It has to be
changed.
The commissioner has exclusive authority in the following four
areas: to determine whether a witness should be admitted to the
program; to terminate the protection of a witness if the
commissioner believes it to be warranted; to disclose the identity
and location of the witness or protected person; and to make
agreements with other law enforcement agencies or attorneys
general. With our amendment to clause 5, we allow some further
avenues for the individuals in the program.
Certain witnesses need protection. Unfortunately, some of the
witnesses who need protection in this country are also criminals.
However, if we are going to get at the root of the problem in this
country, we have to afford even those individuals some protection
if they come forward in particular cases such as cocaine smuggling
and so on and so forth. While I dislike protecting criminals, in this
particular case I believe it is necessary. I believe it should also
apply to smugglers.
(1550)
Witnesses receive the same protection as the criminal if they
come forward. Unfortunately, victims know very little of their
rights. They know very little of what is afforded them in terms of a
bill such as this or in terms of any other legislation under criminal
law. Victims should be read their rights. Their rights should be
publicized, including rights such as being informed of the details of
the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain; being informed of
their rights at every stage of a process, including those rights
involving compensation from the offender; and being informed of
the offender's status throughout the whole criminal justice process.
If we are going to move in the direction of affording victims
their rights in these areas, then victims must be afforded the
knowledge of what is in a witness protection act.
We know that other countries have witness protection acts, such
as Australia and the United States. There are problems with the
American act. The advocacy groups that are responsible for witness
protection make it very difficult for the crown to have access to a
witness. We must be careful when we are legislating laws for
individuals who come forward to put their lives on the line. We
must guard them, but we cannot overprotect them and prevent
justice from taking its proper course.
I will be voting for this bill and the two amendments. If the two
amendments are not accepted I will still support the legislation. It
is necessary to move the government in a direction on behalf of
people who are trying to help curb crime in Canada.
>
16916
16916
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the
parties and I think you will find consent for the following motion.
I move:
[Translation]
That the Standing Committee of Finance be empowered to televise its
proceedings the week of November 27th, 1995 from the cities of Calgary,
Fredericton, Montréal and Vancouver pursuant, to the extent possible, to the
principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the House of Commons.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
16916
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to provide
for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain
persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon. I would like
to begin by doing something I rarely do, which is to compliment
the members of the third party for their support of the legislation.
Mr. Thompson: Do not get carried away.
Mr. Hermanson: We are just being friendly.
Ms. Clancy: I want to particularly commend the hon. member
for Fraser Valley East.
I am astounded that they even heckle me when I am saying nice
things about them. It is probably because they are in shock.
This legislation has been a necessity for some time. The witness
protection plan in the past has basically operated under principles
and guidelines laid down in RCMP internal policies. There is no
question that this kind of activity is much better and much more in
the public interest when it is covered by legislation passed in the
House.
(1555)
It is tragic to think that we are debating this bill today in the
aftermath of yet another tragic occurrence in our country. I am
speaking of the shooting yesterday in Cartierville, Quebec, of the
young female police officer who was shot in a community police
station. She was the mother of three children and had just returned
from maternity leave. The youngest of her three children was only
eight months old.
I do not know if there have been more developments today. Last
night I watched the news along with our colleague, the member for
Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who is very concerned about this
tragedy that has taken place in her riding. There are no known
witnesses. This happened in a busy mall, but we all know that
things can happen that people may not see or hear.
With a program like this and with the attendant publicity the
passage of this bill will create, we can hope people will come
forward, even if they are frightened, as many people are, to get
involved with the criminal justice system.
Our colleagues from the other party have raised some legitimate
points, which they need to have answered. Even with the legislation
replacing a mere policy program, it is extremely important, if this
program is to work, that access to the information must be very,
very limited.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East talked about victims and
the need for victims to know certain things. I believe the victims
can well know about the process, about what the policy is and about
what the legislation is, but that could be part of a government
information program or it could be part of public education that
victims rights groups would get involved with. However, in the
actual day to day administration of the program itself, common
sense must rule. Only a very small number of people can or should
be apprised of who exactly is in the program, where these people
are located, and all of the attendant facts necessary to make sure the
program works.
I take this rare occasion of amity between the government and
those on the other side to explain that it is not a question of wanting
to deny victims their rights to know; it is much more a question, as
is the whole basis of this legislation, that we want to ensure that
witnesses come forward and give their testimony in a court of law,
which will lead to the conviction of those who have committed
offences and will add to the deterrent factor. In other words, it is to
ensure that this legislation takes its place as part of the
underpinning of our system of justice. This is a very sensitive area.
It may well be the most sensitive area in the entire federal realm of
legislating vis-à-vis the justice system.
Part of the difficulty, as with many of our developments in the
criminal law in this place, is that a lot of people in the public at
large garner their information about programs such as this from
popular television programs. What happens on popular television
16917
programs and what happens within our various police departments,
including the RCMP, is not necessarily the same.
(1600 )
Consequently, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley brought up,
there is a lot of misinformation out there. People want to know
more. It is the duty of members of Parliament and of government
without being patronizing, without attempting to block the public's
right to know to get out the message that some things being
publicized would be counterproductive to the system of justice and
to the system of government.
There is no question that secrecy in many cases is the enemy of
democracy, but there are exceptions to that rule. In something such
as the witness protection program, we all have to agree that a level
of confidentiality in the protection of those witnesses who are
doing their very best to help in the protection of the public is
absolutely essential.
I do not have a very long time to address this matter but I also
wanted to speak briefly on the question of cost in this legislation.
Again, what we have here is very much of a bargain, particularly
within the normal costs of federal government programs. At the
moment, the cost of the RCMP source witness protection program
is $3.4 million. No additional costs are expected as a result of
introducing this legislation. The average cost per case is $30,000
and in actuality 60 per cent of cases cost less than $20,000.
It is difficult to say how many persons may be in the program at
any given time because the numbers do change daily. They change
with the expiration of protection agreements and the elimination of
threats to safety. At any given time, there are 80 to 100 people,
including family members, in the program.
We all realize how important a program such as this is to our
justice system. I want to compliment our colleagues in the third
party who are supporting this, or in the words of their whip, any of
those who wish to support it. We appreciate that support.
This country's criminal justice system is one that works very
well. It is the subject of a lot of brick bats, a lot of criticism from
time to time but in general as a law professor of mine used to say,
under the universal theory of rough justice, in 80 per cent of the
cases things work out.
The witness protection program may give us a betterment of
those odds. Certainly all of us on this side of the House, as I know
all on the other side, are committed to a criminal justice system
which is fair and which protects Canadian society at large. This
legislation will be a great help in ensuring that end. I support it very
strongly. I congratulate members of the third party for their support
as well.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address the amendments to Bill C-78. This bill came before the
justice committee. As a member of the justice committee I heard
witnesses address their concerns about the bill.
One of the concerns I want to address and which this amendment
focuses upon is the enormous degree of vulnerability of many of
the witnesses who come under the 14 or 15 witness protection
programs across Canada. We heard testimony indicating that these
witnesses are very vulnerable. For some of them, their lives are in
danger. They have received threats yet they want to do the right
thing and provide the evidence to ensure that the justice system
works and that those who are involved in organized crime and in
criminal activities are brought to justice. Some of the testimony we
heard from the witnesses raises serious concerns in this area.
(1605)
I have the brief submitted by Mr. Barry Swadron, a lawyer who
acts on behalf of witnesses who have challenged the program
because of the violation of what they believe to be the agreement
the police forces have made with them. He states: ``By the time
protected witnesses get to lawyers, it is often to undo harm that
could have been avoided had they consulted lawyers earlier. Police
officers often discourage about to be protected witnesses from
retaining lawyers with respect to proposed arrangements. A
number of protected witnesses have been advised by police
authorities that a lawyer will not be able to help them. We have
been told that police officers pressure witnesses not to consult a
lawyer. Indeed the negative pressure has on occasion been
prohibition''. He concludes by stating that this is reprehensible.
The committee heard testimony on this bill indicating that the
agreements witnesses enter into in many cases are not upheld. They
are not provided with the protection. They are not provided with
the benefits they need. This new bill was scrutinized by those
witnesses to determine whether or not there were checks and
balances to ensure that they had recourse should their handlers not
fulfil their end of the agreement.
Mr. Swadron goes on to say in his brief: ``Swadron Associates
have received dozens of telephone calls from across Canada and
beyond from the types of persons described above''. He is talking
about the protectees. ``They are of both sexes, various ages and
from many walks of life. A substantial number have become our
clients. We advise some. We negotiate on behalf of others.
Sometimes we must resort to litigation where police forces are
sued in order to obtain the contractual benefits that these protectees
have entered into''.
16918
He also states: ``You would be amazed at the hardships faced
by these individuals. They experience the worst type of cultural
shock. Not only are they forced to forge new beginnings in strange
surroundings, but also to erase their much more familiar past. The
degree of assistance they receive from police authorities varies
significantly. Every aspect of daily living that you and I take for
granted has for them been inexorably altered. Even attending to
basic needs such as arranging accommodation, obtaining health
care, getting a driver's licence, opening a bank account, or placing
children in schools becomes insurmountable''.
When we examined this bill we examined it from many
perspectives and points of view. I was most concerned about
whether or not the bill provided adequate checks and balances for
the very sensitive and vulnerable position many of these witnesses
find themselves in.
As I said earlier, many have been threatened. They fear for their
lives and those of their spouses and children. They are very
susceptible to the manipulation of the handler. Unless the handler is
very conscious about the duties and responsibilities that they must
discharge to the protectee under the agreement, often the
conditions of the agreement are violated. Then the protectee is left
in an extremely vulnerable position where they either have to seek
their own remedies or seek the support of legal counsel if they wish
to pursue what they consider to be benefits that have been withheld
from them. As Mr. Swadron says, it creates an enormous problem
within the witness protection programs.
Mr. Swadron referred to Bill C-78 as a police protection program
rather than a witness protection program. He centred on what was
at that time clause 19 of the bill. Clause 19 has been withdrawn and
was done so by the government. Of course, we on this side of the
House support that withdrawal because what clause 19 provided for
was the protection of the RCMP. If the RCMP could simply raise
the defence of having acted in good faith, then no protectee could
sue the government successfully. That was withdrawn because of
some of the concerns which were raised by witnesses and some of
the concerns I am raising today and which the amendment to which
we are speaking addresses to some extent.
(1610)
Clause 19 was withdrawn so that if there are areas of culpability
in terms of discharging the requirements of any agreement, there is
no legal barrier that would interfere with the right of the protectee
to seek litigation in order to establish what they consider to be
benefits from the agreement.
I am very much in favour of the withdrawal of clause 19 which is
no longer in the bill. However, I also have great concern about
some of the testimony provided. The commissioner alone has
absolute power and authority to determine not only what witnesses
enter into the program but the conditions of the agreement as well
as the right to rule on any concern a protectee might have.
I support this amendment. It would provide the means whereby
individuals can address the minister who can then be held
accountable by the elected representatives of the House as to how
these contracts are administered. I support the amendment and I
will be supporting the bill.
I hope all hon. members will consider the testimony we have
heard before the committee and the concerns I have raised with
regard to the extreme vulnerability of the witnesses. We must
ensure there are reasonable checks and balances within the
legislation to protect them from abuse.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76 a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That bill C-78, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 17, on page 8,
the following:
``(3) Every report prepared under subsection (1) shall, after it is laid before
each House of Parliament under subsection (2), be referred to the committee of
Parliament that normally considers matters relating to justice and legal affairs.
(4) Every report prepared under subsection (1) shall include, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following information:
(a) the number of agreements entered into and the law enforcement agencies
involved;
(b) the number of applications made;
(c) the average amount spent on each agreement entered into;
(d) the number of agreements terminated and the reasons for their termination;
16919
(e) the number and types of offences committed by protectees;
(f) the total amount of all money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund spent
in relation to the operation of this Act;
(g) co-operative measures between the Force and other law enforcement
agencies with respect to witness protection; and
(h) the number of foreign witnesses admitted to Canada and the number of
Canadian witnesses relocated outside Canada.''
