TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, June 9, 1994
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 5058
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5059
Bill C-258. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 5060
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of Senate amendments 5067
Bill C-34. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5071
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5093
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 5094
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 5094
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5095
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5095
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5095
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5096
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5096
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5097
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5098
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5098
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5098
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5098
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5098
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5100
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5101
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5102
Bill C-34. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5103
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5104
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5110
Bill C-33. Motion for second reading 5113
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5124
Bill C-237. Motion for second reading 5126
5057
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 9, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today, in both official
languages, the joint report to Parliament of the Asia Pacific
Foundation of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages and pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)):
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the honour of participating
in the events to mark the 50th anniversary of D-Day.
Standing next to some of the Canadians who sacrificed so
much for our freedom I could not help but feel overwhelmed
with pride. Because of them and thousands more like them,
many of whom sacrificed their lives, our country is a living
example to the world of how diversity, tolerance and generosity
can build a peaceful, prosperous society. These are the values
Canadians fought for in two world wars and these are the values
we continue to uphold.
(1005)
The weekend before last I also took part in an event organized
by Canadians to commemorate a group of people who, while not
Canadians, nonetheless sacrificed their lives in the hope of
achieving the values we in Canada hold so dear. I took part in
ceremonies commemorating the fifth anniversary of the tragic
events of Tiananmen Square.
I was honoured to have been asked to lay flowers at the
monument at the University of British Columbia which was
erected by the Alma Mater Society of UBC, the Chinese Student
and Scholar Association of UBC, and the Vancouver Society in
Support of Democratic Movement to commemorate the tragic
events in Tiananmen. Respect for human rights was one of the
principal reasons I became active in Canadian politics and it is
with this philosophy that I am proud to stand as a member of this
government.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs outlined in a speech last
week, this government has a very clear framework when it
comes to the conduct of our bilateral relations with China. This
framework is based on four pillars: economic partnership;
sustainable development; peace and security; and human rights
and the rule of law. We do not sacrifice one at the expense of the
other. Indeed they are mutually reinforcing. Today I would like
to focus on the human rights pillar.
Respect for human rights is an essential part of Canadian
foreign policy. Our relationship with China cannot be reduced or
simplified to trade versus human rights arguments. We believe
systematic and wide ranging contact will lead to calls within
Chinese society for greater openness and freedom.
Surely there is evidence that increased political flexibility is a
byproduct of economic liberalization, and governments that
have opened their markets to international trade are more
sensitive to the views and reactions of other countries.
An inward looking society that depends little on trade and
international investment is less likely to respond to concerns
raised by foreigners. Trade reduces isolationism. Trade also
expands the scope of international law and generates the
economic growth required to sustain social change and
development. Economic liberalization also leads to the
pluralization and the empowering of interest groups in society.
Nevertheless it is imperative that we as a government
continue to raise the matter of human rights with those countries
we believe to be in violation thereof at every opportunity.
5058
While we respect time honoured traditions and cultures our
position has always been that the best guarantee for stability and
prosperity is a government that is responsive to its people.
As a matter of policy this government will continue to work
with other countries to ensure that China respects its obligations
under the United Nations declaration of human rights. This was
affirmed in the resolution voted on three weeks ago in my
party's policy convention.
On a bilateral basis we have also expressed our concerns on
human rights to the Chinese leadership. Indeed, during the visit
of Vice Premier Zou Jiahua to Canada I personally voiced my
concern about human rights in China and I raised specific cases
with the vice premier. This was also done by the Prime Minister
and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the meetings with Mr. Zou.
At the same time we intend to engage in constructive projects
and dialogues with the Chinese government on this question. It
is for this reason that our government will be funding joint
research projects like the one between the University of
Ottawa's human rights centre and Beijing University.
I believe this kind of dialogue and co-operation will help to
bring about greater understanding and will be of assistance to
the Chinese government in its efforts to reform its legal and
judicial structures.
CIDA's China program has contributed to China's economic
reforms and gradual opening mainly by creating links between
people and institutions, transferring skills, knowledge and
technology, and exposing thousands of Chinese to Canada, its
values and government.
(1010)
Canadians expect their elected representatives to abide by the
democratic principles on which our society is built. The Liberal
Party has always taken an innovative and effective approach to
its dealings with China.
It was a Liberal government in 1970 that took the bold and
imaginative step of recognizing the People's Republic of China.
I believe this helped to create the conditions for China to embark
on a process of economic reform and opening to the outside
world, a development which has had a tremendous positive
impact on millions of ordinary Chinese citizens.
As one who has been actively involved in the democratic
movement, I want to assure this House and all Canadians
concerned about human rights that dialogue and engagement
will best serve Canada's interests and those of the Chinese
people. This is the policy of this government and I believe it is
the right one.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise this morning and to mark on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois
the sad anniversary of the massacres in Tiananmen Square.
Thousands were killed there when the repressive Chinese
regime crushed the student democracy movement.
In spite of the hopes that had been raised by this vast
movement, democracy is still no closer to being a reality five
years later. In Shanghai, the 5th anniversary was marked by the
arrest of dissident Bao Ge after he had filed papers with the city
to register a human rights organization.
Mr. Bao Ge, who had been under permanent police
surveillance, was one of the few human rights activists who had
not been detained or forced to leave the big cities.
In Beijing where particularly repressive security measures
have been put in place, the police, terrified by the idea of public
demonstrations, ringed the square where the tragedy occurred.
Memories of the crushing defeat of the democracy movement
during the night of June 3 and 4, 1989, are still vivid. According
to dissidents and foreign observers, thousands were massacred.
The first image that automatically springs to mind is that of
the student facing down the tanks which literally crushed the
uprising. One would think that here in Canada, the federal
government would have decided to mark this event by making
radical changes to its human rights policy, a policy which the
secretary of state is defending this morning with great
conviction.
Indeed, a great deal of courage and conviction is required to
defend this government's 180 degree turn. From now on, human
rights will apparently take a back seat to this government's
commercial interests.
As the Leader of the Opposition stated in a question to the
Prime Minister: ``Canada is relinquishing its historic
responsibility, since the Prime Minister knows perfectly well
that polite comments behind closed doors will have no impact
on foreign leaders who systematically violate human rights''.
Would you care to hear the Prime Minister's answer, Mr.
Speaker? He answered to the effect that China would laugh in his
face if he adopted a hard-line position.
I think we are the ones who are being laughed at now. If we
want respect, we must have a conscience and that conscience is
what has earned Canada the worldwide admiration it currently
enjoys.
(1015)
We have heard the ministers of this government take turns
telling us that human rights are no longer tied to trade and
market logic.
As my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve stated
before this this House on March 22 last, and I quote: ``The
Liberals had promised a more 'we'll go it alone' Canadian
foreign policy, one more in line with Lester B. Pearson's vision.
Let the naive think again! The Liberal government is trashing a
long-standing tradition of defending human rights, reducing
5059
Canada to the condition of petty trading nation without any
vision, or heart or soul''.
This morning, the secretary of state reaffirmed the very clear
framework of bilateral relations with China recently described
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is clearly a double
standard regarding human rights violations, with Canada
applying a very harsh policy in the case of poor countries-let us
just think of Haiti-but a lenient one, one of turning a blind eye,
as far as rich countries are concerned.
I listened carefully as the secretary of state praised the four
pillars on which the government has decided to base the conduct
of its relations with China.
Allow me to reply to some of his remarks. The secretary of
state said, and I quote: ``We believe systematic and
wide-ranging contact will lead to calls within Chinese society
for greater openness and freedom''.
The problem is not so much prompting Chinese society to call
for more freedom as having the courage to pressure the Chinese
government to stop repressive action against all those who do
call for this freedom.
The secretary of state also indicated, and I quote: ``-during
the visit of Vice Premier Zou Jiahua to Canada, I personally
voiced concern about human rights in China and I raised specific
cases with the Vice Premier''.
We believe that the Chinese are expecting much more from
Canada than a mere expression of concern. Why not have voiced
outrage? Why not have voiced it publicly? Why not have
condemned the ongoing repression? God forbid that the
government jeopardize its relations with China and prejudice
any contract by daring to be insistent in any way!
The secretary of state told us about no specific multilateral
action that the government intends to take to make up for its lack
of leadership in bilateral relations. I challenge the secretary of
state when he tells us that the Liberal Party has always taken an
innovative and effective approach in its dealings with China.
The Liberal Party is certainly not innovating today; if anything,
it is going backwards.
I will remind him that an extremely significant step was taken
at the Francophone Summit in Dakar in 1989, when Canada led
the 42-country Francophonie in adopting a resolution making
protection of human rights a ``fundamental objective'' of the
international community.
It also mentioned that not only Canada but also the other
leading nations had to take account of the behaviour of the
receiving countries-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hope that the hon.
member will excuse me, but it is a principle of equality and
parity. You do not have more time than the minister.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to
continue for a few minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1020 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should make the point again.
There is an understanding that if a minister goes, for example,
15 minutes, the spokespeople for the two other parties can go as
long as he or she does, but not longer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today
to stand in front of the House and honour the brave men and
women who sacrificed their lives in Tiananmen Square five
years ago.
Like the minister, I often think about the huge square standing
in front of the forbidden city, with its overpowering picture of
Chairman Mao overlooking what has happened through history
in that square.
It was mentioned by one of my colleagues that looking back in
history we can often learn some things. Certainly one of the
things that might take us back to the thirties was listening to the
commentary regarding the rise of the Nazis and what happened
in Germany. It only emphasizes the difficult decision we have to
make today, whether we isolate or do we get involved.
All of us look forward to the day when China joins other
countries that respect freedom and democracy for its people,
respect and accept the human rights standards that exist for all
countries of the world. In the interests of security in Asia it is
vital that we work with these people and that we work from
within as the minister has suggested.
We too would agree that the interests of China's people will
best be served in the long run by our participation in China. The
only real choice the people of China have for more humanitarian
and democratic treatment is for us to help them become less
economically dependent on the Government of China and with a
vision of what is really happening in the world outside.
I cannot help but think of the first time I visited China 15
years ago. It is unbelievable the changes that have occurred
within that country in a relatively short time. It stands as some
proof of exactly what happens when the western society gets
involved. China has made changes and the people have achieved
more freedom. It is not perfect but at least they do have a better
quality of life.
5060
While we would like to have a perfect world, that just is not
possible. All we can hope is that we can have influence and that
over time things will change. This is our opportunity to play a
leadership role based on our early recognition of China and our
continued dealings with China over the years.
We must become more aggressive in our approach to China
and be certain that we take every diplomatic opportunity open to
us to press for more human rights. We look forward to the day we
can stand in the House and truly congratulate the Chinese people
on having achieved true and complete democracy.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development regarding the conservation
of the Porcupine caribou herd.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that
the government table a response to this report within 150 days.
[Translation]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the first report of
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on Bill C-31, an
act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act,
without amendment.
(1025)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a point of order.
The member I think appreciates he will have to have unanimous
consent for this.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to waive the 48-hour requirement for
introduction of this bill.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment and
award of the Canadian volunteer service medal and clasp for
United Nations peacekeeping to Canadians serving with a
United Nations peacekeeping force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to correct an
oversight that occurs at the moment. At this time the United
Nations issues medals to Canadians who serve on peacekeeping
activities. At some time after the issue of that United Nations
medal, the Governor General declares that medal to be a
Canadian medal. Many of our peacekeepers feel that this is not
truly a Canadian recognition and therefore there is a desire
among them to be recognized by the issue of a Canadian medal.
Also included in this bill is the clasp which would provide
visual recognition of the great honour that was bestowed on
Canada by our peacekeepers when they won the Nobel peace
award on September 30, 1988. This bill would provide a clasp on
the medal which would show those people who had earned that
award.
All Canadians are justifiably proud of our contribution to
peacekeeping and it is fit and proper that we provide pure
Canadian recognition of their contribution to our world esteem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): I move,
pursuant to Standing Order 27(1):
That, commencing on June 10 and concluding on June 23, 1994, on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays the House shall continue to
sit until 10 p.m. for the purpose of considering Government Orders,
provided that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall, when
applicable, be taken up between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this motion I would first
like to thank the House for its generally co-operative approach
to the legislation that has been put before it.
I must say I have been assisted greatly in my work by the
Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs, the hon. member
for Beauséjour, and my parliamentary secretary, the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands. I should also like to thank
the chief government whip, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard,
and the deputy whip, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, for their similar efforts.
I have other thanks to offer. I want to say I would be quite
remiss if I were to fail to indicate as well the important roles
played by the House leaders of the opposition parties. I refer to
the hon. member for Roberval and the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. They have both demonstrated the
important parliamentary skill of combining tough and vigorous
partisan-
5061
ship with a civil and courteous approach as well as an
understanding of the public's expectation that the House carry
out its business in a reasonable fashion.
Although we have had a number of significant philosophical
and policy differences, we have been able, most of the time, to
overcome these differences in order to work together to organize
the business of the House in a more orderly manner than I have
seen in much of my own career in Parliament.
(1030 )
I say this not to seek praise for myself as the leader of the
government in the House, but to demonstrate that at least part of
the message of the election of last October 25 has been heard and
understood here in this House. Canadians, regardless of their
political inclinations, want Parliament to function in a more
civil and open manner and, at the same time, to be a place of
vigorous debate and exchange of ideas.
It was with this in mind that the government has sought to
restore the importance of this House of Commons as the central
institution of Canadian government through its program of
reform of the rules of the House. These were implemented with
all party co-operation right after the throne speech debate
earlier this year.
One objective of this was to give the House of Commons and
its members a greater role in the initial stages of policy
development.
For this reason major studies by committees of our foreign
policy, our defence policy, our social policy and the goods and
services tax are presently under way. In addition, the House has
had a number of general debates, on the initiative of the
government, using time set aside for government business, in
order to give the government a sense of where members of
Parliament stand on such matters as peacekeeping, cruise
weapons testing and on agriculture before the cabinet makes
decisions in these matters.
The results of many of these initiatives will be seen only some
months later on. In many cases they will result in legislation and
some of the resulting reports no doubt will be quite contentious.
The government has been criticized in some quarters for
embarking on some of these studies, but they involve consulting
the Canadian people on matters crucial to them before
introducing legislation. I hope some of those who have voiced
these criticisms will not succumb later on to what we would
argue to be contradictory claims, when we bring forward the
resulting legislation, by attacking us then for moving too
quickly.
Even though this government is a new government I submit it
has brought forward a considerable legislative program; some
38 bills to date with another half dozen to be introduced before
we adjourn for the summer. We have already passed half of these
measures. These include such matters as the federal-provincial
fiscal arrangements bill, the budget implementation bill, a
number of tax measures coming from the recent budget and from
previous budgets and a wide range of other matters from
fisheries to railway safety to government re-organization.
I want to thank the House and, I repeat, I want to thank my
fellow House leaders for the great co-operation shown in this
regard.
We face the crunch now, the run up to the long summer
adjournment. Bills that were referred to committees earlier in
the spring are beginning to pour back into the House and we
must deal with most of them before starting the long summer
break.
These bills include Bill C-28 regarding financial assistance to
students, Bill C-30 regarding fisheries workers, and Bill C-12
revising and updating the Canada Business Corporations Act.
We must also conclude debate on the two bills pertaining to
tobacco, C-11 and C-32. Bill C-32 is particularly important
because it authorizes the making of rebates of tobacco excise
tax, rebates that have been long awaited by small businesses
across this country.
We also need to finish Bill C-22 regarding Pearson airport,
Bill C-16 regarding the Sahtu Dene land claim, Bill C-25
concerning petroleum resources, the two environment bills
C-23 and C-24, and Bill C-18, legislation which will enable us
to update the process of revising electoral boundaries. There is
also Bill C-35, the legislation to permit the reorganization of the
new Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
(1035)
We also have to deal with Bill C-33, the Yukon land claims
legislation and Bill C-34 regarding native self-government in
Yukon. I want to mention that I have been receiving many
representations from not only native groups but from the
premier of the Yukon saying that these bills represent a
consensus in the Yukon territory after some 21 years of effort.
They urge, therefore, that we consider and adopt these bills as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other what you might call
smaller items for which we will also seek passage.
In addition, before the House adjourns the government wants
to have second reading of Bill C-37, the young offenders
legislation. We also want to move into committee Bill C-38
respecting marine transportation security and the lobbyists
legislation which will be introduced next week.
This is an extensive list. Of course our precise scheduling is
dependent upon the timeliness with which our committees
complete their work on the legislation before them. I think
however that the proposal before us for additional hours will
permit the House to complete all of this business. After all, three
and one-half hours each day, Monday through Thursday over
two weeks seems to me to be a comparatively easy means to add
5062
what is the equivalent of an additional week of time for
government business.
To conclude I again want to thank my colleagues, the
Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs, my parliamentary
secretary, the member for Kingston and the Islands, the chief
government whip, the member for Saint Léonard, and the deputy
whip, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and at the
same time the opposition House leaders and their whips for their
co-operative efforts. These have enabled this House to proceed
in a manner reflecting the desire of the Canadian public for a
more open and active House, one with a co-operative
atmosphere, but which at the same time is a place, as I have said,
for vigorous debate and exchange of ideas.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a continued good atmosphere
here in the House that will enable this House to complete its
agenda. Therefore I ask for the support of members for this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, after
what the hon. Leader of the Government in the House said
earlier about the opposition leaders and especially about the
Leader of the Official Opposition, I should return the
compliment. I also want to underline the leadership the hon.
Government House Leader has exercised-in co-operation with
the opposition-and his always pleasant dealings with us
regarding the agenda of the House. It is easy to understand,
when we look at the actions of the Government House Leader,
why he has survived a 32-year career in politics.
Now that the compliment has been returned, allow me to have
a slightly different vision from that of the hon. Leader of the
Government, especially with respect to the business of the
House.
We in the Official Opposition were elected on October 25.
After the election writs were returned in the following days, we
asked that Parliament be summoned immediately because we
saw our friends waving the red book and demanding action.
As early as mid-November, we were ready to meet here to
consider government policies, initiatives and bills, and to
implement the program they were elected on.
Despite repeated requests, we had to wait until January 17 to
meet. Of course, we worked in our ridings, met with our
constituents and prepared our arguments, but we could not deal
with any legislation because the government had decided not to
convene the House.
(1040)
I must say that, when the House first met, it looked like a
larger, more visible Spicer Commission. It introduced motions
on various issues which we debated, but where was the
legislative agenda? Where was the beef then and where is it
now?
We then had bills without deep significance which generated
little debate because many or all members could easily agree to
them. We are now coming to the end of the session and they table
a motion to extend sitting hours. It is standard parliamentary
procedure. It gives the public, the voters, the people of this
country and of both countries, the impression that there is much
to be done in the home stretch in this country.
If the parliamentary agenda had been planned differently, if
we had started sitting last November, we would not have to
extend sitting hours during the last two weeks, so that members
will have to work for 12 hours in the House and the committees,
respond to their constituents' requests and lead rather hectic
lives here.
However, we will do it. The Official Opposition does not at all
intend to oppose the motion tabled by the Leader of the
Government in the House, but it must be recognized that the
planning of our agenda could have been done in such a way that
this motion would have been unnecessary, especially since the
government is announcing, somewhat hastily and at the very end
of the session, bills which have not yet been tabled.
The Government House Leader referred to the Young
Offenders Act, an omnibus bill which should be tabled shortly.
He also announced legislation on lobbyists, as well as a bill on
sentencing. Moreover, the government may want a second
reading vote on these bills, some of which are not even on the
agenda yet. As you know, it is not always a good thing to take on
too much, because you sometimes end up not being able to do
everything.
We must dispel the impression that we have to hurry because
we have not done anything so far. The opposition is at the mercy
of the government's agenda. Every day, we have worked with
what the government put before us.
The government, through its House leader, referred earlier to
Bill C-18, which we will look at for the last time this afternoon.
This legislation on electoral boundaries readjustment and its
impact is another example of bad planning. Indeed, Bill C-18
was tabled a bit late, with the result that, in some cases,
provincial electoral boundaries commissions had to redo some
of their work, while others had to start from scratch. This is an
example of the mess we are in.
Mr. Speaker, what really surprised me, in a pleasant way, was
to hear the Government House Leader say that he wanted us to
have full dress debates, and that this House was the place to have
such discussions. I am pleased to hear this from a person who
has so much authority, because I was somewhat perplexed
5063
yesterday when I read and heard that the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is the Deputy Government
Whip under the Government House Leader, was encouraging
people to sign petitions to keep us from debating the real issues
for the two countries which are to be found in Canada.
I am therefore reassured and pleased to hear the hon. member
for Windsor West and Government House Leader say that he has
absolutely no intention of setting aside major issues so as to
avoid a debate on them.
Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition will do its job to the very
end, and will work the extra hours required to fulfill the mandate
given to us by our constituents, in spite of the disruptions to our
daily schedule.
Consequently, if there is a vote, we will support the motion
tabled by the Government House Leader.
(1045 )
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion before us today. I thank the
hon. government House leader for his kind words and the hon.
member for Bellechasse for his complimentary words regarding
the co-operation House leaders have achieved during the first
few months of the 35th Parliament. I also express words of
appreciation for the co-operation and goodwill expressed
among us.
However I too have some concerns. I rise to speak to the
request of the government for an extension of the sitting hours of
the House. My party, the Reform Party, has endeavoured to
bring a different approach to the opposition benches of the
House. The hon. government House leader alluded to it. We did
not come to Ottawa to oppose de facto all government policies
and motions. Instead it is the goal of my party to offer
constructive criticism and even support government bills and
motions we deem to be in the best interests of Canadians.
On that basis then we will not oppose the motion to extend the
hours. Our hope is that these extended hours will be used
profitably for the good of Canadians. I trust this hope is based on
reality and not idealism on our part.
However the government's request to extend the hours of
sitting of the House brings some questions to my mind. I cannot
help but wonder-and I am sure many Canadians have the same
questions as I have-why the government feels it needs to
extend the hours. There is really only one reason it is necessary
for the government to lengthen the time we spend in the House.
The reason is that the Liberals have let down Canadians by
wasting our time with relatively unimportant housekeeping bills
for most of the time we have spent in the House thus far.
Allow me to outline the reasons for my thinking, Mr. Speaker.
Since the election last October that elected the Liberal
government, 225 days have passed and 82 days have passed
since the date of the election and the initial convening of the
House. Since then the House has also been sitting for a total of
82 days. During those 82 days we have been presented with 38
bills, with notice having been provided for 11 more.
Let us review the performance of the Liberal government for
those 82 sitting days. Unlike other parties, the Reform Party is
not adverse to giving credit to the government when credit is
due. The government deserves some credit for a few changes it
has made so far. Despite some disagreements on the various
details of its legislation, the Reform Party is willing to
commend the government for some changes proposed to the
young offenders and student loans acts; for empowering the
committee to make changes to the standing orders; for
reviewing policies surrounding social programs, foreign,
defence and peacekeeping policies; and for allowing special
debates on topics such as agriculture and the situation in Bosnia.
Despite our role in opposition to oppose, the Reform Party is
willing to acknowledge that the government is following
through on some of its campaign promises, such as the
cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter deal and the Pearson
International Airport privatization deal.
If nothing else, we congratulate the government for sticking
to its word in these areas. The Liberal government appears to
have followed through on its promise to reduce the size of
budgets of the offices of the Prime Minister and cabinet. Its
promise to create a youth job initiative, even though we fear it
will be ineffective in light of the jobs it creates at considerable
cost to taxpayers, was at least an attempt to keep a promise.
However I must admit that my praise is rather faint. We are
disturbed at the amount of time being taken by the government
to put its plan in place. How much time does the government
need to study and consider important Canadian issues? When
will the government admit that the time for talk is over and that
the time for action has come?
Two troubling statistics have come out of my examination of
the bills introduced by the government. The first is that of the 14
bills left on the Order Paper at the end of the last session under
the previous Conservative administration, eight have been
recycled or reused with minimal changes. The Liberals said that
they were going to be different. Instead they have shown they
are an old line party from the same old system of politics of
which Canadians have grown tired. In fact it is impossible to see
how the government is different from the previous Conservative
administration subscribing to Marshall McLuhan's idea that
politics is a means by which to offer yesterday's answers to
today's problems.
(1050)
The second troubling statistic is that of the 38 bills introduced
thus far, at least 13 have been of a housekeeping nature. We seek
not to question the fact that many of these housekeeping details
needed to be taken care of. Rather we seek to question why the
government has tied up the business of the House with details of
lesser importance than the truly great issues facing the majority
of Canada. The issues I speak of are the promised Liberal
programs dealing with jobs and job creation; the deficit and the
5064
debt crisis; with justice system overhaul; and with reform of the
pension plans for MPs.
The Liberals seem to be inclined simply to put on the guise of
action. As I have mentioned 38 bills have been introduced of
which 16 have been passed, 3 have gone to the other place, one
has been returned to the House by the other place, and that was a
real government fiasco, 12 are at committee and 5 are at second
reading.
To an outside observer this gives the appearance of action. It
is like the Liberals have just inherited the family farm but do not
want the neighbours to find out that they do not know what to do
with it. Instead of putting in a crop they are driving around in
their tractors, spinning its wheels, or they are rearranging the
equipment in the shed.
The Liberals cannot claim lack of experience. In the campaign
they offered a list of star candidates and they even have several
old hands from the Trudeau era. Perhaps this lack of ability to
introduce substantial legislation is a result of the Liberal
government not really wanting to make any changes at all,
preferring rather to revere the memory of previously inept
Liberal administrations.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I remind members on
the government side that nobody heckled the government House
leader when he was giving his speech.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, Liberal Party members cannot
blame the neighbours for their lack of advice or input. We know
it is just a matter of time before the government comes to realize
it needs help in getting its farm up and running. They only need
to ask. As the farmer across the road, the Reform Party is willing
to help provide the direction required.
Of the 38 bills brought before Parliament only 16 have been
passed. Of the 16 bills that have been passed into law the Reform
Party has supported 10 of them. Let it not be said that the Reform
Party seeks to obstruct the legislative process of the
Government of Canada. Rather the Reform Party has sought to
be and has become a constructive force and good neighbour in
the House of Commons. It is unfortunate, however, that we have
not been given the opportunity to deal with very much truly
substantive legislation.
The result of the election that brought all of us to Ottawa was
an obvious expression of the desire of the Canadian people for
change in government. Canadians elected over 200 of the
current members of Parliament to the House for the first time.
The Liberal government could have taken this past election as an
opportunity to make the changes it promised in its so-called red
ink book.
While the Reform Party does not support the majority of the
policies put forth by the red book, we recognize the democratic
voice of Canadians in providing the Liberals with the mandate to
make those changes. Instead of representing the change
Canadians expected, the government has chosen to waste its
time on these housekeeping matters and put off the real
decisions seemingly to an indefinite time, preferring to remind
us how to do politics in a tired old way. The government has let
down all Canadians. It has given Canadians exactly what they
voted against: the status quo.
The Liberal Party campaigned on a platform of job creation
and economic stimulus. Unfortunately campaign is the only
thing it did with most of its promises. The Liberals have shown
themselves to be politicians of the old order. The Liberals are
politicians who, like their predecessors, promised change and
delivered nothing.
The Reform Party does not object to sitting late and working
for Canadians. The Reform Party has been co-operative in
supporting 10 out of 16 bills passed in this session. It must
therefore be the fault of the Liberals that virtually nothing
substantive has been put forward by the government. With this
in mind we cannot help but wonder what justifies the rush when
no hurry has been exhibited by the government to implement its
program thus far.
I am the member for the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminister
in Saskatchewan. A large part of my riding was devastated by
the great depression of the 1930s. The people survived by
sticking together in a spirit of teamwork and mutual support. It
is with that spirit I offer advice to our Liberal friends on the
other side of the House. Perhaps the Liberals can take a few
ideas from the common sense suggestions of the Reform Party.
Hopefully Liberal egos will not get in the way of common sense.
(1055)
First and foremost the Reform Party feels the need to remind
the Liberals of the massive debt crisis facing the country and
specifically future generations of taxpayers. The Liberals may
not care about future generations but the Reform Party does.
The young people of Canada are being cheated by the
government. Deficit spending is a discriminatory tax on youth.
The unrestrained deficit spending of the last two decades has
placed a heavy burden on Canadian youth. It is they who will be
taxed throughout their lives to make interest payments on the
national debt which is now over half a trillion dollars. Growing
at over
5065
$1,500 per second, the national debt amounts to over $18,000
per capita. Debt and taxation levels in the country have gone up
so fast that the government is soon likely to price Canada right
out of the world market. This cannot continue.
Where are the bills to reduce federal spending in every
department from every minister? Why is there not balanced
budget legislation instead of a budget that increases total
government spending by $3.3 billion?
The debt is the most critical problem facing Canadians and
their social programs today. The irony is that we can afford our
social programs. It is the debt we have accumulated that we
cannot afford.
According to the public accounts for the year ending March
31, 1993, the interest on the national debt amounted to some
$38.793 billion. In fact government accounts show an operating
surplus but for the interest payments being made on the long
term debt of the country.
In the absence of debt and the resulting interest payments, we
would have a program of expenditure surplus and tax levels
could in fact be reduced without any threat to social programs.
The government does not seem to care. Last night it refused even
the most moderate reductions to the estimates. The Liberal
government, along with the Bloc and the NDP, voted against
reducing the estimates by only $20,000. What an awful sign that
sends from Ottawa.
The government has forecast a deficit in this fiscal year of
approximately $40 billion, making no effort to curb the
spiralling deterioration of the fiscal situation in Canada. This is
why last week Moody's, the investment rating company,
downgraded the rating on foreign denominated Canadian bonds.
This is also why Reformers feel that the debt and the deficit are
the most important issues facing Canadians today and why we
would not hesitate, as the Liberals have obviously hesitated, to
deal quickly and with conviction regarding the financial
problems facing Canada today.
Reformers do not wish financial slavery on their own children
or on the future generations of Canadians. Why are there not
bills before the House that would restore investor confidence,
small business optimism and taxpayer hope for tax relief?
Why did the government scratch out the following words from
the Reform Party's motion on national unity? I quote:
-remain federally united as one people, committed to strengthening our
economy, balancing the budgets of our governments, sustaining our social
services, conserving our environment, preserving our cultural heritage and
diversity, protecting our lives and property, further democratizing our
institutions and decision making processes, affirming the equality and
uniqueness of all our citizens and provinces, and building peaceful and
productive relations with other peoples of the world.
Another area of concern to Canadians and to the Reform Party
is the extravagance of pensions for members of Parliament.
High on the list of suggestions I would offer to our Liberal
counterparts is the reform of MPs' pensions. As the member for
Calgary Centre mentioned the other day, the pension package
for politicians has created a two-tier pension system
completely out of line with the private sector. This system must
be reformed and brought into line with the pension programs in
the private sector.
The government is talking about making changes. It is waiting
for studies when no studies are needed and has made no
substantive proposals. Could it be that the Liberals are trying to
protect the wealth of their pensions for themselves? After all,
will they need them when a disillusioned public turfs them out
of office after the next election? I doubt they are needy; maybe
they are greedy.
Canadians are frustrated by the fact that there are more
barriers to trade and commerce in an east-west direction in the
country than there are in a north-south direction. For many
businesses it is easier to carry on business with companies and
customers in the United States than it is to carry on business
with other provinces in Canada. These barriers to the free
exchange of goods and services within Canada work against
economic growth and development of business relations in our
country.
The government promised to work quickly to eliminate
interprovincial trade barriers by a date this month. However
these barriers to trade within our country still stand and it
appears no progress is being made in this area. How long will the
government wait to put business in any and all provinces and
regions on an equal footing?
(1100)
Let us talk briefly about justice. A few weeks ago Barb
Danelesko, an Edmonton housewife, was murdered in her own
home by intruders who turned out to be young offenders. Her
death has brought to the national stage the fact that the Liberals
have been slow to act on this issue.
The Reform Party believes that the justice system should
place the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding
citizens and their property ahead of other objectives. This
principle should apply to the Young Offenders Act.
The current treatment of young offenders still derives from an
outdated 19th century idea that youth are morally incapable of
criminal wrongdoing. The policy consequences of this idea deny
justice to young offenders, to the victims of their offences and to
citizenry at large. Reform MPs have illustrated this point with
case after case of documented youth offences, but they have not
moved the Minister of Justice and his government to introduce
responsible legislation.
5066
Recently the Minister of Justice did introduce some changes
to the Young Offenders Act. Unfortunately these amendments
do not go nearly far enough to provide for the protection of
society. Most noticeably, it failed to lower the age at which
youth will be held responsible for their actions. It is unfortunate
that the House will spend many hours debating inferior
legislation like Bill C-37.
Another issue that concerns Canadians is the fact that the
traditional representatives they elect to Parliament seem to have
become spokespersons of the government to them rather than
ambassadors of their electors to the government in Ottawa. It is
time that all members of Parliament began to truly represent
their constituents.
Reformers want to make it possible for members of
Parliament to represent the wishes of their constituents. We
believe that the failure of a government measure in the House of
Commons should not automatically mean the defeat of the
government. Defeat of a government motion should be followed
by a formal motion of non-confidence, the passage of which
would require either the resignation of the government or the
dissolution of the House for a general election.
This practice has been successfully followed in the United
Kingdom for over two decades and it could be introduced here.
No constitutional or legal change is required, just a declaration
on the part of the Prime Minister. He has failed to make this
declaration.
This bold act would break open what scholars have called the
iron cage of party discipline. Members of Parliament could
begin to vote for what their constituents really want instead of
what a small cadre of cabinet ministers wants. This would open
up the institution of Parliament and revitalize respect for
politicians who would have the opportunity to truly serve the
people who elected them.
The only substantial parliamentary reform has been to change
the standing orders, allowing committee and report stage of bills
prior to second reading. However, absolutely no bills have
followed or gone this route to date. Why would the government
make these changes and then not follow through on using the
new procedures? I would like to suggest that this is perhaps a
sign of a deeper problem within the Liberal Party. I trust the
Liberals will have more use for changes they make in the future.
Therefore, not only does the Reform Party question the
government on what it has been trying to pass off as important
business during the last session of Parliament, but we have
concrete ideas and proposals that we believe would be in the best
interests of Canadians. If the government wants to admit that it
does not know what to do by dredging up old Tory legislation,
the Reform Party will be glad to help point the way.
Let us not waste our time on cursory housekeeping matters but
get on with the truly important matters that need to be urgently
dealt with. The deficit, justice issues, MPs' pensions and
representational matters are issues that affect Canadians to a far
greater degree than migratory birds or the National Library.
Right now I feel like the woman from the now famous
``where's the beef'' commercials. I believe the hon. member for
Bellechasse mentioned a similar concern. This government's
approach to reform is to talk about it, study it, promise it and
quibble over it but when we come to sink our teeth into it, we
find there is nothing there. We have missed the point.
It is with reluctance that I support this motion. I support it
because Canadians need reforms legislated soon. I do it
reluctantly because the government has proposed so little
substantive legislation to this point.
In closing, I would like to quote Allan Fotheringham's
column in the Ottawa Sun dated June 5, 1994. In it he addresses
the Prime Minister with these words: ``Start fulfilling your
mandate. You're the Prime Minister. Act it''.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 45 will
be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 45-Mr. Chatters:
With respect to police investigations relating to fraud and
misappropriation of funds by the Indian bands, tribal councils and
aboriginal/metis organizations, (a) how many were conducted during the last
five years, (b) how many charges were laid, (c) how many are currently
underway?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not collect statistics in
relation to any particular ethnic groups.
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the other questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 20 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
5067
5067
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion
in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18,
an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it is a good thing I have a glass of water. I am quite busy
this morning.
Today I have an opportunity again to rise and speak about the
changes the other place is proposing to Bill C-18. I am glad we
have a chance to revisit this issue.
Bill C-18 as it was originally envisaged by the government
was a very serious breach of the fundamental principle of
democracy, namely preventing the intervention of political
parties in the design, conduct and outcome of elections in
Canada.
The electoral process in Canada is probably the most fair,
unbiased and most professional in the world. Our electoral
process is not perfect and I hope we will have the opportunity to
discuss some improvements at a later date.
The original intent of Bill C-18 not only threatened the
non-partisan aspect of our democratic process but it jeopardized
the reputation that Canada enjoys internationally as a country
that could be counted on to set high standards of impartiality
with regard to the electoral process.
Witness that Canada is very often called upon to supervise or
observe elections around the world. The Ukrainian and South
African elections are two recent examples of this. I cannot
emphasize enough the damage that would be done to Canada's
international reputation if Bill C-18 were to have passed in its
original form.
It should be obvious that Reformers were correct in their
analysis of the bill. The government should have accepted our
amendments.
The reasons this bill had to be amended are many but the
concept of preserving a Canadian sense of fair play was
certainly the most important. It is of paramount importance that
all aspects of the electoral system be conducted at arm's length
from the government and all political parties. This will ensure
the fair play ideal that Canadians hold.
It is somewhat ironic that the body that is moving to protect
democratic principles in Canada is the Senate. The formation of
the upper House is about as undemocratic as one can imagine.
The principle of appointing legislators in the British
parliamentary system is not only undemocratic but it is outdated
and not in keeping with the tide of democratization washing
over much of our globe.
The old vice of the monarch choosing half the Parliament has
now evolved to the point at which the Prime Minister
recommends senatorial candidates to the Governor General.
