CONTENTS
Friday, November 25, 1994
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading. 8279
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8288
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8290
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8290
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8291
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8293
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8294
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 8295
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8296
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8297
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8297
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8297
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8299
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8299
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8300
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8300
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 8301
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 8303
Bill C-232. Motion for second reading 8303
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8310
8279
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 25, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having
jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in
respect of land in Yukon territory and to amend other acts in
relation thereto, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-55. The
function of the board will be to resolve disputes between parties
concerning surface rights and access to subsurface rights.
As the House knows, this bill is linked to two previous bills
passed-let me rephrase that, rammed through this
Chamber-that dealt with land claims and self-government
agreements in Yukon.
Unfortunately, the passage of Bill C-55 will allow these
previous bills to come into force. One of our reasons for
opposing this bill is because of its close association with the
other two bills. Further reasons to oppose Bill C-55 are derived
from its potential to increase bureaucracy, increase government
expenditures and create conflict of interest situations.
(1005)
The umbrella final agreement between the Government of
Canada, the Council of Yukon Indians and the Government of
Yukon was signed on May 29, 1993.
Chapter 8 of that agreement sets out the requirement for
establishing the surface rights board and outlines some of its
duties and powers.
Bill C-55 is the enabling legislation to create such a board. I
am pleased to see within schedule II, clause 2(1), the use of
waterfront right of way on settlement land for recreational
purposes is guaranteed and cannot be limited by the powers of
the board.
Further, the board cannot deny a person the right to cross and
make stops on undeveloped settlement lands in order to reach
adjacent lands for commercial or non-commercial purposes. As
well, people will have the right to enter, cross and stay on
undeveloped settlement land for recreational purposes.
In all, I am pleased that an individual's right to travel across
lands in Yukon for recreational or non-recreational purposes
will not be subject to stringent entry and exit parameters as
established by the board.
As well, another important aspect of the bill is that it does not
change the legal rights of miners. I would like to turn to some of
the problems that I see contained within Bill C-55. Let us first
look at the bureaucracy.
At a time when the government is drowning in deficits and
debt, we have to be extremely cautious as to any possible
increase in government expenditures. What we see issuing forth
from DIAND in the form of land claim and self-government
agreements are increased expenditures through increased
bureaucracy.
This is demonstrated in the umbrella final agreement and Bill
C-55 is simply one piece of a larger, bureaucratic maze yet to be
constructed in Yukon. The Yukon surface board is one of five
boards, panels, councils and subcommittees yet to be
established in Yukon pursuant to the umbrella agreement and
previous Yukon legislation.
Yet to be created are the following: Yukon land use council;
Yukon heritage resource board; Yukon geographical place
names board; fish and wildlife management board and its
salmon subcommittees, all to be funded by the federal
government. Let me rephrase that as well, all to be funded by the
taxpayers of Canada.
In all, when we speak of expenditures and when we consider
that Bill C-55 is an agreement dealing with matters within
Yukon territory and specifically dealing with matters relating to
Yukon Indians, I believe it is only fair to ask these two parties to
pay for the operation of the board.
Yukon Indians have been awarded power over resources,
power in taxation and they have been given financial
compensation for a 15-year period. Given these abilities and
given the fact that 50 per cent of the membership of the board are
Yukon Indian
8280
nominees, it is only reasonable to ask them to pay their fair share
of the costs of the operation of the board.
Our amendment at committee stage would have achieved this
cost sharing agreement between Yukon Indians and the
territorial government but it was soundly defeated by the Liberal
majority. Therefore Bill C-55 will pull more money out of the
pockets of the Canadian taxpayer everywhere in Canada since
the federal government has so generously agreed to fund the
entire cost of the new board.
Let us look at finance. I am pleased to see that clause 23(5)
allows the Auditor General to review the financial statements
and financial transactions of the board annually. Unfortunately
past experience has demonstrated that while the Auditor
General has raised concerns over the lack of accountability and
expenditures of moneys at DIAND, the department has
displayed complete disregard for the Auditor General's
recommendations.
However, it is curious that while Reformers proposed
amendments to Bill C-34 that would have allowed the Auditor
General the ability to review the financial transactions of
self-governing institutions making use of federal moneys, these
amendments were defeated by the Liberals at committee and in
this House.
As well, with respect to the expenditures of the board, I am
concerned with clause 23(2) and the notion that the board's
budget will include moneys for cross-cultural orientation and
education. This seems to be wide open for abuse. I am looking
forward to seeing the guidelines for cross-cultural orientation
and the expenditures that such an orientation will incur.
(1010)
Let us now turn to patronage. Other portions of this bill which
concern me are clauses 8 and 19. Clause 8 stipulates that
members of the board are to be appointed by the minister of
Indian affairs. This is a board that is ready for a whole multitude
of Liberal patronage appointments. The Liberals have shown no
fear in their first year in office in appointing their own cronies to
various positions within government or awarding government
contracts to the party faithful.
Then again maybe we are being too critical. After all, perhaps
it is all a coincidence and like the Prime Minister said they are
qualified individuals, they just happen to be Liberals.
Old line parties like the Liberals are incapable of raising their
political morality above this age old tradition of appointing old
friends and confidants. Accordingly we have proposed an
amendment which would allow half of the members of the board
to be appointed on the nomination of Yukon territorial
government. This would be similar to clause 9, section 2, which
permits Yukon Indians to put forward nominees to be appointed.