He said: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how little the
government side knows about what is happening in the world of
crime. In spite of the fact that we see all these documents and
newspaper clippings and initiatives which have been started by the
government, it never seems to want to really address the problem.
One of the headings in a newspaper not too long ago was: ``Guns
replace cigarette smuggling''. Who does the smuggling? Who
smuggles guns, cigarettes, booze, and the like? No one but an
organized criminal group. They are in it to make money.
(1615)
As I mentioned before, several Reform MPs, and I know Liberal
members went to the same area, went to the Akwesasne reserve and
the city of Cornwall. It is interesting to note that the police task
force initiated to combat smuggling is afraid to patrol the river in
the evening for fear of being shot at by organized criminals who
have literally taken over control of the river to move their
contraband. That takes place mostly during the evening and the
night. They are organized criminals who need special treatment.
When we talk about protecting witnesses, witnesses from this area
are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisal. They know the
police cannot protect them adequately.
This is happening right across the country. Ipperwash is another
place. The police are reluctant to properly police the area of
Bosanquet and Ipperwash because it may end up having a
confrontation with an organized criminal group. We can have all
the witness protection programs we want, but if there are not
adequate funds to deal with it, it is another matter. We will not be
protecting witnesses.
That is happening in the country, not just in Ipperwash and not
just in Cornwall. We can look at other areas including metropolitan
areas such as Toronto and Vancouver. Organized criminal groups
have control in many areas, whether or not we want to admit it. It
will take extraordinary means to combat it. Power is given to the
police including under the witness protection act as mentioned
here. Funds must be available to take care of it, if the government is
serious about it. I do not believe the Liberal government is serious
about fighting crime at all. It would do something more about it if
that were the case.
People are living in fear in their own homes. This is what
combating crime the Liberal way has done. They have to bar
themselves in their own homes to protect themselves from
criminals who have control of the streets. That is not the way to
fight crime. When it is in an organized fashion even this legislation
falls short because many police departments have their hands tied.
My second amendment deals with the submission of the annual
report on the operation of the program as it applies to the preceding
year. There are enabling sections in the legislation to have the
report placed before Parliament. However we are without any
provision for having the report sent before the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs to be reviewed. It does not mention the
content of what the report should include. I believe the report is
ridiculous. If there is a budget of $3.4 million as the government
has so slated, there should be some content in the report and some
subsection to specify precisely how the money is to be spent.
Many times members have stood on both sides of the House and
talked about accountability. It is a nice word, but it seems as though
a regulation has to be in place before somebody actually becomes
accountable. Members on that side who were in opposition years
before railed time and time against the government of the day on
accountability and responsibility. All this amendment is suggesting
is that there made more accountability.
Mr. Thompson: There is the problem.
Mr. Hanger: That is right. It is a question of accountability. I
agree with my colleague that they do not want to be accountable.
I present an opportunity to members of the House to learn from
past mistakes to make sure the bill does not miss its mark. The
following information should be included in the annual report.
First is the number of agreements entered into and the law
enforcement agencies involved. This is important, given the fact
that there have been disputes in the past between law enforcement
agencies and the RCMP in this area before the legislation was
thought of.
(1620)
Second is the number of applications made. Is everyone who
makes an application accepted or are some turned down? That
information should be made available.
Third is the average amount spent on each arrangement. There is
a budget of $3.4 million. Approximately 100 protectees were in the
program in the past. Will that continue? Will the number rise?
When we look at organized crime as it is manifesting itself in the
country, it will undoubtedly rise. Where will the extra money come
from to protect the individuals who apply?
Fourth is the number of agreements terminated and the reasons
for termination. This has been a dispute in other agencies or other
police departments. The commissioner has the final say on who
16920
comes into the program and who does not. That information
should be made available to the committee.
Fifth is the number and types of offences committed.
Sixth is the total amount of money spent from the consolidated
revenue fund.
Seventh is the co-operative measures taken between the RCMP
and other law enforcement agencies with respect to witness
protection. Many joint force operations are taking place in the
country. There are so many joint forces that it is impossible for one
agency to effectively combat organized criminal activity without
joining forces with others. This information should be made
available. It is the other law enforcement agencies that often have
the objections if the RCMP commissioner is the only one who has
the final say on the agreements.
The last point is the number of foreign witnesses admitted to
Canada who have become part of the protection program and the
number of Canadian witnesses relocated outside Canada.
None of these proposed amendments is unreasonable. Upon
review by the hon. members of the House I am confident they will
see that the amendments are designed to bring about more
accountability in the bill and the decision making process of the
commissioner.
Given the rise of organized and violent crime the government
should be doing everything in its power to ensure that the citizens
of Canada are protected to the fullest. I urge all members to vote
not based upon partisan considerations but rather on the best
interests of their constituents and in favour of the amendments
presented.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
second motion of the Reform member stresses other shortcomings
of Bill C-78.
First of all, I would like to say that Motion No. 2, standing in the
name of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, is redundant in the
first subsection. I will explain. The hon. member would like the
annual report required under clause 16 of the bill to be transmitted
to the Solicitor General and either tabled in the House or referred to
the justice committee. However, according to Standing Order
32(5):
Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an
Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred
to the appropriate standing committee.
This means that once the report of the commissioner has been
tabled in the House it is immediately referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice. The member of the Reform Party does not
have to worry. It is already in the Standing Orders and therefore
subsection (3) is superfluous.
Subsection (4) tries to define much more precisely the work of
the commissioner. He would have to give a lot of details in the
report that he must submit to the Solicitor General every year.
Clause 16 of Bill C-78 requires that the commissioner submit a
report on the operation of the program to the minister, who in this
case is the Solicitor General. The clause is quite vague as to the
content of this report.
(1625)
All the bill says, and I quote, is: ``a report on the operation of the
Program during the preceding fiscal year''.
Things cannot be put more succintly. The bill does not provide
any satisfactory answer to many questions that I think are obvious.
What the government has given us is nothing more than
Canada-wide legislation that will be administered by the RCMP
and to which provincial and local police authorities will have to
adapt.
Today, we still do not know how co-ordination between the
different police groups will be ensured, because Bill C-78 is silent
on this issue. In fact, the silence of this bill is most certainly its
main characteristic. What concerns me is not what is in the bill, but
what was omitted.
A series of questions remain unanswered. Once the bill has been
passed by Parliament, how long will it take to put the program in
place? What budget will be allocated to the program? How does
this amount compare with the current budget? How many people
are expected to benefit from the program each year?
It is all fine and well to want to protect informers, but we should
know how much this is going to cost. Indeed, we do not even know
which envelope the Solicitor General intends to take the money
from.
As we know, the witness protection program will be a kind of
contract between the RCMP and the protectee. Let us examine the
respective rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement.
The commissioner's obligations come down to almost nothing.
As indicated in clause 8 of the bill, he only has:
-to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to provide the protection
referred to in the agreement to the protectee;
That is all. So, I hope that he will take the necessary steps. But
what kind of steps are they? Only the commissioner will know
because, once again, the bill does not explain what these steps will
be. Thus, these ``reasonable'' steps are the only obligations the
commissioner will have to fulfill.
16921
As for the protectee, he must first provide the information or
evidence required by the inquiry or the prosecution that has made
the protection necessary. Second, the protectee must keep his or her
hands clean, that is refrain from activities that constitute an
offence against an act of Parliament. Shoplifting could be in this
category.
Last, he or she must accept and give effect to reasonable requests
and directions made by the commissioner in relation to the
protection provided to the protectee and the obligations of the
protectee.
If the protectee deliberately contravenes his or her obligations
under the protection agreement, the commissioner may terminate
the protection, provided that the protectee can make
representations concerning the matter.
This bill puts things very succintly. I suppose that to correct
these flaws, some practices are going to evolve allowing the RCMP
to completely evade the power of supervision of Parliament.
This is the danger with poor legislation. Police forces create their
own rules without any respect for the law. In fact, they are the ones
who actually write it as circumstances change. I ask you this: When
are we going to see the federal government assume its
responsibilities and legislate in a detailed and precise fashion so
that those who must enforce these laws know how to proceed?
Since the motion of the member from Calgary Northeast tries to
fill some gaps, we are going to support it.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even if the hon. member
opposite raised several issues, we will not support the motion as
tabled by the third party.
But the hon. member still raised some points. We should remind
Canadians, in particular the hon. members opposite, that the
commissioner may terminate the protection provided if, in his
opinion, the witness provided false information, omitted to provide
important information, or deliberately failed to meet his
obligations under the protection agreement.
(1630)
I think that the hon. member did point out some issues, such as
the cost of producing an annual report. Normally, information
would be provided on costs and on the number of participants in the
program. Of course, certain criteria will established.
[English]
In reference to the member of the third party, we on the
government side will not be supporting this motion. However, it is
not necessary to enact a provision requiring the annual report to be
referred to the justice and legal affairs committee.
Reports which concern matters relating to justice and legal
affairs are presently referred to the justice and legal affairs
committee.
With respect to the motion which specifies the content of the
annual report to be tabled by the solicitor general before
Parliament, many pieces of legislation require the tabling of an
annual report without listing the specific information the report
should contain.
The list of items provided in this motion is extremely helpful and
will be referred to the commission for its consideration. It is
important that care be taken to ensure that the information included
in the report does not inadvertently compromise any witnesses in
the program or the program as a whole.
Members of the justice and legal affairs committee will have the
opportunity to review and assess the first report to ensure that the
appropriate balance has been achieved in terms of informing the
public without compromising the integrity of the program.
Therefore we will not be supporting the opposition motion
presented to us.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a a new
member of the House, having been here only two years, it is always
discouraging and dismaying for me to see not only in the House but
in committee when the minister, through his parliamentary
secretary or through his own directive, indicates what he wants the
committee or the House to do, and everyone else on the
government side simply follows suit regardless of the impression
the amendments make on their own common sense.
It is dismaying for me to hear that the government is not going to
support this amendment regardless of the common sense that it
makes, regardless of the protection that it might provide in terms of
checks and balances for the witnesses who are dragged into this
system because of circumstances, perhaps in many cases beyond
their own control. The government side is not prepared to honour
the checks and balances that would protect the vulnerability of the
witness entering into this program.
Let me tell members how vulnerable those people are. They
come into the program because their life or the lives of their
children may be threatened. They know that unless they abide by
the wishes of their handler he or she can have an enormous impact
on pulling the protection program out from under them.
What we are asking for in this amendment is simply a degree of
accountability on the part of the commissioner who will be
administering the program. Having served 14 years with the
Mounted Police I know the commissioner never knows anything
about things that often happen at the grassroots level because the
only channel of communication he has are the reports he reads
from people who prepare the reports at the grassroots level.
16922
Consequently there are many things that could happen and are
happening to these witnesses according to the testimony we have
heard which places them at enormous vulnerability, where their
grievances are not met and where they have absolutely no recourse.
They ought to have a reasonable degree of recourse through their
elected representatives who would review the program on an
annual basis with these requirements. What does the commissioner
have to provide for in his report to the solicitor general? What is it?
Practically anything he wants unless there are some type of
guidelines, the type of guidelines provided for in this amendment.
We do not want to know the names or the places of residents or
any other factor that would place the witnesses in a vulnerable
situation. Absolutely not. That is not the purpose of this
amendment. What we want to do is have a degree of accountability
in greater depth than a casual report from the commissioner. We
see these kinds of reports. They have been submitted to the
minister, whether from SIRC or some other statutory requirement.
(1635)
They simply say what they want to say and withhold whatever
information they want simply because there is no statutory
requirement to provide that information. This amendment would
go a long way to establish a reasonable check and balance on a
program that involves innocent people and places them in very
vulnerable situations. I support this amendment and I will be
supporting the bill.
When we create these sorts of bills we ought to ensure citizens
are provided the greatest degree of protection possible and not
those who administer the program.