This is unacceptable to most Canadians. This makes senators
nothing more than political hacks who have no legitimacy in the
eyes of the nation.
Senators have become the focal point of Canadians' desire to
democratize their country. Senators are the tip of the patronage
iceberg and many Canadians, including loyal Canadians on this
side of the House, want to remove this liability to democracy.
Many may ask, if the Senate is an undemocratic chamber why
did it act to protect Canadian democracy? It almost sounds like
an oxymoron, just like Progressive Conservative, or fiscally
responsible Liberal.
(1110 )
Was this action of the Tory senators an indication that they are
more democratic than their Liberal counterparts? Not at all. It is
clear this was an attempt by the Conservatives to do the right
thing for once and stick up for Canadians since they blew the
opportunity to do that while they were in power for nine years.
The elected part of this party is now gone. In desperation the
patronage recipients of a discredited Tory party are trying to
restore credibility to their very discredited party. All I can say to
them is good luck but do not hold your breath.
The issues of Senate reform, democratic principles and
redistribution are inextricably linked. There is much concern
from Reformers and in the country in general that we must
reform the two component parts of our bicameral Parliament to
balance adequate regional representation with the democratic
principle of one person, one vote. It is impossible to accomplish
this balance without including Senate reform.
With the current undemocratic Senate there is only one truly
democratic chamber in Parliament, the House of Commons.
This Liberal government and all previous governments strive to
balance equality of individual Canadians with regional
representation within this House. As time goes on, this issue is
getting under the skin of more and more Canadians in all parts of
the country.
As a result of the constitutional floors accorded some
provinces with regard to the electoral district allocation, true
equality of Canadians is already precluded. Many of the reasons
for these floors can be traced to the sad reality of an unelected
Senate.
5068
There is a constitutional law that no province can have fewer
elected members in the lower House than unelected members of
the upper House. For instance, Saskatchewan is guaranteed six
seats. Nova Scotia is guaranteed 10 seats and Prince Edward
Island, 4 seats.
There is also an accepted convention that the redistribution
process will not result in any province having fewer seats than it
had in 1976. This results in Manitoba and Saskatchewan being
guaranteed 14 seats each. Newfoundland is guaranteed seven
and Prince Edward Island, four.
These limits make it almost impossible to cap or reduce the
number of seats in the House in an equitable way over the long
term. Nobody seems to mind the fact that most provinces have
more MPs than senators. Perhaps this is because the MPs have
legitimacy and senators do not because they are not elected.
The question then becomes: How do we give senators
legitimacy, provide for a regional balance among the provinces
and protect the principle of one person, one vote? The answer is
a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected, has an equal number
of members from each province and is effective in protecting
regional interests. It is a Senate that has an equal number of
members from each province to provide regional balance,
elected by the people to give them legitimacy, and therefore
effective in safeguarding provincial and regional interests. This
leaves the House of Commons free to be the guardian of the rep
by pop, one person, one vote system.
A triple-E Senate would also provide an opportunity for
internal regional balance within large provinces. For example,
in Ontario the population of the golden triangle region can be
represented equally with the north. In provinces like
Saskatchewan the urban and rural areas can achieve more
equitable representation. A triple-E Senate could be a real
problem solver for many issues that alienate Canadians in many
parts of the country.
I believe very strongly that the problems arising with the
redistribution process are a direct result of the refusal on the part
of traditional parties to reform the Senate. The fact that an
unelected Senate ensures the requirement for constitutional
floors on the numbers of seats guarantees that some Canadians
will be better represented than others in the House.
It follows that electing senators and an equal number from
each province will allow more equitable distribution of seats in
the House of Commons based on the principle of one person, one
vote. It would allow the redistribution process to more
accurately reflect the population distribution of the country.
One of the consequences of an ineffective Senate is the power
vacuum created in balancing regional interests. This is
supposedly the mandate of the upper chamber. However, first
ministers conferences have grown in importance and power as a
result of this vacuum. The increased frequency and authority
given to such meetings have put far too much power in the hands
of two smaller groups of individuals to be called democratic and
responsible.
Canadians are weary of hearing that 11 men and women
behind closed doors have come up with another proposal.
Perfect examples of this are the public's reaction to the Meech
Lake and Charlottetown accords.
It is also worth mentioning that the House has given the
procedure and House affairs committee the mandate to
investigate the possibility of capping or reducing the number of
seats in this House. Some very simple mathematical
calculations make it obvious that guaranteeing certain provinces
a minimum number of seats regardless of population will make
it all but impossible to properly carry out the mandate over the
long haul, unless we are willing to live with an even larger
discrepancy in the number of people represented by MPs from
different provinces, a difference that is already more than a
factor of five.
(1115 )
For example, the riding of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island
has a population of 29,150 while the riding of Brampton,
Ontario has a population of 162,610, more than five times as
many. That means a Canadian living in Cardigan has five times
as much say as a Canadian living in Brampton. A triple-E Senate
would then allow for a reduction or capping of the number of
MPs without lessening the representation for sparsely populated
areas of the country.
Canadians are outraged that the government continues to
support an outdated 19th century appointed Senate. We are
currently studying ways to move this House into the 21st
century by investigating the matter of electronic voting and by
allowing laptop computers into the House. Why then does the
government refuse to update the 19th century upper chamber,
which is a far more serious matter?
There are currently two vacancies to be filled in the other
place, one for Manitoba and one for Quebec. Both of these
provinces will be having provincial elections in the near future.
Why will the Prime Minister not encourage the people of
Manitoba and the people of Quebec to choose their own senators
at the same time as their provincial elections are being held?
There is no constitutional barrier to doing this, as was shown by
the election of the late Senator Stan Waters, Canada's first and
only elected senator.
I challenge the Liberal government with its red ink book and
its rhetoric about a more open and democratic Parliament to
practise what it preaches and to move toward Senate reform. I
challenge it to do something that will give it a revered place in
history.
I challenge this government to stop the patronage
appointments to the Senate. I challenge it to take a stand and say
that an unelected Senate is unacceptable and that this
government will allow elected Canadians to sit in the upper
chamber. Ending the patronage appointments is the right thing
to do. This government now has a chance to do the right thing.
The Tories before
5069
them missed their chance to do it and we know what happened to
them.
There are likely to be another eight or nine senators who will
reach retirement age before the next federal election. That
means eight or nine more opportunities for the government to
show if it is committed to democracy or addicted to patronage.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
thinks there might be more if some of them pass away. Let us see
if this government is committed to democracy or if it is addicted
to patronage.
Once we get the elected part right, there will be more goodwill
created toward the Senate. The constitutional changes that are
required to ensure the democratic equality of all Canadians will
be more achievable.
I would hope for the sake of Canada, our democratic system,
the wish of Canadians for a reformed Senate, and to avoid future
problems and disagreements over redistribution formulas that
the government will move to democratize the upper chamber.
There is no reason other than partisan self-interest why it could
not do so.
The government is proposing moving the date that the
redistribution process would resume to June 22 from February 6.
This has the effect of creating a 12-month period to review the
redistribution legislation. The government had originally
proposed 24 months and the other place proposed six months.
When this bill was debated the last time around in this House
the Reform Party proposed an amendment that provided
for-guess what-a 12-month period. The Liberals
unanimously voted it down. Now they are proposing the very
same thing. This shows two things. First, they are not willing to
support a common sense idea if it comes from this side of the
House. Second, they are admitting to feeling a little
embarrassed about the ridiculous nature of what they tried to do.
Even the media has acknowledged the Liberal retreat. An
article in the June 3 Toronto Star reads:
The Liberal government has backed away from a confrontation with the
Senate, agreeing to extensively amend a bill that would have prevented
riding redistribution before the next election. The government House leader
proposed the compromise yesterday, winning tentative support from senators
and Reform MPs who had strongly objected to the original bill.
We've given the matter further thought. We've listened to public
comment-We're a government that's ready to listen, the government House
leader told reporters. But the proposed amendments also help the
government. British Columbia, which stood to gain two House of Commons
seats prior to the bill, objected to it strongly. Even rank and file Liberals
were against it at the party's national convention last month.
The move to pass the original Bill C-18 was so unpalatable
that even the Liberal's own party membership could not support
it. Had the Liberals taken our advice in the first place we could
have saved a lot of House time.
(1120 )
Perhaps we would not have had to deal with the motion just
prior to this one, where we extended the sitting until 10 o'clock
every night until the House recesses for the summer. Let us have
some common sense here so we do not have to introduce these
motions at the last minute to accomplish the business we need to
accomplish. Had the Liberals taken our advice in the first place
we could have saved a lot of House time and allowed for more
constructive legislation to be considered before the summer
recess.
Also, the bill as amended will allow for the redistribution
commissions to complete their hearings and report to the Chief
Electoral Officer by September 16. Again this is what we
proposed the first time around and the government rejected it. It
almost seems that it rejected the ideas we presented out of pure
partisan spite only to reintroduce them under its own name.
In conclusion, it is clear the Liberal government came up with
a raft of bad ideas regarding C-18. As a result those of us on the
procedure and house affairs committee are left to repair the mess
that has been created. The Liberals have a majority on that
committee as well as in the House. Will they attempt to force
their predetermined wishes on the committee or will they begin
to listen to some of the excellent proposals offered in good faith
by Reform MPs? They have now admitted through their
amendments to the bill that we were right the first time. Perhaps
they have learned that we do have something to offer.
This country is far too precious to play politics with.
Democracy is not free. It comes at a very high price. Last
Monday we honoured those who gave their lives to protect
democracy 50 years before on the beaches of Normandy. We
owe those who fought that day more than we can adequately
express. It would be a terrible shame for their sacrifice to be
wasted on petty partisan attempts at boundary gerrymandering.
In Canada the principal tenets of democracy are something we
should be proud of. They are not something to be tampered with
to suit the needs of the government.
I would support the bill as amended because it is basically
what we had proposed in the first place. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to Bill C-18.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I
carefully followed the proceedings on Bill C-18 at all stages and
also joined in the debate at all stages.
5070
The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata just made a
comment I did not quite understand, and I am afraid I was
momentarily distracted.
As I was saying, Bill C-18-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Langlois: -was introduced by the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons and considered at all
stages, where I took part in the debate, and to me it was clear that
the government wanted Bill C-18 to be adopted as is, without
major amendments in this House.
In fact, the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons said so on several occasions, not only from his seat
here in the House, but also when he appeared, at least twice,
before the Senate, to defend his amendments. I read and reread
what was said by the government House leader in the Senate,
and his replies to questions from Senators Prud'homme,
Lynch-Staunton and others were a clear indication that he did
not intend to add any amendments.
What happened between the time Bill C-18 was passed in the
House and today? Basically, two things happened which made
the Government House Leader change his mind.
We had the Liberal convention which voted on a resolution
requesting that redistribution take place in time for the next
election.
(1125)
Resolutions on the subject all had the same goal. There was
also the position taken by the Conservative majority in the
Senate. The Conservative majority, seems more like a Reform
majority. We now apparently have a reform majority in the
Senate, since comments made in the Upper House by hon.
senators who defended the majority position reflected the same
arguments used by Reform members in this House. We can say
there is a kind of strange osmosis between Conservative
senators and Reform members. I think they are starting to find
out they have things in common. The missing link lies
somewhere between the Reform Party and the Conservative
Party. The family is getting back together.
Just as the phoenix rose from his ashes, apparently the Reform
Party has benefited from an electoral infusion of Conservative
support. We shall see.
I am very sorry to see that the government caved in to the
wishes of a House that is not elected and is dictating to us its
concept of a democratic approach to setting electoral boundaries
and guidelines for electoral boundaries readjustment, since
basically, that is what we will have to do on the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
All things being equal and the government having consented,
despite denouncing what the Conservative senators appointed
by former Prime Minister Mulroney had done with the GST,
despite all this, today we realize that the more things change, the
more they stay the same. Once again, the government bent to the
will of the other house. This is one time too many since at the
start of its mandate, the government had the unique opportunity
to send a very clear message to the Senate and to show that the
Upper House was and is the embodiment of democracy,
according to the classic definition. The government missed this
unique opportunity to make it very clear not only to the Senate,
but to all Canadians that decisions are made in the House of
Commons by the elected representatives of the people.
Of course, the other house may from time to time make some
technical adjustments or indicate that a bill may have been
poorly drafted. At times the Senate may serve this useful
purpose. I also believe that a few extra legislative advisers could
achieve the same results. The role of an unelected Senate in
1994 is not to propose such substantive amendments to a bill.
For this reason, my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe proposed
yesterday that funding to the other house be cut off, which to all
intents and purposes amounted to proposing the abolition of the
Senate.
Virtually everyone in this country objects to the idea of an
appointed Senate like the one we now have. Since there is no
chance whatsoever of reforming this institution either in the
short or medium term, abolishing it outright is the simplest
solution.
When we, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, have fulfilled
our mission, working with Quebecers, to achieve sovereignty
for Quebec, then of course the debate on whether Canadians
want an elected Upper House, or a Triple E Senate, as mentioned
by my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster, can be
reopened. However, it will be quite another matter to convince
Ontario which will account for probably more than half the
population of Canada to agree to having one-ninth of the
senators. I wish them good luck, but it will be their problem.
That debate will take place in Canada. We will have our own
debate in Quebec.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, given that the Bloc
clearly stated its position, supported Bill C-18 as originally
introduced, listened to the Reform Party argue that Bill C-18
should be amended and finally, voted against these
amendments, we will not change our position. We stand by the
original version of Bill C-18.
(1130)
If the government has decided to bend to the will of the
Senate, then so be it. Let it live with the consequences of this act
of weakness. So as not to delay the work of this House, we will
consent to the bill being passed on division.
5071
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, it is very easy this time,
the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for first
nations in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I really do not
have a long prepared text for my speech this morning.
This long and detailed bill on the First Nations
self-government act which has been introduced by the
government deserves a great deal of consideration. It is a
lengthy bill and has major ramifications when it deals with the
granting of self-government to large parts of our country by
creating a new level, a new idea, a new vision of government by
certain classes of people.
It is a little bit different than the whole vision we have always
had that Canadians are exactly the same from coast to coast, that
we are going to set up some kind of self-government for one
particular class of Canadians.
Reformers very much believe in the equality of all Canadians
from coast to coast and this type of bill requires a great deal of
consideration. We cannot move ahead too quickly on this and the
House should take the opportunity to look at the bill and
examine it in great detail.
In the deliberations the government and the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development have had with the
aboriginals in the development of this bill I hope the wishes of
the rest of Canadians have been taken into consideration. It will
have ramifications for natural resources and on how we govern
this country. It could become unmanageable to have another
level of government introducing its opinion into the
development of the country. We already have three levels and a
fourth level is going to make it more and more difficult.
Therefore I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development can give us his assurance that this bill is
advancing the cause of Canadian aspirations rather than causing
roadblocks and problems in the years ahead.
(1135)
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to discuss the problems of Bill C-34 and its attempt to help
the Indian communities in Yukon to achieve the kind of
economic and social aspirations which I think is their legitimate
right and which I would like to support.
Unfortunately I believe this bill will not achieve this
objective. In fact, it is my judgment this bill will do a great deal
of harm, much like policies of the past have done an
unfortunately large amount of harm.
In my saying that the basic principles underlying this bill are
false, I do not wish to suggest that I have an answer to the
complex problem on how to help the native population of our
country. Nevertheless, I am in the kind of situation where I do
know there is an illness and that the medicine which is being
proposed will not help alleviate the problems but in fact will
make them worse.
Let me say what I mean. All of us-it is a human
condition-dream about having a rich uncle who pays us a
guaranteed, generous income so we can retire somewhere on
some south sea island and be happy ever after. It is part of the
human condition that we all have these kinds of dreams.
However, in our experience, as we have matured, we have
known that this is a dream which cannot be fulfilled. The rich
uncle, even if he gave money to us, even if we could go to the
south sea island, would not help us be any happier than we are.
Often in fact we would be forced to leave.
Studies have shown that people who have the means to engage
in this kind of fulfilment of their dreams come back unhappy and
resume their old lives.
This is why we as parents typically, even if we could afford to,
tell our children: ``No, your education is finished, you cannot
count on more support from me, from my family, from your
parents. You will from now on be on your own''. The rich
families of this world establish trust funds to say: ``At age 35 or
40 you will be able to draw on this money''.
We understand it is in the human condition that we need an
obligation, that we need a job, that we need to work. We have
refused to give in to our children, yet we have been misguided
when in the past we have given in to the demands of the native
community to give them more physical goods, to allow them to
live on their south sea island equivalent. This is my judgment of
what is going on.
5072
I have read a sociological economic study of conditions on
these reservations. Let me tell you the story of what is known on
these reservations as the lazy house. In the olden days, when
families lived in their traditional ways the man in the house had
a task. The man had to cut wood, make sure that his family was
comfortable. He went out to hunt and fish to supplement the
food supply. The housewife, the mother, was fully occupied
doing the kinds of chores we have all seen our wives doing and
we in fact have participated in helping in the family.
(1140)
Of course with modern houses you do not have to go and cut
wood. Electricity or gas supplies the heat. You do not have to stir
the wood in the stove in order to cook meals. Instead of having to
tend a garden in the summer you just buy the food from the
supermarket.
I can understand it. When I was in my twenties I was saying to
my parents: ``Hey, listen, you know you can afford it. Give me
some more''. These people have come to the Government of
Canada and said: ``It is our right''. It has been supported by
people like those heckling me saying: ``Yes, of course you poor
people, we will give it to you''. Well, we give it to them.
This is what I read has been the consequence of this policy.
They would not do it to their children but they do it to the
natives. The lazy house now means the mother has so much time
on her hands she does not know what to do with it. The father, his
very existence, the meaning in life has gone away, just like the
meaning of life has gone away from people who go to the south
sea islands and have the option to come back.
This is the interpretation that I read of what is wrong with the
native communities. I do not have to repeat what is wrong with
the native communities. The books are full of it. My wife, the
doctor, treats the wounds, treats the cigarette burns on the arms
of the people, of the wives who have been mistreated by men
whose meaning of life has gone because we were like the rich
uncle who says: ``Oh my poor teenage nephew. He needs a
steady flow of income''.
I know I am going against the conventional wisdom by
suggesting that it is short-sighted for the government to do what
many of us have decided is short-sightedness of supplying our
children with ways which lead to complications of the sort I
have described.
I do not know the answer to the native communities and the
problems which persist. If we go back 50 or 100 years, every
year the answer is to give them more resources and they will be
happy and will get rid of the problems. We give them more and
more and more.
I have the budget here. We already are increasing
expenditures at a time when all the other spending programs are
being cut, for example, to old people. The future is being
burdened by increasing debt. We are increasing spending on
natives by $300 million a year. That has been going on over the
last 100 years.
(1145)
I hear people saying: ``You do not know what you are talking
about. You mean to spend even more''. The problem has not got
any better. From what I know, it has been getting worse all the
time. That is why we are now going for other institutional
innovations. Now we have to make this absolutely permanent so
they never, ever have to do certain things that I believe are the
essence of human dignity, of a life worth living on this planet.
It is the natives who have called those houses lazy houses. We
have seen what happens if we do this.
Sometimes the best thing we can do for our children is to say
no. I believe that even though we do not have the answers,
saying no would mean that we are not giving more medicine for
the cure of this problem which I think history over the last 100
years suggests is the wrong medicine.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? Perhaps some
of the members who were heckling would have the courage to
get up and ask a question or make a comment.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member and his
reference to the Yukon legislation and the four First Nations that
are involved. His reference to lazy house is a reference to the
aboriginal people of those four First Nations. Maybe he could
clarify this. He is in fact saying they are lazy, they live in a south
sea environment and the men go around burning their wives with
cigarettes.
Is it his intent to leave that on the record?
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to suggest
that the native people are in any way inferior to us or any other
people in the world. It is my considered judgment from reading
history and evidence on the sociology and the problems of these
communities that the state and well meaning people like the
minister who just spoke have created conditions and institutions
with the best intentions, filling the short run demands of the
individual just like we were likely to do when we were teenagers
or in our twenties.
I am suggesting the evidence I have seen is that these
institutions have produced not what the teenager wanted, not
what the natives wanted but something that is now creating the
difficulties all of us feel so terrible about. From what I hear life
is awful on these reservations.
We all want to help. I am not here to denigrate or in any way
insinuate that the aboriginal peoples of this country are in any
way inferior. They need our help. The question is, are we giving
them the right help?
5073
I believe we must look at how we got where we are. How did
we get there? How does the proposal to give even more
resources to these people differ from what our predecessors in
the last 100 years said: ``Here is a problem. Let us throw more
money at it''. Let us make sure that this is a cure, that the
responsibility we have for them is even more permanent and
fixed.
I did not invent the words lazy house. It was discovered by the
natives themselves. When they get the things they have they do
not quite turn out the way they expected.
(1150 )
You remember when you had your first bicycle, your first
motorcycle, your first car. As you were fighting for it, you
thought: ``If only I could have that, I would be happy forever and
ever''. We now remember. Sometimes the things we want, when
we have them, are not really good for us.
Let me sum up. I am not in any way insinuating that the people
themselves are lazy, that they are in any way inferior. Any
problems that society has I believe should be looked at
realistically by asking: ``How did we get there?'' If we decide
that all we need are more resources, I urge members to go back
and see why proposing all those resources in the past, increasing
all those resources available to them, has not solved the
problem. From what I hear and read, it has made it worse.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say as a member of this House that I am
appalled at the message we are receiving from the hon. member
across the way. I say that because the hon. member is constantly
asking how we got there.
This government is taking an initiative of listening to the
native community. Our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development has been into communities across this country
listening to the people. The people want a vision for themselves
and part of that vision is what we are talking about today.
It is about economic growth and jobs within the First Nations
community. The member opposite is criticizing and opposing
what we are doing on this side of the House. What is his agenda
for the First Nations of this country?
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to me how much
time I have.
The Deputy Speaker: About two to three minutes.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear we are facing a very
complex problem.
I do not pretend to have the answer but I can tell the member
that I have read studies. One of them had a wonderful title. In
fact the author and I were colleagues at the Australian National
University for a long time. It was called The Affluent
Subsistence Economy.
The south sea islands are so far away from all markets that the
south sea islands will never be able to be industrialized and have
the kind of living standards we have in our industrial country. It
is simply a physical impossibility. I wish it were different. I
wish we could fly. It is not in the cards.
Why am I using this example of the south sea islands? It is
because that is something we can relate to. I certainly come from
a temperate climate. This has always been my dream.
The areas in the north are very much like the south sea islands
that have been studied. There was no great interference in many
of them from the outside. They all have a reasonably good
living. They are healthy. They have their traditions. They are
from all descriptions of sociologists a happy, well-balanced
society.
However they now all want radios, televisions and other
things. One of the tragedies of our lives, of the reality of this
world is that there is no way that by staying on these islands they
can have these things. I did not invent it. The analysts did not
invent it. It is simply a fact of life. There are distances and they
cannot have this.
They have a choice. Either they continue to have their affluent
subsistence with all the satisfaction, all the dreams and romantic
attributes that are associated with that kind of a life or, dare I say
it, they leave. They go to the big island and they join the big
cities with all the problems that go along with it.
(1155)
Time is too limited to draw the parallel of what that analysis
implies for the native people of our country. I can tell you there
will never be in the centre of Yukon an industry sufficient to
maintain the people there by their own work at a living standard
corresponding to that which we have in Toronto or in Vancouver.
I believe that it is a contradiction, that we are not serving them
by giving in to their demands. I do not deny that the hon.
minister has been listening to them.
They say they want enough resources in the centre of Yukon
so that they can live as well as the people in Vancouver. It is not
possible. I believe the sooner we come to that realization and tell
them they have a choice but they cannot have it both ways, the
better off they will be and we will be.
That is an outline of the solution I have. I know it is not
popular, but I have not been elected to keep on talking about
what is popular. I was elected to speak out and to say things the
way I see them after 30 years of spending my life reading,
writing and thinking about these matters.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-34 which is before the
House today. The legislation allows for implementation of the
land claims agreement entered into by the Government of
Canada, the government of Yukon territory and a number of
5074
First Nations residing within Yukon territory. I am pleased
because this is very important legislation that was a long time in
coming and that deserves the full support of every member of
this House including, I would hope, the member from
Capilano-Howe Sound who just spoke.
I am disturbed by some of the remarks that I have just heard. I
would simply say in prefacing my remarks today that I think it is
time all members of this House stopped thinking in terms of
something as ours to give someone else. We must understand
that we as people in this nation share a tremendous resource and
that in sharing that resource we recognize that some people have
as much right to that resource as others. Members of this
Parliament do not have the right to give something to somebody
that in fact they possessed long before it was removed from
them.
The aboriginal people of this country have a claim not only on
our resources but our economy that has long been denied them.
It has created a great deal of the problems that have been
identified by the member for Capilano-Howe Sound. It is only
in that recognition that we will in fact achieve the ability to deal
with the crisis that occurs within the aboriginal communities.
That is one of the points that this legislation addresses. I would
hope that the member for Capilano-Howe Sound in
recognizing that would in turn support the legislation.
I want to thank the House for allowing me a few minutes to
speak today. I will not take up much time. This space was
originally allocated to my leader, the member for Yukon, who
was called away today on other parliamentary business. She
asked me to say a few words on her behalf. I appreciate the
indulgence of the House, the member for Vancouver Quadra and
yourself, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this time.
(1200 )
I wish to say a couple of words about the member for Yukon
today. She has worked closely with the Government of Yukon
and the Yukon First Nations during the negotiations which led to
the signing of the claims agreement. She is certainly very well
informed about the nature of the agreement. She is firmly
committed to assisting the House in approving the legislation
which will allow that agreement to be implemented.
On her behalf, on behalf of myself and on behalf of our entire
caucus in the House of Commons, I ask the government to
proceed as quickly as possible through all stages of the
legislation. It has been thoroughly discussed, carefully thought
out and properly negotiated. Agreements have been reached. It
would be a real shame if all levels of government that have
worked so hard to get to this point were to see things stalled
simply because the government and Parliament could not
conclude matters before heading off for a summer recess.
I said before and I simply repeat for the benefit of the House
that the legislation has been a long time in coming. It is the
result of more than 20 years of very frustrating negotiations at
times. There have been delays as governments changed and
priorities shifted, but it is a piece of legislation that not only
rights the bitter wrongs of the past but holds out the key to the
future, a future which I think all members of the House would
understand, a future which all Yukoners, aboriginal and
non-aboriginal alike, could look forward to with pride and with
hope.
It is a historic agreement. When we look at the umbrella
agreement we see that it directly affects about 8,000 Yukon
Indians and involves a total of about 16,000 square miles of
land, some of which comes with surface and subsurface rights
and some with surface rights only but including the rights to
material such as sand and gravel, economic opportunities in
Yukon.
There is a little more than $242 million in compensation
available to the 14 First Nations affected, to be paid out during a
15-year period. There are provisions ensuring that the Yukon
First Nations receive full rental revenues from surface leases
and royalties from the development of non-renewable
resources. These are very important provisions for the future of
the people of the Yukon First Nations.
I recommend all members of the House review the umbrella
agreement. It has sections that deal with wildlife harvesting,
wildlife conservation and land use management proposals, as
well as provisions dealing with the preservation and promotion
of the culture and heritage of the people of Yukon.
The agreement is a tremendous example of what can be
achieved when governments sit down to discuss these matters,
when they have respect for each other's history and tradition and
for each other's needs.
The final umbrella agreement was signed on May 29, 1993.
Today is a little more than one year later and I believe this is the
time to get the legislation out of the House and put it to work in
Yukon where it will do the most good.
I certainly look forward to having some time during the brief
committee stage discussions to have a further look at some of
the more specific clauses for the benefit of some members of the
House. However I will conclude immediately by urging the
government and all members of the House to get the legislation
through this stage and completed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I am a little disturbed by
some of the comments of the hon. member, his overwhelming
enthusiasm for the bill. Companion Bills C-33 and C-34 in my
view legislatively and constitutionally entrench a form of
apartheid in the country. The fact that the people who are being
segregated will perhaps have greater rights than the segregators
is a bit unique. They are ensuring perpetual divisions within the
country, as well as, as my hon. colleague has stated, ensuring
that for the future and perhaps for all time the people who will be
segregated from us will be condemned to a life that has no real
meaning.
5075
(1205)
Let me explain what I am getting at. In the 1950s and early
1960s I spent most of my time working in the bush with native
people. They were very self-reliant, hard working and proud.
They did what they could to support their families. They did not
ask the government for anything. By and large they were happy
and successful people. They built their own cabins; they hunted
their own food. They did not ask us to send them more money,
give them control over more resources and they would be happy.
They never thought of themselves as being unequal because they
were our equals. Now we are going to make them something
different.
Does the hon. member believe or does he not in the equality of
all Canadians?
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I cannot
agree with many of the comments my friend and colleague from
the southern part of Saskatchewan has put on the table today. I
do not believe that anything could be further from the truth than
segregating people by this legislation.
If the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
would look carefully at the agreements that have been signed, he
would realize this is an integration of aboriginal people into full
participation in the economy of Yukon. We are not just talking
about the equalities of people. We are also talking about equality
of opportunity for all people.
We have to find a way in which the aboriginal people, not only
of Yukon but all across Canada who in his words want to be
self-reliant, hard working and proud, can participate in an
economy that has been denied them for many years because of
policies of previous federal governments. The treaties signed in
other parts of the country have actually reduced the ability of
our aboriginal people to participate in the economy as equal
partners in the way in which they deserve to be treated.
We have to find ways, as this agreement has done, to bring
together equality of opportunity. That is a more important
question than the one the member asked.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I am curious and
rather amazed at the comments of my hon. friend. Anyone who
has looked at the Indian Act will realize that for years and years
it has denied the treaty Indian people of the country their
equality with other Canadians.
As we look at this document we must ask ourselves whether or
not we are simply eliminating one piece of legislation that has
created inequality on behalf of Indian people and replacing it
with another, except the rules have changed. The rights and
privileges granted Indian people are going to supersede those
which other Canadians enjoy.
I ask the member to consider these points. At the time the
treaties were signed, it was not so much the treaties but the
application or the administration of the treaties that caused
inequality in the country for so long for treaty Indian people.
Would the hon. member focus his attention on this question:
Are we or are we not at risk in that we are creating laws that will
grant special rights and privileges to Canadian people based
upon their race and ethnic background?
(1210 )
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, again I think the member has things
a bit backwards here. I recommend that he have a look at the
agreements reached in Yukon with regard to the legislation we
are trying to implement today.
First, we are not talking about treaties in the case of this
agreement. Second, one part of the agreement does away with
the provisions of the Indian Act which have caused many of the
problems in the past.
We recognize that over the years federal government policy
and other policies developed by provincial and territorial
governments have actually removed the aboriginal rights to the
land and the benefits the land provides. Those rights have been
encroached upon by others who had no claim on them. The
agreement recognizes those rights were encroached upon to
begin with and returns them to where they rightfully belonged in
the first place.
I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question at
all. I certainly wish he would study the issue a lot more closely.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps we should return the debate to Bill C-34. We have been
all over the world. We have been to the south seas in search of
some mystical blue lagoon. We have been to pre-democratic
South Africa in search of a regime I would have thought was
totally foreign to anything we have seen in the application of the
law currently before the House.
As real Canadians, not inhabitants of some mythical isle but
as native Indians, founding nations or whatever, we are dealing
with Canadians getting together in a new act of law making. I
thought it delightful when I read it-and I asked whether I could
meet with the public servants who actively engaged in the work
on the bill-that it was not an exercise in abstract law making.
5076
To use another metaphor, one was not building castles in
Spain or seeking to do so. One was not seeking the sermon on the
mount which is so rarely realizable in concrete life. One was
venturing on a concrete act of problem solving. One was trying
to solve problems for particular people. I would have thought
there was the difference. May I say it is the theatre of the absurd
to compare it to apartheid, a regime of state imposed draconian
police measures and enforced segregation.
Here we are dealing with a free act of consensus. The players
are all coming together, not simply the government and not
simply native peoples. If we look at the files we see local
communities, chambers of commerce and an amazingly wide
degree of consultation in the process. We see peoples coming
together and freely deciding on a new system of government.
The search for constitutional absolutes, abstract principles
which read very nicely in platforms but do not often correspond
to reality if we examine constitutions around the world, has been
avoided. One could have spent hours, days and months
discussing the concept of the inherent right to self-government
which so baffled the former Minister of Justice and the late
Prime Minister. She never could understand it.
When it was first launched in 1980 in the Trudeau patriation
round, it was a simple statement of the obvious: people have
rights not because some government gives them but because of
their nature and their capacity as human beings. It is what Locke
said. It is what Rousseau said. It is the basis of our constitution
making and our constitutional system.
(1215 )
What you have is a constructive involvement of native
peoples by their own free consent negotiating with the federal
government and reaching an agreement which might serve as a
model for future agreements but which does not have to be
applied rigidly, inscrutably to other problem areas in the future.
The charming thing, the wonderful thing here, is law in the
making, a sense of a dynamic creation of new norms of law. The
way it is done is to limit oneself to the particular problem, not to
attempt to solve the problems of the day after tomorrow but to
set in place a structure and process of self-government.
Self-government is not an abstract norm, it is something that
happens to people as Dewey recognized in his theory of truth.
You make the events happen. You work together. I look at this
and I see pragmatism, I see empiricism, I see problem solving. I
congratulate the players and it is not simply the federal
government, it is the Yukon territorial government, it is the
native Indian leaders, the people, it is the local community
people. I look at the steps that are taken, the recognition that
self-government without an economic base is no more than
tinkling cymbals.
This is why Bills C-33 and C-34 go together. You need an
economic base or self-government is meaningless.
Then you go on to the issue of self-government and what
form. You can begin as so many people did between the two
world wars by creating a beautiful constitution. The history
books are littered with these beautiful constitutions that were
enacted and were never seriously intended, or sometimes were
seriously intended but the people did not bother to follow them
up with the machinery necessary to implement them.
When I look here, there is the concept of incorporation of
native Indian peoples to create their own companies, to create
their own commercial organizations, to develop resources, to
develop wealth, to share it among the population. That is
something the European constitution makers between the two
world wars forgot. It is present in this bill. It is a key part of it.
The Indian act will continue to apply outside Yukon. This is a
special experiment. If it succeeds others will copy it. If it does
not fully succeed it can be modified. The power to tax is a
necessary element of self-government. You do not rush into it in
the sense that we will enact an abstract law tonight and it will be
in force tomorrow. It is not to apply for three years. What that
envisages is a continuing process of consultation and
discussions with experts and government officials, finding the
correct formula for taxation before it is concretely
implemented.
I was particularly impressed by the provisions on the
administration of justice. I have seen in too many newly
independent countries or too many countries newly freed from
subjection to some form of government, communist or
otherwise, not particularly constitutional, the attempt to create
the blueprints before one has examined how to make them
operational.
The thing that is impressive here is that the staggered stage by
stage, step by step approach that the full administration of
justice will occur by the year 2000. One has avoided the
temptation to rush into a law that will be in force tomorrow but
that does not have the concrete underpinning to sustain it
operationally.
There is something very impressive in this, the recognition
that there are many roads to Rome in terms of self-government.
Here is a model that the native Indian leaders have worked out
with federal officials and local community groups and they are
going to try it out. That is very important.
The temptation, as they say, was there to go for the abstract
blueprints. It has been avoided in a mature exercise in
constitution making in favour of this pragmatic, empirical,
problem oriented, step by step approach here, resting all the
time on continuing negotiations between the parties.
5077
(1220 )
There is an act of faith here, a sense of faith and trust not
between parents and children, as somebody suggested in a
metaphor that was ill placed, but between free citizens. The trust
is very important to the further progressive development of the
self-government concept.
When I look at this bill I do not see anything that changes the
structure and system of government in Canada as a whole. The
impressive thing is that this is achieved within the Canadian
Constitution. It is within the parameters of the Canadian
Constitution. It is subject to the Canadian Constitution. It is
subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Do not create imaginary scenarios, worst case scenarios that
would in effect take us out of the Canadian constitutional system
when neither the parties wanted it nor is it present in the act.
These two acts are very well drafted. I say this without being
presumptuous. I say this from an earlier free, prepolitical role.
They are carefully drafted, problem oriented and there are no
hidden traps here.
There is no reason for worrying about hypothetical situations
that do not exist; a decision made within the Constitution, within
Canadian federalism, a special approach to federalism, the
concept of pluralistic federalism. We have always recognized
within Canadian federalism that equality does not require a
rigid, abstract application of laws identically in all situations.
It is the large concept of equality that the United States
Supreme Court recognized. It has spread throughout the world.
It is building people up to a level where concretely, in terms of
their rights and obligation and duties, they are as one.
I commend this law. I would say to those who feel that they
must search for the blue lagoon somewhere, let us come back to
Canada. Let us herald this as a first step, so generous in many
respects because it breaks new ground within the Constitution
and subject to the Constitution. The nice thing in it is that it has
its own dialectical process, the capacity for further growth. The
capacity for change, for amendment is there if the parties agree
to it.
That is something transcending the issues of party politics.
We can say congratulations are in order to the minister, to the
civil servants, to the native Indian leaders. This is good. In a
certain sense when federalism is under attack for other reasons
in Canada today it makes one feel very confident in the future of
our federal system and its capacity, the continuing dynamic
growth in relation to new problems.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member opposite.