Again our amendment was voted down, thereby ensuring that 50
per cent of the board will be ripe for patronage appointments
from Ottawa.
The possibility of patronage does not end with appointments
from the federal government. Clause 19 of the bill allows the
board to hire consultants and advisers and fix the terms of their
employment as well as their remunerations. Again the
possibility exists whereby members of the board may seek to
employ their closest associates as consultants or advisers.
When and if these people are hired board members can use the
Prime Minister's excuse; yes, he is a consultant hired by the
board, yes he is very qualified and yes he just happens to be a
friend and, best of all, he happens to be a Liberal.
Let us now look at conflict of interest. Following closely on
the heels of this possible problem with patronage is the bill's
wilful disregard of problems surrounding conflict of interest
situations. Subclause 10(3) is very specific in assuring that
neither appointments nor an individual's membership on the
board shall be affected by the fact that they have an interest in
land in Yukon territory.
Therefore it is possible that a conflict of interest may arise
since a member of a panel of the board may have a direct interest
in the outcome of a case brought before him or her. Again we put
forward what seems to be a reasonable amendment to ensure that
board members may not sit on panels that are considering
matters which may have a direct impact on the interest of that
particular member. Again this was voted down by the Liberal
majority.
However there may still be hope since clauses 18(a) and 18(b)
allow the board to enact bylaws relating to the grounds for
removal of members and the assignment of members to panels,
respectively.
I would hope that the board in its wisdom and in drafting these
bylaws would ensure that a member can be removed for blatant
conflict of interest activities and that panels of the board will not
consist of individuals who have a direct interest in the outcome
of the cases before them.
We in the Reform Party have continually argued for public
involvement in these agreements between Indians and
government. The government of B.C. appears to have
recognized the discontent the populace is feeling with respect to
the secrecy of land claim negotiations and has taken some small
steps to open up the process.
The public wants to be consulted on these matters and it wants
to know how these agreements affect it. As residents of B.C., as
residents of Yukon and as citizens of Canada they have a right to
know, a right to participate. It is the crown's land that is being
dealt away and it is their money that is being scattered about.
8281
While the province of B.C. may be waking up to this reality
this government has made no meaningful attempt to include the
public in negotiation of these agreements.
(1015 )
DIAND briefing material with respect to Bill C-55 states that
the public was consulted by sending the guidelines to major
interest groups in Yukon. Not enough consultation? Then how
about this: An advertisement was placed in Yukon newspaper
announcing the availability of the guidelines for review by the
public.
The bottom line is that there was virtually no public
involvement and no information relating to the board, its
operations, its duties, its powers and how it affects the residents
of Yukon. We hear similar complaints over Yukon land claims
and self-government agreements.
There were only a chosen few who were aware that such
legislation was ready to be tabled. Indeed even as
parliamentarians we were not alerted until 48 hours before the
legislation was to be tabled in this House.
This government promised consultation. This government
promised public input. This government promised to listen.
These were hollow promises. Obviously this government is not
concerned about the public input. This government is not
worried about the public's concerns.
This government is simply worried about expediency in
passing legislation that creates more bureaucracy, more
patronage, more conflict of interest and costs the Canadian
taxpayers a ton of money. With these goals and with the present
financial health of the federal treasury it is apparent as to why
this government attempts to keep the public in the dark.
While I recognize that industry supposedly favours this bill
simply to settle native land claims in Yukon and therefore
remove blockades to investment, I cannot support this bill for
the reasons cited and its link to Bills C-33 and C-34.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on the
third reading of Bill C-55, Yukon surface rights board act.
I am honoured to participate in this debate because I know
how much this bill means to the people of Yukon. When we pass
this bill and it is proclaimed along with Bills C-33 and C-34
which were passed by this House last June Yukon land claims
settlement will come into force. The years of waiting will be
over. The people of Yukon will be able to get on with their lives
in new partnerships and new relationships with each other and
with other Canadians.
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-33, Yukon First Nations
Land Claims Settlement Act approves and gives effect to the
land claim agreements of four Yukon First Nations: the Vuntut
Gwichin First Nation, the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun, the
Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and the Teslin Tlingit
Council. Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act
gives effect to the self-government agreements of the same four
Yukon First Nations.
Bills C-33 and C-34 also authorize the governor in council to
approve and declare valid future land claims and
self-government agreements negotiated with the remaining 10
Yukon First Nations.
All these bills flow directly from the umbrella final
agreement signed by Canada, Yukon Territorial Government and
the Council for Yukon Indians on May 29, 1993.
Bill C-55 is the third and final piece of legislation required to
bring Yukon land claims settlement into effect. Through Bill
C-55 a new surface rights regime and dispute resolution
mechanism will be established in Yukon to accommodate the
new land regime set out in the claim agreement.
As a result of Bill C-55 industry and individuals in Yukon will
have a known regime for obtaining access to both private and
public lands. This regime will provide clear rules and
regulations. Once this bill is enacted and we begin to implement
First Nations final agreements there will be more certainty for
everyone in Yukon. That certainty will translate into economic
development opportunities. This will contribute to the
government's objectives of putting Canadians back to work. The
importance of providing this solid basis for economic growth
and diversification in Yukon cannot be overstated.
(1020)
Passage of this bill which will bring Yukon Indian land claim
into effect signals to all Canadians and to international investors
that Yukon is open for business. As well, the surface rights board
and the other institutions of public government that result from
Yukon land claim agreement will contribute to the political and
administrative development of the territory. Important
decisions will be made in Yukon, not in Ottawa. This is an
objective supported by all Yukoners, the territorial government
and the Government of Canada.