I urge all members to seriously consider and support this bill. It
provides the reasonable checks and balances this kind of program
ought to have.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
76, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Following an intervention of the chief government whip, the
vote will be deferred to the end of Government Orders today.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): moved that Bill C-109, an act to amend the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I talk specifically about the
amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, Bill C-109, it is important to
go back and have a little history on how the bill evolved.
(1640 )
I hope later today we will hear from our colleague, the member
for Dartmouth, because in opposition he was our critic for
consumer and corporate affairs and had a tremendous hand in
crafting this bill on bankruptcy and insolvency. It is a complex bill
because it includes a lot of provisions affecting the bankruptcy and
insolvency area.
This bill contains almost 100 pages and has provisions affecting
procedures in consumer bankruptcies and proposals, landlord
compensation where leases are disclaimed in reorganizations,
liability of directors and stays of action against directors during
reorganizations. It includes the whole area of protection of trustees
and receivers against personal liability for pre-appointment
environmental damage and other claims, workmen's compensation
board claims, the dischargeability of student loan debts.
Also included are the licensing and regulation of trustees and
their liability in relation to other activities related to business, the
requirement that bankrupts pay part of their income to the
bankruptcy estate, securities, firm bankruptcies and international
solvencies, and so on.
I have gone over those issues because it is important to
understand this is a very complex area but vital in terms of making
sure the environment is good for creating opportunities for
business men and women to get involved in risk taking. It is also
very important that we deal with the issue in terms of protecting the
consumer.
The amendments we are putting forward today are a further
striking of a balance between rehabilitation and obligation. In other
words, the emphasis in the bill is to make sure we do everything we
can to help preserve jobs and the businesses that create them.
Rather than automatically having a situation in which people lose
16923
their businesses, we create an environment in which we can
actually help them through and that before they become bankrupt
we take every measure possible to help them through difficult
circumstances.
The amendments to the bill we are dealing with today are further
refinements of the bill from 1992. This was a commitment we
made. When the last bill was approved in 1992 we said that three
years later we would have a review. We have listened to people
from across Canada, from business groups and consumer groups.
These amendments reflect the recommendations the study group
proposed.
I will deal specifically with the amendments: ``The maintenance
of income support benefits, such as GST tax refunds, that allow
families and individuals to meet their essential needs''. Under the
proposed legislation these benefits are exempt from seizures
unintended to reimburse creditors.
``The priority status for provable claims by divorced or separated
spouses for spousal or child support payments''. Previously
spouses were not considered creditors.
``Debtors to meet their obligations where a sexual or physical
assault charge resulted in penalties''. The amendments make these
judgements non-dischargeable and allow support for assault
victims to discontinue.
(1645 )
The bill also has a further refinement in the area of student loans,
tighter control of premature student bankruptcies intended to
discharge responsibility from student loans. In recent years the
federal government has lost over $60 million per year in loan
defaults as a result of early student claims of bankruptcy. The
proposed changes will make student loan debts non-dischargeable
for 24 months following termination of studies, recognizing that
some students experience real economic difficulties. The
amendments complement a variety of repayment options during
that 24-month period including no repayment in situations of
hardship.
Also individuals can make recompense from a portion of surplus
income deemed to exceed a minimum cost of living. This provision
provides for a regularized repayment schedule and encourages
bankrupt individuals to make their best effort to reimburse their
creditors.
Under directives from the superintendent of bankruptcy, trustees
will have powers to establish rates and terms of a conditional
discharge. This will save court costs and will allow for a
personalized arrangement between a bankrupt individual and his or
her creditors. Also spouses can make a joint consumer proposal
where their financial relationship requires a co-ordinated
repayment effort. These new provisions streamline the proceedings
and save costs.
There is more time for creditors to review debtor proposals and a
quicker response from the courts to those proposals. The old
waiting period for creditors would be extended from 30 days to 45
days. The courts would have 15 days to indicate whether the
proposal had been accepted as opposed to the current response
period of 30 days. Otherwise the proposal would be deemed to be
accepted. There is also a provision for counselling for persons
related to the debtor.
That essentially represents the essence of those amendments in
terms of the individual. We also have further amendments relating
to businesses, farmers and fishermen. We feel confident that the
House will support all of these amendments, certainly because of
the participation of the advisory group.
Over the next little while the House has to deal with the whole
issue of creating confidence in the marketplace. I personally do not
like dealing with the whole issue of bankruptcy and insolvency.
Even though the bill is there to protect and to make sure that people
are treated fairly, I believe there is a very high level of anxiety in
the marketplace right now. One of the things we must do as
members of Parliament is make sure that we somehow work at
creating an environment where the confidence level in the business
community is returned to what it used to be.
It is only when people have confidence in the marketplace and
confidence in themselves that they take the risk that generates
production and job opportunity which eventually creates a
condition in the marketplace where bankruptcies are minimized. In
the last couple of years, even though bankruptcies have really
remained constant, the bottom line is that we still had too many.
The quarterly releases on the number of bankruptcies tend to send a
shiver right through the marketplace. It is a domino effect. It has an
adverse impact on the confidence of the entire marketplace.
It is hoped this bill will assist in giving individuals and business
men and women every opportunity to avoid or get around having to
go through that dreaded experience of bankruptcy and insolvency.
(1650 )
I hope we can get the support of all members for the speedy
passage of this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood about Bill C-109. This is a bill whose
full-blown title is an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income
Tax Act.
It is quite bulky, as my hon. colleague pointed out, and it is
difficult to read, which is understandable since the 1992 reform had
been 13 years in the making, that is to say from 1979 to 1992. The
government finally tabled the famous bill that had taken all that
16924
time to prepare, the act of 1992 that Bill C-109 now seeks to make
substantial changes to.
I agree with the hon. member opposite when he says that
bankruptcy is a problem, a complex problem. A balance must be
struck between the responsibility all of us have to pay what we owe
and the hope to be able, even when deep in debt, to have a decent
living and perhaps manage to pull through, whether we have put
ourselves in this difficult financial situation or it is the result of a
business venture we started that did not do too well.
According to the minister's release, this bill contains more than
70 amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. In the little time we have
had to examine this legislation, I managed to review the principles.
There are three, at the beginning of the bill, relating to consumer
bankruptcies. For example, debts will now be repaid from excess
income, that is to say income over and above the minimum cost of
living.
But nowhere in the bill is this concept of minimum cost or
standard of living defined. I guess that it will be up to the
Superintendent of Bankruptcy, somewhere in Canada, to
determine-arbitrarily at times, I am afraid-what this minimum
will be. Take Quebec for example. I do not know if the same thing
applies in other provinces, but surely it must. In Quebec, we have
the Code of Civil Procedure, and section 553 et seq. provide that a
portion of someone's salary cannot be garnished. Therefore, if the
superintendent for Quebec decided to ignore what section 553 says
about part of someone's salary being exempt from seizure in
Quebec, I sincerely wonder-and I am not being facetious-who
would be encroaching on whose jurisdiction then?
That has not been set out in the bill. I understand that is not its
role, but that is an ambiguity that is likely to create uncertainty for
some people and also-and I hope this will not be the rule-to
open the door to abuse, to lead to abuse.
There is another principle here, the obligation for the debtor to
discharge his or her financial responsibilities relating to alimony
for his or her spouse and children or relating to damages awarded
by the courts to compensate for a physical or sexual assault. I
cannot but commend that. Frankly, this is a provision that, in my
opinion, is absolutely fundamental, and I commend the Minister of
Industry for it. He is showing concern for his fellow citizens who
might have been victims of some highly reprehensible acts.
Otherwise, the offender could say: ``It is very simple, I go bankrupt
and we forget all about the harm I have done to you''. I endorse
without any reservation that provision in the bill.
(1655)
A third point is that it will be impossible for students to get rid of
their student loan debts before two years after completion of their
education. Need I say I do not agree?
Not too long ago, we had before us the budget implementation
bill. If memory serves, it was Bill C-76. We talked about students.
We raised the level of their financial contribution to their own
education by providing additional loans. The issue gave rise to a
rather heated debate in the House. Some said that students would
end up with debts of $28,000 or $30,000 or more.
We thought the government was not being reasonable in that bill
because the students had their talents nipped in the bud in that they
were being put in a state of virtual bankruptcy the moment they
entered the labour market. Our remarks did not fall on deaf ears, as
demonstrated by this bill in which the Minister of Industry tells us
that students are actually overburdened, but they will not be
allowed to file for bankruptcy, at least not before two years.
I cannot agree with this. True enough, we should always keep a
proper balance between the obligation to pay one's debts and the
right to lead a meaningful life. All Canadians have both this duty
and this right. Fortunately, one provision in this bill makes it at
least possible to have some cases examined on their merits. In
some cases, students could avoid paying back their loan in full.
There are underlying social principles in this legislation. This
bill also includes another provision that deals with the overall
enforcement of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and I am
talking about the trustees.
Since the new legislation came into force in 1992, it has not been
easy in the province of Quebec. We had some quasi-fraudulent
bankruptcy cases that caused a lot of stir. For example, Zoom
Informatique was dealt with very harshly by the courts because of
the actions of the trustees involved in the case. We also heard of a
lawyer named Sirois who went bankrupt, a bankruptcy involving
$1.6 million which was highly contested. Mr. Sirois was the father
of the Bankruptcy Act that we are about to modify today. He was
also a bankruptcy expert in Quebec.
Not surprisingly, the bankruptcy authorities really got raked over
the coals on television, during some very popular and highly rated
CBC television programs such as Enjeux, which examined these
fraudulent bankruptcy cases.
I think that the problem will remain, even though we try to
licence and regulate the trustees in this bill, because in the mind of
the people the problem lies with the fact that the profession of
trustee is not legally recognized as a corporate body, as is the case
with the Ordre des avocats du Québec, the Canadian Bar
Association, the associations of architects and professional
engineers, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, all professional
associations that are legally recognized and can perform peer
reviews at any time in order to preserve a degree of dignity for their
profession.
Unfortunately, it seems that trustees in bankruptcy do not form a
profession. Recently, I noticed that, pursuant to the provisions of
the Bankruptcy Act, a code of ethics for trustees had been
16925
published in The Canada Gazette. It dealt with sections 54(30),
(31), (32), (33), (34), etc.
(1700)
Sure, these are great principles and I have nothing against them.
Except that the enforcement of these sections of the code of ethics
is never monitored unless a complaint is filed because the
Superintendent of Bankruptcy is overloaded. He cannot do it on his
own although this legislation is now giving him the authority to
commission inquiries. If an association of trustees in bankruptcy
were created, mandated primarily to protect the public interest and
empowered like the other professional associations to issue
licences, then we could have something valid.
This bill almost gives quasi-judicial powers to the trustee. The
trustee almost becomes a public officer. According to the
documents we were given, the bankrupt person must reimburse
what he or she owes with his or her income considered to be in
excess of the minimal cost of living. Whatever that is, as I said
earlier.
This clause provides for a regular repayment schedule and
encourages the bankrupt person to do everything possible to repay
his or her creditors. Great! Under the supervision of the
Superintendent of Bankruptcy, who is already overloaded, we can
immediately see from what is happening in the bankruptcy sector
that the trustees will have the power to set the rates and the terms of
a conditional discharge, the power to decree or decide, that is a
quasi-judicial power.
According to the Bankruptcy Act that was replaced in 1992 and
to the one which is now in force, the trustee acts in the interest of
the creditors. The trustee does not have to be impartial in dealing
with a bankruptcy. The trustee is primarily a representative of the
creditors, not the bankrupt.
Unfortunately, it is totally different in practice. Someone who is
in dire financial straits decides, on the recommendation of a friend
or a relative, to consult a trustee he knows well and tells him:
``Look. I want to make an assignment, would you look after my
case?'' It is not in the interest of the trustee who has a reputation for
kindness, who is an expert in public relations, to ruin his own
reputation. So, unless the creditors he is supposed to represent
under the authority of his legal mandate are opposed to it, the
trustee will continue to be rather lenient with the bankrupt, which is
fine, but unfortunately, he will do it at the expense of the creditors
who, more often than not, will end up licking their wounds.