It is important to point out that no one in this House surely is
going to say that the native peoples of Canada should be denied
any type of rights, certainly not, and no one has said that today.
What we have commented on is the extension of rights
exclusive to the native peoples under Bill C-34, exclusivity of
rights not applicable to other citizens of Canada, rights that
would be available to them under their own Constitution and in
fact outside the Constitution Act of Canada.
Nowhere in this bill is there a reference that the Constitution
Act of Canada would be supreme over any provisions of this bill.
To suggest that there are people in this House who would want to
deny rights to native peoples is a misstatement for certain.
(1225)
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to put any
fears of the hon. member opposite to rest on this. It is not
necessary in a law of Canada to recite, to repeat, the self-evident
that the Constitution and the laws of Canada are supreme. The
Constitution of Canada applies to all laws enacted by the
Parliament of Canada. The source, the grundnorm in legal
terms, if I can use the technical term, of this new
self-government is an act of Parliament of Canada. It is subject
to the Canadian Constitution. It is subject to the Canadian
charter of rights. There is no room for doubt on that. I hope I can
put any fears the member may have to rest on that.
I do not see here any notion of exclusiveness of rights or
particularization of rights, priorization of rights in relation to
other citizens. I would have thought this is an attempt to put all
Canadian citizens on the same level but if there is doubt as I say
this is part, this is a law enacted within the Canadian
constitutional system and it is therefore subject to the Canadian
Constitution and all its parts.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering
if the hon. member who has just spoken would accept an
amendment that would remove all doubt with regard to the
application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this
agreement.
I think that as members of Parliament and those involved in
law making we must flush out every corner to ensure that no
mistakes are made and that nothing is overlooked so that the
document when it finally receives the great seal of Canada does
the job it is meant to do.
I am wondering if the hon. member would support an
amendment where it clearly states that within the document the
charter of rights of Canada does apply and will continue to
apply.
Would the hon. member care to comment on such an
amendment and whether he would be prepared to support such
an amendment?
5078
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I am not the author of this bill
and so I am not authorized to make any arrangements on behalf
of the government.
I would, however, caution against the pursuit of perfectionism
in its extreme and pathological form. I recollect the legislature
of a province which I will not name enacting within the
preamble to every law at a certain point ``this statute is not
subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''.
I do not think this is a good way to make law remembering that
law is designed to be educational too. The statute states very
clearly in its preamble that it is subject to the Constitution of
Canada. It is quite clear. It is quite explicit and it is true in any
case as a matter of general law.
To be very frank, if the member has any concrete problems
they will very quickly be tested before the courts I am sure and
the self-evident clearly expressed. It is not simply self-evident.
It is evidenced in writing and will apply.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address Bill
C-34, a bill which deals with the self-government provisions of
the aboriginal peoples of Yukon.
Clearly there has been a great deal of confusion over the term
self-government in this House.
On February 7, I questioned the Prime Minister on this topic
and specifically whether aboriginal self-government in his
mind, in his government's mind, in its definition, would exist
within federal or provincial jurisdictions, jurisdictions which
apply to all Canadians.
(1230 )
He chose not to answer the question directly. Further, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the
Minister of Justice have made conflicting statements with
respect to the application of the Criminal Code and the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms as it would pertain to aboriginal
self-governments.
Clearly the federal government has absolutely no idea of the
definition of self-government, nor does it have any idea where
these self-government agreements will lead. However, this has
not deterred them from putting forward Bill C-34, a bill which is
unprecedented in relation to the scope of powers and privileges
it delivers to self-governing institutions, a bill which for all
intents and purposes confers a type of nationhood on the
affected bands.
If we look at the specifics of Bill C-34 I believe that we can
easily envisage the creation of four new nations in the Yukon,
with a further ten yet to be established. These nations, within the
nation of Canada, according to the bill, will convey the same
powers that federal and provincial governments exercise upon
four new nations with a combined population of only 2,600
people. These new nations may, in fact, exist outside the
authority of federal and provincial jurisdictions.
I believe there is ample evidence to establish that the
government is stumbling blindly into agreements which will
create a patchwork of sovereign aboriginal nations across
Canada.
For the pleasure of the members of the House, I will now
begin to present the reasons for supporting this belief.
The government on a number of occasions has committed
itself to the belief that aboriginals have an inherent right to
self-government. With agreements such as this bill, the
government obviously believes that amendments to the
Constitution are unnecessary as aboriginal inherent rights could
be interpreted as being included under section 35(1) of the
Constitution Act.
But what exactly does this constitutionally protected term
inherent mean? An inherent right is something beyond a legal
right, since the latter is dependent on the existence of some other
government. Therefore, an inherent right to self-government
puts aboriginal governments beyond the reach of federal and
provincial governing bodies.
If we go a step further, we can see an inherent right leading to
claims of international sovereignty, or more likely, the
possibility of the aboriginal peoples under this bill choosing to
opt out of federal laws. It is the term inherent that is the rationale
for the government producing Bill C-34 and it is the term
inherent that will allow aboriginal governments to challenge the
authority of federal and provincial Parliaments.
The federal government saw fit to insert section 15(2) in Bill
C-34 to ensure that the Federal Court of Canada remains
supreme over future aboriginal justice systems. This is good.
Why not a similar section to allow for the supremacy of the
Canadian Parliament over future aboriginal self-government
institutions? What does the government gain by permitting the
term inherent to go unchecked in this legislation?
Nevertheless, this huge omission is only the beginning. The
powers awarded to aboriginal governments, coupled with their
inherent rights, can only further my claim that these new
governments could actually be new nations existing outside
provincial and federal jurisdictions. According to section 8(1)
of Bill C-34 these aboriginal governments are to have their own
constitutions which will set out the structure of their legislature
and their democratic processes. It will establish a citizenship
code and determine the rights and freedoms of those citizens.
Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? Well, it should. These
are the same powers exercised by the federal government
operating as the nation of Canada, the very same powers. The
powers delivered to aboriginal governments are a mixture of
federal and provincial powers as defined by sections 91, 92 and
93 of the Constitution Act of Canada.
5079
(1235)
Arguably these small numbers of aboriginals have been
awarded the combined powers of our present federal and
provincial governments under this bill.
Bill C-34 allows aboriginal control over everything from
marriage to education to justice to peace, order and good
government. Does that phrase sound familiar? In short, this bill
represents the possibility of another order of government in
Canada, something that we questioned the Prime Minister on
early this year. Not only have they achieved legislative powers
that represent the best of provincial jurisdictions, but they have
also achieved the right to draft their own constitution and
establish their own citizenry.
If this does not represent the distinguishing features of a
nation within a nation then I do not know what does.
The scope of Bill C-34, coupled with the government's
interpretation of section 35(1) as including and protecting the
notion of inherent right will surely supersede section 91(24) of
the Constitution which conveys power to Parliament over
Indians and the land reserved for Indians. This is a giant step for
band councils which to this date have simply exercised
municipal-like powers.
After the implementation of Bill C-34 these councils must
create a constitution which, among other things, will include the
creation of a legislature. According to section 8(1)(b) of Bill
C-34, the aboriginal constitution will determine the
composition, the membership, the powers, duties and
procedures of any governing bodies. This appears to be very
dangerous considering the broad spectrum of powers awarded to
these new possible governments.
I have some questions. Will this new government be
democratically elected? Will it hold regular elections? Will all
citizens be permitted to vote and run for office? Surely questions
like this must be answered before this legislation is passed. All
of these questions are left unanswered and are to be determined
by their own constitution.
Section 9(2) is particularly disturbing since it allows the
delegation of law-making authority to one person if it be
consistent with their constitution. Everything from democracy
to oligarchy to dictatorship to nepotism could be completely
acceptable if it is consistent with their constitution.
Perhaps this is why the government did not include any
provision for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Bill C-34.
Could this be the reason?
Any deviation from democratic principles would be
disallowed under sections 3 and 4 of the charter. These sections
deal with democratic rights and ensure that, first, every citizen
in Canada can vote and qualify for membership in a legislative
assembly; and, two, that no legislative assembly shall continue
for a period of more than five years. The government has given
absolute leeway to the wishes of these new nations.
Undoubtedly aboriginals do not want Canadian citizens
involved in their government. Perhaps they do not want
elections, at least every five years either. Indeed, they have
absolute control to the point where the Canadian charter has
been excluded and the aboriginals can draft their own charter of
rights and freedoms.
We are creating two nations here. Entrenching the principles
mentioned could perhaps infringe on the form of government
envisaged by aboriginals and their respective nations.
(1240 )
I would hope that the federal government has not
compromised the existence of democracy and basic human
freedoms in these new nations by excluding aboriginal
adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Another factor which leads me to the conclusion that a
number of new nations will be created in the Yukon is the fact
that Bill C-34 refers to aboriginal citizens. Section 8(1)(a) of
the bill states that a citizenship probe will be developed by the
yet to be drafted aboriginal constitution. The only level of
government at present that controls citizenship is of course the
federal government of Canada. It is the only authority that has
the right to control citizenship.
An hon. member: That is the way it should be.
Mr. Harris: With the implementation of this bill aboriginal
governments will have the power over the national concept of
citizenry. As a matter of fact they will have the absolute power
over the definition of who qualifies for citizenship.
What is the basis for creating a new brand of citizenship
within Canada if it is not for the purpose of specifically defining
new nations in Canada? For it is clearly within the purview of
nations to have their own citizenry and the definition thereof.
That is what nations are all about.
The exemption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from
this agreement can also be understood in light of this new power
over citizenry. Equality rights are defined in the charter under
section 15(1) whereby all citizens of Canada have equal
protection and benefit of the law without racial consideration.
That is in our charter.
Any future aboriginal justice system as provided in section 14
of Bill C-34 would be in violation of our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms since it would provide a judicial system for particular
citizens based on racial considerations. It is in violation of our
Constitution.
5080
Is the federal government looking forward to legislatures and
court houses which are reserved for those of a particular race?
This is clearly where Bill C-34 is leading and therefore it must
be the desire of the government.
Even the much hated Charlottetown accord included a
provision whereby the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would
apply immediately to the governments of aboriginal
people-even the dastardly Charlottetown accord.
As demonstrated, this bill goes out of its way to avoid the
charter. Otherwise the government would have to include a
provision like the one that existed in the Charlottetown accord
or conversely it would not have included section 8(1)(d)
allowing aboriginals to draft their own charter.
This governing party, a party that drafted the charter and
placed so much faith in its existence, is now willing to cast it
aside in order to establish new nations, new governments, new
homelands based on race. I must question the wisdom of this,
considering third world nations that have been struggling with
apartheid, with separation.
The power of taxation goes along with these expansive
legislative and judicial powers. These new nations will have the
ability to raise revenues through property and personal taxation.
However, that ability is not limited to what is in this agreement.
Further tax powers or exemptions may be negotiated with native
governments at a later date. The power of taxation exists despite
the presence of a financial transfer agreement. This represents a
transfer of funds from the federal government that will maintain
the present level of band funding, provide for incremental
funding of self-government operations and will provide for land
claim implementation funding.
Moreover, section 24 of the bill guarantees a blank cheque for
the funding of any self-government operations. All of this
funding plus $242.6 million is to be awarded over 15 years in
general compensation. The tax base is very small. These new
governments would be dependent on continuing financing from
Parliament.
(1245 )
Perhaps it is through this measure that this government
believes it may in fact exercise control over these new nations.
However, I doubt Parliament could or would ever threaten to
withhold funding since it has been perpetual through DIAND.
Of course to withhold funding would be viewed as cruel and
unusual punishment.
While they have been awarded vast legislative powers,
control over resources and powers of taxation, these new nations
will remain dependent upon the federal treasury. This agreement
does little to break the cycle of financial dependency in which
aboriginals have become entrapped.
Continued funding from the government will in no way put
aboriginals on the same economic level as all other Canadians.
This agreement represents profound political emancipation but
fails to address the issue of aboriginal economic disparity.
Finally, another issue of importance in this process is the
interest of third parties. Who speaks for the non-natives in this
agreement? Those who may be affected by settlement claims or
self-governing powers have not been included in the
negotiations. Neither non-natives, members of the public, MPs
nor MLAs have any say in the proceedings which have led to the
existence of this unprecedented document.
Moreover, the government has ensured that in the future bills
such as the one before us today will not even come to this House
for consideration or debate. They will not even get to this House.
Clause 5(2) of the bill states that any self-government
agreement reached between the federal government and the
remaining 10 Yukon bands shall come into effect only by means
of an order in council. A government that promises openness
and transparency is now committed to establishing new nations
in the Yukon by way of the secret workings of cabinet. Does this
sound familiar?
If these agreements are in the best interests of Canadians, why
then does the government include clause 5(2)? What is the
government afraid of in not allowing an informed debate to
occur in this House on future settlements? I believe that as
demonstrated in the past, this government is afraid of the
question: How? How is self-government going to work? How
will the government protect democratic freedoms enjoyed by
the native people to date? How will the government ensure that
the rights and freedoms of these new aboriginal citizens will not
be extinguished?
The government cannot and will not answer these questions.
It blindly allows for the creation of new constitutions which
create new legislatures, new judicial systems, new rights and
freedoms and new citizens. Ultimately, this leads to the
formation of 14 new nations within the Yukon alone, 14 nations
within our nation of Canada.
The precedent Bill C-34 sets for future self-government is
astounding. With the implementation of Bill C-34 and the
incredible amount of power vested in these new aboriginal
governments, what other aboriginal band would settle for less
than Bill C-34? With some 600 aboriginal bands across Canada,
each demanding self-government, the potential for a patchwork
of 600 new nations in this country is very real under the terms of
this agreement.
Again I must question the government on its rationale for
allowing new constitutions, new legislatures and new citizens to
be created within this one nation, this great nation of Canada. Is
this nation, this Constitution, this Parliament, this Canadian
citizenry so inconsequential that it may be tossed aside in
5081
favour of new legislation, new legislatures, a new Constitution
and new citizenship?
Is our existing law so inconsequential? Is this the message the
federal government is trying to deliver to the Canadian people,
considering that a separatist party sits in official opposition? Is
this the message?
William Lyon Mackenzie King said this in this very House.
He reminded us that a divided Canada can be of little help to any
country and least of all to itself. We should ponder those words
very carefully.
(1250)
Opposing Bill C-34 may not be politically correct in the eyes
of those who support this bill. As a servant of the Canadian
people, I am duty bound to question the necessity of this bill and
the possibility for founding new nations within this one nation
of Canada.
Therefore I and the Reform Party must oppose Bill C-34.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, as I heard the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley, he asked who speaks for the
non-natives. As I understand the policy of the Reform Party it is
to heed the people's will. If it conflicts with the Reform agenda,
then the people's will is paramount.
This particular legislation has involved 21 years of
negotiations. It is supported by the Government of the Yukon.
The leader, Mr. Ostashek, is a non-aboriginal. It is supported by
the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, by the mayors that I talked
to, and by the mining association. As a matter of fact the Yukon
has already passed mirror legislation. It is supported by all of
the Liberals in this House, by the Bloc, by the Conservative
Party and by the NDP.
When I stack that up against the 50 Reform members sitting
over there in the corner who are asking who speaks for
non-aboriginal people, my question for the hon. member is: Do
you not think there has been sufficient non-aboriginal
contribution to all these negotiations which have been open and
transparent and going on for 21 years?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I live in the north central part of
British Columbia where we are surrounded with pending land
claims and with negotiations for self-government.
As I travel throughout my riding and talk to people, the
number one question I get from the non-native people in my
riding is: ``Who is asking us about how to settle these land
claims, about how to negotiate aboriginal self-governments?
Who is asking us?'' The fact is no one is asking them.
This legislation came to our party the morning it was
introduced in this Parliament, nine inches of documentation,
and was expected to be debated that day. We are pretty good over
on this side of the House but the hon. minister and this
government expected us to come up with informed debate as a
result of reading the documentation of this bill in a matter of
hours. Something is amiss in the thinking there.
We intend to speak for the rest of Canada, the non-natives in
this country. We intend to speak for the taxpayers in this country
and we intend to speak for the native people in this country.
There will be nothing more damning to this country than if
Bill C-34 is passed and the creation of new nations operating
outside federal-provincial jurisdictions is allowed to take place.
There will be nothing more damning to the unity of this country.
If you think we have a problem, Mr. Speaker, having a
separatist party sitting in the House as the Official Opposition,
that is nothing compared to what this will do to our country.
(1255 )
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. I have three brief questions that I will
put to the member.
He talked about speaking to the non-aboriginal people in his
constituency. I wonder if he has spoken to aboriginal people in
his constituency and can he tell the House what the aboriginal
people in his constituency are saying.
Second, in his remarks he addressed the question of not liking
the inherent right to self-government included in the
legislation. Does this mean that he does not believe at all in the
inherent right to self-government in this legislation?
Third, he uses the Constitution of Canada as a basis for most
of his arguments in his speech today. I am wondering in terms of
the consultative process that occurred in this country if he would
recognize that when the constitution was written prior to 1867
and agreed to by the parties that there were no aboriginal people
at the table.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have spoken to
aboriginal people in my riding. Certainly they did tell me that
they want the opportunity to become self-sufficient.
This is not the way to convey self-sufficiency upon them.
Self-sufficiency has to come from within a people. We have to
extend to them every right and freedom that exists for every
other Canadian, rights to education, rights to justice, rights to
equality, the very things that are contained within our Canadian
constitution now.
We do not want to separate the aboriginal people with a series
of patchwork provisions for them to establish their own nations.
We want them to be involved in the country of Canada with
every right and every freedom that Canadians currently enjoy.
In answer to the member's second question regarding the term
inherent right to self-government, a close examination of the
term inherent right to self-government could fundamentally
mean answerable to no other authority as inherent right to
self-government has always existed.
5082
If we are to pass legislation in this House that would be not
answerable to the supreme authority of the Government of
Canada, the Constitution of Canada, the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in Canada, where are we going as a nation?
The third question, the constitution act, of course the
aboriginal people were not at the table. The constitution act of
Canada was to create a nation of Canada, a nation where people
of all races, all cultural backgrounds, all heritages can live with
equality, opportunity and freedom. That is our constitutional
act. People who came to this country after the constitutional act
was created were not at the table either but those people from
other countries who are now citizens of Canada and even
non-citizens enjoy the fruits of that constitution act as it applies
to aboriginal people.
The Constitution of Canada is probably the most sacred
document that exists in this country because it provides for
equality and freedom to all citizens of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for
giving me the floor.
I would like to start by telling my colleague from the Reform
Party that, if he is going to attack the separatists, as he calls us in
his speeches, he could at least make sure to give us a little time
to reply.
I have two comments. First, the term ``separatist'' does not
exist in international law. That is why we use the word
``sovereignty'' and its derivatives all the time. We make no
secret of the fact that we want to become a ``sovereign'' nation.
That is the first point I wanted to make.
Second, the question before us-and the minister can confirm
it because he said so himself earlier-has been under review for
21 years, I think.
(1300)
So, Bloc members who want Quebec to become sovereign as
well as Liberals-while holding opposite views-are capable of
looking at this and saying: ``What the natives are requesting in
here makes a lot of sense and after 21 years, it is about time that
we delivered''. Let us not get sidetracked by lip service. That is
what I wanted to get across to my colleague.
[English]
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I used the term separatist very
clearly. It is my opinion that any person or group of people
wanting to destroy the Confederation of this country, wanting to
secede from this nation are indeed separatists. I will never
retract that statement.
The hon. member talked about 21 years of study and so it has
to be a good document. I would like to remind this House and the
hon. member that we studied the creation of a nuclear bomb for
longer than 21 years. Did that make it a good result?
Length of time in study does not necessarily yield a fruitful
result. I have pointed out the disparities in this bill. If the hon.
member will take the time to go through this bill clause by
clause, I am sure he will be inclined to agree with me.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Pardon me for interrupting the debate, but I call upon your
wisdom with regard to the use of the word ``separatist''.
I know that we are allowed in this House to use terminology
which may not be recognized in international law. However, I
would like to know whether the term ``separatist'' should be
allowed to be used to excess? More specifically, for your
guidance in considering this point, Mr. Speaker, how can we be
referred to as separatists when we were involved in building this
country? Why is it that our right to consider getting out of it is
not recognized? That is the point of order I wanted to make.
The Deputy Speaker: Frankly, I think the point of order was
quite clear. As the hon. member indicated, however, I will have
to think about it. I will get back to the House with a specific,
precise and hopefully clear opinion shortly. Meanwhile, I
recognize the hon. member for Okanagan Center.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is
an honour for me this afternoon to enter into the debate on Bill
C-34. It is a landmark piece of legislation that is being proposed
to this House and I commend the minister for bringing forward
legislation that deals with a very significant and serious matter
that will affect all Canadians.
Regardless of whether we consider the advent of the
Europeans into the territory we now know as Canada to have
been fair and just, since then a lot of time has passed and the
passing of time has brought tremendous change into this country
and in the way we relate one to another.
Some of those changes have been cultural and today Canada is
a multicultural country. The changes have been economic and
today Canada is a developed nation. More significantly, the
changes are irreversible. We cannot go back. We cannot go back
because we must think about each of the 28 million people who
5083
today call themselves Canadians, native or non-native, French
or English, black or white.
Any original injustice when might was right set an immutable
course which has brought us here where the dominion of some is
now the dominion of many. To recognize this is to recognize that
despite history the present rests on compromise. Compromise
means that we can acknowledge with the deepest respect both
the indigenous peoples who gave this land its spirit and the
dreamers and builders who later came here and created Canada,
as it is today.
(1305 )
In this House compromise comes to us in the form of Bill
C-34 this afternoon; agreeing with which grants
self-government to the First Nations in the Yukon territory.
Government is right to pursue such a compromise.
Compromise under Bill C-34 affirms the right of the Yukon
Indians to determine how they will live culturally and
spiritually, and that is right.
Compromise under Bill C-34 means the Yukon First Nations
people will determine how they will govern themselves and how
they will determine their economic future, and that too is right.
We must ask ourselves questions. Does Bill C-34 further the
common good for Canada and does it respect the equal nature of
the rights and privileges of every citizen in this country? The
question is twofold. Does it further the common goal of Canada,
the common good for Canada? In any situation that requires
compromise it must seem so. Government and natives are
carving out a way to solve a disagreement that has carried on for
many years. Many feel, and I am inclined to agree, that this
agreement and others like it place doubt in the value of
nationhood, citizenship and democracy.
Nationhood is the way we define who we are. We value
nationhood because it gives us a strong identity and emphasizes
that each of the citizens who make up that nation are members of
that nation and are therefore equal.
Bill C-34 proposes to create a nation within a nation. Why?
What of the nationhood that already exists? What of the equality
of those citizens who live within this nation? Creating a nation, a
first nation, within a nation does nothing to advance the equal
status of First Nations people with other Canadians. Instead,
establishing a first nation creates a bias based on ethnic origin,
something which Canada and many others have worked very
hard to eradicate from the political practices of mankind.
No matter in whose favour one pursues the bias, it remains a
bias. It emphasizes what is different and makes it conspicuous
rather than allowing our varied ethnic identities to form a tightly
woven and colourful background that identifies us as Canadians.
Is that good for Canada? How can it be?
This bias breaks the link that forms nationhood, the link of
citizenship and the relationship between an individual and his or
her country, the implication of freedom.
In Bill C-34 a new language has been created where words
like nation and citizen have been redefined as they apply to
native Canadians. By redefining these words we place doubt on
the value of the original nation and the original citizen. This new
language says this is my land and that is your land. It says this is
my nation, the first nation, and that is your nation, the nation of
Canada. It says in this nation I am a citizen of the first nation. In
your nation you are a citizen of Canada.
The new language erects boundaries and cuts holes in a land
where First Nations live. Like the main sail of a ship the holes
work to weaken and cause a greater chance for larger tears and
cease to protect from the winds of change. Once nationhood and
citizenship are redefined, the very pillars of democracy begin to
crumble and that is not good for Canada.
Does Bill C-34 respect the equal rights and privileges of
every citizen in this country? In part I have answered that
question in my previous remarks. Bill C-34 emphasizes an
ethnic bias simply by acknowledging it. No other citizen in
Canada receives rights or privileges on the basis of ethnic
origin, although our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are
seeking that very thing.
By setting this precedent in Bill C-34 I fear that we are
fueling the fires of those who would separate, who can now
argue that they like the First Nations people have the right to
special status based on their ethnic origin.
(1310 )
It is further evidenced that special status does not accomplish
what it intends. It does not strengthen, it serves to weaken. Some
may argue that Bill C-34 gives First Nations people no more
rights and privileges than any other Canadian. Why is it
necessary to entrench these rights and privileges in legislation
by naming them?
First Nations people are citizens of Canada and as such are
given the same rights and privileges under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms as any other Canadian-we heard this in this
House just a few moments ago-except for one. By creating land
claim agreements and subsequent self-government agreements
we give to the First Nations people something that no other
Canadian has a right to, namely the right to own property.
No other Canadian is allowed to realize that because it is not
enshrined in the Constitution. By giving First Nations people
ownership over their lands, we have now set a precedent which
5084
would allow others to claim ownership for any number of other
reasons, a certain one of which comes to mind readily.
Is this the way we ensure that all Canadians are treated
equally and fairly under the Constitution?-no. Does this
respect the equal nature of the rights and privileges of every
citizen in this country?-no. Is this the way democracy is meant
to function?-no.
Democracy says we all shall have a voice and that no one
voice should be louder or stronger than any other. Democracy is
meant to serve all, not a chosen few. Bill C-34 is a far cry from
the agreements of long ago which placed First Nations people on
reserves with limited lands and limited responsibilities and
capabilities.
In our minds such legislation should speak with more dignity
and find a way to bring together two sides in what has been a
long and venerable argument. For the sake of both sides it is
important that we use the same democratic principles that form
the foundation of any legislation in this country. If we do not,
that legislation is weak from the start and vulnerable to failure.
We owe it to native and to non-native Canadians to make Bill
C-34 and any self-government legislation or land claims
agreement sound, for if we are going to go forward we must do
just that. The right legislation will respect all of us and will
acknowledge the very thing that makes us the same.
We all want a home where we are free to explore our personal
identities and spirituality and culture, but it has never been right
to pursue this at the cost of others. There will be a cost if in our
haste to find a compromise we pass legislation that has the
potential to create more division.
In a strong, confident and democratic environment
distinctions are valuable and positive, but in a fragmented one
they become razor sharp, manipulated to cut here and there, to
sever. The differences of Canada have great potential to hurt us
if we continually uphold them at the cost of what is true, that we
are all first and foremost citizens of Canada.
I believe Bill C-34 is guilty of this. I believe that Bill C-34
forgets that while it seeks to solve the past discrepancies faced
by native Canadians, it affects all Canadians. Bill C-34, which
provides self-government, Yukon self-government, must seek
to reaffirm the citizenship of everyone, our nationhood, our
confidence in democracy.
Bill C-34 must bring an end to the beliefs that put greater
importance on who was here first or how we came to be here
rather than where we are now. All Canadians seek a place of
belonging unfettered by intellectual and physical boundaries.
All Canadians seek citizenship in its truest form in a place where
we uphold that all people are created equal.
Let us not jeopardize this by passing weak legislation that
forgets our nationhood, our citizenship and democracy. Let us
affirm this again and again above all else because this place
exists, this country exists, and that place is Canada.
(1315)
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, not wishing to delay the discussion at all, I will be very
brief in my question.
While listening to the hon. member's comments I could not
help but think about the treatment of aboriginal people over the
years since the settlers and the immigrants arrived on the shores
of North America. The member is committed to the words he has
chosen to use, the words of equality and citizenship, very
important words for a minority but very difficult words for the
majority.
Could he tell us when in Canadian history these words spoken
by non-aboriginal people came to have such strength? I think
about the days when the treaties were being signed and the
community leaders were being asked to participate in an
economy that was being built in Canada. The chiefs and the
community leaders at the time when aboriginal peoples' lands
were being removed from them were saying to the people they
were negotiating with that they were prepared to work in equal
partnerships with the immigrants and the settlers, that they were
prepared to share the resources of the land, that they were
prepared to share what they had for 6,000 to 10,000 years with
those new to their shores.
Within a very brief period of time or 100 and some years in the
country most of the sharing the aboriginal people engaged in has
disappeared and the Reform Party and others are now saying that
we are all equal and all live as citizens in one country, a country
that was created to suit the needs of the immigrants and the
settlers.
Could the member tell me at what point in our history the
words changed from those being spoken by the chiefs and
community leaders to those now being spoken by immigrant
representatives?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question.
We have to be very careful how we deal with a subject that far
reaching which affects virtually every Canadian as I indicated in
my remarks: Indian, non-Indian, native, aboriginal or
whomever.
The concept of democracy, the concept of freedom, the
concept of equality and the concept of being a citizen of a nation
are very fundamental. I in no way want to suggest to the member
or to anyone listening to the debate this afternoon that
everything was always right in the past. Indeed it was not. There
were many times in the history of Canada where we treated one
another very poorly, where we did not treat one another equally,
5085
where we did not give the kinds of rights we should have given
and where we did indeed deny people certain rights because of
their ethnic or other backgrounds.
That does not make me proud. The fact remains that we are at
a point in history today where we can rectify some of those
things, but let us not rectify them in such a way that would create
new inequalities and would deny the very things we want to
rectify. Let us create strong legislation. In no way do I disparage
the direction in which the legislation is headed or the spirit that I
think is intended in it. That is not my concern.
My concern is that we create a Canada where Canadians of
whatever description, no matter where they live in the country,
no matter whether they came here as immigrants or were born
here, are Canadian citizens, are equal and do not have particular
rights because of a particular ethnicity, language, religion or
anything else. That to me is key. If the legislation can be
improved to reflect that, I am completely in favour of it.
I am suggesting there are unanswered questions in the
legislation. It does not give the kind of equality I stand for and
the freedom I want to promote.
(1320)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that
question of the NDP member because I do not think it was
answered.
The hon. member talked about equality and citizenry. The
people we are talking about had been there for 10,000 years.
They were citizens. They had their own laws. They had a
religion which we took away. They had customs which we took
away. They had a system in place.
When the non-aboriginals came to the area, as has been
expressed by others in the House, they came with a certain
amount of avarice in their hearts. They wanted to take the land,
the mines and the lumber, and they did.
Now we have a situation where we have the wealth and they
have the poverty. That is the situation. We have before us 21
years of negotiations drawing aboriginal people back into the
process honourably with a lot of transparent and open
negotiation, bringing them back to sharing resources with us,
which was the original intent.
Where specifically does the hon. member think the legislation
falls short?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, in part I believe the shortfall
comes in the new language that has been created. Somehow we
now have two kinds of nations; we have two kinds of citizens. If
we think the relationship will be changed simply by writing new
words it is false. Nation means something to me that is somehow
separate from other nations. It creates a difference. I do not
think it is possible to have two kinds of nations within a nation,
and that is what has been created.
We have used the terms nations and First Nations. We have
used the term nation. We have citizens. That is where the
confusion lies. If that could be clarified so that a citizen of a first
nation is like a resident of Alberta or a resident of British
Columbia, if that is what is meant, why would we use a new kind
of language? This is confusing. It needs to be clarified. It needs
to be recognized that they are equal people who share the same
kind of rights and privileges the rest of us share; nothing special
or nothing denigrating.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, in
introducing the bill the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development has urged the House and pressed for ``the speedy
passage of this important piece of historic legislation''. I simply
cannot understand why the government is attempting to ram the
legislation through the House in the same manner as the
Conservatives did in 1993 with similar legislation regarding the
Nunavut deal, Bill C-132.
The minister has stated it has taken 20 years to formulate the
legislation and the last few months to draft the agreements.
Again I cannot understand the logic of rushing through
legislation in a matter of days when it has taken us years to get
this far. It begs the question: Is there another or what is the real
government agenda? When this agreement which took 20 years
to evolve is now being pushed through the House, we have to ask
what is the rush.
Bill C-34 represents only four agreements of a possible
fourteen. These future agreements will be negotiated behind
closed doors if the bill passes. No doubt we can expect more
Yukon bills to be pushed through the House.
Where is the new style of government the Liberals promised
in the red book? For example, section 52 allows the other land
claim agreements to be ratified by cabinet rather than by
Parliament. Again it means it will be behind closed doors, not in
the House as we are doing today. It means Parliament will no
longer be involved. Again where will it be? It will be behind
closed doors. So much for the open government promised by the
Liberals. I expect they have to read their red book with rose
coloured glasses so that only the parts they can deliver show
through.
(1325)
Another area I would like to touch on is the issue of
constitutional recognition. In section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982, there is provision on native rights stating that existing
treaty and aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed. Yet
there is no definition of native rights other than to say they are
defined as rights in present and future land claim agreements.
The fact that these extremely vague rights are supposedly
affirmed by the Constitution brings into question how readily
and easily these rights can be changed. How could these rights
be constitutionally entrenched when they are so vague that they
can easily be altered at the whim of each new government or
5086
cabinet? The definition of constitutional entrenchment is loose,
to say the very least.
I would also like to point out that there are many problems in
the definition of a native citizen as established in the bill. The
bill sets out that the definition of native citizens is determined
by the constitution of First Nations. In so doing the agreement
provides for a completely separate level of citizenship distinct
from that of non-native Canadians.
It appears the government is setting up a two-tier system with
two levels of citizens and two nations. At a time when the rest of
the world is striving toward equality as evidenced by what we
saw in South Africa, the government is trying to establish a
two-class system based on race.
It appears the Prime Minister has forgotten his days as Indian
affairs minister. His so-called progressive report of 1969
proposed that Indian citizens should become equal citizens of
the provinces and of the country. Now his government is
proposing to relegate natives to a separate status from those of
other Canadians.
As Indian affairs minister the Prime Minister wrote a report
which argued for ``the fundamental right of Indian people to full
and equal participation in the cultural, social, economic and
political life of Canada. To argue against this right is to argue for
discrimination, isolation and separation. No Canadian should be
excluded from participation in community life and none should
expect to withdraw and enjoy the benefits that flow from those
who participate''. That was considered to be progressive in
1969. Compared to the implications of this agreement, I would
say it still remains progressive, with the current proposed
legislation regressive.
This agreement does not guarantee full and equal
participation in Canada. Far from it. It sets up an entirely
separate regime. The Prime Minister talked about ending the
legal distinction between natives and other Canadians with a
movement toward equality of all Canadians. Now his party
affirms ethnic and racial distinctions. This is a step backwards.
Our native people should be equals in every respect as should all
Canadians. Racial distinctions are no longer justified or
tolerated in today's society. It is clearly the wrong way to go.
The treatment of our native people to this point has been
unequal in many respects. They have been subject to
inequalities based on race. To remedy the situation by
legislating more equality does not make good sense.
The agreement would affirm and strengthen racial
inequalities by establishing a two-tier system, by setting up
another level of citizens separate from other Canadians. How
could the government justify the obvious unequal treatment
which the bill will create? We simply cannot allow the
legislation to pass in its present form.
The fight for discrimination has gone on for centuries. In the
18th century William Wilberforce, as an MP in the British
House of Commons, fought to free the slaves. On another front
we have witnessed our American neighbours struggle through
the civil rights movement. We have all witnessed the downfall
of the two-tiered system in South Africa.
(1330)
Systems based on racial inequalities are wrong and history
has shown that they do not and cannot stand up to the test of
time. Why is the government trying to set up these same barriers
in Bill C-34 by establishing two levels of citizenship?
This agreement sets up two separate and distinct societies
within the boundaries of Canada. In addition, this system sets up
a bureaucratic nightmare in the territory of Yukon. At present
Yukon has two levels of government, federal and territorial.
This agreement opens the way for another possible four levels
of government with ten more to follow when the ten native
bands are dealt with. This means Yukon could be subject to
many varying law-making bodies.
Curiously, according to the present Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
would apply to native self-government. Yet the justice minister
of the same government has suggested that the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms will not apply. Who are we to believe? There is no
requirement in this agreement that laws will be subject to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When the Charlottetown accord was drafted, it included 20
provisions for native people. An amendment to the Canadian
charter was proposed that would apply to laws made by
Canadian people. This clause said that the charter should not
diminish any rights or freedoms relating to the exercise or
protection of the languages, cultures and traditions of native
people.
There was another clause in the Charlottetown accord that
clarified that the equality of native men and women would apply
to all respects of native rights, including the right to
self-government. I question that any such rights will extend to
native women in this agreement. Will the rights of native
women, the rights which native women demanded to have
protected in the October 26 referendum be protected in this
agreement? It certainly does not appear so.
The minister of Indian affairs claims that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms will apply to natives. If this is so, why did
the previous government find it necessary to include such
provisions if the charter already applies? The answer is that if
the charter is not included in this bill then it does not apply. As it
5087
is not mentioned, I suggest it does not apply to native
self-government.
Let me recount some history for hon. members. In 1982 the
Assembly of First Nations when appearing before the
parliamentary committee on aboriginal affairs said that: ``As
Indian people we cannot afford to have individual rights
override collective rights. The Canadian charter of rights is in
conflict with our philosophy and our culture''.
In 1992 the Assembly of First Nations published a report
which rejected the charter of rights. This report recommended:
``that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall not
override First Nations' law''. Does this philosophy still stand?