Clearly Bill C-55 does more than just create a new institution
of government. It is critical to the social, political and economic
evolution of Yukon.
I reviewed very carefully the speeches given by members of
the opposition during second reading debate of this bill. While
most were critical, as is to be expected in opposition speeches,
8282
some contributions were thoughtful and constructive. Others
were plain meanspirited and some contained errors of fact.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of
the Bloc Quebecois for their support in this House and in
committee of this bill and of the settlement of Yukon land claim.
The hon. member for Saint-Jean took the time this summer to
visit Yukon. He met with representatives of Yukon Indian people
when he was there. His effort to get to know this most beautiful
region of Canada and the wonderful people who live there is
appreciated. While I do not agree with his entire philosophy, his
effort to gain a better understanding of aboriginal issues by
going to Yukon was certainly a step in the right direction.
I trust the hon. member and his party will be as open-minded,
supportive and generous in dealing with the aboriginal claims of
the aboriginal peoples in his own province.
As an aside, I do have to correct the member on an incorrect
statement in his second reading speech on Bill C-55. He stated
that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was
entirely financed by the Quebec government and that the
Government of Canada did not invest any money in it. That is
false. The Government of Canada is a signatory to the James Bay
and Northern Quebec Agreement and has ongoing
implementation responsibilities and obligations. The
Government of Canada has provided substantial funding in
support of this agreement. I want to correct any
misunderstanding there.
Getting back to Bill C-55, during second reading most
members of the third party contributed a lot of misinformation. I
am being extremely charitable in this characterization of their
comments. This bill was called a recipe for disaster, among
other things on more than one occasion.
I want to assure members of the third party that Yukon land
claim settlement, which this bill will help bring into force, is not
a divisive thing. It is an achievement of which all Yukoners and
indeed all Canadians can be proud. It represents a bonding of the
peoples, a coming together of different interests and
perspectives for the common good.
I remind hon. members that the bill before us today cements
an agreement which took over 20 years to negotiate. The parties
to this agreement, Yukon territorial government, the federal
government and the Council for Yukon Indians, all brought
different positions and views to the negotiating table.
Over the years negotiations floundered many times. Leaders
and governments changed. Negotiators changed. Negotiating
parameters changed. This process was fitful and frustrating, but
the parties stuck to it. They did not give up hope. They argued,
compromised and they emerged finally with an agreement. This
is therefore a proud day for Yukoners and they deserve our
congratulations.
What has been accomplished in Yukon is no small
achievement. The agreements and the bills effecting the
agreements may not be perfect, but they are the products of
many people working together for common objectives: mutual
respect and recognition, clarity of rules, certainty of rights, and
a better future for future generations. This is a made in Yukon
deal, made by Yukoners for Yukoners and it is unique to Yukon.
It reflects Yukon needs and aspirations.
(1025)
Thus far I have restrained myself in this speech from rebutting
some of the more provocative and outrageous comments made
by members of the third party, but there is one I just cannot let go
by. The comment I am referring to was made by a member of the
third party, who will remain nameless, during second reading
debate. The comment is in reference to Bill C-55. He stated: ``It
borders on the tragic to heap so much responsibility on so few''.
Let me assure the member and all members of that party that
Yukon is more than ready for this responsibility. Yukoners will
handle this responsibility much better than anyone else. Size is
not a determinant of value or worth. So what if the population of
Yukon is less than most cities in Canada, as some members of
the third party pointed out. The Yukon and its people deserve the
same respect, consideration and recognition of their rights and
abilities to make their own decisions as anyone else in this
country. They have agreed through their elected leaders to forge
a new direction and build a better future together. Their decision
must be respected and supported.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by quoting from
the presentation made by the Council for Yukon Indians to the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its review of
Bill C-55: ``The enactment of Yukon surface rights board act
will pave the way for the proclamation of Yukon Land Claims
and Self-Government Acts. The Council for Yukon Indians and
Yukon First Nations have worked extremely hard in the past 21
years to see the manifestation of the vision of Yukon First
Nation elders. Yukon First Nations look forward to participating
in these constitutional innovative regimes that have been
advanced and negotiated in the interests of all parties
concerned''.
So do we. On behalf of the minister and the government, I
extend warm congratulations and best wishes for success to all
the people of Yukon.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member opposite for his speech.
8283
I probably should begin by saying that I restrained myself
from rising on a point of order when he used terminology which
just yesterday was ruled unparliamentary by the Speaker in
referring to us.
I would like to tell hon. members and this member in
particular, as emphatically as I can, that we bear absolutely
nothing but the very, very best wishes for the people he is
representing. It is very unfair, I think, when we begin to debate
the issues to degenerate into name calling. I resent that because I
do not think it adds to the debate at all.
I would like to ask some very serious questions. First of all, in
the government ramming through Bills C-33 and C-34 last
June, did it really add to the understanding and the conviviality
among different parts of our society? One of the problems is that
many people feel that things are being rammed down their
throats and they have no real input. We do not have an
opportunity as members of Parliament to represent the wishes of
all our constituents.
It seems to me that it would have been much better had we
taken the time to debate, to allow the Canadian people to have
some real input into this and to build a level of understanding
and acceptance of the deal that was made. If it really is that good
it should be saleable. If it is not saleable then let us fix up the
things that are not so that we can understand and accept, and I
will even go so far as to say love each other that much more.