The bill adds another dimension to the treatment of bankruptcy
cases. For example, in the distribution or collocation order, greater
importance is now given to the environmental aspect. We can
imagine a situation where a contaminated building is in the
possession of a trustee; the assets would first be used to
decontaminate the ground.
I have some difficulty with this clause in combination with
clause 18 modifying the existing act-so it is not something
new-which provides: ``The trustee may, with the permission of
the inspectors, divest all or any part of the trustee's right, title or
interest in any real property of the bankrupt''. It could be that, if the
trustee becomes aware that the land has no realizable value, he will
get rid of it and pass on his responsibility to decontaminate the site
to someone else. It is not clear in the bill. It was just to put a
damper on my pleasure at finding this provision in the bill.
Unfortunately, the government could have taken the opportunity
to include, in the distribution and collocation order, the salaries of
employees present at the time of the shut-down of a corporation,
for example.
(1705)
That was the reason behind my colleague from Portneuf's
tabling of a private member's bill. The bill was passed at second
reading in the House before being sent to a committee. That was
the last we heard about it since. I saw the Minister of Industry of
the time in a fit of ministerial pique when he realized that the bill
had been passed. Maybe this is why the bill is being dragged out in
committee. I do not know. Nevertheless, the bill has never come
back here.
It went along the same lines and was in the same spirit as the
decontamination clause, except that the last employees, thanks to
whom the company had lasted so long and who had kept supporting
it during a not necessarily easy winding up period, had priority over
the decontamination of the site. And the moment a trustee in
bankruptcy comes in and shuts the company down, he fires them all
and does not owe them anything. In the priority of claims, they
come far behind the banks; the seven big banks that made $4.3
billion in net profit last year.
I was listening to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood,
and we all know how attached the Liberals are to big banks. We
could see it when Liberal Party's list of contributors was made
public. This bank gave $250,000, that one $250,000 and so on, all
to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. Those poor banks
netted only $4.3 billion last year. Of course, it was impossible to
table a bill on bankruptcy without protecting their interests first.
This is what the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood wanted
us to swallow, like a candy coated pill. But basically, when we read
between the lines, the security involved is that of the poor big bank
which showed a net profit of only $4.3 billion last year.
And yet banks never lose. This is not a bill for the banks. Good
for them if they get something out of it like any citizen. But the bill
should have been written first and foremost with the protection of
the general public in mind. There are seven banks for 31 million
16926
Canadians. It seems to me that there is no comparison. Even if we
take into account the hundred or so American and Canadian trust
and leasing companies, there are still a lot more people than
financial institutions in our society.
I really have the impression that the bill's purpose is to protect
investors, that is major banks, leasing companies, rather than to try
to help ordinary Canadians who are often affected by a bankruptcy,
those who end up losing a few weeks' or a few months' pay if not
their shirt. The government did not display much concern for these
people in this legislation, despite all the enthusiasm shown by the
member for Broadview-Greenwood in praising this bill.
I am also delighted to see in the bill that small businesses will no
longer be forced arbitrarily to declare bankruptcy, that factors such
as the possibility of recovery, job losses, etc. will have to be
considered. I think it is just great.
But if the Minister of Industry wanted to be realistic and if
arbitrary business closures because of bankruptcy or insolvency
were his main concern, and it shows in this bill, what is he waiting
for to introduce meaningful legislation based on some of the
principles in the Quebec legislation on agricultural zoning?
(1710)
In Quebec, we had the political will to say: ``Enough is enough.
Farmland will not be parcelled out any more. If you decide to buy a
large piece of land, you will have to live with it. You will not be
able to sell it off in small parcels''. Today, corporate raiders as they
are called come along and buy businesses that often play a vital
role in our economy.
Take the case of Canada Packers, who had been in Canada and in
Quebec for at least 125 years, more precisely in
Pointe-Saint-Charles. Then comes some professional auctioneer
who buys everything for $500 million. He starts by selling
separately the various components of economic activity of the
company: beef production, $25 or $50 million, followed by egg,
poultry, milk and oil production. He sells everything, often to
competitors in that same sector.
Without any scruples, he puts 1,500, 2,000 or 3,000 heads of
family out of work. His net profit is made up of the equipment,
capital assets, land, buildings, etc. He heads back to England and
kisses us good bye. More often than not, he does not have to pay
any tax, or if he does, the federal government usually finds out too
late. He has already gone home and no longer has any assets in
Canada, so the government can always try to collect.
You might say that this is not a case of insolvency when it
actually happens. True, but it becomes one afterwards. So, the bill
would deal appropriately with such situations. At least, this is the
way I see it. If the minister is short of ideas, he should come to
Quebec. When we had to deal with the parcelling out of businesses
that were doing relatively well, we did some thinking and came up
with the agricultural zoning act.
It is not easy to comment on a bill which has some 100 pages and
is made up of bits and pieces, this in just three days. I could do a
more thorough review if I had a week. I am convinced that this bill
will not make it past the next stage, not necessarily because it is a
bad bill, but because it goes too far in some cases and not far
enough in others. What is being done to students here I have a hard
time living with, but I agree with the provisions concerning
damages to a person resulting from sexual assault or wilful
negligence
There is one other clause in the bill which I shall address very
quickly, the one which says more or less that the spouses must
make a joint proposal if their financial relationship requires
co-ordinated repayment on their part. These new provisions will
make it possible to rationalize procedures and reduce costs. I am
not sure I have properly understood all this. I will admit honestly to
you that I could not find it in the bill, not because it is not there, but
because the bill is too bulky to find it among all the
cross-references and annotations that are very hard to follow.
But is it possible that a decision has been made to encroach on
Quebec law? We know divorce is a federal matter, but marriage is a
provincial one. Is the decision now being made to interfere in
matrimonial regimes in Quebec or elsewhere, in other provinces,
saying for example that if a husband is not solvent but his wife
works, they will both be put in the same pot, both will go bankrupt,
pay the trustee and make the major banks happy by paying off their
creditors? Is that what the plan is?
If that is the intent, it is a disquieting one. This would put an end
to matrimonial regimes, or at least meddle rather too seriously and
perhaps somewhat too harmfully in the area of marriage in Quebec.
Relationships within a marriage are sacred in our province, and we
have-as the Prime Minister has been saying ad nauseam-been
living with the tradition of a Napoleonic code since around 1806.
I therefore feel that the Bloc members will not be able to
subscribe in any way, if such is the intent of the legislator in this
case, to this encroachment I perceive in the provinces'
constitutional jurisdiction over marriage.
(1715)
You are signalling that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I still
have some time left. We go on and on, but you can see that we are
well intentioned. Someone said: Hell is paved with the
well-intentioned. I do not know where that comes from.
An hon. member: And it is red.
16927
Mr. Lebel: True, Hell also happens to be red.
My point is, he ends on an upbeat note. He says: ``There will be
counselling for persons related to the debtor''. I cannot wait. I
cannot wait for someone to tell the manager of the credit union or
the manager of the National Bank or the TD Bank or any other
bank: ``Look, we raised $20,000 by selling the assets of the
bankrupt, but his wife and children are taking it very hard; the poor
things cannot cope. So I am going to take $5,000 to pay for
counselling''.
They are going to cause a backlog in the courts with this clause.
Does anyone seriously think that creditors will forego a chance to
get their money back and instead pay for counselling for the
relatives of a bankrupt debtor? I doubt it. This is wishful thinking.
But it is an interesting point and I must say I did not expect to find
this in a bill dealing with bankruptcy and insolvency.
They say that the proposed amendments harmonize Canadian
practices regarding bankruptcy and insolvency with those of our
international trading partners. This harmonization will simplify
co-operation between countries in the case of the restructuring or
insolvency of a multinational corporation and will help
enforcement of Canadian regulations on the distribution of assets,
creditor ranking and voidable transactions.
I do not want to get involved in private international law at this
point, but it was said in your basic course in Canadian private
international law, which is after all based on international
agreements, that the disposition of immovable goods is determined
by their lex situs, their location. While as far as individual rights
are concerned, the law of the country of residence prevails. As far
as movable goods are concerned, the law of the owner's country of
residence prevails.
I cannot see how, unilaterally, through the Minister of Industry
and this bill to amend the bankruptcy legislation, the federal
government could come and change internationally recognized
rules developed outside of Canada, under an agreement between
several countries. Unless, of course-in which case, the wording of
the bill is incorrect-it was intended to apply only the bankrupt's
property found on Canadian soil. That would make more sense.
Another clause puzzled me, namely the one providing that
farmers and fishermen whose principal occupation is fishing or
farming will not be subject to petitions in bankruptcy, even if their
principal occupation is not their sole source of income. Farmers
and fishermen used to be liable under the law to petitions in
bankruptcy when they ventured outside their traditional line of
work to supplement their income during the off season. This bill
will ensure that they no longer face bankruptcy each time they
become technically insolvent.
Unfortunately, the bill does not say much about the reasons why
this kind of provision was included. I hope that government
members who will be speaking on this bill, to explain it to us, will
be able to elaborate on the motives that underlie the decision to
include such provisions in the bill.
That is about all I had to say at this stage of consideration of the
bill. I am not blaming anyone. As you can see, I am not criticizing
too strongly the government's position. I just find it unfair as it
relates to students. Also I think it is a mistake to fail, as it does, to
address the situation of those workers who, often, supported the
business till the very end, when it finally declared bankruptcy,
when, more often than not, the president and directors of the
company are long gone. They have run off to Switzerland, as is
fashionable these days. Low income workers, those who have
worked hard to earn a living, cannot run away. They are forgotten
in all this.
(1720)
I urge the government to show more willingness to co-operate
with the opposition to achieve a position that will be effective in
maintaining this balance between the duty to pay one's debts and
the need to survive.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to make comments about Bill C-109, a bill dealing
with the bankruptcy and insolvency of certain businesses and
individuals. One thing that appears in the bill is a demonstration of
humanitarianism during bankruptcy.
This is a particularly meaningful amendment to the bankruptcy
act. In 1992 there was an amendment to that act. That amendment
took place 40 years after the initial bankruptcy act was enacted; 40
years of unamended legislation. In 1992 a three-year review clause
was introduced which brings the act to our attention now, which is
too short a period of time. Not enough experience was obtained as a
result of the amendments made in 1992. Now the proposal is that
the next amendment take place seven years hence. That makes
really good sense.
What is the bankruptcy act all about? It is supposed to protect
three categories. The first is consumers. We want to protect that
group. We want also to protect the creditors who have loaned
money to other people. We want to protect the economy.
Bankruptcies are disruptive to individuals, to industry and to the
economy in general.
We want to protect the consumer in the sense that he or she
should not enter into debts which he or she cannot afford to repay
or that somehow he or she has not planned to repay properly.
How big is this problem of bankruptcies in Canada? I have a
statement of September 1995 which I will go through to give a
perspective of how big this problem is. I start with Newfoundland.
In September bankruptcies amounted to $32.1 million; in Nova
16928
Scotia, $59.7 million; in Prince Edward Island, $3.9 million; in
New Brunswick, $35.2 million; in Quebec, $1.52 billion; in
Ontario, $1.932 billion; in Manitoba, $32.3 million; in
Saskatchewan, $49.475 million; in Alberta, $294 million; in
British Columbia, $275.1 million; in the Northwest Territories,
$1.97 million; in Yukon $29,267.
(1725 )
Let us put that all together. Bankruptcies in Canada in September
represented liabilities of $4,268,000,000. That is a significant sum
of money. That is what we are talking about when we deal with
bankruptcies. That is one month. It is not a small issue we are
dealing with here.
There seems to be a psychosis developing. We have a
government that has incurred debt upon debt. It calls it deficits
from year to year. As that deficit accumulates from one year to the
next, it becomes a debt on the present year. The deferral of these
payments keeps adding up, until now it is $567 billion. That is the
debt the Canadian government has incurred on behalf of the people
of Canada.