Is it the intent of Bill C-34? Will the Canadian charter of rights
apply to native people? If not, this concerns me and will be of
great concern to many Canadians.
Perhaps members will remember that many women's groups,
particularly the Native Women's Association of Canada insisted
that native self-government without the protection of the
charter would be dangerous for native women, stating that
violence against women on reserves was widespread.
The 1989 Ontario Native Women's Association report stated
that while one in every ten Canadian women have experienced
some form of abuse, eight out of ten native women have been
abused or assaulted or can expect to be abused or assaulted.
Section 28 of the charter guarantees protection of sexual
equality. Yet all native councils would be shielded from charter
protection of guaranteed sexual equality. There is nothing in this
agreement to guarantee that the rights of sexual equality will be
protected. This concerns me as I am sure it concerns many
native women.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms may not be perfect but it
is one way in which the individual rights of each and every
Canadian are protected. To deny any citizen of Canada, in
particular native women, protection under the charter is not only
negligent but deeply unjust.
(1335)
In addition, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to
federal and provincial levels of government. However there is
nothing in the charter that would make it apply to native
self-government. The democratic rights section of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms gives all Canadians the right to elect
people to the federal government or legislative assemblies or to
run for office. There is no provision in this bill to protect the
democratic rights of native citizens as this level of government
is not covered in the charter.
There is no guarantee under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that native people have the right to vote for native
governments, run for native office or to limit the terms of native
government. These are concerns that were raised only two years
ago.
There is nothing in this agreement which addresses these
concerns and until this aspect is included in Bill C-34 it should
not be passed.
In conclusion, this bill goes well beyond giving natives the
right to govern their own affairs in a manner similar to what is
presently being done by municipal governments. With its all
encompassing law-making powers it sets up a separate nation
within the nation of Canada, a nation subject to laws and powers
and outside the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
We are already experiencing separatist threats that originated
from treating one group of Canadians differently from another.
If Bill C-34 goes through in its present form we are setting the
stage for even more discontent. There is room for only one
nation in Canada, a nation where all Canadians are treated
equally and respected by all.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): I have a question for the hon. member.
He used words like ``ramming, listening and a new style of
government'' which I suppose means more consultation and
more listening. It is my information that the CYI, the leadership
headed up by Mrs. Judy Gingell, were here for a week and a half
up to second reading trying to arrange meetings with the Reform
Party without success. There were no meetings until after
second reading.
In this broad consultation and this ramming and secret
agendas that the hon. member has talked about, has he talked to
any of the First Nations of the Yukon personally?
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the minister just makes my point.
We did not get the information until Thursday morning and the
bill was due to be responded to on Friday. We had absolutely no
lead time.
I find it rather curious that the native bands were here a week
ahead of that time and yet the Reform Party was not advised of
the agenda of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for giving me a chance to comment and to question the member
who just spoke.
As the Minister of Indian Affairs said, after 21 years of
consultation, after 21 years of thinking and talks between the
government and native organizations, especially in the Yukon, it
is time to act.
I must congratulate the government on reaching a conclusion
in its present term for good relations between the government
and native communities. I believe that the First Nations, the
native people, including those in the Yukon, want and demand
their full autonomy so that they can take on more responsibility
themselves. Unfortunately, Canadians often say that natives live
5088
at the expense of whites. I think that the native community in the
Yukon is very advanced because today it is ready to become
more independent and to take over some of its responsibilities
and autonomy.
Also, I think that the self-government which the natives
demand will enable them to develop their resources properly
and keep their customs.
(1340)
In my riding, Charlevoix in Quebec, I have two native
communities, inhabited by Montagnais, and as the member for
Charlevoix, I must defend these communities as I defend all my
constituents. Besides, my oldest child is a Montagnais boy
whom we adopted. He will be twelve on July 10 and I consider
him as much as the two children we had later.
I think that the native community in the Yukon is calling for
more dialogue between their communities and the government
because they want to share their ideas. In closing, I want to
commend the native community of the Yukon for claiming its
rights and being heard by the government. I also congratulate it
on taking charge of its economic development.
Does the Reform Party member who preceded me think it
possible that the Yukon natives are more advanced than the
Reform Party?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: When speaking of evolution I guess we could
go back a long way. However it is very clear and I pointed it out
in my speech that equality and the evolution of equality can only
go one direction. We have to be equal, all of us, whether we are
from Quebec, from Yukon, from other parts of Canada.
That was the key point to my speech and if that is part of
evolution that is exactly what I would like to see evolve in the
bill because the bill does not speak to it now and it should not be
passed in its present form.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: A while ago, I promised as Speaker to
render a decision on the issue of the word ``separatist'' raised by
the hon. member for Gaspé. The word ``separatist'' is found on
page 148 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules
& Forms. It is considered parliamentary. I quote: ``Since 1958,
it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following
expressions-'' and the word ``separatist'' is among them, as I
said.
Nearly 30 years ago, in 1964, Speaker McNaughton said:
``These questions are, of course, not easy to answer. I would say
that the word used was rude; but in my opinion it was not
unparliamentary''. He was talking about the word ``separatist''.
Later, Speaker Sauvé said this about ``separatist'' and
``McCarthyism'' on December 9, 1980: ``Whether one approves
of the connotations or not, the words ``McCarthyism'' and
``separatism'' have become part of the political vocabulary and
therefore their applicability is a matter of interpretation and
debate in which the Chair has no role''.
I fully realize that hon. members will say that the usages of
international law were not the same as those in Parliament. For
now, it seems that such is the rule in our legislature.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to
make it clear that I do not question your ruling on this subject. I
think it was good for the whole House that this issue was raised.
I note that the debate has been going on longer than we think.
You mentioned 1958. The Speaker at that time said it was
``rude''.
(1345)
The last thing I would like to say for our listeners and hon.
members is that if he wants to use the word ``separatist'', it has
an emotional connotation; if he wants to speak objectively, the
recognized term in international law is ``sovereigntist''.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin by thanking the hon. minister for being present during the
debate on this bill. It is good that the sponsor of a bill is present,
particularly during a debate in which contentious issues are
involved. I want to thank him for being here.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate
on Bill C-34 which is the Yukon self-government bill. As do
many of my colleagues, I have a particular interest in this
proposed legislation. During my life and my career I have had an
opportunity to work directly with native people in a number of
different areas.
As a labour foreman on a hydro electric project in the
territories, as an ombudsman for the Alberta region of the
department of Indian affairs under Harold Cardinal and as a
business consultant I have seen the problems of these people
firsthand and I have spoken with them. I have lived some of the
problems that they experience. I have experienced directly the
discrimination that they have experienced, particularly the
discrimination that has been levelled at them through the
interpretation and the enactment of the Indian act along with the
changes that have occurred to that act from time to time over the
years.
Therefore what I say today, I speak at least in part from my
experience and empathy for the plight of these people. The Dog
Rib Indians of the territories I found were some of the hardest
working and capable individuals I have ever worked with. They
were more than willing to work under adverse conditions of
weather and isolation when the jobs were available. However,
5089
the opportunity to work was not always there. When this occurs,
these willing and capable people go unemployed.
I was appointed ombudsman for the province of Alberta under
the direction of Harold Cardinal who was a regional director
general for the department of Indian affairs for a period of time.
Mr. Cardinal was a prominent leader in Canada and president of
the Alberta Indian Association for a number of years.
It was under his leadership that what is known in the Indian
communities today as the red paper was developed as a direct
result of the white paper of the Prime Minister when he was a
department of Indian affairs minister. It wanted to assimilate the
Indian people into Canadian society and wanted to eliminate
their reserve lands.
Grand Chief Norman Yellowbird, a friend and associate of
mine, delivered that red paper developed by the Indian
Association of Alberta to the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, at
the time.
I have had a close look at some of the problems and some of
the challenges faced by Indian people and I have heard directly
from them their concerns and their viewpoints on these
problems.
As a consultant I have received many complaints from band
members accusing their band leaders of corruption and
expending funds improperly. Those same complaints have been
brought to my attention since I have become a member of
Parliament. The department of Indian affairs seldom, if ever,
looks into those complaints. It has not looked into them before
and the feedback I am getting from some of my aboriginal
associates indicates that they are not being looked into today.
Instead, the department apparently chooses to ignore the
concerns of the aboriginal people at the grassroots level and
proceed with negotiation self-government arguments with some
of the same council leaders who have been accused of fraudulent
and suspect practices. I am not suggesting for a moment that
involves the leaders who were involved in this agreement.
I point out the trials and tribulations faced by many Indian
people at the grassroots level that have come to my attention
through my experience with them.
(1350 )
I, like many Canadians, want to see Canada's aboriginal
peoples given every reasonable opportunity to become
economically and politically independent. I want to see their
dignity restored by ending the cycle of dependency that has
become so customary within aboriginal communities.
It is no secret that the aboriginal population is among the most
disadvantaged of all Canadians. Life expectancy is about eight
years shorter than average. Death by suicide is about two and a
half times more common and the unemployment rates are
several times the Canadian average.
I do not believe that Bill C-34, Yukon self-government, is the
answer to the numerous problems plaguing aboriginal peoples
and particularly if that is to become the model for the other
settlements, claims and requests for self-government that are
being made by so many of the bands across the country. I am not
confident that the aboriginal people will not be subjected by a
new form of government under their council leaders to an
autocratic form of government that will deny them the rights
they now receive under the protection of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
I believe a gradual and progressive approach must be taken to
ease the dependency of the aboriginal people and to provide
them with the opportunity to fully understand the terms and
implications of self-government.
During the Charlottetown accord I spoke to many of my
aboriginal friends and I asked them what they thought about
that. Of course they disagreed and they voted against the
Charlottetown accord because they did not feel that they were
included. They did not understand many of the provisions. There
was not the dialogue that I think is necessary when we get into
these kinds of negotiations. It must be suitable and understood
by the grassroots people.
I would recommend and support a movement toward
autonomy which could be initiated with self-determination that
institutes possession and control of their land. I agree with that.
I do not support or accept Bill C-34 to establish
self-government for the Yukon First Nation.
The concept of self-government is too vague in this document
and there are no real specifics that provide a definitive meaning
to this term. I cannot support self-government until the term is
clearly and emphatically defined so the aboriginal people
understand, so Canadians understand and so there are no
misconceptions about the type of agreement the federal
government is entering into.
Right now there are too many questions unanswered, too
many terms undefined and too many ts not crossed and too many
is not dotted.
What does self-government mean? Self-government is a
phrase whose history predates its application to aboriginal
governments in Canada. The British used the term when they
arrived at the conclusion that one of their colonies was ready for
autonomy. Aboriginal self-government has been the subject of
many definitions in Canada. We have heard it from many
politicians in the past. Some have defined it as being more or
less municipal government covering the relative autonomous
5090
administration of programs and services that find their roots in
the authority of the federal and provincial governments.
Alternately, self-government has been envisioned by many
aboriginal people as a creature of aboriginal authority, of the
legitimate authority of distinct aboriginal peoples to make their
laws, to sign their institutions and govern themselves as they see
fit.
One aboriginal author writes: ``The right to self-government
goes much beyond entitlement to practice our own culture,
traditional customs, religion and languages or the right to
determine the development of our own identity. It includes
constitutionally protected powers over our lives, our lands and
our resources, as well as the right to determine the nature of our
ongoing relationship with the federal and provincial
governments in Canada''.
Not only is there divergent views of what self-government
means between the federal government and the aboriginal
people, the comments of Howard Adams, an aboriginal person
and university professor of native studies, lead me to believe
that this term may vary between the aboriginal leaders
themselves and what he calls the rank and file aboriginal people.
This is not unlike the Canadian situation in which the people
of Canada have one definition of democracy and the government
has another. I think we all know and have witnessed what
happens when those in power allow their views to supersede the
views of their constituents.
(1355 )
In an article published in the Native Studies Review in 1992
Mr. Adams says, referring to the Charlottetown referendum:
``The negotiations on the constitution were not relevant or
meaningful to the rank and file of aboriginal people. For these
people it was an unknown and an unheard of matter because the
negotiations involved only a few elite leaders and their
organizations''.
As one of my colleagues has mentioned many of the
aboriginal women's groups from across the country have
expressed concern about the protection that might have been lost
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had the constitutional
accord been passed.
Mr. Adams states that from his experience in speaking at
remote Metis and Indian communities he learned: ``These
distant people had absolutely no knowledge about the
Constitution and the negotiations. Consequently they had no
concern or involvement whatsoever''.
I am concerned that this is still true today. I am concerned that
the aboriginal people, those at the grassroots, do not understand
nor are they aware of the agreements their band leaders are
negotiating on their behalf. There has been no indication that
this has occurred in this particular agreement.
The details of what self-government will mean to them or the
powers they may be subjected to have not been explained and
therefore they have not had the opportunity to decide if self-
government is what they want. This is referring back to the
constitutional discussions.
Mr. Adams also believes that during the constitutional talks
the leaders involved did not really understand what was
transpiring: ``It was continuous confusion and vagueness due to
lack of clarity in terminology and concepts such as
self-government''.
Again, how can we be sure that the council leaders were fully
aware of what they were signing and particularly the long term
consequences?
An October 25, 1991 article in the Vancouver Sun reports:
``Canada's aboriginal people are front and centre in the debate
over the Constitution. Their demands for constitutional
recognition, self-government and land claims played a major
role in blocking changes that would have allowed Quebec to sign
the Constitution''.
Mr. Adams states that the negotiations were nothing more
than staged media events that provided an opportunity for the
previous government to improve its so-called human rights
concerns for aboriginal people and to help take the focus off the
threat of Quebec's cession.
Further, he believes for the self-government negotiations to
have produced an authentic agreement there should have been
greater participation by the masses in which the indigenous
ideas and perspectives would have emerged.
Nothing in Bill C-34 leads me to believe that the government
is any further ahead in defining the term self-government, that
the agreement is a genuine reflection of what aboriginal people
want and that the motives for entering the agreement are strictly
legitimate.
According to an article on March 29, 1994 in the Globe and
Mail the federal government has spent more than $50 million on
self-government negotiations with native groups over the past
seven years, yet it has produced only one agreement: ``About
400 native communities have entered self-government talks but
most have abandoned the process because it is long,
bureaucratic, limited and legalistic''. This according to the
Globe and Mail was the finding of a federal audit.
The audit apparently described a host of weaknesses in the
federal policy for negotiating self-government deals at the
community level and concluded that the process is long,
cumbersome and expensive.
Federal payments to native groups for the negotiations have
jumped by 500 per cent since the process began in the 1986-87
fiscal year. The department of Indian affairs has given $30
million to aboriginal groups for the talks and has spent a further
$20 million on internal operating costs. The department has
spent $50 million creating a cottage industry around these
negotiations in which lawyers and political leaders are the only
5091
ones who have benefited while the deplorable living conditions
of the individual aboriginal person have not changed as a result
of the expenditure of these funds.
The Speaker: The hon. member still has time in his speech.
We will take up the speech and the questions and comments after
Question Period.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
5091
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the
presence of the right hon. Prime Minister in Normandy for the
D-Day ceremony has given Canada and Canadians a reason to
reflect on the good deeds our people have accomplished in the
world.
As a child living in Italy during the second world war, I was
subjected to bombing in a big industrial city and to the absence
of my father who had to go to war.
The landing of Canadian troops in Sicily in 1943 is still
remembered with great affection by all Sicilians and those
Sicilians who immigrated to Canada and live in Vancouver
celebrated with me and the military in 1983.
The arrival of the Allies in Italy meant the end of a cruel,
senseless war and a return to democracy and freedom to a whole
continent and ultimately to the world.
I would like to thank our Prime Minister and our country for
remembering with us and for being present at such an important
event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, since
Tuesday, the city of Trois-Rivières has been the host of some
2,500 people from all parts of Quebec, who are attending the
convention of the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens.
The year 1994 also marks the 25th anniversary of the council
of senior citizens from the Mauricie region.
The theme of the convention, ``The necessary social
involvement of seniors'', recognizes not only their past
contribution but also their current role and dynamism, in
particular through their numerous volunteer activities.
It is not by cutting services to seniors, by closing
departmental offices in our regions and by replacing staff with
answering machines that this government will provide an
adequate response to the needs of these people.
I am proud to salute all convention participants and assure
them that the Bloc Quebecois supports their demands, keeping
in mind that, above all, the government should show them the
greatest respect.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, today I would like
to recognize Tom Goode. Tom Goode, who served as Delta's
mayor for six years and an MP in Pierre Trudeau's Liberal
government died last weekend of cancer at the age of 60.
Tom Goode was a fine man, a good friend, a Liberal whose
circle of friends and admirers extended far beyond any partisan
bounds.
Tom was optimistic about his ability to beat this dreaded
disease. As evidence of this, just a few weeks ago he had
accepted the position of chair on the Delta North Liberal Party
policy committee.
Tom started his political career as a school trustee and was
elected as the Liberal MP for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta in
1968. In 1973 he was elected Delta's mayor.
As a politician and a person, Tom was respected for his
honesty and integrity. He was a charming man, a delight to be
with. He will be missed.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform all members of the House and all Canadians that
the signing of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
update took place this morning.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, originally
signed in 1986, is designed to protect 3.6 million hectares of
wetland and upland habitat in Canada. With the signing of this
update, Canada has extended its commitment to this
conservation program to the year 1999.
Without this form of conservation, wildlife depending on
these habitats for survival would continue to decrease in
numbers. However, since the implementation of the plan,
populations of several species of waterfowl, such as the
gadwalls and blue winged teals, have begun to increase.
5092
[Translation]
In the spirit of Environment Week, let us keep in mind that
protecting the environment is an ongoing commitment, and that
the signing of this plan strengthens the government's
commitment in this regard.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with
my colleagues the news that I had the pleasure last weekend of
participating in the reopening of the Stoney Creek Battle Field
Monument. I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations
to the Preserve the Monument Committee and to the community
of Stoney Creek for having undertaken this project.
The monument is located on the very site where the Battle of
Stoney Creek took place on June 6, 1813. It is particularly fitting
that this week, while we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of
D-Day, we pause and reflect on the sacrifices made by the
Loyalist soldiers in the war of 1812. Some paid the ultimate
price but in doing so they helped to ensure that Canada would be
born strong and free.
The Stoney Creek Battlefield Monument is a lasting reminder
that those who came before us believed that what we now know
as Canada was worth dying for. That is their legacy.
The monument is Stoney Creek's legacy to them and it stands
as an important symbol that they did not die in vain nor will
those sacrifices be forgotten.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East): Mr. Speaker, as other
members before me have done this week I wish to pay tribute to
those involved in the transportation industry in Canada.
The transportation industry is a major contributor to the
nation's economy, whatever region of the country you come
from. Employment, jobs, salaries, wages and export sales are
among the direct benefits.
Transportation serves a variety of functions. It extends
Canadian sovereignty over an immense country, it provides
links between regions and markets, and connects small remote
communities to larger centres.
In the final analysis, transportation today is about moving
people and goods efficiently and reliably. The theme of National
Transportation Week, as announced by the Minister of
Transport, is ``Inter-modalism: The perfect fit''. This theme and
the week's activities complement the regulatory and policy
initiatives government and industry are taking to promote
smoothly interlocking transportation services.
The government believes that modern, improved, intermodal
transportation systems will contribute to the long term
economic growth by enabling Canadians to receive supplies and
deliver goods to markets quickly and at a competitive cost.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday, the United Nations Development Program
published the global report on human development. The
Liberals bragged in this House that Canada ranked first for
human development, but they forgot to mention Canada's
mediocre record in some important areas.
Canadians should be reminded that, according to the report,
Canada comes in ninth place with respect to sexual equality, that
it has one of the highest unemployment rates, that it treats its
native population poorly, that it is one of the most wasteful users
of natural resources among OECD countries, and that it shows
little concern for the environment.
Instead of trying to score easy political points, the Liberals
should analyze the report and look for viable solutions to
Canada's major problems.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
comment on the debate held on the proposed spending outlined
in the 1994-95 main estimates.
Since 1969 Parliament's annual review of the main estimates
has resulted in a pathetic total reduction of only one-millionth
of one per cent of the proposed expenditures that governments
have submitted to Parliament for its approval.
I would hope that my colleagues would reconsider their
traditional practice of rubber stamping the government's main
estimates. Yesterday the House authorized the government to
spend $160.3 billion and will add another $39.7 billion to the
national debt, without even considering modest spending
reductions.
You would think that when this country is over $500 billion in
debt that the government would welcome every opportunity and
suggestion to cut its expenditures.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians spoke clearly last fall that they were fed up with the
uncertainty over Canada's Constitution created by the previous
5093
government. They voted for a government that promised to
focus on issues that were more vital to them; jobs and economic
growth.
Yet on Tuesday of this week the constitutional issue was back
in the House, thanks to the leader of the Reform Party. It is a
touch of irony that the party that promised to make deficit
reduction its top priority and swore not to talk about the
Constitution, should be the perpetrator of such a divisive debate.
This apparent contradiction may be one reason why the
Reform Party's popularity has dropped right across the country,
especially in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The opposition has tried to derail the nation's business by
setting a constitutional trap. We will not be fooled. We will stick
to our plan. Canadians can be sure that we do not intend to fall
off the track.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
after my June 7 speech on national unity, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie asked me a question on sovereignty and
the right to self-determination.
Present-day international law recognizes the right to
self-determination only for peoples. Nothing requires
self-determination to occur through the break-up of an existing
multinational state. This right can be exercised by staying
within a pluralistic federal state like ours. In a political and
non-legal sense, both Quebec francophones and Native
Canadians can qualify as nations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, malnutrition
affects one in three children in the developing world. Clean
water is not available to over 1.2 billion people and basic
education and primary health care is considered an inaccessible
luxury to many in the world today.
(1410)
Results Canada is an organization devoted to creating the
political will for the sustainable end to hunger and poverty.
Basic human needs such as literacy, immunization and clean
water should be available to every person on earth.
Results Canada encourages the promotion of economic
self-reliance. Through the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh small
loans are issued to the most destitute rural people and over half
have managed to get themselves out of poverty.
The success of this program has led to the establishment of the
Grameen Trust, a fund set aside for the development of similar
loan programs in third world countries.
To all of the staff and volunteers at Results Canada, I
commend you for a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, on
his own initiative, the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Deputy Government Whip
circulated a petition to silence the Official Opposition. That
petition, which more or less sought to censure discussions in this
House, must be strongly denounced as being fundamentally
undemocratic.
Let us not forget that close to two million Quebec voters
democratically expressed their support for our option, an option
which we never tried to hide from the public, and that it is not
only our right but our duty to talk about sovereignty for Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to talk about sovereignty, in
compliance with the democratic mandate which we received last
October 25 from Quebecers, who gave us more than two-thirds
of the province's seats and made us the Official Opposition. We
now have confirmation of the intolerance and pettiness of the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Liberals.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have made it clear that one of their greatest
concerns is the family and the need to strengthen and encourage
this important cornerstone of our society. What Canadians need
is someone to champion their cause.
The Reform Party caucus has taken on that mandate. The
Reform's task force on the family will seek to strengthen the
status and the well-being of the family by providing leadership
on important issues and by challenging policy trends and
legislation that harm and interfere with the role of the family.
The purpose of the task force will be to protect Canadian
families from inappropriate government control and
interference. The task force reaffirms the family is the
fundamental unit of our society. The family is the foundation of
our social and
5094
economic structure. It provides a place to nurture our children.
It provides for the communication of beliefs, convictions and
values.
Reform will ensure that even under the present Liberal agenda
this does not change.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
announce the most recent initiatives of the federal government
in Eastern Quebec.
A few days ago, the Canadian and Quebec governments
unveiled six projects totalling $2.7 billion. Moreover, this
morning I announced that a project worth more than half a
million dollars would be implemented in my riding.
Last June 2, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
made the following statement in the House regarding the
Federal Office of Regional Development:
When I am told that there are only $2 million left for the Lower St.
Lawrence, the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, I say that the
cupboard is bare.
In the last week, $3.2 million were invested in Eastern
Quebec. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata should
be more objective in her comments. It is no surprise that her
party, her leader and her option are losing popularity in Quebec.
It is time for the opposition to stop making slanderous
statements.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
this past week there were many celebrations honouring the 50th
anniversary of D-Day and those who sacrificed so greatly so
that Canadians might enjoy the freedoms we do today.
However, on Tuesday of this week there was a debate in the
House on the issue of Canadian unity, a debate which by its very
essence questioned the future of Canada.
In its report covering over 100 countries, the United Nations
concluded that Canada is the best country in the world in which
to live.
We can share our differences in colour, our differences in
religion, our differences in language and our differences in
culture and still share the dream that so many Canadians fought
and died for, a strong, united Canada where dreams are made
into realities.
Long live Canada for all Canadians.
(1415 )
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the
opportunity to throw the first pitch of the first game of the
Challenger Softball League in Paris, Ontario.
This is a special league for special children, boys and girls
who may be physically, mentally or emotionally challenged,
playing together on the field in a game we all know and love,
baseball.
I would like to congratulate the organizers of this league for
the great work that they have done for the children in our
community and to say to them on behalf of their proud parents,
keep it up. It is going to be a great season.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, a few weeks ago in this House was tabled the report of
the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development that called for a commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development to be established and for the
expansion of the Auditor General's role to include
environmental auditing.
I am very pleased to support the work of the environment
committee in developing this report, work that I had been
engaged in during the sittings of this committee as well as in the
previous Parliament as a member with environmental
responsibilities.
I commend the report to the Minister of the Environment. I
ask that she review this carefully and bring forward legislation
into this House that would put into practice the
recommendations of the committee.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the 1995
Canada Games are being held in Grande Prairie in my riding of
Peace River. The Canada Games are the country's top amateur
athlete competition.
Yesterday evening the identities of the first ever Canada
Games honorary chairpersons were announced. They are
Alexandre Daigle and Kerrin Lee-Gartner. These two
outstanding Canadian athletes need little introduction.
Alexandre Daigle, now a star with the Ottawa Senators,
participated in the last Canada Winter Games in 1991 playing
hockey for Team Quebec.
Kerrin Lee-Gartner, a resident of Alberta, thrilled Canadians
with her Olympic gold medal finish in the downhill event in
Albertville in 1992.
5095
In their role as honorary chairpersons, these two
accomplished athletes will appear on printed material and in
radio, television and newspaper advertising promoting the
games.
I hope my colleagues in the House will join them in capturing
the vision, the slogan for the games.
_____________________________________________
5095
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, in Paris when he was attending the OECD conference
on manpower, the Minister of Human Resources Development
apparently said that his action plan was not ready yet and would
be released in six weeks, in other words, not until the middle of
July, although it was originally to be released at the end of April.
Will the minister confirm that his action plan is still not ready
and that it will not be released until mid-July, in the middle of
the summer, safe from public scrutiny, very discreetly, so that
Parliament cannot discuss it before the summer recess?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can assure the hon.
member that my visit was more productive than the visit of the
Leader of the Opposition, as far as Canadians are concerned.
[English]
I can say to him very clearly that the approach that we have
been pursuing in terms of looking at the broad range of programs
that can improve employment opportunities for Canadians was
one that was broadly and strongly endorsed by all the other
member countries of the OECD. This shows that we are on the
right track and the hon. Leader of the Opposition is on the wrong
track.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the minister feels his trip was productive since he
managed to obtain the approval of other ministers from all over
the world for his action plan. I suggest that he first obtain the
approval of the provincial ministers in Canada.
I would like to ask the minister whether he can also confirm
that as yet, no date has been set for a federal-provincial
conference of social security ministers. Are we to understand he
has given up his plans for a federal-provincial conference
before the fall?
(1420 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the decision on our proposals is
not under the ownership of any government, foreign or
domestic. It is the ownership of the Canadian people who will
make that decision. They will decide by open, transparent,
honest debate and consultation over the next several months.
We have committed and promised full discussion with the
provinces, full discussion with the Canadian people and full
discussion with all the major stakeholders. That is our
commitment and we will live up to it.
It is unfortunate that the only group of people in this country
which is opposing this attempt to reform what we are doing is
the Bloc Quebecois and we know the reason why.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, obviously this minister is a great democrat. He has now
committed to having an open, vigorous public debate in
mid-July. This is the kind of democracy we have.
From here I can see citizens all over Canada in their cottages
close to the lakes discussing and arguing hotly the minister's
plan.
[Translation]
Aside from his official optimism, will the minister admit that
by insisting on imposing his views on people and provincial
governments that do not want his action plan, he is actually
sabotaging his own reform?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Leader of
the Opposition does not plan to work this summer and is going to
spend all his time at the cottage beside the lake, but we will work
all summer to make sure that we get a proper plan through. That
is our commitment.
I hope that in a sign of goodwill and charity the hon. Leader of
the Opposition will return his salary for the two or three months
he is taking off in the summer period because clearly he is not
intending to work the way we are along with the rest of
Canadians.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition understands what
has been going on. I do not think he has any notion or interest in
an attempt to bring about a clear, step by step approach which is
now being considered by cabinet, that will be put forward
publicly and that will result in major public consultations over
the fall by all Canadians involved. That is the plan and the
5096
commitment that we have had. The only people who have been
standing in the way of that have been the Leader of the
Opposition and his members.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. In his speech to the OECD on Tuesday in Paris,
the Minister of Human Resources Development promised to
build a new program aimed at putting Canadians back to
work-a new program-while guaranteeing income security for
those who need it.
Since his statement is completely at odds with what the
government has done about job creation, which so far has been
limited to temporary jobs under the infrastructures program, are
we to conclude from the minister's speech that the government
will at last implement a pro-active job creation policy?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, at the OECD there was a report
tabled that was the product of two years of work and endorsed by
all the countries involved which said that many of the traditional
elements of development for jobs now must be sort of
complemented or supplemented by major efforts to deal with the
problem of structural unemployment. It is a condition faced by
all countries.
What we are saying and what I said is that the initiatives that
we are taking to make major changes in the way that we give
assistance to people to find new employment, to substantially
support and strengthen our training and education programs, to
give new opportunities for work, and to deal with the problems
of young people as we provide in the youth employment
strategy, is the beginning of that recreation. We will continue to
do it through the judgment and negotiations during the process.
(1425)
The two have to go hand in hand. We have to stimulate the
economy which is what we are doing through the infrastructure
program. We have to put in place major elements of restructure
in the economy as the Minister of Finance laid out in his budget.
We must also make a fundamental redesign of our human
resource policies. It is all part of a broad strategy and that is
what we intend to do.
It is too bad the hon. member is incapable of understanding
how important it is that we work together to achieve that goal.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, are we to
conclude that the government's job creation policy, inspired or
not by the OECD, basically consists in cutting social benefits, as
in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Program, in order to
force the unemployed to look for non-existent jobs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, by that question it is obvious the
hon. member has not read the OECD report. I would think that
before anyone asks a question they should find out. I know the
hon. member does not want to get too confused by the facts, but
in this case it would have been very important to have read the
report before asking the question.
That is not what the OECD said. It said we have to make major
changes in labour market policy and social policy to lead to a
more active emphasis on job development, job creation and
employment services. That is the basic thrust of the report.
I will be very happy to send a copy to the hon. member so she
can get up to speed.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday rather surprisingly the transportation minister
apparently told the media that next summer the government will
stop paying subsidies to the railways that defray the cost of
shipping grain to Vancouver and Thunder Bay. In the 1993-94
year these subsidies amounted to almost $650 million.
This is something which Reformers have advocated for years
as part of a comprehensive, well thought out agricultural reform
package. Yet until yesterday western farmers had not heard
anything of this from the Minister of Agriculture.
What role did the agriculture department play in this decision
and what policies and plans does the minister have to prepare the
grains industry to adjust to this dramatic change?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport
clearly indicated his view that over time the government will be
rethinking its role in direct subsidies in transportation in light of
Canada's international trading obligations and with an aim to
ensuring competitive and efficient transportation systems in
Canada.
I have indicated time and time again in this House that a
number of processes are under way to consult broadly with all of
the stakeholders in the western grain transportation system to
deal with the possibility of reform in the system. One of those
processes is a study on transportation efficiencies being
conducted by the Grain Transportation Agency. The report on
that study has been received and it is being reviewed internally.
Another study is being conducted by a group called the Producer
Payment Panel dealing with the method of payment with respect
to the Crow benefit under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
5097
I expect to have a final report from the Producer Payment
Panel some time in the month of June or perhaps early July. We
will take all of that input into account as we make decisions in
the future. I have indicated very clearly that all of these various
reports and studies would be the subject of further consultations
with farmers and farm organizations across western Canada in
particular but with all those in the country who have an interest
before the government makes any decision. No final decision
has yet been taken.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, frankly the minister's definition of over time and what
we heard in the media report from the Minister of Transport is
quite different in the view of most Canadians. He is talking
about July 1995 which is a very short time, almost shorter than
the time the minister took to answer that question.
As the minister knows Reformers advocate consolidating a
dozen existing agriculture support programs into three. We then
propose redirecting some of the savings toward deficit reduction
and redirecting subsidies under GRIP and the Western Grain
Transportation Act to a trade distortion adjustment program, an
expanded whole farm NISA stabilization account and a
strengthened crop insurance plan.
(1430)
My question is for the minister. Would he tell the House how
much of the $650 million subsidy to the railways will be
directed to some new or existing safety net program and how
much will be redirected to deficit reduction or to something
else?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is inviting me to
pre-empt the consultative process which has been under way for
a number of months across Canada. Obviously I am not inclined
to do that because I want to see the advice before I make any
decisions.
With respect to the timeframe issues to which the member
referred, the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is
scheduled to come into effect at some point in 1995. We suspect
it will be July 1, but there is still some discussion among GATT
countries about what the precise implementation date will be.
Once GATT comes into effect it requires certain disciplines
upon subsidies to be implemented gradually over a five or six
year period. The timeframe being referred to by the hon.
gentleman, between now and 1995, is obviously the timeframe
before the GATT comes into effect. Once the GATT comes into
effect there is a phase-in period for any change that stretches
over a following period of at least six years.
The Speaker: I am quite confident all hon. members will be
anxious to make their questions and answers as precise as
possible.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, this is June 1994 and July 1995 is very close. By the
time the minister is done consulting, the transportation minister
will have implemented the changes.
If this change to the subsidization of grain transportation had
been made when agricultural reformers in the west had first
advocated it instead of waiting until we were forced to make
these changes by a GATT agreement, Canadian farmers would
have had a much better chance to adjust. This is part of the price
that prairie farmers are paying for a Liberal government that is
playing catch-up ball instead of getting ahead of the game.
What is the government's plan and timetable for enabling
western grain producers to adjust quickly to market based
freight rates?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have
noticed but the period of time since the original passage of the
Western Grain Transportation Act in 1984, I believe, until
November 4, 1993 was occupied by a different government of
Canada. If he is concerned about delay during that period of time
perhaps he should exercise his questions elsewhere.
With respect to the process I now have under way, I indicated
within days of assuming my responsibility as minister of
agriculture-and certainly during the throne speech debate back
in January, in other speeches in the House and in addresses I
have given to farm organizations from one end of the country to
the other-that the government has a very active agenda in
terms of developing the competitiveness, profitability and
future success of Canadian agriculture.
We have laid out that agenda very clearly. The hon. member
will see in the weeks and months ahead a very vigorous agenda
on the part of the government in dealing with the pressing issues
confronting Canadian farmers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in a
backgrounder to the budget concerning proposed changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Program, we read, and I quote: ``The
Minister of Human Resources Development will present an
5098
action plan for reform in April, and the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development will soon begin public
hearings, culminating in a report to Parliament in the fall. New
legislation will be introduced before the end of 1994''.
Considering the delay in releasing his action plan and fierce
opposition from the provinces to his social security reform, does
the Minister of Human Resources Development still intend to
table changes in the legislation before the end of 1994, as he
promised when the budget was brought down?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I confess I do not share the same
crystal ball as the hon. member.
He talks about strong opposition of the provinces to a plan
which has not yet been tabled. How does he know? They have
not seen it. He has not seen it. We have not tabled it yet.
I can tell the hon. member, going all the way back to last
December at the meeting of all provincial premiers, that they
were the ones who asked for major changes to our programs. We
have been working closely with them and talking with them
during January, February and the spring. We will be talking with
them further before we table the report.
(1435)
For the hon. member to try to speculate there will be major
opposition once again simply shows that the interest of the Bloc
Quebecois is not in having a serious debate. The interest of the
Bloc Quebecois is in trying to stall the process.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister say he will be able to be on schedule as planned, when
at that time Quebec will be in the middle of an election
campaign and many provinces, I may recall, are strongly
opposed to his social security reform strategy?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member has
not been in the House for a very long period of time. He should
understand that we do not set agendas here according to
provincial elections. We set them according to what is right for
Canadians and how we can get Canadians back to work. That is
what we had a mandate to do last October.
One of the key elements in doing that is to make sure that we
have more effective employment programs and more effective
social security programs. I believe we will have a willingness on
behalf of all Canadians in all regions to work with us to obtain
that objective.
I keep coming back: the only group that consistently,
perpetually and continually says it does not want any reform,
any change, or any improvement is the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over the past six months both the House and the committees
have scrutinized the spending estimates. Numerous proposals
have been put forward to reduce spending estimates even further
than contained in the minister's budget. Yet none of these
proposals for reducing spending have been supported by
government members. In fact last night even a modest proposal
to reduce by $20,000 was defeated.