(1030 )
With respect to the bill before us today and the building of this
board, once again everybody else is disenfranchised. Everybody
else has no input. It is just being rammed through. There will be
a board but it does not represent the rest of Canadians who are
also contributing to the financial bill and who have an interest in
that regard and in everything that happens there.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the process in
which this is all being done. Could we not do better? I
understand and accept that there is some impatience here after
20 years of process and we have to move on. But we need to ask
the questions very seriously. What is best in order to build a
relationship among all Canadians and how does this process
help it when we ram it through like this?
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon.
parliamentary secretary, this Chair was not in the chair when the
Speaker ruled on the word mean spirited. If the hon.
parliamentary secretary was in the House, it is my impression
that was a ruling two days ago or perhaps three. I wonder if the
parliamentary secretary would be kind enough to withdraw that
word before he deals with the questions that have been put.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, if indeed that word was ruled out
of order, I withdraw the word.
I want to comment on the member's remarks of the last few
minutes. It is surprising to hear him talk, without reflecting on
the past, of the need for consulting with the people of Canada
which we as a government are doing on a lot of issues.
I might remind the hon. member that there was not much
consultation when the land of Yukon, the Northwest Territories
and Canada was sort of taken over by a group of people without
asking the people who lived in that region. I think the aboriginal
people of Yukon are well justified in getting this agreement
through. The Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon
and the aboriginal people of Yukon should be congratulated for
putting together such an agreement.
I made the remark earlier because of some comments of the
past. I say this because of some deep concern that there is room
for intolerance as a result of some comments made by some
members of the third party. I quote directly from second reading
of the bill a member of the third party. It says: ``I urge members
who believe in fairness, honesty and accountability to oppose
this bill as it portrays the epitome of patronage and racial bias
for which Canadians should never be known''.
That was an unacceptable comment by a member of the third
party. Part of the same comment states: ``Such land claims, self
government and racially segregated mediation boards will set a
precedent for future negotiations with aboriginals which
Canadian taxpayers will be hard pressed to pay for''.
The government of Yukon and the people and the Council for
Yukon Indians are all in support. They have adopted this bill.
Therefore, I do not think there is any room for the kind of
remarks that have been made in the past. I say this as a response
to comments made during second reading of this bill, not as
comments that I am putting forward on my own. If members
want, I can carry on for another 10 minutes quoting comments
during second reading to make sure that the people of Canada
know what has been said by the third party.
(1035)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest, especially to the commentary
at the end. For years we have heard nothing but the abuse that
native Indians suffered through the administration of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This
is part of the same government that helped set those laws in
process.
Here it is telling us to trust it once again, to further a problem
that is liable to occur and keep on occurring. This is beyond
belief. It put a restriction in front of the natives in Yukon of only
50 per cent of the members on the board. Why can it not be 100
per cent? Why does this government automatically assume that
only 50 per cent of the natives there are capable of making this
decision and not 100 per cent of the natives?
8284
This is put on by that side of the House. I could go on and say
that to me this seems like a very racial hindrance.
Mr. Adams: What is the percentage of natives in Yukon?
Mr. Stinson: Why do you put a qualification on any people in
this country? Why put that roadblock in front of them?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. Again, I
appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary's courtesy. In
Hansard on Wednesday, page 8173, a minister in fact used the
word that came up earlier. The minister said, and I quote: ``With
the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw''.
My colleague said if the ruling was made. He now knows that the
ruling was made.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word. However, I
want to advise the hon. member that he does not seem to have
much confidence in the people of Yukon or the Government of
Canada-
Mr. Stinson: More than you do. Why do they not go for 100
per cent?
Mr. Anawak: -in appointing aboriginal people as part of
their 50 per cent. Hopefully the Council for Yukon Indians will
appoint its 50 per cent as aboriginal people. If it chooses, it does
not necessarily have to be aboriginal people. I have great
confidence that the Government of Yukon and the Government
of Canada, if they choose to, will appoint aboriginal people to
the panels.
Mr. Stinson: The other 50 per cent will be legal hacks.
Mr. Anawak: If they do not, it is their prerogative. I have
more confidence than the hon. member in the Government of
Canada and the Government of Yukon in having confidence in
the aboriginal leaders.
I just say these things. I mention the mediation boards.
Mr. Stinson: You are saying they should be restricted to 50
per cent and no more.
Mr. Anawak: I quote at second reading from another speech
made by a member of the third party: ``The potential for conflict
of interest is also there because claims are not assumed to be
reviewed by the entire board but by a panel of three. At least one
must be a member appointed to the board from the Council for
Yukon Indians and two others are to be chosen by the
chairperson. Could this not end with a blatant bias or conflict if
all were from the Council for Yukon Indians? There are no rules
to the contrary''.
I rest my case.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, the last
in a series of three bills aimed at implementing the provisions of
agreements in respect of certain lands in Yukon, negotiated by
Yukon, Canada and Yukon first nations.
To give an indication of the importance of adopting this kind
of bill, I would like to start by putting it into the context of the
broader issue of aboriginal land claims, not only in Quebec and
Canada but throughout the world. We all know that the rights of
aboriginal peoples have become an issue in many countries: in
North America, South America and Asia, where since the 15th
or the 16th century, Europeans came to settle lands that were
occupied by aboriginal peoples.