We look at the government and say if it is all right for the
government to keep on borrowing money, maybe we can do the
same and so we have credit cards. I do not know how many of us
here in the House have more than one credit card, but I dare
presume there are a number of people who do. My colleague says
he does not. He has one. It is probably so big that he can buy a car
on the basis of his credit card. He is probably not the only who can
buy a car on his credit card.
People have added debt upon debt and they follow the example
of government. The other day the Conference Board of Canada
made an observation that the individual Canadian has a debt load
probably larger than it should be.
We have at least a threefold issue being dealt with here in
bankruptcy: the individual consumer, the creditor who has lent this
money or provided service or material, and the economy on a larger
basis.
This bill is trying to reach an equilibrium that encourages
rehabilitation, so that individuals or a company or corporation that
finds itself in a situation in which they cannot repay their debt will
be able to reorganize, restructure in such a way that they can
rehabilitate themselves and again become a contributing element in
our economy. We have to compare that rehabilitation over and
against the obligation they have to pay off the debt they have
incurred on behalf of someone else, on behalf of themselves, or on
the basis of a director of a particular company.
If a business goes bankrupt, how does it affect the economy in
which we live? The first thing that happens is taxes go down. We do
not collect the amount of taxes we ought to.
My colleague from the Bloc indicated very clearly how
disruptive it is to the employee of a company that goes bankrupt.
The individual does not have a job any more. This has an effect on
the family structure. It puts stress and strain on the relationship
between husband and wife, between the parents and the children,
between the children and their parents and it becomes increasingly
complicated. It has an effect on the mortgage payments they have
to make, the credit card bills they are responsible for, and a chain
reaction develops.
Therefore, what seemed to be one case becomes a multiplication
factor that finds its way in a variety of cases all the way through to
the grocery store, the furniture store, the clothing store and so on
down the line.
In Canada we need an economy that builds, that grows, that
develops. This will not happen in a situation in which people are
fearful that their business is going to go down. In one month we see
liabilities of $4 billion being accumulated. That is very extensive.
This is no small issue that has to be dealt with.
I will deal with some of the provisions of the bill. The bill deals
in a variety of areas with very technical issues. Two-thirds of the
bill, as I understand it, have to do with technical amendments that
try to harmonize the provisions of this legislation with the
legislation that exists with the provinces and in other areas. It
comes to grips with issues such as international creditors and
bankruptcies on an international basis, securities firms and how
they operate, and it brings into focus more accurately the situation
as it exists between those people who are earning their livelihood in
part from farming and fishing and in other parts from other kinds of
income they might have.
(1730 )
The old act stated that persons who declare bankruptcy, if their
sole income is from farming and fishing, can declare bankruptcy in
that particular area. In today's economy there are many people
whose main income comes from fishing but it is not sufficient for
them to earn a living and they have to supplement their income. In
other cases people have a professional job and they have a hobby
farm. Sometimes they will declare bankruptcy on the one side but
not on the other. This bill brings those things into reality and
harmonizes and balances them.
I would like to speak on the humanitarian aspect of the
legislation. There is one aspect in particular about which I would
like to speak, and that has to do with the situation where a divorce
has taken place and an individual is obligated to make support
payments to the spouse or children. Some of these individuals
decide to declare bankruptcy rather than make the support
payments. If
16929
they declare bankruptcy they will no longer be liable for the
support payments. This bill deals with that issue. It states that the
obligation for support payments of either a spouse or children are
part of the liabilities, as is the case with a mortgage or a loan. In
fact the bill goes so far as to say that support payments are a
priority on the list of creditors to be paid. That is a very
humanitarian approach, which is necessary.
The bill adds another clause, which is equally significant to the
one I have just referred to, and that has to do with difficulties that
arise because of an assault. On that basis, the person declaring
bankruptcy is liable and a creditor can make a claim.
The third area has to do with student loans. At the present time
there are a number of students who are experiencing great
difficulty in making their student loan payments. They graduate
from university or from some other post-secondary institution
where they have incurred an extensive debt and they find they
cannot make the payments. They have no prospects for a job, at
least not immediately. They look at the situation and say: ``There is
an easy way out of this. I will declare personal bankruptcy and then
I will no longer be liable for the debt. It will all be over. After
having lived the good life and behaving myself, my credit rating
will be built up again, this will not be held against me, and my debt
will be discharged''.
That will no longer be possible under this bill. Students who
incur a loan and who plan to escape from paying that loan by
declaring bankruptcy will still be liable two years after the date on
which their bankruptcy has been declared and accepted. Two years
from that date they are still liable to make their student loan
payment. At that point a new provision kicks in, which suggests
that if the student is still having difficulty and cannot meet their
financial obligations, other arrangements can be made. I believe
that is a fair and equitable provision.
The other point I want to raise has to do with the situation where
creditors and debtors cannot agree and they fight with one another
as to what is a reasonable settlement in terms of the portion of the
debt that can and should be paid by the person who has declared
bankruptcy. The bill provides for a mediation process and
mediators so that these people do not have to go to court and incur
expensive legal costs. Rather, mediation can take place and the
matter can be settled out of court as expeditiously as possible. I
think that is an excellent provision in this particular piece of
legislation.
The other elements in this legislation that we want to commend
at this point have to do with the recognition that there are certain
international insolvencies that take place. At the present time it is
difficult to move across boundaries. You have to move assets,
papers and things like this across borders and cases cannot be heard
in another country. The legislation now provides for those hearings
to take place within the country where the insolvency takes place or
they can be heard where the individual resides.
Another area the bill deals with has to do with securities firms
that go bankrupt. These are particularly difficult and highly
complicated situations. These are securities firms ranging all the
way from brokerage houses to houses that deal with only mutual
funds and the complications that can arise in those situations. This
is where I think the bill is somewhat deficient. There are
clarifications that need to be made in this bill as to just exactly how
those kinds of bankruptcies can be resolved and dealt with. The
length of time it takes to deal with some of the details here is rather
substantive. In the meantime, many things could have changed and
probably have changed.
It becomes very necessary for us to recognize that while this bill
has some very positive things in it, there are some deficiencies in it.
When we go into the technicalities of the bill, the bill has done
some things I really found rather humorous when I looked at them.
In the existing act it states that there is a two-day time frame in
which to present a particular proposal. In the new act it states that it
is going to change to three days. In another instance three days
becomes five days. In another situation 14 days becomes 15 days.
In another instance 15 days becomes 14 days. In another situation
90 days becomes three months. In other cases three months
becomes 90 days.
When I asked the people who put the bill together why they did
this, they said they wanted to be consistent so that it would be very
specific. I asked a question about the old bill, which stated 90 days,
and the new proposed bill before us states three months. Mr.
Speaker, you and I both know that three months are not necessarily
90 days; it could be more or less than 90 days. In that instance, we
need to recognize that the apparent consistency is lacking. Perhaps
the people in the committee should look at this in some detail and
say let us be consistent: if we are going to use days then let us use
days and if we are going to use months then let us use months, but
let us not confuse it by moving back and forth. It is not a reasonable
thing to do. That is one area we need to look at.
The other thing the bill does, which I found very interesting, is
there is no such thing as a man or a woman in this bill. There are
only creditors and the people who are bankrupt. This is very
interesting. I guess in order to be politically correct we no longer
speak about men and women. We now speak about creditors and
bankrupts. I do not know how significant this is, but there it is. A
whole bunch of money and a lot of time has to be spent to change
the legislation so that it becomes politically correct by taking
gender references out of the particular legislation.
16930
I think I am getting very close to the end of my time for today.
I would like to touch on the area of directors' liability, but rather
than starting halfway through here I will stop my intervention at
this point and defer the directors' liability portion to the next
opportunity I have to rise in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.39 p.m., I must
now proceed to some deferred votes. The member for Okanagan
Centre will certainly have 20 minutes remaining in his time
allocation if he chooses to continue to speak when the bill returns
to the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 23, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of
Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain
related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.39 p.m., pursuant
to the order made on Thursday, November 23, 1995, the House will
now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at
second reading of Bill C-96.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 375)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-140
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
16931
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-91
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
(1805)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 23, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act,
be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order made
on November 23, 1995, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill
C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the vote taken on the main motion for second
reading of Bill C-96 to the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
Mrs. Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, had I been here for the last vote I
would have voted with the government on the last bill and I will so
vote with the government on this bill.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 376)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
16932
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-141
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-91
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of Bill
C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the concurrence motion at report stage of Bill C-108, an
act to amend the National Housing Act.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on
the preceding motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members will vote no except
for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party in the House vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 377)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
16933
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-187
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-45
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 27, 1995 consideration of
the motion that Bill C-100, an Act to amend, enact and repeal
certain laws relating to financial institutions, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on second reading of Bill C-100, an Act to amend, enact
and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that
you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote
on Bill C-83 at third reading to the motion now before the House.
Mr. Duceppe: We agree, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
16934
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, we vote no on this matter. On a
point of order I note that some Reform members have left the
House since the last vote and I am wondering if their votes will
be applied.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, if three Reform members did leave'
please delete them from the voting record.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the members for Macleod, North
Vancouver and Prince George-Bulkley Valley are no longer in the
House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I had stopped at the whip of
the New Democratic Party. Did the hon. member for Beauce say
how he would vote?
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the motion.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: I vote for the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in support of the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 378)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-142
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -87
16935
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
(1815 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of Bill
C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and
Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of Bill C-52, an act to establish the
Department of Public Works and Government Services and to
amend and repeal certain acts.
The first question is on the amendment to Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on
the report stage Motion No. 1 of Bill C-52 a moment ago be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with
Liberal members voting nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): May I seek a point of
clarification from the hon. government whip. I want to be sure that
we are all at the same page and that the question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I understand we voted a moment ago
on the amendment to report stage Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I could help the House, the
division is on the first question which is on the amendment to
Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I understand we voted on the
amendment to report stage Motion No. 1 and now we are voting on
the report stage Motion No. 1 itself.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We had completed voting on
Bill C-100. If I follow the schedule given to me earlier, we are now
at item E of Bill C-52 on the amendment to Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. Liberal members will
be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: We support this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform Party members will vote no, except those
who choose otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 379)
YEAS
Members
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-39
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
16936
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-190
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
(1820)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
negatived.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will be voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc members support this motion, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform members will vote in favour of the
motion, except those who want to do otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: New Democrats in the House will vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 380)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
16937
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -88
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-141
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. An affirmative vote on
Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of putting the question on
Motion No. 3. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the
question being put on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on
the preceding motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc members oppose this motion, Mr. Speaker.
16938
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform members oppose except those who do
otherwise.
Mr. Solomon: New Democrats in the House tonight vote yes on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: I support this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 381)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed -148
NAYS
Members
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -81
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
16939
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 2
carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 4. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the
necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 6. A negative vote
on Motion No. 4 necessitates the question being put on Motion
No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 1 be applied
to the motion now before the House. You might also ask if the same
thing could be done in reverse for report stage Motion No. 6.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let us have a replay.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the results taken on report
stage Motion No. 1 be applied to report stage Motion No. 4.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 380]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
(Motion No. 4 negatived.)
(1825)
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply in reverse the vote taken on
the last motion to the motion now before the House.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 382)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-141
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
16940
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -88
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 6
carried.
[Translation]
The next division is on Motion No. 8.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to
have those members who voted on the previous motion recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members support the motion,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Reform members will vote against the motion.
Mr. Solomon: New Democrats vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote against this motion, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 383)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
16941
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-183
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 8
negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to
apply the vote just taken to the motion now before the House in an
identical manner.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 383]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 9 lost.
(Motion No. 9 negatived.)
Hon. David Anderson (for Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for unanimous consent
that the vote taken on report stage Motion No. 6 be applied to the
motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 382]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
16942
[Translation]
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in
and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed;
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment of Mr. Sauvageau to Bill C-94.