Would the minister please stand in the House today and tell all
hon. members, those to the left of him, those to the right of him,
those behind him, those in front of him, that it is okay to vote in
favour of reductions in spending that go beyond his budget, that
this is the nineties and not the seventies, and that he would
welcome action by his colleagues to reduce spending levels
below those contained in the budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, government members of the House
fully understand and share the views that it is necessary to cut
the deficit, that it is necessary to cut government spending in
order to do so, and, as we have said on many occasions, that it is
very important to get Canadians back to work because that is the
best way to cut the deficit.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, if
members wanted to demonstrate that, the way is not through
words but by supporting some of the motions to reduce spending
below budget levels.
My supplementary question is for the minister. Earlier this
year the government changed the standing orders to allow
committees to make recommendations on next year's spending
provided it was done before June 23.
Will the minister assure the House that he welcomes such
recommendations and that he is predisposed to support them,
including proposals to reduce spending below those that the
departments may desire?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I have said on numerous occasions in
the House, in response to questions from the other side, that we
are very open to legitimate suggestions for cutting spending or
for making government more efficient.
5099
I would also remind the hon. member that I hope members on
that side of the House will support the government upon the
completion of the very thorough, line by line, program by
program, review which is being undertaken by the Minister
responsible for Public Service Renewal.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-37 on young offenders created quite a stir among Quebec
experts in juvenile crime.
Yesterday, in the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of
Justice asked his federal counterpart to withdraw his bill, a
move he indicated would be extremely satisfying for Quebec
and perfectly in line with the wishes of the people.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to accede to the Quebec
government's request that he withdraw his bill?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government intends to
proceed with the bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in what
we believe is in the interests of Canadians and the justice system
generally.
I am sensitive to the observations made by my counterpart in
Quebec. I have listened with care to the points that were made at
the conference in March when I met with Mr. Lefebvre and with
my counterparts across the country.
We believe the amendments which we propose in Bill C-37
reflect important improvements in the juvenile justice system
while remaining flexible for the administration by each
province in its own jurisdiction in accordance with provincial
objectives.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, in the
face of unanimous opposition from stakeholders in Quebec, is
the minister at least prepared to resist the minority repressive
body of public opinion in English Canada expressed mostly in
the West.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the amendments we
introduced last week are not intended for Canadians in the west
or for Canadians in the maritimes. They are intended as
improvements to the juvenile justice system in Canada.
May I emphasize that a very significant part of those
amendments are intended to enhance the very rehabilitative,
community based and restorative penalties that are very
commonly found in the Quebec administration of the statute and
are intended to strengthen juvenile justice in the province of
Quebec as well.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
The minister has said on numerous occasions that he intends
to consult the public before devising a 10-year immigration
plan. However the minister has also repeatedly pledged to carry
out the red book promise to increase immigration to an annual
rate of 1 per cent of the population.
What is the minister's plan: to let the public direct the
formulation of an immigration plan or to stick to the
immigration targets already set out in the red book?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
been very clear on what his plan is.
The minister has put in place the largest immigration
consultation in the history of Canada. That consultation will
culminate in a national forum in September, at which time the
plan will come forward. If the member has some patience she
will find out in due course.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, at the Montebello meeting the president of Ekos
Research, Frank Graves, reported that a majority of Canadians
believed that immigration levels were already too high.
The minister's plan to increase immigration levels to 1 per
cent is clearly not in line with the views of Canadians. I say this
is not a consultation plan. It is a public relations plan.
Will the minister admit that the real reason he is spending $1
million Canadian is to change people's opinions rather than
listen to them?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member. I guess I have to say that if we could change people's
opinions with a mere $1 million, life would be a little easier for
all of us in the country.
This is a very broad based consultation. It is going on in every
major centre. One person that the hon. member has brought
forward says that immigration levels are too high. Admittedly
other people say that too, but many other people who are
frontline dealers with immigration say differently.
Our promise in the red book was to keep it at 1 per cent. We
are consulting with members of the public across the country.
5100
We will continue to do so. When that consultation is finished, we
will bring forward a 10-year plan.
* * *
(1445)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport yesterday very clearly declared that the
federal government would put an end as of next July to all
western grain transportation subsidies which total some $600
million.
On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
in hearing this statement admitted very clearly that no final
decision by cabinet has yet been taken. Therefore, the statement
by the transport minister has, at the very least, surprised and
embarrassed the minister of agriculture.
How can the Minister of Transport justify his surprising
statement about putting an end to western grain freight subsidies
while visibly his colleague for agriculture was not informed,
being that he underlined last night and in the House today that no
final decision has yet been taken by cabinet?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
just to make sure the hon. member understands what was said
yesterday, I indicated, as Minister of Transport, and as the
budget document did, that we were looking at reducing
subsidies from the Department of Transport for various forms of
transportation.
I also clearly indicated that the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and others have been involved in the consultative
process that has been described by the minister today with a
view as to how we can continue to support the farm community
in Canada.
It is prudent, in view of our international trading agreements,
to make sure we give a clear signal that changes will be made on
how the WGTA is paid.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport did in fact specify that as of July 1 all
subsidies were to be withdrawn because of GATT. He knows or
does not know that there is no direct link between the subsidies
in the west and GATT.
Does the Minister of Transport not recognize he is being very
insensitive regarding a program which has wide implications for
both animal and grain production between the east and west?
Does he not recognize that in the past such talk has always
provoked violent outcries from the farming community?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I am sensitive enough about the situation in the west as it relates
to the Crow that I do not have to read my questions as the hon.
member just did.
I want to make it very clear that when we dealt with the
question of what was going to take place on July 1 next year, we
were very careful in stating that the Department of Transport
recognized we had to change the way these subsidies were being
paid, taking into account our international agreements.
I know the hon. member's background very well. If the hon.
member is not familiar with what the implications of the
international trading agreements are on how we are going to
have to administer these kinds of programs, then he needs to do a
little bit more homework and get caught up on what he was doing
15 years ago when he thought he knew something about
agriculture.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Since Tuesday, the
opposition has been claiming that the lives of two children were
seriously endangered after the drug ALG was administered to
them. As a mother of two myself, I am quite concerned.
When did this incident happen? And is it true that the lives of
these two children were threatened by this drug?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
Official Opposition's thoughtless allegations are serious indeed.
First, the incident in question occurred five years ago at
Sainte-Justine Hospital, in Montreal.
According to the hospital, two children out of fifty or so had a
mild allergic reaction to the drug. Both were successfully
treated and their transplanted kidneys were not rejected. Today,
these two children are healthy. Justine Lacoste-Beaubien, who
founded Saint-Justine Hospital in 1907, must have turned over
in her grave hearing the Bloc talk in such a way about an
institution she founded to save the lives of children in Quebec.
(1450)
I am responsible to Canadians for health, Mr. Speaker, and the
Official Opposition has responsibility in that area as well. It
should use some of its research budget to check its facts before
alarming the Canadian public needlessly. If they want to launch
a political attack on me, that is one thing, but they should not use
children to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In 1991 the federal government ratified the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time a debate
has been under way in Canada regarding the right of parents to
spank their children. Section 43 of the Criminal Code currently
5101
protects parents who use reasonable physical force to discipline
their children.
Can the minister advise this House whether or not he is
currently considering a repeal of section 43 of the Criminal
Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that like most
things involving the justice system, section 43 is under review in
the Department of Justice.
I can also tell the hon. member that I know of no plan at
present to propose a change to the section. If the situation should
alter, I can let him know.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
on March 22, 1994 the Toronto Star reported that 70 per cent of
Canadian parents stated they believed it is sometimes necessary
for parents to use physical force to correct their children's
behaviour.
We are given to understand that the federal government is
currently reviewing section 43 of the Criminal Code. Can the
minister advise the members of this House who is conducting
the review, the cost of the review, and when members of this
House can receive a copy of it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the review is being
conducted within the Department of Justice.
On how much it is costing, I do not know that it is separately
costed. I think it is part of the mainstream work of the
department's professional staff but I can confirm that. As to
what might become of the review, that is a matter for decision.
No decision has yet been made whether proposals are going to be
brought forward, whether discussion is going to be encouraged
publicly, or whether a change is going to be proposed.
I can only respond by saying that like much of the justice
system in general, that section is under consideration. No
decision has yet been made whether a change will be proposed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
The practice of foreign-flagging Canadian ships to bypass
Canadian legislation has deprived Canadian sailors of jobs and
the public treasury of revenues. The Minister of Finance will
surely agree. Although this practice hurts Canada, some
Canadian shipowners resort to it.
My question is this: How can the Minister of Transport justify
the fact that two ships, the Bluenose and the Atlantic Freighter,
which belong to Marine Atlantic, a company wholly owned by
the Government of Canada, operate under the Bahamian flag?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. It is certainly
something that should be looked into. I want to assure the hon.
member that I will check today exactly when these two ships
were transferred, because we know that Marine Atlantic has
been in business for a long time and that the Bluenose in
particular has been plying the waters of the Atlantic region for
quite a while.
(1455)
I promise to get back to the hon. member as soon as possible
to let him know when it happened. Of course, we will also
examine the relevant policy.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries, who claims to be pursuing pirates
everywhere on the seas, should perhaps start pursuing his
colleague, the Minister of Transport, who is himself a pirate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I hope we will stay here rather
than sink to the bottom of the sea. I would like the hon. member
to withdraw the word ``pirate'', please.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word ``pirate''
but I simply wanted to point out that the minister is behaving
like a pirate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that
remark.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark.
How does the minister explain that, according to the 1993-94
Lloyds Register of Ships, these two ships belonging to Marine
Atlantic are registered in the Bahamas with Nassau as home
port?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
having listened to my hon. friend put his question, I now
understand his rhetoric a little bit better. Obviously he did his
research in the Bahamas and they have great rum there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I think if this continues I am going to need a
drink.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have great consternation at being
described as a swashbuckler so I thought I would find some
rationale for it.
5102
In any event I want to repeat my undertaking to the hon.
member that I will look into the question of the registry of the
two ships he has referred to. I will look specifically at when
those ships were registered under the Bahamian flag because
obviously they have both been in operation for a significant
amount of time. I would want to see that the Bloc Quebecois, and
especially the Leader of the Opposition, is consistent in its
approach as to foreign flagging of vessels in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this year the Minister of Transport made a backroom deal
to grant Air Canada landing rights in Osaka, Japan. At the time
he denied that any deal had been made, but two days later the
story changed. Now Air Canada is pressing to have further
landing rights granted in Japan and in China.
Will the minister advise this House if he is involved in or
contemplating any unilateral backroom deal of this nature with
Air Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
no.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of Transport agree and commit to this House
that negotiations involving Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
will be left to those companies unless government intervention
is requested and then be fully visible and transparent?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
of course if the senior people at Air Canada and Canadian
Airlines International wish to discuss matters of mutual interest
that is entirely within their prerogative. With respect to it being
transparent, that again would be something they would have to
decide on the basis of their commercial interests.
I do want to indicate that any decisions with respect to the
allocation of routes is always looked at meticulously. We hope it
will always be done in the best interests of both our national
airlines and the Canadian public in general.
* * *
(1500)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): My
question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I will take advantage of this lull in the opposition's offensive.
Has the minister received formal objections from francophone
groups outside Quebec regarding the CBC's news network, and
what does the minister intend to do to ensure that francophones
in Canada receive the services to which they are entitled?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I can confirm that I received a request from the
Fédération des francophones et acadiens, asking me to intervene
so as to amend or reverse the position taken by the CRTC
regarding this network. I intend to make recommendations to
the Governor in Council so that he can make a decision within
the timeframe prescribed by the act.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Dr. Sein Win, the Burmese Democratic
representative.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, as you may
have guessed, I would like to ask the hon. member to announce
the order of business for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
respond to the request of the opposition House leader to deliver
the weekly statement of business that the government intends to
call.
First, I wish to thank the House leaders of the parties opposite
for their co-operation in sharing information in order to
facilitate the business of the House for the rest of the month.
In outlining this business I would caution the House that there
may be changes from time to time in order to accommodate
members with a view to expediting this business.
I must also point out that much of the agenda depends on the
timeliness of bills being reported from committees.
Today the House will continue its consideration of Bill C-34
and Bill C-33, the bills regarding native self-government and
land claims in Yukon. We hope that we will be able to complete
second reading of these bills today but if we cannot we will fit
them in for completion early next week.
Tomorrow we will call Motion No. 13 concerning a
committee review of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act.
5103
On Monday the first item of business will be Bill C-35, the
citizenship department reorganization bill.
There are ongoing discussions as to whether we might be able
to do this bill at all stages. If we are not able to do so we will
merely complete second reading. This will be followed by Bill
C-23, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and Bill C-24
concerning wildlife.
I understand that there may be a disposition if there is time to
commence with Bill C-11 regarding tobacco on Monday
evening.
In any case this bill will be the first business on Tuesday. It
will be followed by Bill C-16 regarding the Sahtu Dene Land
Claims and Bill C-36 respecting the Split Lake Manitoba
flooding agreement.
We would then begin the report stage of Bill C-22 regarding
the Pearson airport.
In order to accommodate the critic for the Official Opposition
on this bill who cannot be here on Wednesday, if the other
business is moving less quickly than expected during the day we
will discuss moving Bill C-22 up in order to get a start on it
while he is still here.
(1505 )
On Wednesday we will begin with Bill C-12, the Canada
business corporations bill, followed by Bill C-28 regarding
student loans, and Bill C-31 concerning Telefilm Canada.
If this is not feasible, after consultation we could return to
consideration of Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act, a bill that I
understand will require a considerable amount of debate.
On Thursday we will call Bill C-38 regarding security of
marine transportation. It is the intention of the government to
make this bill subject to the new Standing Order 73(1); that is, to
refer it to committee before second reading.
The remainder of Thursday will be taken up by Bill C-22 and
any other spill-over from earlier in the week.
We expect to introduce the lobbyist legislation late next week
and to devote Friday to a consideration of a motion pursuant to
Standing Order 73(1) to refer that bill to committee before
second reading as well.
We are now beginning to use one of the new provisions that we
all agreed to when we passed an order to update our standing
orders a few months ago shortly after we adopted the throne
speech.
In any event, it may be presumptuous to attempt to project
into the last week the House will be sitting, the week of June 20,
but I can at this time indicate to the House that the government
intends to place before it during that week Bills C-32, C-30,
C-25 and C-7, as well as a bill implementing miscellaneous
statute amendments already reviewed by the justice committee
in addition to asking the House to complete any unfinished
business from the week before.
If we have time I am sure there is a lot of other work we can
do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Do I dare say is that all?
_____________________________________________
5103
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-34, an act respecting self-government for first nations in the
Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, as we had been
debating prior to the break, Bill C-34, I was pointing out that the
department of Indian affairs has spent $50 million creating a
cottage industry around the negotiations on land claims and, of
course, the inherent right to self-government. This has simply
benefited the lawyers and the political leaders, while at the same
time the deplorable living conditions of the individual
aboriginal person have not changed one iota as a result of the
expenditure of these funds.
Fifty million dollars later and the introduction of Bill C-34,
we still have so many unanswered questions. Topping the list is
the question: What is aboriginal self-government going to look
like? Does it mean a transfer of power, or just a transfer of
administrative responsibilities? Will it mean that 30, 40, 50 or
100 nations will each have their own governments, and power to
pass their own constitutions, their own laws and their own
citizenship status?
It is simply going to add a new layer of government to what we
have now, and it is going to result in more duplication, taxes and
debt.
Will the federal and provincial governments be overwhelmed
by the demands of many small and inefficient governments?
(1510 )
How will the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
apply? Will they have their own constitution, their own system
of justice and education? These are all things that are promised
within this document. I would like to just touch for a moment on
the area of the Constitution.
They are granted the right to create their own constitution.
The very definition or the very words ``inherent right to
self-government'' would indicate that the laws passed by either
the federal or provincial governments will not apply to them.
How in the world can we expect them to create a constitution
that will direct their inherent right to self-government if that
constitution is not independent of the Constitution of Canada
including the
5104
Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That question has not been
answered by the creators of this bill.
Will non-aboriginal peoples be subjected to the powers of
governments that are beyond their control? What kind of
self-government rights will aboriginal people have when they
are not on an aboriginal land base? Will I need a passport when
entering these new territories? The questions go on and on.
I feel that I cannot support this bill, although I support, as
many of my colleagues do, the direction in which this bill goes.
However the questions that we have raised in this debate so far
have not been addressed. Before this bill can be supported we
must make sure that we know exactly where we are going with
the bill, the rights and obligations attached to this bill and the
responsibilities of not only the two senior levels of government
but also the responsibilities of this new form of government that
we will be forming.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure here to speak on Bill C-34
which represents the settlement of four self-government
agreements in Yukon with the native peoples.
There are 10 more self-government agreements that still have
to be settled. This bill if it is passed will give further agreements
to be ratified by cabinet alone and therefore does not have to
come under the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore the scrutiny
of the Canadian people.
The purpose of this agreement is to deal with aboriginal
self-government to a vast and sparsely populated part of
Canada. I think it is worthwhile for us today to discuss some of
the salient points of this bill, what it would give the native
people, vis-à-vis the Canadian people, the rest of Canada.
Bill C-34 gives special rights and special privileges to some
of the native peoples of the Yukon Territory. As a representative
here of all Canadians I have some problems with this. This bill is
divisive. It will define the citizens of the First Nations as a
separate group of citizens. Therefore what we would have in this
land are two citizenships, citizens with different rules and
regulations pertaining to each group.
As a result of this we are setting up separate governments for
separate nations within the borders of this country, new
governments with broad legislative powers, independent
legislative powers of the rest of the country.
Native peoples see themselves as separate nations and not part
of Canada. This I recognize. It is obviously a philosophical point
of contention. To see oneself as a nation that is separate from
another within the borders of this country may sound good to
some, but I think that it is only divisive.
The native people should ask themselves if this is indeed
going to improve their social and economic situations or will it
be divisive and counterproductive. The rest of Canada must also
ask whether they are prepared to accept this within the borders
of their country.
Yukon I believe, as most Canadians believe, belongs to all
Canadians. Let us elaborate on some of the nitty-gritty of these
bills. Bill C-34 will increase the number of governments in
Yukon right now up from two to sixteen. This would produce an
increase in bureaucracy, in taxes, in rules and regulations for
only 7,300 people, 20 per cent of the people who live there. This
is apartheid. It smacks of the old South Africa. In effect we are
creating separate nation states within the borders of our own
country. This is a new brand of Canadian apartheid.
(1515)
Apartheid, as we know, means separateness or apartness for
those who do not realize it, not togetherness, and this at a time
when above all else we need to work together. It is wise to reflect
on the meaning of this when we look at what will be happening
to the Yukon if these bills are passed. It will mean a division
among people.
Another question that has not been asked concerns the
structure of the legislative body that would have the ability to
pass laws and legislations within the Yukon. This has yet to be
finalized but would be left up to the native legislative body. I can
say this though, it does enable the body to give the power to a
single person to enact legislation. There are no rules and
regulations concerning democratic institutions in this bill and
this concerns me greatly.
Who will be paying for this self-government? The Canadian
taxpayers and the native people together will be paying for it.
However the Canadian taxpayer will be footing the major
portion of the bill. Then they must also have a say in what will be
the outcome of the negotiations on this bill. The cost would be
far greater than that which is borne today by the federal
government to provide services to the aboriginal people in this
area.
We must stand back and look at the larger issue here, in fact
the most important issue, the welfare of the native people. No
one disputes the ability of any individual to exercise his or her
democratic rights and freedoms. I do not think anyone has a
problem with enabling any group of people who live in an area to
govern themselves by municipal powers, the same municipal
powers that are given to any other area of the country.
However will providing these vast, expansive special
agreements to the rest of Canada, a part of Canada that belongs
to every Canadian, help the welfare of the native people? Let us
get
5105
down to brass tacks here and call a spade a spade. Many of the
native communities tragically are wracked with very high rates
of suicide, alcoholism, substance abuse, unemployment,
depression and sexual abuse.
As a physician I have spent much time in northern British
Columbia working with native people. The plight of these
individuals breaks my heart. I have seen individuals raped, had
their heads put through walls, beaten up, smashed up, shot and
killed, people who have suffered the ravages of alcoholism. I
have seen them go for years, suffering these ravages only to have
to pronounce them dead on the gang plank of an emergency
department.
It is intolerable for this to have occurred and it is intolerable
for it to continue. Part of the blame rests on the non-native
population and in particular Canadian governments that have
continued to treat people in a paternalistic fashion by providing
for them many of their basic needs without trying to do much to
stimulate self-reliance.
Whenever you give an individual or group their basic needs
they will lose their desire to fight for these things and therefore
lose their self-respect, pride and self-reliance.
I also put a large part of the blame squarely on the shoulders of
the native population and native leaders who in my opinion have
been unwilling to take the bull by the horns and ask what they
can do to pull their communities out of these tragic situations.
Do the native peoples' leaders truly think that settling these
land claims and self-government in a different fashion from
anybody else-it is important to emphasize different-is going
to do much to alleviate these tragedies? Are they trying to carve
out an area of Canada for their people based on history and have
them live like they did 150 years ago? If so, do they think that
their people want or need this?
If you want to go back to living off the land so be it, but you
cannot expect to do that and still have a VCR, car, CD player and
many of the other amenities of 20th century, first world
lifestyle. In other words, you cannot have it both ways.
Over time and history, groups of individuals have moved from
one area to another, expanded and taken over certain areas where
others live. This has occurred, whether you are speaking of
Canada, America, Australia or England. It has been a fact of life
and a fact of the history of mankind. It is something that none of
us here can do anything about. We must look ahead, look into the
future and determine how all people in the country can have
their socioeconomic situations improved. This is particularly
important for the native people because their socioeconomic
situation is the poorest in the land.
(1520)
However it is incumbent on the native people to ask
themselves what they can do to help themselves. In my
discussions with native people, it has been sorely lacking. They
speak about getting back pride and self-reliance. I can tell
members that the only way to get back pride and self-reliance is
if you earn them yourself. You only achieve these things through
your own hard work, your sweat and your desire to fight for
your basic necessities and your life.
Pride and self-respect are not things that are given to
someone, paid for or bought. They are only things that come
from within your heart and soul and only from your ability, as an
individual or community, to fight for your own life. I do not
mean this in a pugilistic sense or by taking up arms. I mean this
figuratively and in a spiritual sense.
When one works hard and fights for one's life in this world,
win or lose, one develops a sense of pride, self-respect,
self-reliance, self-esteem that nobody can take away. It is the
only way that this will come to the native communities.
As I have said before, it must come from within the people.
Canadian governments and provincial governments have done
too much to pander to the communities. They have taken this
desire away from them, this fight to become the best that they
can become.
Cultural, social and linguistic integrity does not have to be
lost but again the responsibility for this resides squarely on the
shoulders of the native population. Canada's cultural mosiac is a
great benefit to every citizen. For the native population to lose
its history and its culture would not only be a disservice to them
but to every citizen, native and non-native.
Rather than dealing with trying to buy out the native
populations with these huge land claims, perhaps it would be
better for us to determine ways that together we can work toward
helping the native population becoming self-reliant. Of course
this does not preclude the concept of municipal governments in
areas where there are native populations but these rights are the
same for every Canadian, non-native and native. I will reiterate
this again. The rules, regulations, laws, responsibilities and
privileges of a citizen of our country must be equal for
everybody, native or non-native together.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I
guess I am somewhat puzzled by the statement of the member
from the other side.
He said that he has worked with First Nations' people as a
medical doctor and has talked to them. It seems to me that he
really has not listened to them, nor has he learned anything
about them. He talked about self-government but he has talked
about it in a somewhat befuddled way. If he were to truly
5106
understand what self-government is about, he would change a
lot of the statements that he just made.
I had the honour of sitting in a meeting with a group of chiefs
from across the country. A very articulate chief from the west
spoke about self-government. He spoke about his relationship
with the Department of Indian Affairs. He spoke about the
problems that native people have because they do not have the
same rights that many Canadians take for granted.
Moneys that are generated through leases and economic
activity in their communities goes to the department. They have
to apply for moneys through budgets. These budgets can be
turned down. He gave a very eloquent and poignant description
of this life and he looked to me and said: ``Self-government is
just a way of having the same basic rights that other Canadians
enjoy''.
I am really at a loss to come up with a question for the member
on the other side. I only have a suggestion and that is to open
your mind and your heart-
(1525 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that in
debate people feel a great deal of conviction and are very
committed to the issue they are debating. However I want to
remind all members that it is in the best interests of all members
in the House to direct comments in a less personal fashion
through the Chair.
I would ask all members to keep that in mind throughout the
day.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to
think about some of the experiences he has had, open his mind
and his heart and really listen to what people are telling him. He
should investigate what it is like for people in native
communities and the kinds of relationships they have right now
and really explore what self-government is all about.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I do
very much appreciate the comments of the hon. member.
Whether she believes it or not what she is saying is supporting
what I have said. I agree with many of her comments.
The Department of Indian Affairs is paternalistic, does not
serve the native people at all and should be eliminated. They
agree with that and I think many people in the House do. It is
insulting for them to have an institution such as that govern
them in the way it does. They do not deserve it.
I will reiterate it again as I did at least twice in my speech that
we in this party stand for equal rights, equal status and equal
opportunity for all Canadians, natives and non-natives. We
should concentrate on investing our efforts collectively, natives
and non-natives together, to determine how every individual
who lives within this beautiful country can become the best they
can.
We have to dismantle some of the barriers for native people. I
would ask whether settling these land claims is going to do that.
An economy cannot be created in some of the far away places
where these land claims are to be settled and expect individuals
to improve their socioeconomic situations. It will not happen.
We must provide a helping hand to enable native peoples to
become the best they can become. I am sure that we can do that.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for the First
Nations in Yukon Territory is a bill which I would very much
like to support.
I would like to support it and I say this with absolutely no
malice toward the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development because I personally look forward to the day when
the Department of Indian Affairs no longer exists. When that
day comes it will mean that people born on Indian reserves or
people born of First Nation parents have assumed their full
rights and responsibilities as adult citizens rather than living
under the not always benevolent dictatorship of some distant
white parent figure in the federal government.
I would also like to support Bill C-34 because I know that
men and women around the world regard aboriginal peoples as a
world treasure. Any modern nation which can bring its
aboriginal peoples into full partnership in the modern world will
be deserving the world's praise and gratitude.
I would like to support Bill C-34 if I could because it is only
right and just that as the First Nations people demonstrate their
readiness to take over their own affairs, that right should be
handed over to them in a reasonable and efficient manner.
Finally if it were possible I would support Bill C-34 because
the policy of the Reform Party of Canada passed by our many
thousands of members at our regular assemblies supports:
``Processes leading to the early and mutually satisfactory
conclusion of outstanding land claims negotiations-enabling
aboriginal individuals, communities and organizations to
assume full responsibility for their well-being by involving
them in the development, delivery and assessment of
government policies affecting them''.
Given my own commitment to those four reasons for
supporting progress toward native self-government, it was with
real disappointment and mounting frustration that I read the
reasons why I cannot support Bill C-34.
(1530 )
The incredible twists and turns of this bill have created a
strangely complex administrative trap set to ensnare well
meaning officials of both the involved First Nations and the
Yukon territorial government.
5107
I have no wish to say anything bad about the motives of the
people who put Bill C-34 together. No doubt they had the best
intentions. Regardless of their good intentions, they have started
Canada's long desired progress toward native self-government
by making two fundamentally wrong assumptions.
I am deducing their assumptions by looking at what Bill C-34
provides. In its schedule III, parts I, II, III and IV, Bill C-34
provides these First Nations with jurisdiction over virtually
every item relating to creation, preservation and defence of
peace, order and good government that would be granted to a
nation such as Canada.
For example, the First Nations will have jurisdiction over
manpower training, which the province of Quebec has long been
seeking but was not granted. Additionally Bill C-34 provides
these First Nations with jurisdiction over the control or
prohibition of the possession and use of firearms and other
weapons and explosives.
Part III, number 21 gives this a power which has been
reserved for the federal government and not even given to
governments at the provincial levels. With the passing of Bill
C-34, that right to make firearm laws will be handed over to
these four First Nations.
As a third example, portions of Bill C-34 relating to
administration of justice point out that some interim agreements
must be concluded, but once such agreements expire these four
so-called First Nations shall have the right to administer justice
including imposing fines up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up
to six months.
In other words, Bill C-34 is taking very literally the term
nations when legislating to these four groups of natives. Is this
reasonable?
I am not a student of world geography, but I frankly cannot
recall reading about any nation in the world which has a
population of under 10,000 people. In Canada our towns,
municipalities and regional districts have more than 10,000
people and those administrative levels of governments are often
hard pressed today to pay for the kinds of things required from
municipal level governments; for example, to pay for the
salaries of building inspectors to be sure that new construction
complies with standards for things like electrical wiring,
soundness of building foundations and fire safety.
Bill C-34 regards each of these four so-called First Nations as
being a nation with virtually all the rights and responsibilities of
a modern developed country like Canada, whose population is
28 million.
Bill C-34 extends the special rights, privileges and duties of
nationhood to these groups whose total population is
approximately 7,300 native people, divided into 14 bands and
scattered across some of the most sparsely populated land
remaining on our planet.
Again I must ask my colleagues of the House: Is this
reasonable? From my personal point of view it is so far from
being reasonable that it seems tragic. I say that Bill C-34 is
tragic because by expecting far too much Bill C-34 dooms one
of Canada's first experiments in native self-government to
failure, for on to the shoulders of these 7,300 natives will fall the
responsibility to administer some 16,000 square miles of land
equivalent to about 75 per cent of the province of Nova Scotia
which the land claim agreements of Bill C-33, the companion
piece of this legislation, will hand over in fee simple ownership.
In case some hon. members may doubt what I am alleging
here, let us look at some of the other responsibilities which will
fall on the small native population. On that piece of land,
three-quarters of the size of Nova Scotia, they will be
responsible for all use, management, administration, control
and protection. That is part III, item 1.
They will be responsible for all allocations and dispositions
of rights and interests in that land for the use, management,
administration and protection of natural resources for all
businesses, professional and trade licensing, for all
construction, sanitation planning, zoning and land development,
for controlling operation and use of vehicles, local services and
facilities, for preventing pollution and protecting the
environment.
(1535)
In short, nobody needs feel concern over unemployment in
this area of Yukon because virtually every adult will be getting a
job from the new First Nations government.
At a time when the people of Canada are complaining about
being overgoverned, Bill C-34 carries overgovernment to
undreamed of extremes.
One incorrect assumption of the people who drew up Bill
C-34 is that the term nation should be applied literally to these
tiny isolated groups, reserving for the federal government only
such limited functions as postal service, international
agreements, military defence and the jurisdiction of the federal
court.
The second bad assumption which the drafters of the
legislation apparently made is that these native groups are fully
ready for such an advanced stage of self-government. To return
to the Reform Party policy on the subject, because it has the
unusual merit of making plain common sense, unlike Bill C-34,
the Reform Party supports: ``The establishment of a new
relationship with aboriginal peoples beginning with a
constitutional convention of aboriginal representatives to
consider their position on such matters as the nature of
aboriginal rights, the relationship between aboriginal peoples
and the various levels of government, and how to reduce the
economic dependence of
5108
aboriginal peoples on the federal government and the
department of Indian affairs''.
To the best of my knowledge none of this preliminary
groundwork has been completed. I believe it is particularly
important for native peoples to work out agreements with
neighbouring municipal level governments with which they
could share the cost burden of providing that more realistic level
of self-government services.
I would like to draw to the House's attention the question of
drawing up a constitution for these First Nations as probably the
most essential missing pieces of Bill C-34.
Regarding creating a constitution, many people around the
world have been impressed by the process used by the new South
Africa in moving away from its old white race dominated system
of government to a new country based, at last on the
fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote.
Once the political will was there, South Africa accomplished
this transition fairly quickly by establishing, first of all, a
temporary constitution to determine how the election should
take place, some soft boundaries for the future nine provinces,
and the rough framework whereby the newly elected federal
officials, balanced by an equal number from each of the nine
new provinces, will gather to draw up South Africa's long term
constitution, subject to ratification by the people.
In order to establish these four Yukon First Nations, to the
best of my knowledge and research, no such constitutional
details have been spelled out.
What Bill C-34 does provide is some standards which must be
included in the constitution of these First Nations, including
what is required for citizenship and procedure for determining
whether a person is a citizen; what shall be the governing bodies
of the First Nation, including such things as membership, duties
and procedures; a system for these governing bodies to be
financially accountable to the citizens; a way to recognize and
protect their rights and freedoms; a way to challenge the validity
of laws and quash the laws seen as not valid; a way to amend the
constitution.
Unfortunately a number of key questions are not discussed.
For instance, who is to draw up these constitutions for each of
the four First Nations involved? What time frame are they to
follow? Do the native people get to vote on their own proposed
new constitution? If so, how? Will our Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms be followed in these new nations?
On all of these essential points, Bill C-34 is silent.
However the legislation does contain something which does
not, in my opinion, properly belong in any bill which a
responsible government asks members of this House to support.
Bill C-34 asks Parliament, by passing this one piece of
legislation, to give blanket approval, sight unseen, to
self-government agreements for 10 additional Yukon bands,
according to Clause 5(2): ``Where a self-government agreement
is concluded with a First Nation after this act comes into force,
the governor in council may, by order, bring the agreement into
effect and add the name of the First Nation to Schedule II''.
(1540 )
I believe this particular clause is the height of irresponsible
behaviour by the present government. In the way of things,
another government altogether may be in place before the 10
other self-government agreements have been concluded.
Members of today's Parliament could be giving this blanket
permission to a cabinet not even yet elected. I submit to my
colleagues that this simply is not a conscientious way to fulfil
our obligations to all the people of Canada. It is at best a
slip-shod kind of behaviour which no conscientious people
would exercise in the conduct of their own personal affairs,
much less the affairs of this great nation.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest some positive
alternatives to Bill C-34, which I regard as having such serious
flaws that it cannot be remedied even by numerous amendments.
In the very desirable process of going along with our
aboriginal peoples as they follow the road to self-government, I
believe that we must simply start at the beginning of the road
and not leap with little caution toward the road's end. The
beginning of the road to aboriginal self-government is holding
an aboriginal constitutional convention at which the native
peoples spell out what conditions they want to live under and
what responsibilities for government and administration they
want and are ready and financially able to assume.
For example, I doubt that the people of Canada would
question or deny the aboriginal right to administer First Nation
affairs and operation and internal management of the First
Nation, together with the management and administration of
rights and benefits realized by the aboriginals' agreement with
Canada.
I feel certain that the people of Canada would be pleased and
proud to see natives assume full responsibilities for programs
and services relating to their spiritual and cultural beliefs and
practices as well as the preservation of their aboriginal language
and culture. However, far too little thought and planning has
been devoted to the ways by which our native peoples would end
their financial dependence on the rest of Canada.
There is no joke about the golden rule, that he who has the
gold makes the rules. In our society to be regarded as a
responsible adult is to take full responsibility for one's self. In
my book that does not mean negotiating such huge settlements
of land, cash and resources that the most minimal common sense
5109
about investment will allow the beneficiaries to pursue their
own chosen lifestyle forever.
In the rest of Canada people with many types of handicaps
pride themselves on being able to work to be as self-supporting
and independent as possible. Frankly, to say that for some
reason our native people are not equally able to become
self-supporting and independent seems to me to be racism of the
worst kind.
I look forward to the day when a responsible government will
bring to Parliament the kind of legislation enabling aboriginal
self-government that all members of this House will be pleased
and proud to support. Unfortunately, Bill C-34 does not fit that
description.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I thank you
for the opportunity to speak on this very important topic this
afternoon.
I spoke a month ago on Bill C-16 which laid out a settlement
for land claims with the Sahtu Indian bands. I stated at that time
that I was opposed to the bill on the grounds that it was overly
generous. I also stated my concerns that the bill was setting a
dangerous precedent. My thinking on these two bills before us
today is much the same.
I support the concept of self-sufficiency and self-reliance
inherent in the successful land claim settlement process. In no
way do I argue with these in principle. I also encourage this
government to dismantle the department of Indian affairs and let
the people involved conduct their own affairs.
This approach develops responsibility and places decision
making in the hands of those most directly involved.
Bill C-33 will validate land claims entered into between Her
Majesty, the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain
First Nations of the Yukon Territory. Bill C-34 is an act
respecting self-government for the First Nations of Yukon
territory. These two bills represent only four land claim
agreements and four self-government agreements. There are 10
more of each to come in the Yukon. I might add there are about
six pending in my riding of Peace River.
(1545)
The 14 land claim agreements would convey fee simple
16,000 square miles of land for these 14 bands. As my
colleagues have said, that is equivalent to roughly
three-quarters the size of Nova Scotia. The Government of
Canada also agrees to pay $243 million in 1989 dollars over a
period of 15 years. That is very substantial.
Clause 5 of Bill C-33 would allow the other 10 land claim
agreements to be ratified by the approval of cabinet rather than
by Parliament as a whole. In much the same way, clause 5 of Bill
C-34 allows the self-government agreement to be ratified by
cabinet as well.