The Europeans became established either through conquest,
colonization or various other ways, and as their numbers
increased over the centuries, aboriginal populations were
pushed into a minority position. In the past 20, 25 or 30 years,
aboriginal peoples have become aware of the importance of
surviving as a people and maintaining their identity. They drew
up land claims so that, in certain regions, areas or countries,
they could continue, as much as possible, to live according to the
traditional ways of their ancestors, or otherwise obtain the
requisite political and economical leverage to be able to
perpetuate their identity as a people on a viable basis.
The bill before the House this morning is part of this vast
endeavour to satisfy the land claims of the aboriginal peoples,
while bearing in mind the hard cold fact that other people now
live in these territories as well, and in some cases, have done so
for many centuries, and also have the right to live there.
Canada and Quebec have initiated negotiations with various
first nations on their territorial claims. In Canada, a number of
agreements have already been concluded, such as James Bay in
1975, the agreement on Nunavut in the MacKenzie River Delta,
and now Yukon.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development, I have, of course, been
involved in the proceedings of this committee, and since I also
have a personal interest, I read up on the situation in Yukon and
what had happened so far, and I realized that it was imperative
and absolutely essential to ratify these agreements as soon as
possible.
As you know Yukon is in Canada's north. It was originally
part of the territory that was given to the Hudson's Bay
Company by the Crown and that included all of northern Canada
and northern Quebec. This immense tract of land became the
property of a private company. The Hudson's Bay Company
took
8285
advantage of the territory's resources, especially through its
involvement in the fur trade.
Aboriginal people in Yukon came into contact with the white
man in the person of the employees of the Hudson's Bay
Company. They were also exposed to influences from the south,
in a perhaps more brutal manner, during the famous gold rush in
the Klondike at the end of the 19th century. At the time, many
people came from the south to look for gold in Yukon, disrupting
the traditional ways of the aboriginal peoples in this region.
There was also the construction of the Alaska Highway in the
1940s by the United States, to connect the U.S. territory with the
territory of Alaska.
(1045)
The result was that Yukon was brutally invaded by people
from the south. We are not here to pass judgment. It happened
long ago, people behaved the way they were used to, and I do not
think it would serve any purpose to dwell on the past. However,
we have to realize that injustices were created and that new
arrangements must be put in place if the people who live there
are to develop in harmony, and if their economic, social and
political needs are to be fulfilled.
I think that we have to watch our language carefully. When we
look at what happened in Quebec over the last 20 years and what
is happening now, we realize that governments and people are
demanding that we settle the outstanding issues. Except it is
extremely fragile. Negotiations are often difficult because the
issues are complex. There are important constitutional and
economic questions involved. There is also a basic political
dimension.
When we talk about self-determination, self-government or
sovereignty, we deal with emotionally-packed concepts and all
sorts of reactions from the people. We just have to recall the
reactions to the recent declarations of a Quebec native leader in
New York, where the word ``racist'' was bandied about. I think
that it is rather inappropriate to use such a word in that particular
context. We are in a negotiating context, where you must keep
your cool to be able to come up with something which will be
fair to all involved.
When issues like racism are raised, a notion so emotionally
charged because of the long racist history of mankind-just
think of what happened to the Jews and the Gypsies during the
Second World War-we are often taken aback, stunned and
disappointed to see it surface in the papers, in the minds and in
conversations, and being applied to situations occurring in
Canada.
We cannot say that the situation in Canada is one of racism. I
believe that no one among native people and non-natives is
going to form a particular opinion about a specific group
because one member of this group is of a different ethnic origin
or race.
One must be very careful in Canada when using the word
racism. One may talk about ethnocentricity, prejudices or many
other similar things-there is no shortage of terms-but I
believe that accusations of racism must be avoided because it
could trigger a chain reaction with far-reaching consequences,
especially with respect to negotiations which have been going
on for years and could fail because the negotiating parties might
see in each other all kind of sinister intentions.
I wanted to get this off my chest before dealing more
specifically with Bill C-55.
This piece of legislation seeks to set up a board to settle
disputes that might arise between parties to the agreements
reached in Yukon. As we know, last June this House passed Bill
C-33 and Bill C-34, which were enacted in July. These acts give
effect to land claim agreements concerning Yukon and deal with
certain matters relating to self-government for native people in
Yukon Territory.
(1050)
Negotiations prior to these agreements had been going on for
over twenty years. There were many difficulties. The
negotiation framework was hard to develop. People took a very
strong stand at first, one party wanting everything while the
other was reluctant to yield anything, vetoing the claims, so to
speak.
Little by little, over the years, people learned to know one
another, setting up the framework for the negotiations. These
negotiations finally ended in the early 1990s. The agreement
before us this morning is simply to ensure that there are
arbitrators are appointed when disputes arise between the
parties to the agreement in the Yukon.
Before getting further into the consideration of Bill C-55, I
would like to take a second to remind the hon. members that both
bills we have passed recognized that Yukon aboriginal peoples
did have rights over certain lands, that is to say surface and
subsurface rights over some lands and surface rights on others,
lands that can form the basis for a certain economic life so that
these peoples will no longer be dependent upon federal
government subsidies.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt read the Auditor
General's report and noted the rather explicit criticism of the
social assistance provided to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
It is reported that approximately 40 to 45 per cent of natives in
Canada depend on social assistance. On certain reserves, it is up
to 80 or 85 per cent of the population. That is a huge percentage!
There is an enormous problem there. The Auditor General tells
us that it costs $1 billion, because that is how much is paid out to
the people, the people who are running the reserves, and that
insufficient control is exercised over the use made of these
funds.