(1830)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal MPs in the House will be
voting nay on the amendment.
I wish to indicate to the House that one Liberal member had to
absent himself momentarily, the hon. member for Sarnia.
Therefore, the members who voted on the previous motion will be
recorded as voting nay on this motion, with the exception of the
hon. member for Sarnia, who will be recorded as now having left.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members support
that motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will vote in favour
of the motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no on the
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the motion.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 384)
YEAS
Members
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -81
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
16943
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed -147
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment
lost.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division at report stage on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small
Business Loans Act.
The first division will be on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you
would find that the House agrees to apply the vote taken on Motion
No. 8 on Bill C-52 to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Are the whips in agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 383.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the vote taken on the previous motion in reverse to
the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
Mr. Solomon: Agreed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as being
opposed to the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
(1835 )
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we agree with the
chief government whip with respect to reversing the order. We
were not supporting the motion; we were in fact opposing the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 385)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
16944
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-47
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-107,
an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty
Commission, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division at the third reading stage of Bill C-107, an act respecting
the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal MPs voting yes.
16945
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The Bloc supports the motion, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party votes no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats in the House
vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 386)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-187
NAYS
Members
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-42
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Bachand
Bouchard
Brien
Brushett
Campbell
Canuel
Crête
Daviault
Dingwall
Discepola
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Godin
Hickey
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
16946
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mercier
Ouellet
Peterson
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Rock
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-78, an act to
provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable
certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division at the report stage of Bill C-78.
The first question is on Motion No. 1
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that the results of the vote on report
stage Motion No. 6 of Bill C-52 be applied in reverse to the motion
now before the House. The same would apply to report stage
Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is in reverse.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree except for
one question that relates to the member for Sarnia. He had voted on
that previous motion. Is he voting on this one or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Bhaduria: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 380.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Therefore I declare Motions
Nos. 1 and 2 lost.
(Motion Nos. 1 and 2 negatived.)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.43 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16946
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of establishing a new independent aboriginal land claims
commission, as recommended in the 1994-95 annual report of the Indian Claims
Commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to
present to the House this motion, which seeks to bring action on the
recommendation of the Indian Claims Commission.
The motion seeks the approval of the House to begin the
discussion that will eventually lead to the establishment of a new
Indian Claims Commission and process. I am also pleased this
motion has been made votable, because this means the members of
the House will now have the opportunity to formally respond to the
incredible and excellent work the current Indian Claims
Commission has been doing.
Before beginning my formal remarks today, I want to thank the
Indian Claims Commission for all its efforts in meeting the
challenges of its difficult mandate and for preparing the
groundwork for the next step in this important and evolving
process. I am particularly grateful to claims commission co-chair
Mr. Dan Bellegarde and to Mary Ellen Turpel whose legal and
research work I borrowed for some of my presentation today.
(1845)
The idea of a new claims process and policy is not a new one. As
I will demonstrate later in my remarks not only did former Prime
Minister John Diefenbaker advocate for an independent land
claims process, so too did the Liberals as recently as the 1993
election.
However, as is also obvious it appears the current Prime Minister
and the Liberal cabinet have to be reminded of their famous red
book commitments and be pushed into keeping them. Most of this
became very clear to me this summer during the unrest throughout
Canada and particularly because of the events which took place at
Gustafsen Lake in British Columbia and at Ipperwash in Ontario.
16947
As I listened to those news reports, watched the events unfold on
my television screen, read the details in the newspapers and as I
talked to concerned individuals across Canada it became clear to
me these were not just isolated incidents. Each had a similar
message and each was echoed by other events unfolding elsewhere
in British Columbia, as well as in New Brunswick and other parts
of Canada.
What I and other Canadians were seeing were the expressions of
long withheld emotions centred around the meaning and
importance of land and jurisdiction over land held by aboriginal
people form coast to coast. These emotions fueled by frustration
and anger led to occupations or roadblocks which led to the
involvement of the police and the exclusion of the legitimate land
claims process.
In late summer I called on the Minister of Indians Affairs and
Northern Development to get involved not just in the specific
disputes under the eye of the media but also in the general approach
to land claims resolutions that will have the ability to resolve
differences before tensions erupt.
I wrote to the minister and I even questioned him in the House
about the possibility of beginning the process that would lead to the
establishment of a new independent land claims policy and
process.
I was disappointed when the minister responded by saying he
had to wait because he needed more direction. The process to begin
finding that direction can be begin today. It has been clearly
outlined by the Indian claims commission in the 1994-95 report.
With this motion I hope the House will tell the minister to get busy,
to get at it.
The process, I remind the minister, cannot be dictated by the
federal government. It must be worked out and jointly agreed on
with the First Nations. Arthur Durocher, writing on land claims
reform for the Indian claims commission, states:
There are many problems associated with the present land claims policies and
processes. Claims are backlogged and there is a general dissatisfaction on the
part of the First Nations. Changes have to be implemented as soon as possible
because the longer the impasse drags on, the more difficult it will become to
break. It is important that any changes that are done be done in consultation and
in partnership with the First Nations. There has to be sufficient political will by
the federal government to make any process viable.
In concurring with that statement, the support of the House on
this motion will be very useful in securing action on this political
will at this important time.
The Indian claims commission in the 1994-95 report came out in
July of this year just as some of the land disputes were at their peak.
I was surprised therefore when I heard very little comment from the
government or the media about the Indian claims commission
report itself.
If nothing else, the message from the commissioners at the
beginning of the report should have alerted all of us to the
importance of the matter in front of us. I will quote from that
message:
The ICC is mandated to find better ways of handling land claims. To this end
we have used our considerable experience to identify problem areas and
recommend solutions that will assist in creating a more expedient, fair and
equitable land claims policy and process.
Everything that we have learned as a commission to date indicates that it is
imperative to commence the process of reform immediately. The return of
native land is central to any real progress on the wide range of problems that
face First Nations today. Meaningful self-government and true economic
self-sufficiency are dependent upon an adequate land base. It is time for a fair
and equitable process.
(1850 )
The commissioners recognized the need for immediate reform of
the process. Now it is time for Parliament to do the same.
The frustration felt by aboriginal people throughout Canada has
existed for a long time. I am reminded of the comments of former
Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Georges Erasmus, who was
quoted in the introduction to a book on the subject, Drum Beat,
published in 1989. Erasmus notes that for generations in Canada
governments have treated aboriginal people as a disappearing race
and that they have administered aboriginal policy accordingly:
Yet we have not disappeared; we have survived, as we have done since long
before the appearance of the Europeans, against no matter what odds.
Unfortunately, to the present day, governments have been unconscionably slow
in coming to terms with the fact that we will always be here, and that our claims
for justice, land, resources, and control over our own affairs will never go away,
and they must be fairly and honourably dealt with.
There is now a widely accepted view that the current land claims
process is not working well and that the pace and conditions for the
resolution of land claims conflicts are inadequate.
As Mary Ellen Turpel tells us in her work for the claims
commission, claims resolutions in the past 20 years have seen a
massive increase in litigation over claims even though almost
everyone involved in the claims recognizes litigation is not the best
method for addressing land disputes.
The rise in court challenges is a byproduct of a failed dispute
resolution process in the claims area and has served to reinforce an
adversarial approach on the part of the crown and the First Nations
in dealing with these disputes.
It appears, Turpel says, the First Nations and the federal
government are headed toward further confrontation and hostility.
The only remedy is a reworking of federal claims policies and the
establishment of an appropriate and effective process for the
16948
resolution of disputes between First Nations and government over
lands and resources.
Turpel is writing in the claims commission's proceedings report,
special issue No. 2, dealing with land claims, issued in 1994.
In that same report, the commission co-chairs Dan Bellegarde
and James Prentice say very clearly:
Much discussion concerning the reform of the specific claims policy has
taken place over recent years; little of fundamental importance has been
accomplished. There is an urgent need for reform of the specific claims process
to provide a fair and accountable land claims process for First Nations and
indeed for all Canadians.
If we are to avoid further violence and bloodshed over unsettled land claims
in Canada we must act now before the next confrontation.
That was written in September 1994, before the loss of life
occurred at Ipperwash. Obviously action toward a resolution must
begin, as the commissioners and others have been arguing,
immediately.
It should be noted that the Indian Claims Commission was
created in 1991 partly in response to the need for a fair land claims
process, but it was acknowledged by everyone that the creation of
the commission was an interim step only. The time has come, as it
acknowledges, to go beyond the interim measure.
The commission is what has been referred to as a soft
adjudicative tribunal in that the recommendations of the
commission are not binding on the parties but rather are only
advisory in nature. This means that at the completion of an inquiry
the parties are not bound by the recommendations of the
commission. In the end the federal government still must respond
to the findings of the inquiry and the recommendations of the
commission, and has only recently begun to do so.
In the case of a band within my constituency boundaries, the
Canoe Lake Band, the response to its inquiry took the government
more than 18 months to produce. The motion in front of us today
suggests the government should take action on the
recommendation of the claims commission's most recent report.
Before we run out of time in the debate today I will outline these
recommendations. Recommendation No. 1 is the important one. It
says that Canada and the First Nations should develop and
implement a new claims policy and process that does not involve
the present circumstances wherein Canada judges claims against
itself.
(1855)
The commission says the present system involves a fundamental
flaw; Canada must judge claims against itself. This is a manifest
conflict of interest especially when Canada stands in a fiduciary
relationship toward the claimant First Nation.
It is imperative, the commission says, that an independent
claims body be established to perform at least the initial
assessment of the validity of First Nations land claims against
Canada. Mary Ellen Turpel notes in her work: ``A full appreciation
of the federal government's fiduciary obligations, which represent
a considerable and serious duty to act in the interests of the First
Nations, has been the glaring omission in the claims process''.
In the absence of a new policy, the claims commission brought
forward five other recommendations which must be implemented
in order to make the existing but temporary process more fair. The
commission's second recommendation is to put fairness into the
current policy.
The 1994-95 report says:
When First Nations submit specific claims to Canada they are encouraged to
include for consideration the legal opinion of their lawyer along with their
historical research. However, when Canada communicates its decision to accept
or reject the claim, it relies on solicitor-client privilege and refuses to disclose
its legal opinion from the Department of Justice.
The claims commission says that Canada has an obligation to
provide that legal opinion.
To do less fails to meet the requirements of the fiduciary relationship, a
relationship that has been found to exist by the Supreme Court of Canada in
cases such as Sparrow. The substance of Canada's legal opinion must be
exposed to full public scrutiny if justice is to be done and seen to be done.
The Canoe Lake report was not responded to until 18 months had
passed. The commission notes in its third recommendation that
situations like this are unacceptable. In calling for a response
protocol, it says this type of response is fair to neither the claimant
First Nation nor to the people of Canada.
Recommendation No. 4 deals with mediation and suggests that
government council engaged on matters before the commission
should be given the same broad mandate to consider, recommend
and negotiate settlement it would have if acting for the government
in litigation over the same claim.
The commission notes that from its inception the commission
has vigorously sought to advance mediation as an alternative to the
court and inquiries, both of which tend to be adversarial in nature.
Unfortunately, it says, one of the greatest obstacles in the
settlement of specific claims is that the Department of Justice
typically regards its own legal opinions as being determinant on the
questions of whether an outstanding lawful obligation exists on the
part of the government.
If the lawyer concludes that no such obligation exists, the
government assumes there is no place for mediation. Since
mediation is essentially consensual and both parties must request
it, an opinion unfavourable to the claim ends the prospect for
mediation before it can even begin.
16949
The commission is aware that some claims might qualify for
reconsideration based on factors outside the legal opinion, but
there is no authority for counsel representing Indian affairs to do
so without access to mediation measures as suggested by the
commission.
The fifth recommendation deals with the need to identify and
review all claims that were rejected based on the ban of
pre-Confederation claims that was lifted in 1991. The commission
wants the government to take the lead and begin the reviews and
not leave the onus on the First Nations to ask for a review of the
claims that were rejected prior to the alteration of the specific
claims policy in 1991.