At the present time, law making in Yukon is entrusted to two
legislative bodies in Canada: the Parliament of Canada and the
Yukon legislature. When this bill is passed, the number of
governments having the right to pass laws in Yukon or parts of
Yukon will go from two to sixteen. This means there will be
more bureaucracy, more taxes, more laws and more rules and
regulations. How can this possibly be in the best interests of
Canada? We have just heard from my colleague from Okanagan
that some of these are very small in terms of the amount of
people involved and the efficiency of skills certainly cannot be
achieved.
A number of questions need to be addressed. Will the new
self-government have to function within the provincial,
territorial or federal framework? That is a very important
question that needs to be answered for Canadians. Why is it not
spelled out explicitly that the self-governments must respect the
authority of the Parliament of Canada?
Does the Canadian charter apply? Obviously it does not. Why
is it not specifically spelled out in this legislation that the
Canadian charter should apply?
The population of Yukon is about 32,000. To accommodate 20
per cent of that population, some 7,300 people, we are going to
have 14 new governments. That does not make any sense to me.
Who is going to pay for these governments? The country is
already borrowing heavily abroad to finance the excessive
spending of our federal government. Do we really want to ask
the Japanese or the Americans to finance 14 more governments?
Let me read to members clause 24 of Bill C-34 which deals
with funding: ``The minister may, with the approval of the
governor in council and subject to appropriations by Parliament,
enter into an agreement with a First Nation, for the provision of
funding by the Government of Canada to the First Nation over
the period of time and subject to the terms and conditions
specified in the agreement''. To me, that sounds like a blank
cheque and I do not think Canadian taxpayers will buy it.
Frankly, I am not prepared to commit my children and my
grandchildren to who knows how many millions of dollars in
future payments. I am not prepared to set this kind of precedent
for future aboriginal self-government agreements.
As a member of the Reform Party I support the expeditious
settlement of land claims leading to self-sufficiency. That is a
very important distinction, self-sufficiency. I also support a
modest form of municipal style self-government. That is a very
important first step before we embark on any other notions that
it may be federal or provincial. Bill C-34 goes much beyond
that. I simply cannot support the direction in which these two
bills are taking us.
5110
I further object to the underhanded way in which these two
bills are being pushed through. The Liberal red book promised
integrity in Parliament, yet these bills were introduced only last
week. Surely there is more time. This House has to work
effectively. One week is certainly not enough time for MPs.
These bills were introduced only last week with second reading
occurring today. How can MPs properly prepare a response and
debate a very complex package that took some 21 years to
prepare in such a very short time?
The agreements made so far which Parliament is now asked to
ratify are nine inches thick. That gives some perspective of what
is involved here and how complex they are. They represent only
four of fourteen land claim agreements and only four of the
fourteen self-government agreements.
(1550)
If Bills C-33 and C-34 are passed, only cabinet will have to
approve the other 10 yet to come. There is something seriously
wrong here. I will vote against these bills and I urge my
colleagues in this House to do the same.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party has said on several occasions this
afternoon there was not enough time to prepare for this debate.
Was the Reform Party not aware that this agreement was signed
a year ago and that implementing legislation would have to be
brought to the House at some point? Did Reform members not
prepare and do their homework prior to the introduction of the
bill so they would be prepared for the debate knowing it was
coming forward?
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that question
asked. We have been trying to find out from this government, the
minister of Indian affairs and the Prime Minister himself. On
many occasions we have asked them to define what native
self-government means and we have been unable to get any kind
of a direct answer. They have been very evasive.
The most important question that needs to be asked is: What
does native self-government really mean? Is it municipal
government, provincial government or federal government?
Those kinds of parameters have to be spelled out before we can
embark along what we know is going to be a very long trail
because a lot of other land claims are going to be coming before
us.
I still think we need to defeat this bill. I hope the Senate will
have enough common sense to send it back to the House and
make this government define more clearly what
self-government means.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the question of the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake has gone unanswered. This
agreement has been signed for quite some time now and I
believe the hon. member mentioned it has been about a year.
Could he not have asked for this agreement in order to get ready
for this debate? We would like a direct answer to that.
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when this
government wants to implement something it agrees with like
native self-government, it seems it can be done very quickly,
but when it comes to cancelling the Pearson airport deal that is
another matter. The former government was wrong and lot of
blame was put on it. Now this government seems to be hiding
behind the skirts of the former government in that the deal was
negotiated so now it has to be finalized. I do not think that is a
good enough argument.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, we need to put this
whole issue in a different perspective. For the last three months I
have been involved in the foreign affairs review. We have been
looking at different countries and the property disputes, future
disputes and the ethnic and racial tensions that have developed. I
can see many of the things we have looked at there when I look at
the type of legislation we have before us today. We might simply
be trading one problem for another. We should take a serious
hard and long look at some of the poorly thought out measures in
this bill.
First I should make clear that I and certainly my party believe
the department of Indian affairs is a mismanaged, poorly
operated bureaucratic nightmare. All of us can agree it is
something long overdue for reform. We can also agree with the
principle of self-government. However, before something like
that is set up there must be the criteria and an understanding of
what you are getting. As was just mentioned the minister has
been asked over and over again what is meant by
self-government and the answer has never come.
(1555)
My general overview of self-government is one where we
have a municipal-like organization. It is one which has limited
powers and co-operates with the other levels of government. It
is one which is harmonized at all levels and one which leads
certainly to a better form of government for its people. The most
important words would be ``democratically chosen'' and
democratically representing the entire group of people, the
grassroots. It does not mean representation by a clique, by
powerbrokers, by a mob-like government, which in fact can
happen if there are no restrictions or if the people are not ready
for that type of government.
In examining the bill itself we see a very broad range of
powers being given, literally an unlimited set of powers with
absolutely no guarantee of any kind of democracy. We see more
bureaucrats, more rules, more laws, more regulations, and more
waste. We in fact see something possibly worse than the
department of Indian affairs is today. Relating back to the world
5111
situation, if people are not ready for self-government and are
not prepared to work by certain criteria, which they should have
a part in establishing, then you have nothing but disruption and
ultimately possibly chaos.
Also there is no mention in this bill as has been mentioned a
number of times before about the charter of rights. I do not think
there are any Canadians including the native people of Yukon
who would not want the charter of rights included in any kind of
government they might have. If those charter of rights cannot be
guaranteed, that is how countries get into human rights abuses,
how they get into an area where the people are not protected
from that power clique that could potentially run the proposed
government.
We have to stop and look at this and get the people along with
the experts to define what exactly we mean by self-government.
This is setting a serious precedent for the future. We are going
into uncharted waters and we are going to come up with
proposals that are going to be used in other parts of Canada. Are
we sure these in fact are the rules by which we want to play?
Certainly by removing any future settlements and allowing
cabinet to decide these could not be much less democratic. We
have literally taken the people out of the equation and have put it
in the hands of politicians. I do not think that is a decision that is
current with the way Canadians are thinking.
With the big picture now in place, do Canadians really know
what they are getting? Do the natives of Yukon really know what
they are getting? What are the repercussions later? Are the seeds
of racial and discriminatory practices being sown by a bill like
this? The potential is there. You just do not know enough of the
guidelines or there are no guidelines to guarantee that will not
happen. We have then a poorly defined self-government and the
repercussions are for Canada entirely. There is no place that
does not have a land claim in Canada and so the repercussions
are great.
Of course there is the cost. No one really has talked about that.
We have talked about the blank cheque in clause 24 and we have
to ask as to who pays. We have to ask about the kind of
repercussions that could come from the Canadian taxpayers
when they find the price tag on this kind of agreement that has
been signed.
This is just another case of legislation that will come back to
haunt us in the future. It is another time when we should take a
sober reflection and look at it before we move forward. The
government should be happy to blame the last government for
this kind of botched deal. Obviously the Canadian people
believe the last government botched things pretty badly. This
would be an opportunity then to simply reiterate that, as the
Canadian people told us last October, go back and do it right, set
the criteria and put this bill on the back burner until we can come
up with something better.
(1600)
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to give a Saskatchewan perspective on the
issues of Yukon aboriginal self-government and the land claims
that are before this House today.
What is happening in the Yukon is very important to those of
us in our province as well. Certainly today we are setting
legislative precedents. We must be very careful about this,
thorough in our analysis and creative in our proposals for
solutions.
These issues are of real concern for people in my province.
We have a significant and growing aboriginal population. In fact
by early in the next century, some believe that the aboriginal
population in Saskatchewan will approach a majority
percentage.
I would like to raise four specific areas of discussion taking
place now as we contemplate the present and future factors.
Number one is the concerns of the Saskatchewan rural
municipalities regarding land claims. Rural municipalities in
Saskatchewan have a deep concern about losing a tax base from
land claim settlements.
I sat in on a meeting of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food on April 28 past. We heard the
concerns of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Municipalities in this matter. SARM represents 297 rural
municipalities with over 235,000 rural residents. They are
concerned that approximately two million acres are going to be
purchased by the aboriginal community.
For rural municipalities this is a large tax implication. These
lands are not going to be purchased in large blocks. It will be a
quarter here, a half section there, a willing buyer, a willing seller
type of agreement. These lands will go to reserve status.
Under federal law municipalities do not pay taxes. On treaty
land entitlements there is a compensation fund worked out but
on specific claims or reinstatement of treaty land entitlements
we do not have an agreement.
If Indian people move into your municipality and they are not
going to pay municipal tax, it is going to create unhappy
neighbourhoods. If a person on one side of the road does not
have to pay taxes and the person on the other side does, and
perhaps more because the first does not, this is unfair.
SARM told our committee that it wanted to leave a strong
message with us: This is a big problem in Saskatchewan and it
has to be addressed.
This is an example in Saskatchewan of decisions and
agreements being made without meeting the essential
characteristics of good decisions. I fear for the same bills under
discussion here in this House today. We must have decisions that
are, number one, appropriate. Do these bills respond to the real
problem?
5112
Will they transform the present situation into the target state?
Number two is attainability. Can these bills be successfully
implemented given the resources that we have? Number three is
attractive. Do we see these bills as relevant, feasible,
understandable, supportable and ownable by everyone? Number
four is adaptability. Can we modify things easily if conditions
change or if new information becomes available?
In order to make the best decision we may have to do what all
good decision makers should do, slow down, retrace our steps,
elicit new opinions, present new ideas, give a word of
encouragement, suggest a compromise, postpone action and
reach out to non-participants. I say this is what we should be
doing with the bills before us here today.
We have questions about the effectiveness of these bills and
someone has said that questions thrown out the front door have a
way of coming in through the side window. We do not want that
to happen in this case. In fact we cannot afford to have it happen
in this country.
The second concern is the community pastures under the
PFRA program. A second type of related issue in Saskatchewan
was raised in our committee at the same time in late April. Some
of the PFRA community pasture lands will also be up for
purchase by First Nations people.
(1605 )
A reasonably good process of negotiation has been put in
place for this. The Indian band will need the agreement of 75 per
cent of the patrons of any particular pasture in order to proceed
to the transfer of the said lands. This process is open and
democratic, which all processes should be.
The third concern is the First Nations Council of Moose Jaw.
Moving to yet another related issue, an event occurred in my
riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre about a year and a half ago
that really surprised some of my constituents. They woke up one
morning to read the daily paper's lead headline, and I quote:
``First Nations elect first government. Status Indians take
charge of their destinies''.
This was during the referendum campaign. The news story we
read that morning said that an election held in Moose Jaw
Tuesday should pave the way for self-government for urban
status Indians throughout Canada. They said that their elected
council would negotiate with all levels of government to secure
better health care, education, employment and housing for its
members.
What surprised people was that this was a group of neighbours
and friends in our city who got together, conducted a process of
discussions, elected leaders and declared to the rest of us that
they were a duly constituted government to which we would now
relate in jurisdictional terms. One hundred and seventy people
out of a city population of some 35,000 made this decision that
the rest of us must now abide by. I have yet to settle in my own
mind exactly how one should respond to such an initiative.
The fourth concern was an event that happened last year in our
riding. I have raised it before in this House. I believe it
illustrates the importance of making sure our decisions and our
actions are carefully thought out and applied before we take
them.
In our riding we are trying to work together to solve a
potentially divisive problem. Last July 22 to 25 an indigenous
peoples celebration was held in Moose Jaw. Soon after I was
elected as MP in October, local business and organizations that
had provided goods and services to this event approached me
with the news that they had not been paid for their services. The
problem is serious because we have identified possibly as much
as $200,000 worth of unpaid bills. I have informed both the
federal government and the Saskatchewan provincial
government about this situation and the issue certainly has been
in the local news.
I have a deep concern that a successful resolution be found to
this problem. I am encouraged by the patience of the business
persons involved as we work through this problem and by the
openness and the responsibility being taken by the newly
selected aboriginal leaders in Moose Jaw. I am hoping we can
carefully reach a successful conclusion to this matter. I have
said that I will keep this House informed. I am of the distinct
persuasion, however, that this problem ended up being harder to
solve than it would have been to prevent by careful planning.
A wise person once said that one should make sure they count
the costs before undertaking an initiative. I am concerned that
this is what will happen in the debates about the far-reaching
and significant implications of the legislation that we have
before us.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments that were
directed toward this legislation.
It is often easy to ask a lot of questions about self-government
legislation. Questions have been asked of the government to
define self-government. When an agreement like this is put
forward does that not aid the members of the Reform Party to see
what the government means by self-government?
Second, if there are perceived problems with the legislation
what specific measures would the hon. member propose to deal
with situations like the comprehensive land claim issue?
(1610 )
Mr. Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
comments and questions.
The one key element that is missing from this agreement, as I
see it, is the inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From looking at the bill and studying it in some detail, that to me
sticks out more than anything.
5113
The other part of the question that I would like to answer is
what we would do or how we would involve this. I do not think
anybody on this side of the House, certainly in our party, is
against the theory of some sort of native self-government. The
problem as I see it is that the process has not been a very open
process. In my mind it is something that has been rushed for an
issue of such significance. I think it needs to be opened up to all
Canadians regardless of what part of the country they live in or
what their particular personal heritage might be.
That is probably the key to this whole issue, that we must
bring all Canadians into this type of decision-making process.
Anything short of that will certainly spell disaster for some idea
or theory that may in fact be a good idea to start with.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:
(1615 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government
whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6) the division of
the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday
at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment at which time the bells
to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Pursuant to
our rules the vote now has to take place on Monday. From our
position while the bell was ringing we could not ask otherwise.
However, now that we have officially reconvened I wonder if the
Chair would seek to determine whether or not there is
unanimous consent to have the vote at the ordinary time of
adjournment on Tuesday if there is such consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-33, an act to
approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims agreements
entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada,
the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain First Nations
in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to
and declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into
after this act comes into force, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise
to address the House on Bill C-33, the Yukon First Nations Land
Claims Settlement Act.
[Translation]
The government's red book clearly stated our commitment to
the resolution of outstanding land claims, a commitment we
intend to meet whenever we can.
By settling land claims in a way that is responsible and
equitable, the government will resolve former differences with
the First Nations and ensure that old grievances between native
and non-native people will gradually disappear.
[English]
Nowhere is the need to act more evident than in Yukon. The
council for Yukon Indians land claim entitled``Together Today
for our Children Tomorrow'' was accepted by the Government
of Canada in 1973. It was among the first of the land claims
accepted by the government and its settlement is long overdue.
We have come close in the past. An agreement in principle
was reached in 1984 but was not ratified by a sufficient number
of Yukon First Nations to move the process forward toward
negotiations of a final agreement.
Based on the 1988 agreement in principle the Council for
Yukon Indians and the Governments of Canada and Yukon were
able to negotiate the Yukon Indian final umbrella agreement.
That agreement was signed by all three parties in May 1993 and
is the basis for Bill C-33.
5114
(1620)
[Translation]
Hon. members should realize that the approach to resolving
land claims in the Yukon clearly differs from what has been done
elsewhere in Canada. This is due to the simple fact that the
Yukon is different from all other regions.
It is unique in that, first of all, most aboriginal people do not
live on reserves. As a result, programs and services are
dispensed by the territorial government with which a close
relationship exists.
[English]
Because of the unique situation in Yukon the negotiation of
the final umbrella agreement was only the first part of the
settlement process. It remained to conclude land claims
agreements with each of the 14 Yukon First Nations; four such
agreements have been reached and will be given effect through
Bill C-33.
Also as part of the settlement process, certain Yukon First
Nations will be negotiating transboundary agreements to
resolve overlapping claims with aboriginal groups in the
Northwest Territories and British Columbia.
Throughout the negotiations that have taken place over the
past two decades, the effected interest groups and the public
have been consulted extensively. The end result is that we have
territory-wide support for the settlement agreements.
[Translation]
Numerous public hearings were held to discuss the contents of
the final framework agreement. The Yukon Legislative
Assembly also set up a special committee on land claims and
self-government. Based on the favourable response it received
during its visits to Yukon communities, the committee strongly
recommended that the four agreements negotiated to date be
approved.
[English]
Interest groups have also had direct input to the settlement
process. A good example of this occurred during the selection of
settlement lands by the four First Nations that have reached final
agreement.
As part of this process, the Yukon Outfitters Association
whose members will be affected by the designation of
settlement lands was widely consulted and was able to negotiate
compensation for provable losses under the final umbrella
agreement.
First Nations are continuing to work with this association to
minimize any commercial hardship that may result should the
agreements come into force during the outfitting season.
[Translation]
We also sought the views and backing of groups representing
the energy and mining industries. We consulted with all
municipal governments, churches, chambers of commerce,
recreational associations and other groups, and heard some very
valid comments.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from
several letters which the government received from Yukon
organizations. The person signing each letter expressed firm
support for the land claims settlement agreements and urged
Parliament to move quickly to pass the enacting legislation.
[English]
The Anglican Bishop of Yukon, the Right Reverend R.C.
Ferris, has written to the government on behalf of his diocese.
Right Reverend Ferris asked that the settlement legislation be
brought forward without delay and expressed the community's
distress after so many years of struggle on the part of all parties
to achieve an acceptable agreement. Settlement legislation is
not yet a reality.
Mr. Dan McDiarmid, chairman of the Mayo District
Renewable Resources Council, wrote to the minister in April
stressing the importance of the land claims agreements to
everyone in Yukon, requesting that the government introduce
and approve settlement legislation at the earliest possible date.
(1625)
[Translation]
The Yukon Chamber of Mines noted that the land claims
settlement agreement had the support not only of Yukon natives,
but also of many other territorial groups, and among others, of
the mining industry.
Mr. Steven Powell, the president of the United Keno Hill
Mines Limited, sent us the following message: ``Thanks to this
agreement, Canada will be able to close the door on a difficult
chapter in the history of its relations with aboriginal peoples.
Therefore, I urge you to press your colleagues in the Commons
to debate the matter in a level-headed manner and to endorse
these agreements''.
The entire Yukon Legislative Assembly urged the government
to act. On April 27, the assembly passed a resolution calling
upon the minister to urge Parliament to enact the land claims
settlement legislation. Furthermore, the resolution called upon
the members: ``-to act expeditiously to adopt the Yukon First
Nations Land Claims Settlement Act which will safeguard the
rights and interests of the Yukon's first nations and enable the
territory to move into the 21st century''.
[English]
One of the most candid and compelling letters the government
has received came from Chief Robert Bruce, Jr., writing on
5115
behalf of the Buntut Gwychin tribal council whose final
agreement will be given effect by Bill C-33.
In his letter to the Prime Minister Chief Bruce stated: ``The
people of Yukon and the Government of Canada have worked
very hard to reach the compromises and innovative concepts
that are embodied in these agreements. It is very important to
see these efforts translated into action now while enthusiasm
and expectation are high''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in light of all these comments, it would be
inconceivable for the House to reject Bill C-33. Clearly, all
sectors of Yukon society overwhelmingly support the land
claims settlement act.
[English]
There is good reason for that support. The first four nations
final agreements that will be given effect by Bill C-33 are good
agreements. They will bring many social, economic and
political benefits to the affected Yukon First Nations. They will
also provide many substantial indirect benefits to
non-aboriginal residents of the territory.
Yukoners are now calling on Parliament to do its work, to give
this legislation speedy passage so that it can get on with the job
of building a stronger, more prosperous future. I can see no other
reasonable or responsible course of action.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Pursuant to
Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the
questions to be raised this evening at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra-Rwanda; the hon. member for Verchères-Trade; the
hon. member for Peace River-National Defence.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I have something to ask you. My
hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley must catch
a plane and, if you have no objection, I agreed to give him the
floor immediately. I would like to come back and respond to the
speech given by the hon. member on behalf of the minister. I
would be very grateful if you told me whether I can use up to 40
minutes which are allotted to me for a reply.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Certainly I am only too
pleased to follow the agreement. I thank all members for that
sense of co-operation in the House and I will recognize at this
time the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my deepest appreciation to my colleagues from the
Bloc. I really appreciate that.
(1630 )
We are debating Bill C-33 today. It is probably appropriate,
and it would be the best possible direction to take on the bill, to
draw some comparisons between Bill C-33 and Bill C-16.
I know the Yukon natives involved in the negotiation of Bill
C-33 overwhelmingly support the bill. There is no doubt about
that. It appears that they would be more than satisfied with this
settlement. However I believe that we as parliamentarians, as
duty bound by the people of the country, would be more than
negligent, as have past parties in the House, if we did not address
some of the problems contained within Bill C-33.
Certainly my colleagues and I in the Reform Party are most
willing to entertain the concepts of aboriginal self-sufficiency
and aboriginal self-determination, but only in situations and
only under the clear focus that aboriginal people or the Yukon
natives will come to a position of self-sufficiency within
Canadian society.
Most unfortunately Bill C-33 does not address that focus. Bill
C-33 like Bill C-16 calls for more bureaucracy, large settlement
moneys, continued DIAND participation in programs, financial
assistance and future negotiation for self-government. The
bureaucracy possible within the agreement is very extensive.
We in the Reform Party greatly fear that as we proceed along
the path to establishing land claims and aboriginal
self-government the bureaucracy will create such an expensive
and complex deterrent to the goal of self-sufficiency. It is
necessary to address that.
I want to look at Bill C-33 for a moment and talk about the
package itself. There are some 8,000 Yukon Indians in Yukon
out of a total population of 32,000 people. They will be
conveyed collectively ownership of some 16,000 square miles
or 41,400 square kilometres of land, 10,000 square miles of
which include all subsurface rights and the remaining 6,000
square miles of which include some subsurface rights.
In addition, the federal government will pay some $242.6
million in cash and the Yukon First Nations will receive rental
revenues from surface leases, royalties and development of
non-renewable resources. Yukon First Nations will also receive
a preferential share in wildlife harvesting, exclusive harvesting
over most of their settlement lands, and 70 per cent of their trap
lines will be located in the larger traditional territories.
On top of all this, under the bill all existing government
programs for natives and non-natives will continue to apply.
How could we have a focus on arriving at a settlement for land
5116
claims if coupled with that settlement are promises for
continued future federal funding?
The object of settling land claims is to break the dependency
of the native people upon the federal government. We want to
give them the opportunity to become self-sufficient. As my hon.
colleague talked about this morning, we cannot break that
dependency cycle if we continue to give money and funding to a
person or a group such as the Yukon natives. That dependency
cycle has to be broken. The goal has to be self-sufficiency. To
include in the agreement the same federal funding that exists
now is no incentive to create self-sufficiency.
(1635)
Another area of concern is that although Bill C-33 has come
to the House for debate, and certainly we in the Reform Party
welcome the debate, the other 10 land claim agreements spoken
about in the bill and yet to be negotiated need only be approved
by order in council. In other words, we will not be given the
opportunity in the House to debate those land claim settlements.
We are talking about thousands of square miles of land and
hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Surely the people
paying the bill, the taxpayers of the country, have a right to be
represented in the House by members who debate the good
points and the bad points of the bill.
The bill guarantees that future land claims under Bill C-33
would be negotiated in the offices that we cannot get to. I believe
Canadian taxpayers deserve more than that. We are trusted by
them. We were elected and sent here by them to look after their
affairs. This is certainly something of major concern to
Canadians.
I want to talk about the constitutional entrenchment. By virtue
of clause 6 of the bill the rights contained in the land claim
agreements are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982. We are very uncertain as to what this
means and we are relatively certain that the government is
uncertain as to what this means. It may mean these rights are not
amendable except by constitutional amendment or, at the very
least, without the concurrence of the first nation involved.
This would mean that these rights are beyond the reach of
ordinary future parliamentary amendment. This adds the
element of finality to them that does not sit well for changing
future circumstances. The circumstances are changing all the
time. In our Constitution we have the mechanism to make
amendments, to be able to change our Constitution with the
times. Bill C-33 in our opinion does not provide for changes to
meet future circumstances which may appear. Quite frankly we
think the government displays a tremendous amount of
arrogance to lock in forever today's government policy. The
constitutional entrenchment causes a lot of concern.
I spoke about the comparison between Bill C-33 and Bill
C-16. I talked about the boards, the commissions and the
councils. Bill C-33 would formally constitute five more
government boards and two government councils referred to in
the various land claim agreements. Presumably most, if not all,
of the functions of these new bodies are presently performed by
the facilities of the Yukon and federal governments. Is there a
need for more regulatory bodies, support staff and bureaucracy
on top of what is already in place?
Clause 9(4) constitutes still more boards, commissions and
councils that may be referred in future land claim agreements.
As I stated, the bureaucracy concerned in Bill C-16 is
predominantly present in Bill C-33. This is not the way to get
best value for our dollars.
The government has talked about downsizing government,
downsizing departments and downsizing the way government
runs so that it can be more cost effective. The government, the
Reform Party and the Official Opposition have been talking
about downsizing, becoming more efficient and more cost
effective.
(1640)
Bill C-33 goes exactly in the opposite direction. It calls for a
larger bureaucracy, a larger government, more costs and less
cost effectiveness. This is an area in which the government has
done a flip-flop if it believes in downsizing. It has done a
complete about turn.
I want to talk for a moment about the transfer of full
ownership. The implementation of full ownership of the
property has gone far beyond what any court in Canada has
found to constitute aboriginal title. No court in Canada of which
I am aware has decided that an aboriginal interest in land goes so
far as to entitle aboriginal people to fee simple or full
ownership. At best our courts have found the meaning of
aboriginal rights and title to include those traditional activities
carried on by native communities prior to colonial contact.
These include hunting, fishing, et cetera.
These rights have been characterized by the courts as not,
strictly speaking, being interest in land but all special rights
unique to the native people. This represents a cloud on the
crown's title. The courts have gone on to say that the cloud can
be removed by the exercise of crown sovereignty through
legislation that has a clear intention to remove the aboriginal
interest.
There is a challenge to the aboriginal land claims presently in
the court of B.C. It is a challenge to a ruling by Chief Justice
McEachern in which his decision was that there was no valid
legal basis for the land claim in question. The fact the
government now proposes to bypass an undecided court ruling
by means of Bill C-33, a ruling that is still under appeal, causes
a lot of concern for us.
I said that the focus of land claims should be on the
eventuality of self-sufficiency for the aboriginal people. No one
can deny that every Canadian wants to see that come about. It
will
5117
not come about until the aboriginal peoples of the country are
given an opportunity and the dependency cycle would be
broken.
In other words, we have no problem with settling land claims
with aboriginal people whatsoever. We have a problem with the
inclusion in land claim settlements that government funding
would continue exactly as always. This is an area of concern. I
urge the government to do the right thing: to help aboriginal
people become self-sufficient.
The government has the power to break the dependency cycle.
That is what it should be doing. It is like when I was trying to
teach my children the value of becoming independent and
responsible for their own lives. What if I had continued giving
them everything they wanted without asking them to take
responsibility and to begin to understand what it means to strive
and to work and the value of education to make themselves more
independent? If I had not done that they would be still dependent
on me and, quite frankly, at the age my sons are I am looking
forward to the time when they will be independent of me. That is
what I have been striving for. That is what the government has to
do in connection with these land claims. They have to break the
dependency cycle.
(1645)
I strongly want to urge members of the House to focus on that.
Let us not be swayed by the emotional part of this whole native
issue. Let us focus on what should result out of this process. The
aboriginal people should have the opportunity to become
self-sufficient. Let us break the dependency cycle. Let us not
make agreements or contracts that will drive a wedge further
between Canadian society and the aboriginal people. Let us seek
to tear down the barriers that exist and that does not mean
continuing to fund native programs forever and ever.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I see members seeking the
floor. The House might keep in mind that the first three speakers
on this legislation at this time have up to 40 minutes to speak
without question or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, true to
form, I will state forthwith the position of the Bloc Quebecois.
Following discussions with appropriate authorities, the Bloc
will support Bill C-33.
I take this opportunity, while the cameras are on me, to pay
my respects to the people from the Yukon both at home and in
the gallery. Their perseverance is rewarded today, after twenty
some years of discussions, with agreements that will be given
effect by Bill C-33.
As I said when I spoke to Bill C-34, perseverance is one of the
characteristic traits of native culture. We often think in terms of
future generations and these peoples must be commended for
their perseverance. Year after year, decade after decade, they
persevered in their pacific approach toward a potential
agreement. Here it is today. I am pleased to greet and
congratulate them.
A number of things were said in this place this morning as
well as this afternoon. I may have given my speaking time up to
my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley but
understandably, it does not mean that I agree with every single
remark he made.
I heard someone say: ``I gave my son a bicycle as a child;
then, he asked for a motorcycle''. To listen to the people across
the way, you would think that native peoples, Indians and first
nations are nothing but spoiled children. I want to make it quite
clear that I do not agree with that opinion.
I think we must bear in mind the social contract they have
concluded with us, white people, people with our own laws,
procedures and parliamentary democracy. We must also bear in
mind that we settled on their land. Let us not forget that these
nations have been established in the Yukon Territory for 10,000
years. They were here long before us. Yet, we have enjoyed the
use of that land. Regarding the financial compensation provided
for in this agreement today, I do not think it is really a matter of
giving them everything they want and them more or less rubbing
us of these $240 million. It is more a matter of recognizing the
fact that for generations, for decades, in fact since the Europeans
set foot on this continent, we have enjoyed the use of this land
and are now granting appropriate compensation.
As far as I am concerned, the native peoples are no spoiled
children. They are people perfectly capable of negotiating. They
are very good at it too, as I have seen for myself on many
occasions. Having been a negotiator myself for 20 years, I must
admit that while being pacifists, they are formidable
negotiators.
(1650)
We must also understand that with an agreement such as the
one before the House today and with this enacting legislation,
the objectives of the two parties have not been fully met. At best,
they agreed on a common denominator, this agreement before us
which to my mind is the end result of discussions between
persons who took care to ensure that they had all they needed in
the way of services from legal or consulting firms.
Far be it for me to think that the first nations are merely being
treated like children who have grown up and are finally being
allowed to fly on their own. Basically, I believe that this is a
good agreement for the people of the Yukon and I also think it is
good for the Parliament of Canada. These are very important
considerations.
Mention is often made of ending the guardianship. I believe
we need to discuss how to go about doing this. Some people may
argue that the agreement and legislation before us do not end the
guardianship and naturally, I disagree with them. I think this
agreement enables the first nations of the Yukon to take charge
of their own destiny, much like Bill C-34 adopted on second
reading speaks about self-government. Certain powers are
being given to these nations and the logical follow-up to
5118
Bill C-33 would be to give them the land base over which to
exercise these rights.
Therefore, I feel that this agreement is one way to end the
state of guardianship and as everyone knows, particularly those
who took part in the negotiations on the native side, no set
pattern of self-government or land base has yet been decided on.
It is clear from this agreement that the land in question is
splintered. The government did not take one piece of the
Northwest Territories or one piece of the Yukon and say ``Here,
this is yours now'', as it did with other agreements or with the
Sahtu Tribal Council. In those cases, a homogenous parcel of
land was turned over and the people were told that they could
exercise certain powers within that territory, based on
agreements that were reached.
As I said, the government has not taken a general or uniform
approach. What we have here is a splintered agreement between
the government and four first nations of the Yukon. They have
finalized agreements with the federal government and made
decisions about the land involved. Ten other agreements are
slated to follow.
When I hear that these ten other agreements will be negotiated
behind closed doors, I have to disagree with that way of seeing
things. On reading the text of the four agreements before us, we
see that they are virtually identical.
So of course, subsequent agreements are likely to be carbon
copies of these four ones. I think we should take the time to look
at the contents of this agreement which the legislation enacts.
Exactly what provisions are being enacted today?
The agreement involves a total area of 41,439 square
kilometres which, as I said earlier, cover a broad area. If one
first nation was able to prove to federal negotiators that its
traditional lands were located in area X and the government
agreed, then these lands are included in the final agreement with
that first nation.
We have here before us today an final umbrella agreement
which covers all land claims for a total area of 41,439 square
kilometres which the federal negotiators have agreed to make
available to 14 first nations. Four have already availed
themselves of this right and have negotiated final land claims
agreements with the federal government.
Regarding the government's economic proposal, as I
mentioned earlier, this is not simply a matter of extending
charity. For decades, even centuries, from the moment the
Europeans arrived on this continent, we have benefitted from
these lands.
(1655)
Today, we give back to them a number of settlement lands
with compensation in the order of $242 million over 15 years. In
my opinion, that does not necessarily keep these people under
trusteeship because, as we will see later, they will have
capabilities. They will have at their disposal financial
structures that will administer this money and free them from
this dependence in which we have kept them for too long.
We also see that the lands given back will be divided into
Class A and Class B lands. It may be important to explain the
difference between the two classes.
On Class A lands, people will have not only surface rights but
also subsurface rights, including mining, minerals and oil. That
is not to be sneezed at either. Not only are we liberating them by
compensating them for what we took from them before, but we
also give them the right to administer surface and subsurface
resources on some settlement lands. It is another step toward the
goal of freeing them from this trusteeship.
The agreement contains interesting clauses which I must
point out.
Earlier I referred in passing to the final umbrella agreement
but I would like to come back to it. We have before us today four
final agreements for the four Yukon nations who negotiated and
reached a settlement with the government. All future
agreements will always have to refer to the final umbrella
agreement covering all 14 final agreements, one for each nation.
It may be important to point this out.
Regulatory agreements-this is important-will be
guaranteed under Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act.
Unlike Bill C-34, where Section 35 does not apply to
modern-day treaties, these agreements on the land base will be
protected under Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act.
The agreement also outlines some interesting options I would
like to point out. Among other things, people will have some
time to decide whether or not they want continued protection
under the Indian Act, particularly with respect to Indian
reserves. In other words, there are two options. The people will
have the option of preserving the Indian reserve concept for a
while. The other option will be that of settlement lands, meaning
that they will move away from the Indian Act and the reserve
concept and exercise their full autonomy on settlement lands,
which are different from Indian reserves.
This whole agreement, of course, required a lot of mapping
and surveying work. Today, I would like to dispel a rumour that
circulated in the Yukon. I am mentioning it at this time because
people in the Yukon are now watching us. The Bloc Quebecois
has never considered for one second blocking the introduction
and first reading of a bill because maps had not been translated.
We admittedly consulted the party, but we never thought of
5119
blocking an agreement that took decades to negotiate just
because maps had not been translated.
The document before us is printed in English and in French.
As far as we know, we told the minister we would appreciate it if
he could have the maps translated as soon as possible. But in the
meantime, we will not tell people who have been waiting for so
long that we will not even let the bill pass first reading. That was
out of the question.
I must point out today that the Bloc Quebecois did in fact
agree to the introduction and first reading of this bill. The
agreement also contains many interesting things such as the
special management areas.
(1700)
You know that we whites and the natives agree on certain
territories. There are boundaries and limits on these territories.
This applies very well in a city or municipality, but in the wide
open spaces of the Yukon, it is obviously hard to apply,
especially for everything that has to do with wildlife, flora,
fauna, the natural environment.
I give the Porcupine caribou herd as an example. It is very
difficult to ask the caribou herd in the Northwest Territories in
the spring not to go to the Yukon in the fall and not to go to
Alaska because of the U.S. border. We understand that there will
be specialized management areas. What is interesting about it is
that it again highlights the traditional aspect of native peoples.
Some areas will be specialized to concentrate on the local flora
and fauna.
Another interesting point is the great emphasis put on land
use. I was just telling you that it is a fragmented agreement;
eventually 14 nations will have territories that are not
necessarily contiguous. In some areas, native self-government
will not apply and the Yukon first nations will not have a land
base.
However, the agreement provides a process to ensure
compatibility in decision making so as to avoid grey areas where
the local authorities could make laws or regulations that would
impinge on their neighbours. A process has been put in place for
that and it is worth mentioning.
This process takes the Yukon Indians' cultural values into
very serious consideration. It is very interesting because for
once it lends weight to sustainable development, a concept of
great importance to me. Our consumer society has too long
overlooked the concept of sustainable development. We build
and develop rapidly, often at the expense of the environment,
and then we find that the environment has been destroyed. The
economy enjoyed a boom and then declined when the resources
on the surface and underground were completely used up. So
sustainable development is a cornerstone of land use. We note
that very great importance is given to sustainable development.
We must be glad that this concept of sustainable development is
in this agreement.
There will also be a development activities commission. This
in a way is what I have always called a happy marriage of the
traditional and of modern economic development. All the
economic activities that developers want to propose on the lands
covered by the agreement or on the reserves will have to be
submitted to a development activities review board. Of course,
we can see that sustainable development will be a key, as I said
earlier, but the traditional methods and culture of these peoples
will be taken into account. The agreement provides that
developers will have to reduce the environmental impact of their
projects so that this happy blend of the traditional and modern
economic development is an everyday reality.