8286
I agree with the Auditor General that tighter control is
required. But what the Auditor General is telling us in his report
is that control over this $1 billion may not be perfect. At the
same time, he says that $1 billion is paid out to aboriginal
peoples because they are really having a rough time on the
social, economic, health and education front.
In such circumstances, I do not think that the thing to do
would be to say: ``We need a billion dollars. We will take this
billion and use it for something else in the budget and let these
people manage on their own''. We must think instead in terms of
creating conditions where they will no longer need social
assistance.
I think that the kind of agreement we have reached respecting
the Yukon, and those respecting other parts of Canada such as
the Mackenzie Delta, the Nunavut, the James Bay area in
Quebec-and there are more coming-all these agreements will
enable the aboriginal peoples concerned to lay the economic
foundations required to no longer depend on government
assistance for their social and economic development.
I think that this is essential and that is why agreements such as
this one must be encouraged and legislation to implement such
agreements be passed as quickly as possible.
As my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier, certainly
it is quick. At the Indian affairs committee, we considered both
Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 in June. These were complex bills.
There are often concepts involved that are very difficult to
grasp. While the committee may not have been pressured, it
certainly had to make haste.
(1055)
This committee even sat all night on one occasion. This
unusual experience shows that important decisions were made. I
think that sitting all night on this committee will be a highlight
of my life as a parliamentarian. Representatives of Yukon first
nations came and spent the night with the committee to show us
how crucial this bill is to them.
It is sometimes ill-advised to move too fast; however, when
dealing with important issues, it is often pointless and even
harmful to drag things out. That is why we must act now so that
the representatives who negotiated in good faith in the hope of
improving the lives of their people will not be disappointed. In
such cases, when an agreement is reached after 20 years, we
cannot afford to disappoint people by unduly delaying its
adoption. Especially when we know how hard it is for a standing
committee and even for the House of Commons to challenge
agreements negotiated with the help of many experts and
lawyers over a number of years.
I think that we must put some trust in those who negotiated the
agreements and those who reviewed them, like the Bloc
members on the standing committee who, after examining the
entire bill, did not find anything that would justify unduly
delaying its passage.
Of course, we can improve any bill by proposing amendments
to it. With respect to Bill C-55, I might have had some concerns,
like my colleague from the Reform Party, about how committee
members are chosen. It might have been better to ensure as much
as possible that committee members are not appointed because
of partisan considerations-if that can be done within the party
system prevailing in Canada.
Canadians increasingly feel that the people appointed to
government positions should be chosen for their personal ability
and not because they belong to a party. I think that people in
Yukon will be especially sensitive to the quality of those
appointed to this board.
I am pleased to support this bill. I hope that the people of the
Yukon will implement it as soon as possible so that they can
ensure their own development and that we as Quebecers and
Canadians can establish the best possible relationship with them
in the future.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have three
minutes left to conclude after question period.
It being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8286
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in recent days we have heard a great deal from certain
Reform members of Parliament about ACOA's funding
practices.
A recent contribution to Canadian Hybrid Farms in my riding
of Annapolis Valley-Hants was singled out as an example of
alleged wasteful government spending.
The decision to make a contribution to this firm demonstrates
ACOA's commitment to assisting leading edge companies set up
shop and succeed in Atlantic Canada. This company has focused
its efforts in developing a new strain of genetically altered
hamsters for use by the scientific community in researching
heart disease in humans. Medical researchers from around the
world rely on these hamsters in order to test the efficiency of
cardiovascular drugs.
(1100 )
Through its diversity of programming ACOA has consistently
shown itself to be a leader in promoting economic development
in Atlantic Canada. Its contribution to this important project is
one more example of its commitment.
8287
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to point out that the provision of telephone
service in rural Ontario is not adequate and when compared to
urban areas can only be described as second class.
There is no requirement that telephone service be provided
beyond 62 meters of the existing system. Although quite
adequate to ensure subscribers in cities receive new services at
reasonable costs, in rural areas it means many individuals must
pay thousands of dollars for a phone hookup.
The reality for many of my constituents is that the security
and convenience of phone service most of us take for granted are
not available to them. In addition, large portions of my riding
have been embargoed, meaning private lines are not available.
This policy discriminates against rural Canadians wishing to
establish businesses depending on such simple tools as faxes
and computer modems, let alone access to the information
highway. In areas where economic development is most needed
the required communication infrastructure is being denied.
I urge the Minister of Communications to amend the Bell
Canada Act of 1902 and to end this discrimination against rural
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
lately when discussing the country's financial situation with
groups in my riding it became clear to me that the message of
fiscal restraint has been heard by Canadians. People in my riding
are ready for the government to make the tough choices that are
needed to get our financial house in order.
I have also been disturbed by how some people, especially
from the far right of the political spectrum, are using the present
financial difficulties as an excuse to advocate brutal measures
against the poor.
The debt and deficit remain real problems. The medicine will
be no doubt bitter but I have every reason to believe that the
government will be looking for ways to make our social security
system more fair and equitable without hurting those most in
need.
I condemn those who use our present financial difficulty as an
excuse to impose their right wing agenda on the poorest and
most vulnerable in our society.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at their annual meeting, held in
Jonquière, the 300 delegates from the Quebec steelworkers
union decided to support sovereignty during the next
referendum on Quebec's future. This central labour body feels
that sovereignty is the only way to ensure that Quebec has the
necessary tools to look after its economic, political and
sociocultural development.