Most important, the sixth recommendation of the commission is
that Canada stop insisting on the express extinguishment of
aboriginal rights and title as part of the settlement of specific
claims. The commission says this is grossly unfair since the claims
policy is not meant to deal with aboriginal title and/or rights, and
Canada ought not to insist on their extinguishment as part of the
settlement of a specific claim.
(1900 )
This measure has been supported in the recent fact finding report
written by Mr. Justice Hamilton, entitled ``A New Partnership'', in
which he said:
Aboriginal people seek the recognition, not the surrender of their aboriginal
rights. They are prepared to have the extent of their future rights to land and
resources spelled out in a treaty. They are prepared to recognize the rights of
others.
The Liberals have also agreed with this, at least the Liberal
Party, ahead of the government. The red book says that ``in order to
be consistent with the Canadian Constitution, which now
recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights, a Liberal
government will not require blanket extinguishment for claims
based on aboriginal title''.
Prior to the general election in 1993, the leader of the Liberal
Party, now the Prime Minister of Canada, said in Saskatoon: ``A
Liberal government, in consultation with aboriginal peoples, would
undertake a major overhaul of the federal claims policy on a
national basis''.
In the red book, that now famous catalogue of Liberal promises,
the Liberals acknowledged that if aboriginal communities are to
become self-sufficient they must have an adequate land and
resource base upon which to grow. That is why a Liberal
government is committed to overhauling the land claims policy in
ways that will make the process ``more fair, more efficient, and less
costly''.
Two years after the election, it appears that we have to push the
Liberals into meeting their own promises-not just the claims
commission, not just aboriginal people from coast to coast, but the
House of Commons as well. If the Liberals have failed to deliver on
this promise and if we must push, then push we will, because this is
one promise that is worth fulfilling.
I want the House to know that prior to putting this motion on the
Order Paper and having it called for debate today I took the issue to
my own party at its national convention in October of this year. I
am pleased to say that support for a new claims commission had
the unanimous support of delegates attending the national
convention of New Democrats. They, like me, consider the issue to
be of critical importance to our nation.
The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide
Mercredi, played a crucial and important role during the land
occupations this past summer. The grand chiefs and the chiefs of
the AFN have been doing a fantastic job in preparing for a new land
claims policy and process. I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to
ensure that the AFN is central to any decisions that are made in this
regard.
I conclude my remarks today by again referring to the work of
Mary Ellen Turpel, who says that consensus for an independent
claims commission is evident but that concentrated effort and good
will are needed to take the proposal for such a commission from the
stage of political consensus to one of policy implementation in a
legislative framework. It cannot be done unilaterally by
government. Implementing these proposals will require a process
whereby First Nations leaders and federal ministers come together
over a short period of time to decide on an implementation strategy
to draft the protocol and develop legislation and resolutions.
Because of lack of time I did not talk about the expiration of the
mandate of the joint working group and the good work the joint
working group completed. However, I must say that this is the type
of process that needs to be reactivated with a broader mandate.
I will quote Mary Ellen Turpel one last time:
The agenda for land claims reforms is stalled at present. This is a tragic
situation, given that so many options are available for immediate progress and
all parties in the political process have identified a common set of problems and
made a commitment to reform. If we continue to delay the process of land
claims reform, we face further hostility as the prospects for an enduring
peaceful relationship between First Nations and the crown grow dimmer.
Today, at the beginning of the debate on this votable motion, I
thanked the chiefs for their patience and their unending
commitment to their people. I thank the Indian Claims
Commission for their excellent work in moving this critical issue
forward. I urge all members of the House to support the motion so
that the Minister of Indian Affairs and the government know that it
has the support for change, which must be made sooner rather than
later. I ask that I be given the opportunity to close this debate when
that time comes.
(1905 )
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
16950
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the motion by
the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and to debate
the claims policy and the establishment of a claims commission.
The government has been looking for ways to promote a
commission that would be fair and would be seen to be fair to all
aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians who are affected by the
settlement of land claims.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has been a
strong advocate in the House of policies aimed at resolving the
outstanding issues relating to the claims process. We have listened
to his advice and are looking forward to hearing what the Reform
Party has to add.
As for the Liberal government, our approach to the claims
process was spelled out in our 1993 election platform. In the red
book we placed aboriginal issues at the centre of the public policy
agenda. We devoted one of the eight chapters in Creating
Opportunity exclusively to aboriginal issues and raised the
awareness of the impact of other policies on aboriginal Canadians
throughout the document.
We promised the role of our government would be to provide
aboriginal people with the necessary tools to become self-sufficient
and self-governing. We also said that our priority would be to help
aboriginal communities in their efforts to address the obstacles to
their development and help them marshal the human and physical
resources necessary to build and sustain vibrant communities.
We promised our government would build new partnerships with
aboriginal peoples based on trust and mutual respect. A fair and
effective land claims process is essential for those objectives. The
resolution of the claims must be a priority for all Canadians.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians require certainty
with respect to land rights so that we can get on with the building of
the economy, creating jobs and growth, and making our
communities better places for our children.
In the red book we acknowledged that the current process for
resolving land claims could be improved. We said a Liberal
government would implement major changes to the current
approach, and we have been working toward that goal.
We have been working alongside the Assembly of First Nations
to find a better way to proceed with the resolution of claims. The
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has received
several suggestions. Among them is a proposal for an independent
Indian land claims commission, as recommended in the annual
report of the Indian Claims Commission and as advocated by the
hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
We on this side of the House have no objection to such an
independent commission. In fact, in the red book we stated that ``A
Liberal government would be prepared to create, in co-operation
with aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission to
speed up and facilitate the resolution of all claims''. This shows
that we do not oppose the principles outlined in the hon. member's
motion.
However, I would like to point out to the House a key phrase of
the commitment from the Liberal policy platform. It is that we
would create the independent claims commission in co-operation
with the aboriginal peoples. Building a consensus among the
aboriginal peoples will require time, and we cannot act unilaterally.
We cannot impose a solution that will be supported by some but not
by others.
One of the major issues at stake is whether a new independent
claims commission will be a court-like system with binding
judgments or a mediation system with functions similar to those
the Indian Claims Commission now performs.
Another issue is whether we can find a better way to bring
matters to the attention of the commission. As hon. members are
aware, under the current system a claim must be rejected by the
Indian affairs department before the matter is brought before the
commission. The minister has invited the Assembly of First
Nations to provide substantive comments on concrete proposals for
change. In co-operation with the First Nations, we are examining
how the claim policies can be overhauled within the climate of
financial restraint that affects us all.
The Assembly of First Nations has embarked on a project that
will involve developing terms of reference for a joint Canada and
First Nations review of the Indian Claims Commission. We will
have to reach a consensus on these and other issues before we can
reform the current system. We need directions from the First
Nations on what kind of system they want.
(1910 )
In the meantime, the government has taken the steps required to
make sure the system now in place works as efficiently as possible.
When we look at what has been accomplished in the past few years,
it becomes quite clear that the current system can be used more
effectively than it had been before the red book commitments
regarding claims process reforms were made.
Consider these figures: After 1990-91 the total cumulative
settlements for specific claims numbered only 43. By 1994-95 we
have more than tripled that figure to 142. Since taking office this
government has settled 45 specific claims. In 1994-95 we settled
18 different specific claims, for a total of nearly $79 million. That
is money that will go into aboriginal communities. It will create
16951
jobs for aboriginal as well as non-aboriginal people. It will improve
living conditions and it will make aboriginal people partners in the
development of a strong and dynamic Canadian society.
Today we are involved in negotiations on another 90 specific
claims or are in the process of reviewing another 240 claims
submitted by the First Nations. We expect that by the end of the
1995-96 fiscal year we will have settled another 20 to 30 specific
claims and we will also continue to receive further claims, which
will have to work through the current system until a better system
is devised in co-operation with First Nations.
I am certain the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake appreciates these points. He wants what is fair for aboriginal
people in Canada, as does this government.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak in support of the motion standing in the
name of the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
The motion reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House,
the government should consider the advisability of establishing a
new, independent aboriginal land claims commission, as
recommended in the 1994-95 annual report of the Indian Claims
Commission.
Anyone who has followed the issue of aboriginal land claims in
Canada for a number of years will realize it is a matter of
astonishing complexity. The First Nations were here in Canada
before European immigrants came to settle the land, as we used to
say. The aboriginal peoples occupied certain lands. In the past 10,
15, 20 or 30 years they have started to realize certain rights to those
lands still existed, and various First Nations started filing land
claims.
It stands to reason that people living in often difficult social and
economic circumstances should want to establish a land base where
they can develop their potential, improve their situation and
maintain their identity as a nation, as a people.
It is therefore entirely normal that the various First Nations
should file these claims. Now it so happens that certain things have
been accomplished, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs told us a few moments ago that certain
claims had been settled with First Nations. Claims are now being
negotiated, and it is expected that a number of claims will be
settled within the next few years.
However, it is a fact that the existing mechanism is not perfect.
The process is very slow. Some very relevant questions are being
asked about the impartiality of the system, because under the
present system, various aboriginal peoples and communities file a
claim, which is then examined by the appropriate federal
authorities.
(1915)
The federal government is almost in the situation of being a
judge while, at the same time, having fiduciary responsibilities
toward various native peoples. I think the government is, in a way,
in a conflict of interest situation, where often, because of political
imperatives, it cannot easily ensure quick claim resolution of
claims, in my opinion.
Clearly, at this point, the process becomes blocked, despite the
best intentions of the government, and I do not doubt them. But I
imagine that if, as proposed by the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake, we could set up an independent native
territorial claims commission, we could clarify the whole process.
We could clarify it for all Canadians, and we could clarify it for the
various first nations.
I think it is important to clarify the process not only for the
native populations, but for the people of Canada. Since becoming
more closely involved with native issues, because I sit on the
House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, I have been talking with my constituents in my
riding and in my region. I realize that most people are sympathetic
to the claims of native peoples, but are often critical because they
consider the claims at times exaggerated and not in keeping with
what they consider reality.
We often see maps in the paper, of either Quebec or Canada,
depicting native territorial claims. If we superimpose a map of the
land claims made by the various First Nations in Quebec on a map
of the province, we can see that their claims cover almost all of
Quebec.
I think that this is likely to cause many people to fear and be
concerned about legitimate native demands, and even to reject
them. People feel that their claims are out of all proportion to the
populations involved.
The various native communities in Quebec may number 50,000,
60,000 or 65,000 people, depending on how you count them.
People are asking how 60,000, 65,000 or even 80,000 natives can
claim the Quebec territory and, in a way, challenge the rights of six
or seven million Quebecers now living on this territory.
This is the kind of situation that could easily lead to prejudice
developing. Just look at what is reported in the press and listen to
open line programs. Aboriginal land claims are often opposed on
the grounds that they are viewed as undue and unfounded.
I think that this situation ought to be resolved as quickly as
possible. At the rate settlements are reached these days, according
to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development himself, I think that this issue is
not about to disappear; it will remain hot and red for quite some
time. If we take too long to resolve the situation, there is risk of a
16952
rejection reaction on the part of non-natives in Canada. In addition,
decisions might be made at the political level that do not fairly
reflect the legitimate demands of aboriginal people.
It is important that the federal cabinet and the Liberal
government fulfil the promises made in the red book in 1993, when
they stated clearly that ``the current process of resolving
comprehensive and specific claims is simply not working. A
Liberal government will implement major changes to the current
approach. A Liberal government will be prepared to create, in
co-operation with aboriginal peoples, an independent claims
commission to speed up and facilitate the resolution of all claims''.
This is precisely what the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake and the Indians Claims Commission
are asking for.
(1920)
The federal government should act as quickly as possible for the
good of all Canadians and for the good of the aboriginal nations
that live on Canadian territory and have valid claims to parts of that
territory.
Everyone agrees. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said: ``We
will probably do it in the future. We do not know yet what will be
the nature of the commission. However, I think we have been
talking for two years under the present government, and previous
governments have also dealt with these questions.