I think that another very important commission for them is the
Fish and Wildlife Management Board. In the agreement, the
federal government agreed to set up a joint fund to restore and
rebuild everything that has to do with wildlife, fish and flora.
We know that unfortunate developments in some areas depleted
the resources on the surface or underground. The Fish and
Wildlife Management Board will seek to restore the resources
which have characterized the Yukon for centuries.
(1705)
A great deal of attention should also be paid to their heritage.
That is something which is not often talked about and I am
pleased to address this subject, as I did in my speech on Bill
C-34. All issues related to language will be extremely important
on those lands.
I must, once again, draw an analogy between the Quebec
people, a French-speaking minority in the vast country that is
Canada, and the aboriginal nations who are also linguistic
minorities. So I am happy for them that attention was paid to
their languages and traditions. As far as I am concerned, their
rich traditions often add to my own culture.
I have noticed among other things that legends are very
important to them. What could be nicer than a legend told in a
traditional language spoken by the ancestors? That is provided
for in the agreement. It is not the federal negotiators, I am sure,
who insisted on inserting these provisions in the agreement as
such. I think these people felt their culture was very important
and saw to it that it was protected, just as we Quebecers want to
preserve our culture. I think we ought to congratulate them for
their similar views on this issue.
These people are not hegemonic because it is not a part of
their culture. When the Europeans arrived, they did not object to
sharing their huge territory. This attitude is reflected in the
agreement: there will be quite reasonable access for all the
5120
people who want to go to the Yukon. Obviously, we will not need
a visa or a passport to travel to the Yukon.
By the way, I have been invited to go fishing for 25-pound
trout in the Yukon-
An hon. member: Invite us.
Mr. Bachand: -I will be pleased to accept the invitation and
I will not need a passport or visa to go there. I intend to go and
see for myself whether this is really true, because people who go
fishing often like to brag about the fish they caught, and when
they do not have a photograph, they often say the fish was that
long. I intend to find out whether what they said about fish
weighing 25 pounds is true, and I promise to get back to the
House on this and tell you whether there was some truth in all
this.
Oral traditions are also a very important part of their heritage.
Nowadays, we have the tendency to say: I'm buying a house.
Now, I would like to see what the last contract, the contract with
the previous owner, looked like''. They, however, have an oral
tradition. We used to have that in our society as well, a long time
ago, but today, that has been lost as a result of our whole legal
perspective. But to them, oral traditions are very important.
They often have agreements without having a contract as
such. As far as their heritage is concerned, they reserve the right
to emphasize such agreements, and I think they are right. There
will be a water management board, because the waters of the
Yukon are very special. There is very little pollution in the
Yukon, and some people would like to take advantage of this.
For instance, our American friends might want to import water.
This is something we are hearing more and more in some parts of
the United States where the water table is going down. People
often talk about diverting certain waterways to try and get more
water.
The agreement states that as far as domestic needs are
concerned, there is no problem. However, to handle specific
needs, the people in the Yukon decided to set up a water
management board. To me that is not a bureaucracy, because
one-third of the board will consist of members appointed among
aboriginal people, which is one way for aboriginal people to
control their own affairs.
We see this as a way to stop having all the decisions made by
Ottawa and then transmitted to regional headquarters and from
there to the Indians or aboriginal peoples or First Nations. And
now, the government says the will boards will be created.
(1710)
You want boards to protect your waterways and your
environment, so the government will ensure that most of the
people on those boards will be local people who are
knowledgeable about the area.
I do not think we are getting a new bureaucracy as much as
more effective management, because these will be local people
who know their area, and we hope this will help to dismantle the
Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act as soon as
possible, and what the people of the Yukon proposed is a step in
the right direction. As I said earlier, there are provisions on fish
and wildlife on class A lands where they will have exclusive
harvesting privileges. The agreement maintains 70 per cent of
the trap lines, which was very important for them because this is
one of their traditional activities.
Forestry is also an interesting area, and here I would like to
draw an analogy, using forestry as an example. Aboriginal
people often say that they see the world as a big forest. In a
forest, there are many kinds of trees, like pine and maple, and
they often say that the way they see the forest is more or less the
way they see society. I wanted to draw this analogy, because to
them, the forest is a vital resource, and the fact that this resource
is also included in the agreement means that these people will
have better control over their forest resources. I mentioned
economic development, and the hon. member on the
government side also raised the matter of transboundary
agreements. These people will be able to take a part in
transboundary agreements. For instance, as I said before, we
have the Porcupine caribou herd, and these herds do not
necessarily stay within certain borders. Since for aboriginal
people, the caribou is part and parcel of their traditions, it is
important for them to participate in discussions on
transboundary agreements and the Porcupine caribou herd.
Incidentally, we must conclude agreements with the
Americans because the caribou herds that migrate through the
Yukon Territory spend part of the year in Alaska, and the
Americans are thinking very seriously about developing
Alaska's oil and mineral resources. That is why it is important
for First Nations in the Yukon to be able to participate in
transboundary agreements. An example that comes immediately
to mind is the caribou herds.
In concluding, I would like to say once again that I want to
congratulate the First Nations of Yukon on signing the
agreement. And I want to say to them that the Bloc Quebecois
supports Bill C-33. And as I said earlier, these people stood
their ground, they were painstaking and stubborn and probably
very hard on the federal negotiators who, I am sure, returned the
compliment, and in spite of all that, there was no hostility. And
as I said when we considered Bill C-34, and I say it again now,
with respect to Bill C-33, there are aboriginal peoples that
5121
would be well advised to follow the example of the people of the
Yukon and the First Nations of the Yukon and persevere in their
land claims and their demands for self-government, but
peacefully, which can be very difficult when it comes time to
negotiate.
However, taking up arms in a modern society, whether we are
talking about aboriginal people or white people, is hardly if at
all acceptable, and these people have demonstrated in what will
become another historic turning point, that thanks to their
perseverance and their ability to negotiate, they concluded an
agreement that was satisfactory to all concerned, an agreement
that was welcomed by many people in the Yukon, including the
territorial government and mining companies involved in
mining exploration in the Yukon.
(1715)
Once again, these people have demonstrated that
co-operation exists in the Yukon. They made that clear, and I
think we have cause to welcome Bill C-33.
In concluding, I want to say to the people of the Yukon that
they can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois for the
passage of Bill C-33.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, at the
outset let me say that the Reform Party believes in the
self-reliance of natives in the Yukon. The difficulties that we
have with this bill are on the generosity aspect.
To begin with, I am concerned with the general direction of
this bill because it sets a precedent and, along with other bills
such as the Nunavut deal that was brought in by the
Conservatives, C-16, the Sahtu, these are overly generous
settlements to small numbers of people.
If you look at the Canadian map, you start to see the jigsaw
puzzle that is put together, individual bits and pieces. However,
if put all together it is very clear that the area in Canada north of
60 is very quickly being set aside in land claims. There is little
regard for the implications on non-native Canadians because
these agreements have implications for both native and
non-native Canadians. We have to look at it from that aspect.
It appears that this government may be sleepwalking toward a
disaster with this overly generous land settlement plan. The
generosity of this agreement is somewhat ridiculous because it
has no basis in fact and no basis in law.
We do not state that there should not be a settlement. That is
not the point. We are saying that the size of this settlement is
clearly overly generous. In fact we could say that this settlement
is far too liberal. It is the kind of agreement that will drive a
wedge between native and non-native Canadians.
To give some statistics, this agreement gives 17,275 square
kilometres or 6,670 square miles to these four Yukon native
groups. Out of this area, 12,000 square kilometres or nearly
5,000 square miles includes the mining and mineral rights. That
is 6,670 square miles for 2,457 individuals or each individual
getting about 3 square miles of land.
This settlement deals with only four of the bands out of 14.
There are still 10 more claims to be negotiated. If these groups
are to realize similar agreements then I have to ask this
government where the land will come from. Certainly to grant
similar agreements to the 10 remaining groups will cover the
entire Yukon Territory and possibly more.
I will go back to my jigsaw puzzle because it is starting to
appear that each piece is falling into place, only the whole
northern top end of Canada is being taken up.
What about the land rights of non-native Canadians here?
When will this government look at the developments that are
going on in the rest of the world? The policy that we are talking
about here today is based on race. The rest of the world is going
toward equality. We see it all over the world. I have to question
why this bill and the self-government bill are going against that
when the rest of the world is going for, the equality of all its
citizens.
What about the non-native Canadians who spent their lives in
the Yukon? Where do they fit in? That is unclear. What will
happen if some of these people are in an area where the land
claims go through the area? What if they are displaced? Will
they be compensated? Have they been consulted?
On the consultation process the government has said, yes, it
has consulted with the people. However, my understanding is
that it is a fairly broad consultation on very fuzzy ideas like: Are
you in favour of native self-government? Yes. Are you in favour
of settling the land claims? Yes.
(1720 )
The detail of these settlements has not been made public to my
understanding. What will happen to the current landholders? If
you own a house, a ranch, a trapline or whatever and it is covered
by a land claim, whose law do you answer to? Is it the Canadian
law? Is it native law? Is it a combination of both? I can see a
nightmare of bureaucracy running through this whole situation.
There are not only native land claims. There are numerous
more land claims that have to be settled. This precedent setting
legislation that we are looking at is exceedingly dangerous in
that each band will look at this as an agreement and say: ``We
want at least as much if not more''. We are on the tracks heading
to an area where we are going to have some huge disagreements.
Some of the areas that I have talked about before like the
Nunavut deal that covered the eastern Arctic, the Inuvialuit deal
that was the western Arctic, the Gwich'in agreement in the
Mackenzie River delta, are all parts of this puzzle that are
5122
falling into place. Again it appears that this government's goal
is to blanket the Canadian north with these settlement
agreements.
Let us go back in time because Canada is a nation of
immigrants. We are all immigrants whether we arrived here
first, second, third or just recently landed. Every one of us
including natives has come to this country from somewhere
else. Some of us have come for economic reasons. Some have
come to join loved ones and some of us have had the good
fortune to be born here.
Many immigrants have come here because they were
persecuted somewhere else and Canada has opened its doors.
What are we offering? We are offering equality for everyone.
That is where we should be going today with these settlements.
The first people in this country should not have any more rights
or any fewer rights than other Canadians.
Moreover I do not think that the government is really aware of
the extent of this settlement. According to the final umbrella
agreement, $242.6 million in cash compensation will be divided
among the 14 native groups to be paid over 15 years. That results
in about $30,000 per individual. Thirty thousand dollars is a nice
lump sum when one's house is paid for and the government is
still continuing to pay the other bills.
How is this money going to be divided? When I talked earlier
on the self-government bill, it became clear that the charter
does not apply. We have huge sums of money and huge tracts of
land that are going to be looked at and overseen by groups of
people.
One of the biggest concerns that people had with the old
Indian affairs act was that a native on a reserve did not own the
land. He could not go to the bank and say: ``I own this chunk of
land''. It is going to be the same thing as I understand it with
these deals.
What about an individual native owning the land that he is on.
This is where we start to get self-esteem. If it is owned by the
band, if it is owned by an umbrella group, again we run into
difficulties because it is not covered in the charter.
Does this government know the potential of the mining rights
that are given in this deal? I made some phone calls to some
mining people to find out and they are unclear where it is going.
They do not know the potential of the mining claims in the
Yukon. Because of uncertainty, a lot of the claims have been
basically set back. Exploration has been set back.
The government does not know the value of what it is deeding
away. Included in these four agreements is the option to acquire
up to 25 per cent of the royalties held by the Yukon government,
its agencies or corporations in future non-renewable resource
development and hydro projects in the traditional territories.
Again, can the government tell the Canadian people what the
values of these royalties are? I rather doubt it. We do not know
what kind of money we are talking about here. One of the
agreements, the Champagne agreement, provides for economic
development agreements within the federal government to
provide technical and financial assistance for economic
development purposes.
How much assistance are we talking about? Does this mean
unlimited loans? What are the guidelines? Again, where is the
equality here? There should be the same rights and privileges for
natives as for non-natives in the area.
(1725)
I question if this government had any idea of the actual
proportion of transfer payments involved. In fact, I wonder if
anyone knows. I fail to see how this government can justify the
royalties to this House and to the Canadian people. We know it is
going to be asked by the Canadian people to justify it.
In addition the federal government will continue to support all
the present and future programs. Again how are we getting to
self-sufficiency? Getting the land, getting the money, yet the
programs continue to be ongoing. This does not bode well for
getting self-sufficiency of individual natives.
The minister states that these agreements give aboriginal
beneficiaries the means to become self-reliant, to regain a
measure of control over their lives. My colleagues and I are in
complete support of such an end. We recognize the need for all
Canadians to become self-reliant and to gain control over their
lives.
We would support such an agreement that would actually
fulfil such a goal that is beneficial to natives and non-natives
alike. However, this agreement moves in a very different
direction. The granting of all this money, all the land or
continuing to provide the same programs and benefits will
nurture dependency and in no way fosters any measure of
independence. Rather it would seem that by giving out these
huge sums of money and land this agreement removes the
incentive.
The agreement takes away the motivation for these people to
gain their own self-respect and self-worth as individuals. This
agreement does not allow the natives to make their own way and
to succeed on their own. It is the old Indian act again.
There is no indication anywhere in this agreement of any
intention to phase out financial assistance and government
native programs if the terms of the agreement prove it
successful.
For all the money that this agreement deals with there is no
justification to state why this money is being awarded. What is
the rationale? It concerns me that this agreement sets a very bad
5123
precedent for fiscal responsibility in future government
negotiations for many, many more land claim deals and
agreements with natives.
There are many concerns about the management of both the
funds and land base, concerns raised by natives themselves
because settlement dollars and land title are not vested in the
individuals. They are vested in the organizations as I said
earlier.
This huge conveyance is far too generous and the entire deal
should be re-examined to bring the agreement into reality. I
stress again it is the size of this agreement that we are concerned
with.
What are the rights of the non-natives in this agreement? That
needs to be spelled out. Some of these agreements are providing
for exclusive harvesting rights in the parks and in the territories.
Where do the non-natives come into this? What are their rights?
Natives are granted guaranteed participation in commercial
fresh water salmon fishery and sports fishing, adventure travel,
forestry, outfitting and campsite operations in the traditional
territories. Does this mean that they have exclusive rights? That
is unclear. Once again the rights are given out on the basis of
race. When the world is moving toward equality of all its
citizens this government seems to want to move away from that
direction and go on to a basis of creating two nations with the
nation of Canada.
I am particularly concerned about the backlash from
non-native Canadians. This government with this agreement is
going to drive a wedge between these two peoples. What was
supposed to be a program to assist natives in B.C. in the
aboriginal fisheries strategy is a good example. It is native
fishermen and non-native fishermen. Twenty-five per cent of
the fishery is native. They worked together for generations and
did just fine until the aboriginal fisheries strategy came in. It
drove a wedge between those two groups of people who got
along for years and years. This is the same type of thinking I see
in this agreement.
I will be very surprised if this government can provide all of
the answers here. Hopefully when it is addressed in committee a
number of these issues will be brought forth and will be
addressed rather than rubber-stamped.
(1730 )
There is tremendous concern on the part of all Canadians who
are not opposed to this settlement in principle but they do not
like the generous deals. This agreement has to be re-examined
in committee, it has to be re-examined here, the whole thinking
process has to be looked at again.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, one thing that I have noticed as I sat through the debate
today is that the bill uses the term First Nations throughout. It
describes these 14 bands not necessarily as bands but as First
Nations. Similarly the members of these First Nations are
described as citizens of First Nations.
Although the term First Nation has been loosely bandied
about lately and is in common practice, to my knowledge this is
the first time that it has been formally referred to in federal
legislation. It gives rise to a number of questions that I have and
I would ask the hon. member's opinion of some of these
questions.
First, are native people in Yukon now to have two kinds of
citizenship extended to them under what we perceive as
Canadian law? If that is the case, would that not be conflicting
allegiances? This is a problem that I have had as I have sat
through this debate today and listened very carefully.
I would ask the hon. member if he would like to comment. I
would like to hear his comments on those types of allegiance,
and the conflict that might arise should that be the case.
Mr. Gilmour: I thank the member for his question. It brings
very much to the fore the tying together of these two bills, native
self-government and the land deal.
The member is absolutely right. We appear to be setting two
different nations within a nation with these two pieces of
legislation. The bills tie together, they are intertwined. I fully
believe, as I have said a number of times, that we are going the
wrong direction. We are only one nation. We cannot be people
from Quebec, people from the Yukon, people from other parts of
Canada; we are all Canadians.
The push to pass this legislation, in my mind, is going away
from the direction of equality toward a self-government that
cannot be defined. We have asked the government on a number
of occasions to please define their view of what is
self-government. Is it a municipality? Is it provincial, is it
federal; what is the umbrella approach? We cannot get those
answers.
Until we can get those answers, until Canadians can sit down
and see what they are looking at, what we are voting on, it is so
vague, so loose, it can be manipulated by virtually any party that
is part of the agreement.
It is paramount that we should be going toward equality. We
should be going toward a fair settlement that puts all of us on an
equal basis.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I am
intrigued by the questioning about First Nations. We are indeed
talking about First Nations. These were the first people on this
continent. They are not one nation, they are many nations, and I
think it is only right that people have the opportunity to name
themselves.
I was in northern Sweden and you are probably familiar with
the term Laplander. Laplanders did not name themselves
Laplanders, they call themselves Sami which means the people.
5124
There is a bit of confusion here around this issue. This is not
just a trendy little name that has been bandied about; this is a
name that the indigenous people of North America have chosen
for themselves, First Nations, and we use it out of respect.
(1735 )
When we talk about treating people equally, and that is
absolutely the point here, we have to understand the historical
roots of discrimination, the barriers to discrimination, the
systemic aspects of discrimination. These are not conquered
people. These people had treaties, agreements with our
government and rightfully they are seeking what is theirs.
Mr. Gilmour: I thank the member for her question. We have a
differing point of view which often happens in the House.
I will not be using the term First Nation because to me it
implies a second nation and a third nation. There is only one one
nation of Canada. That to me is equality. It is all of us together. It
is not a slight on our native peoples. If there is a First Nation,
what is the second, what is the third and what are the different
rights? There are no different rights. We are all equal.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have heard bandied
about the idea that Yukon people are very familiar with
self-government, what it means and what its implications are,
and that the Canadian people are also familiar with them.
I wonder if the member could comment on how general is this
knowledge and how informed people really are about the
settlement agreements that we are talking about.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, as I touched
on in my speech, that the general knowledge in depth of this
agreement is not high.
The concept of self-government, the concept of a land claim
deal, that is fine. People are well aware of that. But the depth of
what is in this bill and its generosity is not general knowledge.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, about a
month ago I rose to speak on Bill C-16, the Sahtu land claim.
At that time I told the House we were setting a very dangerous
precedent and we are following along the same footsteps today.
Bill C-33 gives two square miles of deeded land per person in
this land claim. Just to put this into perspective, my family has a
farm in northwestern Alberta. We have two square miles of land
that we farm and it has supported a family of six people. If we
were to work this out, two square miles per person comes to
twelve sections of land per person.
Let us put this into perspective for a moment. When my
family came to Canada in 1869 from England they got 205 acres.
We are talking about 12,000 acres here. This is a lot of land. I
think it sets a very dangerous precedent.
In the Peace River riding I have six land claims that have not
been settled that we want to move forward. It seems to me that
every land claim that is settled we start to build and build on it at
a time when Canada has a major debt and deficit.
I wonder if the government has given some thought to the
implications of how this is going to play out in all the land
claims settlements throughout the country. Thirty-five
thousand dollars roughly per person in this particular land claim
settlement using the model again of a family of six represents
$200,000 plus twelve square miles of land.
I have to ask the question, where do we go from here? We have
a lot of land claims in the province of British Columbia that are
coming up. Are we going to be borrowing more money from
places like Japan and the United States to pay out on land
claims? We have to think very carefully of the cost of what we
are doing here and the precedent we are setting.
(1740)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, the costs of these land claims are absolutely enormous
to the Canadian taxpayer. It will cost over $260 million to settle
these four claims. Something is missing in this equation. No one
is standing in the House today speaking about the non-native
Canadians.
Who is standing up and speaking for them? Who is speaking
about their responsibilities and their ownership of other parts of
the country?
Is it not that Canada from sea to sea belongs to all Canadians,
native and non-native alike? Are all of us here interested in the
well-being and the welfare of the native peoples in this land
claim? What will the land claims do to benefit the native people?
Is there a better way of doing this, is there a better way to help
the welfare of the native people? What responsibility or what
accountability is there going to be to the non-native people in
these land claims as they are going to impact dramatically on the
taxpayers of Canada.
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
questions. I think they are very important questions.
We are going through a situation in my riding where
agriculture has been hit very heavily with the trade war that has
been going on for over 10 years. I have a lot of constituents who
have lost their farms, lost their land and I think they would ask
that question and it should be answered. These people are
finding it very hard going.
The Canadian debt is very high and it is part of the reason
these farmers are losing their land. They are paying so much in
taxes at a time when we are giving land to native people in big
land claim settlements. I do not believe that can be supported
and I do not believe that the Canadian public will support it.
5125
We have to settle these land claims but we have to have some
self-reliance and self-sufficiency built into them. That is not
my understanding of what is being done in these two bills. It is
sort of an open-ended arrangement where we really do not know
what the cost is going to be. In effect we are giving a blank
cheque. It would be one thing if they were signed, sealed and
delivered and that was the end of it but that is not my
understanding of the two bills that are before us today.
Some very important questions have been raised. I think that
has to be built into the legislation and I would encourage the
members of government to entertain some amendments to make
these more effective so they can be sold to the Canadian public.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the hon. member has any idea of the mass of land in
the country and in the particular case of this bill what was
available to the native people in the Yukon at the time when the
settlers came forward.
It has been suggested that the bill overextends the number of
square miles, acres, whatever you want to take it in, per capita,
per family. I would suggest that we have to consider where those
rights were and what amount of space actually was considered as
part of their homeland. When the early settlers came to this
country and went to the far north in some cases they were
welcomed and in other cases they were not. However over a
period of years they took over and operated those masses of
land.
There has to be some responsibility of government, of
members on all sides of the House, as Canadian citizens, for our
actions today and the actions of our predecessors, our ancestors
and our family line.
This bill finally takes some responsibility for the people of
today's First Nations and takes that responsibility very
seriously. I think this government should be commended for
finally taking those actions after these many years.
(1745)
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that
question. It is a very important question and one that we have to
give considerable thought to. Essentially when the white people
came to Canada the Indians had all of Canada. Surely the
member is not suggesting that we try to redo that wrong because
it simply would not work.
I understand that there are some Indian bands in British
Columbia that would take back the city of Vancouver. It simply
cannot be done. In British Columbia they tell me there is 130 per
cent of the land mass claimed in land claims because there is
some dispute as to which ones own certain properties.
Therefore, you are absolutely right. We do have to have a fair
settlement. I guess it is a matter of debate as to what is fair here.
I have raised a family of six children on considerably less land
and I certainly did not have any cash settlement along the way. I
think this is overly generous.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, could you
advise me of the time that I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will be glad to indicate
to the House that we will terminate at 5.50 p.m. and move to
Private Member's Business.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to the very eloquent, warm and generous tone of the
Bloc member who spoke a short time ago. I listened intently to
what he had to say. As he spoke I could not help but compare
what is happening in Yukon through this land agreement with
what the situation would be if a similar occurrence were
happening or the same situation were occurring in the province
of Quebec.
I wonder what the member from the Bloc would say about that
kind of an agreement if the James Bay Cree, if the Mohawks and
the aboriginal people in northern Quebec had been granted huge
blocks of land over which they would have complete control and
an agreement that would give them the right to create their own
constitution, to create their own legislative assemblies, to
determine citizenship and the rights of citizens in that area, to
determine laws that would deal with non-aboriginal people
when they came on to that land, and the right to set up their own
justice system and to administer the affairs of huge chunks of
what is now the province of Quebec.
Would it be looked upon as fair to them if this agreement were
centred in Quebec rather than in Yukon?
I have already in the early debate on Bill C-34 mentioned my
concern in the particular area that all of these rights and
entitlements contained within this document are based upon
race.
Like the Indian Act that was based upon race, and they were
discriminated against based upon race as the Indian Act
discriminated against them and the interpretations of that act
discriminated against them, this document as well is based upon
race. I wonder about that. I wonder if that is wise.
They are going to have rights on the land that is designated to
them. Are they going to be Canadians? I would hope they would
remain Canadians. That would mean they would have rights.
They would be Canadians plus.
They would have all the special rights that they would enjoy
on the land area they are granted. If they moved off that land
which they would be entitled to they would enjoy all the rights
they and we as Canadians enjoy.
5126
What about the rights of the non-aboriginal people who move
on to those lands, whether it is to go fishing, as the hon. member
from the Bloc suggested, or to set up a business or simply move
in and establishing a home, a living quarters on that land? What
would be their rights?
I see this bill creating a two tier system of laws within this
country to the benefit of the aboriginal people or one sector of
Canadian society based upon race.
I have the deepest feeling for our aboriginal people. This is
going to go through. There is no question. When the treaties
were signed so many years ago there was no real record, no real
fleshing out of the spirit and the intent of those treaties. All we
have on the one hand is what the white man recorded in the treaty
and the notes and the remembrance by the aboriginal people of
the intent and the spirit of those treaties.
We have been arguing about that for almost 100 years. This
time around because it has been brought into this House,
certainly the aspects that we have had time to examine are going
to be placed upon the record. As this program goes forward and
as this agreement takes effect we are going to be able to then
judge whether it is has been a wise deal or not and whether the
wisdom of the people of this country on both sides of the issue
has been applied to this agreement. We will be able to judge the
fruits born by this agreement.
Therefore, if it is a good deal it will have the support of all of
us. If it fails we will be able to go back on the record and see
those concerns raised by elected representatives of this country
in this House.
In summing up, I say to the aboriginal people who are going to
benefit from this program, God bless you and the very best to
you. Surely if they take over that part of Canada they cannot do a
worse job than the governments of this country have done to this
country when we look at our debt, our justice system and other
matters where this country has really run amok as a result of the
direction of the people we have elected to this House.
I wish them the very best. I have reservations but I say God
bless them and the very best to them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being ever so close to
5.50 p.m. by my clock, I cannot extend questions and comments
but I will ask members whether they are ready for the question.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.50 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
5126
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) moved that Bill C-237, An
Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims), be read
the second time now and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the
priority of payment of claims in case of employer bankruptcy, in
order that the wages, salaries and pension plan contributions of
employees, up to a limit of $9,000, be paid in priority to any
other class of claims.
(1755)
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act passed in 1992 maintains
preferred status for wage and entertainment expense claims in
the event an employer goes bankrupt. The limit was increased
from $500 to $2,000 with regard to wage claims, and from $300
to $1,000 in the case of entertainment expenses claims.
When an insolvent employer offers to restructure his
company, unpaid wages up to a limit of $1,000 have to be paid to
employees as soon as the restructuring plan had been approved
by the court. The issue of wage claims in the event of an
employer becoming bankrupt or insolvent was widely debated in
Canada in the context of the legislative reform on bankruptcy.
In the last bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act, which was tabled
in 1991, the government proposed to establish a compensation
fund for unpaid employees. Because of the opposition to the tax
intended to finance the program, however, this measure was
withdrawn and replaced by a simple change in priority, which
has been granted to wage claims for years in Canadian
legislative enactments on bankruptcy.
When the Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act, since renamed
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, received royal assent on
June 23, 1992, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
stated his intention of striking a joint committee of the House of
Commons and the Senate to examine the issue of salary
protection in case of insolvency. This committee which was to
table its report by June 1993 was never established.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me provide the House with some
background information to put the problem with this bill in full
context. It all started in 1919, with the Bankruptcy Act giving
wage claims priority over unsecured debts for a period of up to
three months before the bankruptcy. Wage claims came third at
the time, after professional, trustees and seizing creditors fees.
5127
The Bankruptcy Act of 1949, maintained the priority given to
wage claims for a period of three months before bankruptcy
occurred, but also set a $500 limit per claim. Travelling
salesmen were allowed to claim $300 more for unpaid expenses.
Thereafter, wage claims ranked fourth in the order of priority of
preferred claims.
Toward the end of the 1960s, a committee was appointed to
review and report on the Bankruptcy Act. With this committee,
known as the Tassé Committee, the government embarked upon
a legislative reform on bankruptcy. In its report presented in
1970, the committee recommended that the period in question
be limited to three months, but that the limit on preferred claims
be raised to $1,000.
Five years after the Tassé Report was tabled, on May 5, 1975,
Bill C-60 was introduced in first reading in the House of
Commons by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs who has since become Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The purpose of that bill was to give wage claims of up to
$2,000 per employee top priority over any other secured or
unsecured creditor. Fiercely criticized, this ``top priority''
proposal was rejected by the Senate Standing Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce in its report on the bill. The
committee argued among other things that this top priority did
not ensure employees would be compensated and could in fact
disadvantage borrowers trying to obtain credit, especially in
labour intensive sectors. As an alternative, the committee
recommended establishing a government-operated employee
compensation fund to which employers and employees would
contribute and from which wage claims of up to $2,000 could be
paid to employees. However, none of the three bankruptcy bills
tabled in the Senate in 1978 and 1979 provided a compensation
fund for employees or superpriority. Employees instead kept
their status as preferred creditors and the amount of wage claims
was increased to $2,000 plus $600 for business travel expenses
and up to $500 for contributions to pension plans and fringe
benefits.
(1800)
In 1980, another bankruptcy bill, C-12, was tabled in the
House of Commons by the same minister. It contained the same
salary protection provisions as the previous Senate bills. After
considering it, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking,
Trade and Commerce again recommended creating an employee
protection fund. The committee thought that the fund which
would pay salary compensation of up to $2,500 should be
financed from employer contributions and administered by the
Superintendent of Bankruptcy. The fund would be subrogated to
all employee claims against a bankrupt employer.
In this context, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs in 1980 asked a task force to look into the question of
employee protection. Although the Landry Committee saw there
was a problem with unpaid wages, it said in its 1981 report that
it could not determine its scope. It thought that no permanent
solution to the problem could be found until the extent of the
problem was known and federal and provincial policies were
co-ordinated. The committee favoured creating a salary
protection fund and recommended a temporary solution for
three years during which the treasury would pay salaries due,
including benefits, up to $1,000.
Although tabled in 1980, Bill C-12 was only referred to a
parliamentary committee in October 1983. The Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs then proposed amending it so
as to give superpriority to unpaid wages, not counting severance
and termination pay, of up to $4,000 if an employer went
bankrupt. The amendments would have allowed a bankruptcy
trustee to borrow to pay wage claims and to secure the loan. The
recommendations of the Landry committee were rejected
because of budget constraints and because of the lack of
foolproof data on the wages lost as a result of bankruptcy and the
problems that could arise if a wage protection fund were created.
The minister was also concerned that if such a fund existed,
employers would no longer feel compelled to pay their
employees' salaries on time.
Bill C-12 which died on the Order Paper was reintroduced as
Bill C-17 on January 31, 1984 by Mrs. Judy Erola who was the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time.
However, it did not contain any amendments respecting first
priority. That same year, however, the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs brought in new amendments which would
give first or superpriority to salary claims up to a limit of
$4,000, including legal costs up to a limit of $600.
In late 1986, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
released a working paper on proposed amendments to the
Bankruptcy Act. The proposals flowed from the report of the
advisory committee and from consultations between the
minister and concerned groups and provinces.
The working paper called for a salary compensation fund to be
established to cover possible cases of bankruptcy or
receivership. The fund would have paid up to $2,000 in unpaid
wages, including statutory benefits and up to $1,000 for unpaid
expenses incurred on the employer's behalf.
The fund would have been financed through employer and
employee dues and would have been administered by the
superintendent of bankruptcy. Pursuant to the bill's provisions,
the federal fund would have priority over provincial laws, would
be subrogated to the rights of employees and would constitute a
preferred creditor.
The department estimated that the fund would pay out
between $30 million and $50 million annually.
5128
(1805)
In 1989, another report recommended creating a national
wage earner protection fund. The Advisory Council on
Adjustments, which was asked to examine adjustment issues
arising from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, supported
creating a national wage earner protection fund which would
pay workers up to a maximum of $4,000 and would be financed
by contributions from employers.
In June 1991, new bankruptcy legislation, Bill C-22, was
tabled in the House of Commons. The new measures provided
for a wage earner protection program similar to the one
proposed in 1988. The program was included in a new act, the
Wage Claim Payment Act.
The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer
and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations for
preliminary consideration. Most witnesses appearing before the
committee favoured a wage protection program, but many
objected to the program being financed by a tax on wages.
In its preliminary report, the committee rejected the concept
that a wage protection fund was the only way to guarantee
recovery, and it proposed a combination of superpriority and a
wage protection fund. The committee also noted that the fund
proposed in Bill C-22 would not protect employees who had not
been paid because the employer had abandoned the business. It
recommended that the government consider ways to reimburse
wage arrears in such cases.
The government rejected the committee's recommendations.
Procedural problems within the Standing Committee forced the
government to reverse its position on wage protection, however,
and in May 1992, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs announced the withdrawal of this part of the bill.
As a result, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act passed in 1992
maintains the status of secured creditor with respect to claims
for salaries and representation costs in the case of employer
bankruptcy, but claim-limits were increased from $500 to
$2,000 for salaries and from $300 to $1,000 for representation
costs.
The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides for a review of
the provisions of the act by a parliamentary committee three
years after coming into effect.
I would now like to address Bill C-237. The proposed
legislation would amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to
give claims arising from salaries and unpaid contributions to
pension plans priority over all other claims in the case of the
bankruptcy of an employer, including claims of secured
creditors, up to a limit of $9,000. This bill reflects the
provisions of a previous bill that would have given wage earners
superpriority over other creditors.
As we have seen, granting superpriority to unpaid wages
raises a number of problems. First, superpriority does not
guarantee that wages owed by a bankrupt employer will be paid.
The available assets of the bankrupt are not necessarily adequate
to cover the amounts claimed.
Second, superpriority of wage claims might reduce the
amount of credit offered to labour-intensive businesses.
Third, it might be difficult to distribute the burden of
superpriority among creditors.
Fourth, some lenders might be tempted to circumvent
superpriority by demanding that the loan be in the name of an
affiliated company that would own all the assets of the borrower.
Finally, since wage claims can only take precedence once
bankruptcy proceedings have started, secured creditors might be
tempted to exercise their right outside the bankruptcy process to
preserve their priority.
I am sure you will agree that wage earners deserve special
treatment when their employer becomes insolvent. For many
wage earners, their job is their main if not sole source of income.
One of the most common ways of ensuring that workers get their
unpaid salaries in case of bankruptcy is to give priority status to
their claims.
A preferred creditor is an unsecured creditor who has the right
to be paid before other unsecured creditors. This means that
salaries are paid, or could be paid, out of the assets of the
bankrupt, but before payment of secured creditors.
Under the terms of the current Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act, salary claims and disbursements of travelling salesmen
have priority in case of bankruptcy but, as we said, there is a
limit of $2,000. As a result of inflation, this is a very small
amount which does not give much protection to employees.
Several arguments can be used to justify a superpriority of
claims. First, the present system which gives preferred status to
salary claims is seriously lacking, and the same can be said for
the claims of secured creditors and preferred creditors of higher
rank that must be paid first.
(1810)
Second, with a superpriority, employees would have a better
chance of being paid quickly. Very often they would not have to
wait until all the assets of their employer have been disposed of.
Third, a superpriority would enable employees to be paid at
no cost to the government or taxpayers. Recently, some people
proposed setting up a fund managed by the government. I
remind you that this proposal was rejected. With a superpriority,
it is up to the employer to pay salary claims, and they are paid
out of his assets.
5129
Fourth, the danger that such a superpriority would hinder a
company's borrowing power is probably exaggerated. Some say
that if salary claims had superpriority, companies would have
trouble getting credit because wages would come before
securities such as mortgages and bonds.
The bill contains provisions limiting the impact of wage
claims on other creditors. Employee claims would not all be
honoured in full. Priority would be limited to wages and pension
plan contributions for the six months preceding the bankruptcy,
up to a limit of $9,000.
Moreover, the present Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now
gives unpaid suppliers the right to reclaim their goods from
bankrupt buyers, which in fact places them ahead of secured
creditors.
I believe I have demonstrated how important Bill C-237 is.
The historical background of this issue, which I just presented to
the House, proves beyond any doubt, that wage protection in a
bankruptcy context has been justifiably a main preoccupation of
the House since 1919, and especially in the past few years.
I then clearly explained how Bill C-237 was in the same line
as previous bills and how it avoided problems associated with a
compensation fund and superpriority.
Today, I am asking the House to take a step forward towards
wage protection in a bankruptcy or insolvency context, and
when the time comes, to support Bill C-237, and send it for
review to the Committee on Government Operations so that
workers in this country can enjoy the wage protection they so
rightly deserve.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in my place today to respond to the bill of the hon.
member for Portneuf.