Occupational training will be the top priority for steelworkers
in the years to come. They believe that this whole sector should
fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. In fact, Quebecers have been
requesting this for years, but Ottawa has always categorically
refused to consider that option.
The decision made by the steelworkers illustrates once again
the importance and the diversity of the various groups
supporting sovereignty in Quebec, and we are very pleased to
see that.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is telling federal civil
servants that they should fear sovereignty for Quebec, his
government is about to make cuts in its public service.
According to persisting rumours among civil servants, which
were even repeated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada,
30,000 positions will be eliminated in February, when the next
federal budget is tabled. It appears that these cuts would
primarily affect civil servants working in the national capital,
since regional staff has already been reduced significantly.
Consequently, this massive reduction in the public service
population of the Ottawa region has nothing to do with the threat
of separation, the election of a PQ government, or the role of
Bloc Quebecois MPs in this House. This government will be the
only one to blame if such despicable cuts are made in the public
service.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance accused the Government of
Quebec of not being concerned about job creation. He seems to
forget that in an impressive number of areas, it is the federal
government which is preventing job creation in Quebec.
8288
(1105)
The federal government refuses to transfer all powers for
labour training to Quebec and is thus preventing the
implementation of a comprehensive and coherent job creation
strategy in Quebec.
The federal government is refusing to reduce unemployment
insurance premiums even though it said that lowering them
would create jobs. The federal government is also refusing to
implement a real defence conversion policy. And what about
MIL Davie?
The Minister of Finance should look in his own back yard and
get down to work.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that there are approximately seven million
legitimate gun owners in Canada and that the use of guns results
in one of the safest, most thoroughly self-policed recreational
activities anywhere.
To qualify for a purchase of a firearm or a hunting licence,
Canadians must pass numerous examinations and training
courses on firearms knowledge, safe firearms handling, wildlife
identification and safe hunting procedures.
Handgun owners are required to undergo an even tougher
application process and have rigid security restrictions. Yet
despite all these controls, knee-jerk Liberalism has sprung into
effect to establish even tougher gun laws when we know the
problem is the criminal use of guns and not with the legal gun
owners.
I challenge the Minister of Justice to do the right thing, which
is to get tough on criminals and forget about creating laws that
make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
newspapers can be a useful cross-reference. Let us consider
three stories carried by the
Globe and Mail on November 16,
1994. All three related to spending abuses, all three connected
by real estate and all three about the CBC.
In one story Keith Spicer, president of the CRTC, asked for
the CBC to be given breathing space from the continuous rounds
of budget cuts. Then the editorials ran a letter from the CBC's
vice-president of finance as he attempted to defend the expenses
of the CBC's broadcasting centre.
It is amazing how creative accounting can actually justify a
yearly rental cost of almost $50 million which will balloon to
over $200 million in the next 10 years, all of it taxpayers'
money.
The third story revolved around the changes to CBC
``Midday''. Will we indeed see that program co-hosted out of
Vancouver? At what cost? What will happen to the current cosy
and expensive ``Midday'' studio at the broadcast centre in
Toronto? More redundancy, more excuses, more expenditure
abuse.
Hats off to my handy reference guide. It made my day.
* * *
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of criminal responsibility in cases of extreme
intoxication has been receiving a lot of attention lately.
Nicole Hilliard from Surrey wrote the following:
I am sure you are already familiar with the man from Alberta who went on
a 30-hour drinking binge, then beat his wife up and was acquitted due to his
mental state.
I ask: ``Did anyone force this man to consume a bottle of rye, vodka, and
several bottles of beer?''
If someone consumes too much alcohol, gets behind the wheel of a car,
then kills someone, you can guarantee that no court in Canada would decide
to acquit that person based on his or her drinking.
If this law is not changed we will see more and more individuals acquitted
because criminals in Canada have avoided responsibility time and again
thanks to the outdated criminal justice system. Laws like this one are
completely unacceptable and insulting.
Reformers will continue to stand up for the rights of victims
and push for changes to our justice system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I would like to point out the importance of the mining industry in
Canada.
[English]
The mining industry is a real economic generator in the
country. For example, we owe 16 per cent of the country's
exports to the mining industry. It accounts for 4.6 per cent of
GDP and provides 100,000 high paying skilled jobs in areas of
the country where there is otherwise very little economic
activity.
We only have to cast our eyes about this room to recognize
how important the mining industry is to our daily lives. While
today's high tech and manufacturing industries rely to varying
8289
degrees on the mining industry, the mining industry also
incorporates much advanced technology in many of its
processes.
We must properly recognize that the mining industry is
important to our economic well-being and do what we can to
keep mining in Canada.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently American news magazine ``60 Minutes'' aired a story
called the ``Ugly Face of Freedom''. After watching the show I
was appalled at the story. Normally ``60 Minutes'' has very high
journalistic standards. This time the standards were much lower.
(1110)
The story focused on anti-Semitism in the Ukrainian city of
Lvov. The story talked about right-wing political movements
calling for a Ukraine populated by only ethnic Ukrainians.
These right-wing splinter factions are also vehemently
anti-Semitic, according to the ``60 Minutes'' story.
The rise of right wing politics is occurring all across Europe
but the groups are small in numbers. The media likes to lionize
these groups as they make good press, but in their efforts to
attract viewers they have slandered Ukrainians everywhere.