Therefore, in the interest of Quebecers, Canadians and all the
different aboriginal nations, I think it is important that the
government examines as quickly as possible the possibility and the
urgency of creating a commission like that one so that at long last
Canada and Quebec can solve the problem of aboriginal claims
because it is vital for the native people. It is vital for them to keep
their identity, which is to important. It is crucial to preserve the
identity of a people. To preserve that identity, the territorial claims
must be settled to that these people can have the necessary basis for
their economic, cultural and social development.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake in my home province for bringing this motion forward.
It is always a pleasure to speak to issues involving Indian people.
I spent two years on an Indian reserve at Wollaston Lake in
northern Saskatchewan, so I have a pretty clear idea of what
barriers exist for the aboriginal people living in and around these
communities. My constituency of Yorkton-Melville has five
Indian reserves which I represent in the House. Therefore I have
more than just a passing interest in the subject of Indian land
claims.
The motion we are debating asks the government to ``consider
the advisability of establishing a new, independent aboriginal land
claims commission as recommended in the 1994-95 annual report
of the Indian Claims Commission''. I read the annual report
referred to in the motion and the commission's recommendation
No. 1 states: ``Canada and the First Nations should develop and
implement a new claims policy and process that does not involve
the present circumstances wherein Canada judges claims against
itself''.
The last time I spoke in the House on Indian land claims was
during the debate on Bill C-33 regarding the Yukon land claims in
June 1994.
The Reform Party is way ahead of the government in the area of
aboriginal affairs policy. I would like to bring everyone up to date
on the progress we have made.
In June 1994 I was one of several Reform MPs who had the
privilege of participating in the Reform Party's aboriginal affairs
task force. We met with many native people and even made a trip to
Norway House in northern Manitoba. Mainly the concerns were
about self-government, mismanagement of band funds, patronage
and nepotism, and land claims.
In October of this year the leader of the Reform Party and
Reform's aboriginal affairs critics released the party's aboriginal
affairs task force report. The report was prepared following many
public meetings held all across the country, but mainly in western
Canada. Our task force met with native and non-native people. We
were disappointed that for the most part Indian leaders boycotted
the Reform Party's meetings.
Now, after the release of our 14-point plan, the aboriginal leaders
are complaining that we did not consult them. Every band in
western Canada was invited to the meetings and the vast majority
of Indian leaders refused our invitation.
I am sorry that I do not have time to outline the Reform Party's
complete 14-point plan in the House today, but here is what our
task force report said about land claims:
(1925 )
Point number one: Indian treaties will be fully honoured
according to their original intent and in keeping with court
interpretation.
Point number four: Land claim agreements and self-government
agreements will be negotiated under the principle of equality for
and among all persons. Settlement of land claims will be negotiated
publicly. All settlements will outline specific terms, be final and
conclude within a specific time frame. Final settlements will be
affordable to Canada and the provinces.
16953
Point number five: Individuals residing on settlement lands will
have the freedom to opt for private ownership of their
entitlements.
Point number six: Property owners forced to defend their
property rights as a result of the aboriginal land claims will be
compensated for the defence of the claim.
A few weeks ago I was on a CBC Saskatchewan radio phone-in
show discussing and debating the merits of our proposed aboriginal
affairs policy. After I got home, I got a call from a woman, a native
elder from a nearby community. She was positively excited about
our ideas. She said that she wanted to start getting a petition signed
supporting our new approach.
Here is how her petition reads: ``We, the undersigned citizens of
Canada, who also happen to be of Indian ancestry, draw attention of
the House to the following: That we oppose in principle the
government's approach to self-government and land claim
settlements which would entrench forever a top down,
paternalistic, race based system of government for Indian people
run by bureaucrats, band leaders and tribal council leaders for the
primary benefit of the bureaucrats, band leaders and tribal council
leaders, not necessarily the individual members of the band;
furthermore that we support in principle the Reform approach for
self-government and land claim settlements which would give each
individual Indian person real choices about how we want our
money to be paid to us, how we want our benefits, entitlements and
services to be delivered to us and whether we want our land to be
owned and managed by the band or owned and managed by
ourselves privately. Therefore your Indian petitioners request that
Parliament move and support legislation which will protect the
treaty rights, equality rights, democratic rights and property rights
of each individual Indian band member, thereby giving us the right
to opt for private ownership of a share of any land entitlements and
the right to opt to receive our money and benefits directly from the
government or through the Indian self-government''.
Is it not very interesting that that comes from the native people
themselves? This petition is being circulated by an Indian elder
among aboriginal people in my constituency. It is clear we cannot
continue the way we have been.
It is clear from everything I have seen during the two years I
lived and worked on an Indian reserve in northern Saskatchewan
that more money is not the solution. In fact more handouts simply
perpetuate the problem. Whenever handouts, compensation or any
benefits are given to anyone in society without that person being
held accountable and responsible, it will eventually harm the one
receiving it. That harm will spread like a cancer to the rest of
society.
It does not matter whether the person or group receiving the
handout is native or non-native, welfare has failed wherever it has
been tried. Now native communities and native people are feeling
the full effects of receiving handouts with no accountability,
handouts given with no clear stated objectives and handouts given
with no means by which to measure progress. The Reform Party's
recommendations are made with the sincere intent to correct the
colossal mistakes of years past.
Now we come to the motion we are debating this evening. Our
task force was silent on the process by which land claims would be
settled. It follows that we need to establish some kind of an
independent commission to accomplish this goal. After reading the
annual report of the current Indian claims commission it is clear
that the current system is not very effective. There seems to be a lot
of overlap and duplication which creates much bureaucracy and a
colossal waste of money with little being accomplished.
(1930 )
The other aspect we must consider is the overall direction the
Liberal government is headed in using the current settlement
process which ultimately confers special status, special
entitlements and creates separate enclaves based solely on race. It
is not a policy and process based on equality; this is a policy of
apartheid.
Before an independent aboriginal land claims commission could
be effective, the negotiating principles have to change. We would
argue that the principles espoused by the Reform Party's aboriginal
affairs task force are a good place to start. As long as the
negotiating principles can be changed so our starting point is
accepted by all Canadians, then I would have to agree with the
Indian claims commission recommendation.
It does not make much sense for the department of Indian affairs
to be negotiating agreements and then also to be the final arbiter for
the Government of Canada. I have to agree there is an obvious
conflict of interest. Therefore, it is obvious we need some kind of
independent process.
What choices do we have for an independent land claims
process? We have an independent aboriginal land claims
commission which I suppose would replace the current Indian
claims commission as proposed in the motion we are debating
today. We have a treaty ombudsman as recommended by Mel
Smith, Q.C., a constitutional expert, in his recent book, Our Home
or Native Land?, or we have the court system.
Until we have reconstructed our fundamental negotiating
principles for dealing with land claims and until these fundamental
negotiating principles have the support of the majority of people in
Canada, I do not think it is possible to say which option is the
preferred one.
This having been said, I would like to give my qualified support
to the motion put forward today by my hon. friend from The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. After all his motion just says that this
House ``consider the advisability of''. If this House considers the
advisability of replacing the current land claims commission with
an independent body, just maybe we will be able to have a full
16954
public debate about the terms of reference of this new independent
aboriginal land claims commission.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of establishing a new, independent aboriginal land claims
commission, as recommended in the 1994-95 annual report of the Indian Claims
Commission.
I appreciate the way the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake has phrased this motion. We are
considering the advisability.
The hon. member knows this is a complex issue. He knows we
cannot act precipitously. He knows there are many different
perspectives and that First Nations themselves have some
reservations about how an independent claims commission would
affect the claims process.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
been discussing these issues with the First Nations. We hope a
consensus will be reached but in the meantime the debate over the
hon. member's motion will help this House focus on some of the
issues involved.
I would like to remind the House of the process now in place. It
is a process that has been used successfully in the past although
there is certainly room for improvement. At present, there are six
steps to processing a specific claim.
In the first step the First Nation submits a claim along with
supporting documents to the specific claims branch of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The
branch then determines whether the claim meets the submission
criteria of the policy.
Second, the submitted research contained in the supporting
documents is analyzed and verified for completeness. The
department works with the First Nation to prepare a historical
report and analysis. Both parties must agree on the report. This is
what is known as the research step, and it can take a long time to
complete.
(1935)
The third step is acceptance or non-acceptance of the claim. The
specific claims branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development obtains legal opinions on the claim and a
decision is made to accept or not accept the claim for negotiation.
If the claim is accepted, we move on to the fourth step: negotiation.
The specific claims branch negotiates with the claimant First
Nation on the value of the losses and prepares an authority to settle.
In the fifth step, the specific claims branch and the claimant First
Nation agree on compensation and provision for settlement and
agreement in principle is struck. The agreement is drafted by the
Department of Justice and First Nation lawyers into a formal
settlement agreement. Finally, the settlement agreement is ratified
and implemented.
This is a long and painstaking process. There is a fast-track
procedure for claims less than $500,000 in which some of the six
steps are shortened.
Where does the Indian Specific Claims Commission come into
play? If in the course of these steps Canada turns down the claim,
the First Nation has a number of options: it can withdraw its claim;
it can move to litigation; it can present new documentation and
legal arguments; or the First Nation can request a review of the
department's decision by the Indian Specific Claims Commission.
The commission has been established to resolve such disputes and
it can subpoena records and witnesses. It can help the government
and claimant First Nations arrange mediation.
The commission's 1994-95 annual report indicates an
involvement in mediation of five claims. The commission also
pointed out in this report that it had received 98 requests, 42 of
which were in progress. The commission reported eight completed
inquiries.
Let me tell members about one case where the ISCC was
instrumental. In the Chippewas of the Thames inquiry, the Muncey
land claim, the First Nation had rejected settlement twice before
the commission became involved. The original point of contention
about the surrender of land was resolved early in the ISCC process
and a fresh settlement agreement was negotiated and ratified on
January 28, 1995.
Let me briefly explain how the commission works. If the
department has not accepted a claim, the commission can make
recommendations on whether the First Nation has established that
Canada has an outstanding lawful obligation. If the department has
accepted the claim, but the First Nation disagrees with the
compensation criteria, the commission can recommend which
compensation criteria should apply to the negotiation and
settlement of the specific claim.
There are five steps the Indian Specific Claims Commission
goes through. First, it receives a First Nation's request for a review
of the Department's decision. Second, it decides whether or not to
review the decision. Third, the ISCC gathers all relevant
information from the First Nation and Canada in relation to the
specific claim, including the opinions of experts. The ISCC will
also go into the claimant community and record the testimony or
information of the members of the First Nation. Fourth,
representatives from both the First Nation and the government
argue their case by setting out their interpretation of facts, legal
views, and conclusions. Finally,
16955
the commission makes its recommendations based on the existing
specific claims policy.
The commission does have some limitations. It cannot consider
a claim based on unextinguished aboriginal title. These matters
would be the subject of a comprehensive claim under a separate
policy.
What is the value of the commission? First, it provides an
opportunity for a body other than a court to review Canada's
decision. Second, the commission has been successful in bringing
both sides together with an impartial, neutral third party as a
mediator. The mediator has no decision making power, but he or
she does have the power to direct and interpret the exchange of
information. This influences perceptions, preferences and demands
of both parties and it often implies possible lines of agreement.
This is the system that now exists. The system has its challenges.
First Nations have expressed a concern that the commission is
named by the government and therefore, in spite of the best
intentions, cannot shake off the appearance of bias. The process is
cumbersome. The commission intervenes only after a First Nation
has been turned down by the department.
We will explore many options in the course of debating the
motion from the hon. member. However, what we must bear in
mind is that no changes should be made without the concurrence of
the First Nations.
The minister has been consulting with the First Nations and I am
very confident that a consensus will be reached. In the meantime,
this exploration of the issues arising from this motion is most
welcome.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[Translation]
It being 7.44, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow,
pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.44 p.m.)