Bill C-237 would adjust the priority of claims of the
Bankruptcy Act so as to provide employees with the first
priority of the proceeds of a bankruptcy, up to a limit of $9,000
per person.
I would remind the House that in 1992 the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act was revised for the first time in 40 years. There
had been six previous attempts to reform the act and they all
failed.
Hon. members who were present during the last Parliament
will no doubt recall that one of the most controversial aspects of
the original legislation was the proposal for a wage claim
payment act that would enable employees to obtain wages and
expenses after a company has gone bankrupt.
[Translation]
The debate focused on the best way to finance the payment of
this type of claim. Several methods were recommended. The
original bill provided for the creation of a wage claim payment
program, that was to be financed through a tax paid by the
employer and collected with UI contributions.
[English]
Many members of the Standing Committee on Consumer and
Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, however, argued
against that method of financing wage claim payments. They
maintained it was not right to impose an additional tax burden
on business in the name of helping the employees of bankrupt
companies. The act might only succeed in driving more
companies over the edge and into bankruptcy and the last thing
Canadians needed was legislation that might kill jobs. Therefore
the government of the day dropped the wage earner protection
provisions in the interests of getting the bill through Parliament.
[Translation]
We must examine very carefully the eventual impact of the
various proposals, as well as the results of the 1992
amendments. The consequences of the priorities established in
the new Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act will help us better
understand what works and what does not.
(1815 )
[English]
Let me provide an example. The 1992 act gives unpaid
suppliers the right to repossess goods sold and delivered to a
debtor if the debtor is bankrupt or in receivership at the time the
supplier demands the return of the goods. This rights comes into
effect when the following conditions exist.
The supplier must demand repossession in writing within 30
days of delivery. The buyer must be bankrupt or in receivership.
The goods must still be in the possession of the buyer, trustee or
receiver, be identifiable and in the same state as when delivered,
and not have been resold or subject to an agreement of sale.
A supplier's right to repossess goods supplied ranks ahead of
any other claim against the goods, except that of a purchaser
who bought the goods in good faith and for value without notice
if the supplier has demanded repossession.
The new bankruptcy laws make other provisions in the case of
farmers, fishermen and aquaculturalists. Usually the goods they
provide are perishable and the normal 30-day period would not
respond to their needs. The goods they provided would already
have been processed or resold. The act gives them a super
priority over all holders of security in respect of unpaid amounts
on inventory supplied within the 15-day period. There is no
need to establish the existence of products supplied because
they are perishable and will likely be disposed of shortly after
delivery.
5130
[Translation]
We must ask ourselves whether the solution proposed by the
hon. member will help workers or make life more difficult for
them.
[English]
If workers were asked what they would prefer, super priority
in the event of a bankruptcy or a chance that the company will
survive and they will keep their jobs, I am sure there would be no
difficulty getting a response. Workers might value a higher
priority in bankruptcy proceedings but not at the expense of
putting jobs at risk in the first place.
Lending institutions maintained they would raise the interest
rates they charge on business loans if super priority were given
to wage earners. They say they would be inclined to charge
higher rates of interest to labour intensive firms. They say they
would be less willing to provide a loan to a company facing
tough times and they might move more quickly, regrettably, to
realize their securities.
The banks might call the loan before the company declared
bankruptcy. Calling that loan would unfortunately result in
creating the bankruptcy.
[Translation]
That is what credit institutions said to the various committees
that have considered this issue in the past. I do not necessarily
agree with them on this. There may be ways of reviewing wage
earner protection while guaranteeing the availability of capital.
We however need more information than what is now available
to us to understand the impact superpriority will have.
[English]
At the same time there are other issues that must be addressed
in assessing priorities of creditors in the event of a bankruptcy. I
wonder if the hon. member has given some thought to protection
for consumer deposits, for instance.
A consumer who makes a down payment to a retailer for the
purchase price of a good or a service may be left with only a
claim as an ordinary creditor. If the retailer goes bankrupt or
into receivership before delivery, current law relegates the
consumer cannot establish ownership in particular goods to
ordinary creditor status. Consumers who pay for goods yet to be
identified or not yet produced will be ordinary creditors as will
buyers of unperformed services.
Is this fair? Consumers do not intend to give credit and do not
see themselves as creditors when they give deposits or make
down payments for consumer goods or services.
[Translation]
Consumers are vulnerable. They cannot easily obtain
information on the seller's financial situation. They cannot
afford multiple risks when they buy. Neither can they
realistically expect their deposits to be guaranteed.
[English]
The argument can be made that consumers are in as much need
of protection as suppliers and wage earners. If we give suppliers
protection and wage earners super priority, what are we to do for
consumers?
Once again we get into the same difficulty. Any gain for
consumer buyers arising out of a privilege would be offset by a
corresponding loss for other creditors. Special treatment for
consumers would depart from the principle of equal treatment of
creditors. This protection might have a detrimental impact on
the availability of credit.
There is one more example of the complex issues that arise.
Under the Income Tax Act the crown has a super priority to a
bankrupt's unremitted source deductions for income tax,
Canada pension plan and UI. Bill C-237 puts the wage earner's
super priority ahead of the crown's right. The employee might
get compensation for wages lost in the bankruptcy, but the
crown would find it difficult to have funds to make UI payments.
Premiums might have to be raised. The cost of business would
rise and more businesses might well fail.
(1820)
It all has a ripple effect, and I do not believe the bill pays
enough attention to the impact it would have on business
viability or job creation. We need to examine impacts more
closely. We need more information.
Hon. members may be aware that the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act provides that after three years a parliamentary
committee will review both the new provisions and the
operation of the act. This provision was established because we
do not want to wait another 40 years before we can change the
bankruptcy legislation again. We want to keep the act up to date
and successful.
[Translation]
According to the act, the review to be conducted after three
full years should be held in 1995. We will soon have to study
these questions in detail but, for the moment, what we should
consider is the big picture.
[English]
To prepare for the review the government has created a
bankruptcy and insolvency advisory committee. It is a
representative group of insolvency stakeholders. The object is
to bring together representatives from all interests affected by
the law. These groups often have interests that compete with one
another, so we want to try to build a consensus on what is fair
and reasonable before the government introduces changes as
part of the three-year review.
5131
Since its establishment, the committee has created eight
working groups that have submitted their preliminary
recommendations. This month they will review the
recommendations and send them back to the working groups for
fine tuning. I hope the report will be complete by the end of this
year. The minister will then be able to use these
recommendations to draft a new bill.
[Translation]
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we will have to answer not only
the many questions related to the reform of the Canadian
bankruptcy legislation but also those concerning wage earner
protection. The fact that the previous government could not find
a better way to protect wage earners did not make anyone happy.
A piecemeal approach to the problem is certainly not the
solution.
[English]
I believe the House should vote down Bill C-237 and prepare
instead to look at wage earner protection as an integral part of
the larger issue of bankruptcy reform we will address in coming
months.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak
this evening on Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
I appreciate the history lesson from my hon. colleague in the
Bloc who went through all of the trials and tribulations to tell us
how we managed to arrive at where we are today. I also
appreciate the comments by my Liberal colleague who
explained the Bankruptcy Act and the fact that a great deal of
thought went into the Bankruptcy Act as it is today.
It is rather ironic that I stand here to speak on amendments to
the Bankruptcy Act when I was an intervener back in 1991, three
years ago when it was being reviewed. I guess we have come full
circle. I now stand in the House making comments on potential
revisions to the act when three years ago I was making revisions
as an accountant on behalf of an organization that had an interest
in representing its members as far as the Bankruptcy Act
provisions at that time were concerned.
Speaking to the amendments, I find the bill poorly drafted, I
am afraid to say. We cannot agree and support the measures
being put forth. We do not feel a great deal of thought has been
put into the bill. Unfortunately I see it as being ideologically
driven, wherein the workers have been put first and absolute in
front of everything else with no real consideration to the other
parties that have or may have input and deserve consideration in
the event of bankruptcy.
It is a socialist position, not only a position of the Bloc
separatists. It seems to be socialist as well and perhaps the
position of successors to the party that has one or two members
on the backbench here.
The first line of the bill states:
Notwithstanding any law or any other provision in this or any other federal or
provincial Act-
This puts it as number one, right up there with the charter of
rights or perhaps even ahead of the charter of rights. It is a
constitutional document because it puts it ahead of all provincial
acts at the same time.
If every bill we debated in the House of Commons were to
start by saying notwithstanding any other provisions or any
other law, how would we ever determine which one would take
precedence? It would be impossible. That is why I say even the
wording is poorly drafted law. We cannot support the way it is
presented.
(1825)
Subclause (a) talks about giving protection to employees in
the amount of $9,000. Three years ago the act allowed $2,000.
We have not had inflation of the kind that we would want to
multiply it by four and a half times to get up to $9,000 today.
The mover of the bill is also saying that in the event of a
bankruptcy and money owing to an employee in an amount of up
to $9,000, that money can either be paid into his pension plan or
paid to him in cash less normal deductions.
It does not say which one because it says the money could be
put into his pension plan as well as wages, salaries, commissions
and so on. ``As well as'' does not tell us which one would take
priority. If a trustee in bankruptcy were to put the money into the
employee's pension plan while the employee was destitute and
the employee was denied access to the money even though it was
in his name, how better off would he be?
As it is written, Bill C-237 says that the trustee has a choice.
He can put it into the employee's pension plan or he can give it in
cash less deductions. He does not even have to take the
employee into consideration to see what is most beneficial to
him. Unfortunately the act is poorly drawn.
It rearranges the whole order. The act as it currently stands
gives priority to secure claims. My hon. colleague on the Liberal
side talked about the super creditors and so on.
Notwithstanding, as it stands today first are the secured
creditors, followed by funeral expenses, undertaker's expenses
and so on to look after the unpleasant side of things that the
trustee should pay for in the case where the bankrupt is
deceased. Then it goes on to pay the trustee's own expenses and
talks about wages and salaries.
Wages are number four because the first three items are
important. We would not want to pay an unsecured creditor and
not pay the undertaker. How would we ever get trustees to wrap
up a bankruptcy if their fees took less precedence than the
money paid to wage earners who are unsecured creditors? Who
would ever do the job? Who would ever pay them? That is why
5132
the Bankruptcy Act as it reads today puts these things ahead of
payments to wage earners.
As an hon. colleague asked, what about the banks? What is
their attitude to the situation? Let us take the situation of a good
sized company of 110 employees. If it had not paid its
employees it would have a liability of $1 million. That is the
first priority ahead of all other laws, notwithstanding any other
law, provincial act or anything else. Are the banks going to lend
that company money? Of course not. There is no way that a bank
is going to lend money to a company when there is a potential
liability of up to $1 million that it will always rank ahead of the
government or the bank security.
Therefore business will find that it is unable to raise cash
because of that point. Business will decline and unemployment
will go up. There will be more and more bankruptcies created by
this particular change in the law. I do not think that was the
intention of the member who moved the bill.
I do not think it was the intention of the mover to create
unemployment. I think the mover was coming at it from the
point of view of trying to protect the rights of wage earners. I
have no problems with that whatsoever, but we must recognize
that the member is actually proposing in the law to create more
unemployment and to cause more business failures. He is going
to deny business the ability to borrow money. By doing all these
things the matter is being made worse rather than better.
The member talked about the compensation plan that was
proposed before, but who was supposed to pay for it? The idea
was to lump the cost and pass it on to the employer.
(1830 )
The employer is the guy who takes the risks. He is the guy who
gets the money left in the till at the end of the day after he has
paid for all other obligations, including wages to his people. If
there is next to nothing in the till, that is all he gets for his hard
work.
I had an accounting business before I got into this political
game and I used to deal with many small business people. I said
to them that unfortunately in many cases small business people
work twice as hard and earn half as much as the people they
employ. They said that was right but they enjoyed the freedom of
having their own business and they accepted the risks.
Unfortunately I saw cases where some businesses did not make
it. The point is that they were working hard and as best as they
possibly could for the benefit of themselves and the people
working for them.
That is the recognition of the role small businesses play in our
economy. We should not hamstring small businesses to the point
that we expect or assume they are out to gouge their employees
and to take them to the cleaners. I can assure the hon. member
that in all my experiences with small business people they have
gone to great lengths to ensure that their business is viable and
that they can look after their employees to the best of their
ability.
In wrapping up, I have looked pragmatically at the bill as a
Reformer. I recognize the hon. member is trying to protect wage
earners, but if he really looked at what this bill would do, he
would find that is not the case. Hopefully the hon. member will
come around to seeing it in the same way Reformers do.
Unfortunately the bill is not acceptable and therefore the
Reform Party will not be supporting it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker, if
you look closely at Bill C-237, which was tabled by the hon.
member for Portneuf, you cannot help but think of an expression
often used in this House but particularly appropriate in this case:
social justice. This is what the bill is all about.
The amendments proposed today to the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act do a lot more than would mere technical changes
to this federal act, since they give it the human and
compassionate dimension which it needed so badly. Indeed, Bill
C-237 aims at giving wage claims priority over any other claim.
The current situation regarding commercial bankruptcy is
simply unfair to those who are the real engines of our economy.
Workers should be the first ones to be paid when the assets of a
bankrupt business are liquidated. I should point out that, under
the current act, workers are not at the bottom of the priority list.
This shows that the legislator already recognizes the importance
of giving priority to claims related to unpaid salaries, expense
accounts of travelling salesmen, contributions to retirement
pensions and other benefits.
Indeed, under the current Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,
salaries, commissions, and fringe benefits are said to be
privileged claims. This means that they come before unsecured
claims, but after secured liabilities. Some might say that this is
pretty good, but the reality is that once secured creditors have
been paid, there is often hardly any money left to pay salaries
and commissions to workers. Consequently, the term privileged
or preferred is misleading. One has to go beyond the semantic
meaning of the word and see the hard reality which workers have
to face when their employer goes bankrupt.
(1835)
The status of preferred creditor is no better than if you were
offered the most comfortable seat in a theatre, but that seat was
right behind a big post blocking the whole view of the stage. In
spite of its comfort, that seat would simply not meet the primary
requirement of offering a good view of the stage.
5133
The federal government likes people to think it is doing a
great job. It keeps them from noticing the big post and gives
everyone the impression that everything is fine. This is more or
less the situation with the current Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act. Salaries are considered a privileged claim, but that nice
status does not guarantee at all that the creditor will get any
money. In this case, the big post is represented by the secured
creditors whose claims have priority over wage claims.
Many people cannot see the stage because the government has
not yet amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so as to
ensure that salaries are the number one priority when the assets
of a bankrupt company are liquidated. It is certainly not normal
to see municipal taxes having priority over people's livelihood.
And yet, since 1919, several attempts have been made to give
wage claims the place they deserve on the list of priority claims.
Several task forces have looked at this issue and
recommended all kinds of solutions designed to favour workers.
The reports of these committees are still gathering dust today on
the shelves of the National Archives. Also, several bills were
presented to remedy the situation but were abandoned for lack of
time and especially because successive governments lacked
courage and political will. As a result, the improvements were
timid and inconsequential.
People who are laid off after their employer goes bankrupt
already suffer enough from the loss of their livelihood; they
should not, on top of that, lose the salary owed to them.
When a bank agrees to invest in a company, it usually knows
the risk it runs. Furthermore, the interest rates it charges reflect
these risks of financial loss.
Perhaps employees do not invest their money, but they devote
themselves body and soul to their employer in exchange for a
salary that is often too small, but that still lets them meet most of
their financial obligations.
Bill C-237 is thus intended to correct the injustice being done
when a bankrupt company's assets are liquidated. This
amendment goes further than any previous attempt in favour of
workers' rights.
My colleague, the member for Portneuf, was not satisfied
with reupholstering the comfortable seat behind the column; he
is moving this seat and giving back to workers their rightful
place.
This is the sort of measure which the people of Canada and
Quebec expect of their government, initiatives that reflect the
legitimate needs and aspirations of the Canadian working class.
Of course, the big secured creditors will surely not appreciate
this legislative amendment since they will see their claims fall
on the priority list of payments in case of bankruptcy.
And the effects of the financial losses on them would be much
less than for the average Canadian worker who, in losing his
salary, is losing his only source of income.
(1840)
As I said earlier, it is a question of social justice and the
government should try to consider it more often when the time
comes to present bills that might affect people's lives.
[English]
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-237 which
is presented by the hon. member for Portneuf to guarantee
superpriority to employees in the proceeds that would be
realized from the bankruptcy of their employer firm.
This compelling issue, le célèbre fauteuil de mon collègue en
face, has been the object of repeated parliamentary and
provincial examinations before our Parliament, in seven bills
and seven reports. Not only has superpriority been consistently
rejected before, but also a fund from government revenues has
been refused as was the tax.
In 1992 the previous government was obliged to drop the
provisions for a wage claim payment program so as to ensure
that the other provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
referred to by my previous colleague on this side would be
accepted. It did give workers a preferred claim to cover wages
earned during the six months that preceded the bankruptcy, up to
a limit of $2,000 a person. In striking contrast, the bill before us
provides a first priority payment up to a limit of $9,000 per
employee in the context of bankruptcy proceedings.
What the act also did, and this is important to our debate
today, is it instituted a three-year review to examine the matter
of bankruptcy and debt. So it is important not to jump the gun
and obliterate that concerted effort of government and
stakeholders.
With the passage of the 1992 act a consultation committee
was struck, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Advisory
Committee, or BIAC. The government should be given time to
exercise the three-year review. This committee, BIAC,
co-ordinates consultations of insolvency stakeholders on a
multilateral basis. BIAC is enabling us to bring stakeholders
into the policy development process early on, and keep them on
board right through to the end in a systematic way, to look at the
issues and then to recommend options.
In the meantime, Industry Canada has been gathering data on
the impact the 1992 revisions have had on the economy. We need
to know the full extent of the problem and what is required to
resolve it. For example, in how many insolvencies do employees
lose wages? How much have they lost in total? Do they receive
any of the wages owing from the trustee? How long does this
5134
process take? In past cases how much money was available in
the estate for paying creditors?
Related issues abound, many of which are fundamental. Here
is one example of an important issue facing BIAC. The Colter
and Tassé committees have recommended amendments to the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to deal with the increasing
problem of international insolvencies. Indeed, in a global
marketplace cross-border insolvency problems are not rare.
This possibility is gaining huge significance in light of free
trade and the NAFTA.
I ask you to bear with me, Mr. Speaker, as I move to a second
point, which is one of the absolute issues arising from the
legislation that is presented to us today, one with which you are
abundantly familiar. As my hon. colleague has referred to
previously, that is the priority of the crown which is above all
would-be super priorities. The hon. member for St. Paul's gave
us a tantalizing glimpse of the problem under this rubric. I wish
to reinforce and amplify his remarks.
By way of explanation, under the Income Tax Act the crown
has the super priority to a business's unpaid deductions for
income tax, Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance.
Bill C-237 would put the wage earners super priority ahead of
that of the crown.
(1845 )
What is the end result if you do that? The employee might
well get compensated for wages lost in the bankruptcy but the
crown could find it does not have enough funds to make up
unemployment insurance payments. Premiums would have to be
raised. The cost of business would necessarily rise. More
businesses already facing tighter loan money because of added
responsibility for the wage earner super priority would face
bankruptcy.
In a telling metaphor the hon. member for St. Paul's spoke of a
vast ripple effect. I do not believe this bill pays enough attention
to the ultimate reach of that ripple effect on business viability
and job creation.
What is a priority? It is a moving, subtle thing that can
apparently seem to defy logic. I will give one example, and it
will be my final one, in an area touched by the committee on
Canadian heritage of which I have the honour to be the chair.
Priority becomes a far more fragmented thing within the
information based marketplace. To put it at its simplest level,
the government has been approached by one set of
representatives of that market and to get to cases I mean authors
who are often their own copyright holders.
What happens to a copyright holder when a publisher goes
bankrupt? An author-and I can claim to be a modest one in this
regard-put years into writing a book, his or her whole life in
some instances, his or her mind and spirit, and yet receives little
or nothing if the publisher collapses leaving royalties unpaid.
The unpaid author has to watch while suppliers quite possibly
recover the cost of paper and ink that delivered his very book to
print.
There is a system in place that may shed new light on these
many interrelated problems that must be addressed together if
any hope for a resolution is to be realized. It is in the interest of
this country and of its labour force, which this bill wishes to
help, that we give our review system, the one I referred to
previously, a chance and that we allow a solution to come forth
from the concerted effort of government and stakeholders.
It is equally in our national interest that we develop a global
approach that allows our businesses to reorganize or to catch
their second wind and have another go at it. We do not need or
want a piecemeal approach which will only be remembered for
its disastrous consequences.
This government wants a concerted effort that has regard for
all workers, creditors, consumers and of course the crown itself.
For this reason and at this time I do not support Bill C-237.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, our current legislation on bankruptcy and insolvency
does not fit the social philosophy of our time. One could say it
has lagged far behind.
It provides that in the case of bankruptcy, hypothecary
creditors take precedence over wage earners, or to put it bluntly,
it provides that money takes precedence over human beings. I do
not think you have to be a socialist, as the hon. member for the
Reform Party said, to get upset about this kind of situation. It is
intolerable that in 1994, we should still let money take
precedence over human beings, and I certainly do not think
Socialists have a monopoly on the indignation this kind of
situation arouses.
In fact, our so-called capitalist society is concerned about the
problem, and it has been since 1919. The hon. member for
Portneuf recalled what has been done about this problem over
the past 75 years, but so far, all attempts to bring divergent
interests together have failed. I would like to mention three
particularly significant developments that occurred during that
time.
(1850)
First of all, in 1975 we had the Liberal Bill C-60, which I
believe mentioned for the first time the possibility of
superpriority for wage earners.
This admittedly generous and fair legislation met with
objections from the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and
Commerce which would have preferred to see a wage protection
fund administered by the State. Understandably, there were
bankers
5135
and businessmen who preferred to let taxpayers pay the cost of
administering this fund.
In any case, nothing happened, and later on-this is the
second development I wanted to mention-we had the Landry
Commission, which pointed out, and it was probably right,
another drawback to this protection fund. To a certain extent, the
fund might have been an incentive for unscrupulous employers
not to do everything in their power, in case of bankruptcy, to pay
their employees, since a fund would do it for them.
The third and most recent development was in 1992, when the
Conservatives appointed a joint committee to examine these
issues, but unfortunately it too failed in the attempt.
My point is that the hon. member for Portneuf is to be
commended for resurrecting a problem that is certainly not
recent and which so far has remained unsolved. His solution is
realistic and humane, and here it is in a nutshell: it gives
absolute priority to the payment of wages and salaries owed, and
it raises the limit of such payments.
This bill, like any bill designed to resolve differences and
overcome opposition, is certainly not perfect. There is, of
course, no solution that can satisfy everyone. Claimants may
argue that the bill weakens their position. We must, however,
admit that the employees are the people closest to the business
and the most affected by its closing. Therefore, there is no doubt
that, from a moral and social perspective, they must have
priority.
Finally, I think this bill is quite timely because it fits in with a
new school of thought, a new trend we are happy to see emerging
between the unions and the employers. Of course, their interests
being at odds with each other, there are still tensions, but we
must admit that unions look harder now than 20 years ago for
opportunities to co-operate with business. In the current
recessionary climate, this co-operation often takes the form of
major concessions from the employees in the new collective
agreements.
This effort to bring employees and employers together to try
to solve the problems-and we know that our society now faces
many problems-is very much in line with today's spirit of
understanding and employee co-operation that the unions are
displaying more and more these days. It should not be a one-way
street. In return, legislators should ensure that the employees
receive what is owed to them.
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The period provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), this item is dropped
from the Order Paper.
5135
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker, on
May 9, 1994 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question
regarding the role of the United Nations in the continuing
tragedy in Rwanda.
My question then was directed to chapter 6 of the United
Nations charter which clusters together the UN processes for
peaceful settlement of international disputes.
In its best known manifestation chapter 6 connotes
peacekeeping in the classical form first suggested by Lester
Pearson who resolved the Suez crisis of 1956 and for which he
later received the Nobel Peace Prize.
That is the interposition of an unarmed international peace
force between combatants who have been in direct armed
conflict in order to separate them and allow a necessary cooling
off period preparatory to elaboration of a formal peace accord or
other formalized truce.
Peacekeeping under chapter 6 of the charter is to be
distinguished from peacemaking under chapter 7 which
connotes the direct interposition in military force through the
medium of UN military contingents under UN command and
authority and which is specifically empowered to use armed
force to resolve conflicts.
It is to be noted, however, there is an increasing reluctance of
UN member states to utilize the chapter 7 processes in part
because of recent unhappy experiences in problem areas like
Bosnia-Hercegovina and Somalia where the line between
classical peacekeeping and peacemaking became increasingly
blurred and confused.
It may, however, be suggested that the problems there have
arisen more from lack of a clear advance definition or
instructions as to the UN roles and missions in the particular
cases than from any defects inherent in the chapter 6 and chapter
7 processes as such.
In the context of Rwanda my suggestion is directed to the fact
that once the internal ethnic strife had transcended national
frontiers with the waves of refugees from Rwanda escaping to
neighbouring states and thereby imposing severe burdens on
those neighbouring states' economy and health and social
welfare resources and personnel, the Rwanda conflicts had
ceased to be purely internal or national, if they ever were, and
had taken on a larger international dimension, with major
implications in the new humanitarian international law.
5136
For this reason while noting the considerable humanitarian
aid already given within Rwanda by Canadian emergency relief
personnel, both civil and military, to relieve the human suffering
involved in the ethnic conflicts, I would ask the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs what further steps,
within the ambit of chapter 6 of the charter and under the UN
aegis, the Canadian government might recommend to the United
Nations for purposes of collective, world community action, or
what action we might be prepared to take on our own initiative to
save human lives and to alleviate further human suffering in
Rwanda.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, no formal decision has been
made concerning Canadian participation in an expanded United
Nations assistance mission in Rwanda.
The UN has informally asked us to provide communication
specialists and if we decide to participate in the expanded
mission we are considering sending some 300 such specialists.
Countries have started to answer positively to the UN request
for personnel and equipment. At the close of a recent regional
summit the president of Zimbabwe stated that 14 African
countries were prepared to respond affirmatively to a UN
request for material and troops.
Since the outbreak of violence in April CIDA has contributed
$4 million and pledged another $7.6 million in emergency aid to
Canadian NGOs, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, and the Red Cross.
A Canadian military aircraft based in Nairobi is the only link
between Kigali and the outside world. As a result of a new attack
on the airport on June 5, humanitarian flights have been
suspended until a new truce is negotiated.
General Dallaire together with 10 other Canadians continues
to play a key role in leading the United Nations missions,
serving as intermediary between the warring parties and
participating in humanitarian operations.
The Canadian general is doing his utmost to obtain a ceasefire
but the Rwandan patriotic front, the RPF, seems more
determined than ever to take power by force before deployment
of the UN force. They took the Kigali airport on May 22 and
continue to progress. Many members of the government left
Gitamara for Kibaye near Zaire on May 28.
(1900)
The Department of Foreign Affairs has summoned the
Rwandan ambassador to encourage his government to negotiate
in good faith and put an end to the killing and has sent a similar
message to the Rwandan patriotic front.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for all
his representations in helping to bring this dispute hopefully to a
peaceful resolution as he recommends using chapter 6 of the
United Nations charter.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, early last
March, the U.S. government reactivated an extraordinary trade
measure, the Super 301, which allows it to impose sanctions on
any country which it considers guilty of unfair trade practices.
In reintroducing the Super 301, the United States was primarily
targeting Japan, a country with which it has a large trade deficit.
Dissatisfied with the progress of talks on the opening up of
Japanese markets to American goods, the United States is now
using strongarm tactics to bring an unco-operative Japan into
line.
The United States and several other countries have been
complaining for years about the non tariff trade barriers erected
by Japan to keep out foreign goods and services. Having grown
impatient with the lack of progress made following Japan's
promises to open up its markets, the United States recently set
quantifiable and measurable objectives which Japan must meet
in certain specific economic sectors. Japan refused to go along.
The reintroduction of the Super 301 has been denounced by the
Secretary General of the GATT, by a number of western
politicians and by the Canadian Minister for International Trade
as a trade practice that is not in keeping with the spirit and rules
of international trade. However, U.S. requirements as to
quantifiable objectives resemble a form of managed trade and
these too are incompatible with free market principles.
In the past, the United States has used the Super 301 in
response to certain trading partners whose practices were
deemed to be unfair. These partners included Japan, Brazil and
India in the late 1980s. Canada also got a taste of the Super 301
in 1990 when U.S. sanctions targeted Canadian beer exports.
Under the Super 301, the United States has until September
30, 1994 to compile a list of countries which it feels have erected
unreasonable barriers to keep out American products. This
so-called black list is based on the National Trade Estimates, an
annual report released by the U.S. trade secretary on March 31
of this year. Measures will subsequently be taken against all
blacklisted countries.
The latest edition of the National Trade Estimates contains 12
pages of complaints about a number of Canadian trade practices,
primarily those involving beer, agriculture and domestic
procurement policies. While the U.S. Super 301 is directly
aimed at Japan, the fact remains that the procedure applies to
any country found guilty of trade practices deemed unfair by the
United States.
It is to be feared that, to appease the wrath of the United
States, Japan could come to favour openly the access of Ameri-
5137
can products and services to its market and this, at the expense
of other trading partners, including Canada.
On the one hand, the verbal match between the Americans and
the Japanese has subsided considerably over the past few
months, Japan having expressed the intention of steering the
course of deregulation, which should make access to the
Japanese market easier for foreign products.
On the other hand, the war of words between Canadians and
Americans has picked up. The Canadian ministers of
international trade and agriculture had a few well-chosen words
about the scare tactics used by the Americans. Disagreement is
obvious from agricultural disputes concerning durum wheat,
poultry and eggs for example, disputes which undermine trade
relations between our two countries. A fragile and incomplete
settlement has just been reached in the Canada-U.S. trade
dispute on beer.
So, the fact remains that Canada is among countries that the
United States complains about profusely. Therefore, nothing
stops them from applying or threatening to apply their Super 301
to some specific sectors of our economy.
In fact, the question I put to the Minister of International
Trade on March 25 last has not lost any of its relevance or
topicality, since Canada appears on the list of countries found
guilty of unfair trade practices in the latest American National
Trade Estimates. The United States who have until September
30, 1994, to complete their blacklist, could still be tempted to
add or threaten to add Canada to their list in order to pressure us
into settling certain trade disputes in their favour.
(1905)
Canada must not give in to blackmail and intimidation. It
must continue to protect its economic interests. That is why the
Bloc Quebecois urges the Minister of International Trade and
the Minister of Agriculture to oppose steadfastly certain
American claims considered illegitimate.
The Bloc also advises the government that it would be
unacceptable to the people of Quebec and Canada to fall for the
American trap and play off the interests of one region against
those of another in hope of settling the dispute as a whole.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, I thought when the hon.
member raised his question we answered it fairly well.
In his presentation he was trying to question the commitment
of the government in protecting the interest of Canadians. I want
to bring to his attention that the Minister for International Trade
criss-crossed the planet probably four times, reaching out and
trying to promote the interests of Canadian business and
Canadian companies in order to promote trade internationally.
This minister as well as this government are not afraid to
stand up and protect the interests of the industry. I would like to
bring to his attention a few articles, one in the Globe and Mail
with the headline stating: ``MacLaren blasts U.S. on trade''.
Another one in Le Devoir says: ``MacLaren lance un
avertissement aux Américains''. The Financial Post says:
``MacLaren lashes out at the U.S. on trade''. ``MacLaren blasts
U.S. on trade'', says the Toronto Star. ``U.S. risks trade shell,
MacLaren warns'' is in the Gazette. The list goes on and on.
This government is not lying dead. It is the opposite. We are
proactive. We understand that there are problems. The hon.
member must understand. When you have trade between Canada
and the United States in excess of $270 billion surely you are
going to see difficulties in certain aspects of trading with your
largest trading partner in the world.
If the member is suggesting we should declare war on the
United States, I would suggest to the hon. member that those
days have gone by. The answer for all of this is through the
international forum, the World Trade Organization, which is
going to take place in 1995, through GATT which is now
functioning and through the NAFTA agreement which we have
in place.
Only through dialogue can we resolve some of those disputes
which I might suggest do not account for more than 3 per cent of
the total.
[Translation]
As for 301, I want to tell the hon. member that the United
States never named Canada under Super 301. They have taken
measures against Canada under section 301 of the 1974 Trade
Act. The current disputes with the United States are covered by
the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and the general
agreement. Canada will make full use of these agreements to
protect its interests.
I just want to say to the hon. member that when Minister
MacLaren appeared before the House of Commons Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, he said that it is not
right for the Americans to use bilateral instruments which could
indirectly affect other countries. We continue to defend the
interests of Canadians and of industries.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have
asked for time this evening to speak because there is a big
problem in the Department of National Defence which is not
being addressed.
I have asked several questions of the minister over the past
three months that I do not think have been properly dealt with.
The federal government moves up to 20,000 households per
year, three-quarters of which are military personnel. The cost of
these moves is up to $100 million. Once storage, real estate fees,
legal charges, mortgage expenses and other benefits are thrown
in the tab comes to well over $200 million. You would think that
a big customer like the federal government which accounts for
5138
up to 35 per cent of Canada's moving business would pay rates
somewhat less than the industry average. Instead, the
government pays 23 per cent more than the CBC, Canadian
National Railways, Northern Telecom and Canada Post. How
can this be?
(1910)
Moves are handled by a four member committee representing
National Defence, the RCMP and Supply and Services. This
committee has its own bureaucracy of over 105 public servants,
many of them located in defence headquarters.
To begin with, what are military men doing handling
household moves? These trained military personnel should be
doing things like peacekeeping and organizing food aid.
The federal moving business is tendered but it all goes to four
major moving van lines. These van lines were convicted of price
fixing in 1983 and fined $250,000. They are now under
investigation again for various irregularities. The van lines get
the government business and then dole it out to their carrier
agents. You would think that the government could get better
prices by tendering to more than just four companies. But the
government's own rules prevent it from doing so.
It requires companies that bid to have exclusive carrier agents
in at least seven provinces capable of handling 55 per cent of the
government's business.
Such restrictions do not exist in the United States. In the U.S.
local moving companies can represent up to three different van
lines. These ridiculous restrictions guarantee the government's
business to the four van lines, three of which are 100 per cent
American owned.
There are move management companies which say they can
save the government between $10 million and $25 million on its
moves, given the chance to prove themselves. In fact, the
previous government disbanded this moving committee and
ordered that the two private sector companies be given the
chance to administer government moves in a pilot project. But
once elected, the present government cancelled this pilot project
which seems odd given its stated commitment to ferret out waste
and cut costs.
One move management company which could have
participated in this pilot project has been doing moves for the
House of Commons. This company says that it has saved 35 per
cent in current tariff costs. In addition, this company collects its
fee not from the government but from the mover. The
government's moving committee, the one that was to be
disbanded, said that it cost them only $100 to manage each
move. My understanding is that the defence department's own
audit staff has found the management costs per move to be
significantly higher than $100.
I wonder why this audit, which was completed in February, is
taking so long to become public? I have raised several points
here which I would like to repeat: Military men should not be
involved in household moves. Private sector move management
companies should be given a chance to prove that they can save
the government millions of dollars while providing the same
level of service.
The van lines which have been convicted of price fixing in the
past and which are under investigation today should not be given
a monopoly over government moves.
I am sure the defence department is on a limited budget and
has certainly seen restrictions. I know that it could well use this
$25 million that is estimated to be saved in these household
moves in areas such as better equipment for our peacekeepers.
I would ask the minister and the parliamentary secretary to
pursue this.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to cover three areas, the cost savings, the
tendering process that the hon. member talked about, and the
openness of the process to public scrutiny.
He is right, DND accounts for 75 per cent of all the moves and
in the past four years the government tariff has been reduced by
25 per cent, which actually represents savings of about $45
million to the government.
The government tariff has a special clause agreed to by the
van line that guarantees the lowest tariff. Although you might
have isolated examples of lower cost moves, the fact is that the
government is guaranteed the lowest rate by the moving
industry.
The cost of a move can be influenced by different factors,
such as the distance involved, the volume and weight of the
furniture, the time of the year, the destination, et cetera. So
making comparisons can be very difficult.
Regarding the tendering process, no carriers in Canada are
excluded. The 900 moving companies across Canada are
affiliated with and represented by the van lines which bid on the
government tenders. All will have an opportunity to share the
government business this year.
The current government procedures for dealing with van lines
were thoroughly reviewed and endorsed by officers of the
Department of Industry and they do not contradict the 1983
prohibition order against members of the moving industry. The
member is right. The potential bidders must meet a certain
criteria and these criteria have been relaxed somewhat to
encourage competition inasmuch as the requirement for the
fiscal year 1994-95 called for local representation in at least
seven provinces representing 55 per cent of the business done by
the interdepartmental committee to meet departmental location
requirements. The previous requirement was 85 per cent in all
the provinces.
5139
The tender for the fiscal year 1994-95 closed on February 11
this year and the results have been determined. The government
is going to realize savings in the millions of dollars as a result of
a reduction of over 7 per cent from last year's government tariff.
Our officials are continuing to pursue other costs savings
initiatives in this area and details of the winning bid will be
made available to anybody on request subject of course to
considerations of privacy and commercial confidentiality.
I trust that this update is helpful to the hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7.15 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)