Ukrainians both in Canada and in Ukraine denounce the rise
of these radical hate groups and call upon ``60 Minutes'' to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the involvement of communities in restoring our
environment is essential. Governments can show leadership and
set the stage but partnerships with communities are crucial to
achieving success.
Two hundred and fifteen thousand dollars was recently
awarded by Environment Canada's Atlantic coastal action
program for projects designed to improve the environment in
five communities in the Atlantic provinces. In addition
$100,000 has been allocated for four regional initiatives that
will benefit all thirteen of the sites and their community groups.
The Atlantic coastal action program was established in direct
response to local citizens' concerns. In my coastal communities
the problems are polluted waterways, haphazard development
and lack of concern for the environment.
I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment on the success of her department's initiative in
facilitating the Atlantic coastal action program. She is to be
congratulated on recognizing the strength of communities in
restoring the environment for everyone.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the service sector is an integral part of the Canadian economy
and for this reason November has been declared National
Services Month. In 1993 service industries represented
three-quarters of Canada's gross domestic product, amounting
to $387 billion.
In my riding of London-Middlesex economic activity is
generated by services such as banking, insurance, construction,
transportation, utilities, communications, professional,
consumer and services business. As a matter of fact service
industries account for more than 78 per cent of total
employment in Canada and account for seven out of ten jobs in
each province.
I praise the efforts of the people who have contributed to the
success of the service industry. I commend our government for
its continued support of this important sector of our economy.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning I had the opportunity and the privilege of meeting with
the Association of Central American Farmers Organizations for
Co-Operation and Development.
This is an umbrella organization that seeks to promote the
interests of small and medium sized farmers in Central America
at regional and international levels. It has been on a tour of
Canada to meet with Canadian farm leaders and policy makers
and to promote a vision for the sustainable development of
Central America.
I congratulate ASOCODE for its efforts. As it suggested, we
must go beyond a bureaucratic level in a relationship with
Central and Latin America. We must continue to further the
efforts of the government in working at a political level and
should expand to working with populist groups as well.
I found working with such groups extremely enlightening in
developing understanding. I encourage all parliamentarians to
focus some attention on the needs of Central America and what
we have in common.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
committee a member of Parliament made it clear that in hiring
he asked potential employees if they were married. He also
expressed concern that mothers might bring their parental
responsibilities into the office which would impair their ability
to do their job.
8290
I am a mother and a wife. I am proud to say that the
constituents of St. John's East do not feel the same way as my
colleague from across the House. My constituents believe that I
am capable of representing their views and fulfilling my job as a
mother, and I am proud to do so.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform proposals for spending cuts of about $10
billion are politically courageous since they identify groups and
institutions that will undoubtedly launch strong attacks and will
paint Reform as lacking compassion.
(1115 )
However, we took these risks precisely because we are
compassionate. If Canada will hit the financial wall, those cuts
will look puny and the needy will have to suffer. We also use
principles of fairness in our recommendations. We propose cuts
at the top including politicians pensions and perks and cuts for
private business as well as special interest groups.
Frankly and proudly the cuts are also based on a different
vision of the role of government, one which gets government out
of the lives of Canadians, encourages the family and free
enterprise and reduces the power of publicly financed media
elites.
Reform awaits anxiously the government's proposals that will
slow down the debt clock which now is at $538,203,000,000.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Campaign 2000 released its fifth annual
report card on this country's progress toward the goal of
eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. In this International
Year of the Family, the federal government has received a
failing grade. Child poverty is on the increase. In this the fifth
year of the anniversary of the House of Commons' unanimous
motion to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, there are
about 331,000 more poor children today than there were five
years ago.
Instead of dealing with the problem of child poverty, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has set this country
on a course that will leave children behind. It is time for all
parliamentarians to support the recommendation of Campaign
2000, create jobs, raise corporate taxes and use social programs
to redistribute the wealth. It is time for action.
8290
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
night, on the French CBC program
Le Point, Major Armstrong
told us about another aspect of the unfortunate events which
took place in Somalia and confirmed that Canadian soldiers had
literally lured Somalis with water and food before capturing
them and treating them in the way we have all heard about.
Responding to the demands of the Official Opposition, the
defence minister decided to move up the inquiry on the incidents
in Somalia and announced that it would begin early in the new
year.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. Given the horror
of these new revelations, why does the minister not initiate the
public inquiry right now, so that the crimes committed in
Somalia can be elucidated as soon as possible?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I answered a similar question from members of the Reform
Party yesterday in the House of Commons.
It is very important to respect the judicial system and, on the
basis of the legal counsel I received, I decided that it would be
advisable to start the inquiry after the courts martial, but before
the court martial disposes of the appeals.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
many very important facts were covered up in the first
investigation on the events in Somalia, does the minister not
agree that his duty requires him to launch the public inquiry
immediately to get to the bottom of these events, thus
eliminating or reducing the risk of undue pressure being brought
to bear on potential witnesses in this affair?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my duty is to respect the judicial system in this country.
[English]
I have said earlier that what is very important in dealing with
these tragic events is to ensure that those people who have been
accused are dealt with the in the proper way in front of the courts
martial.
What I also said yesterday is that we believe that it would be
appropriate to commence the inquiry after any disposition of
further charges, there is one particular case that could go to a
court martial, but before the appeals are concluded.
8291
(1120)
That means that in the early part of next year this inquiry
which, I repeat, will be public, open and civilian, will get under
way and will deal with all of the specific allegations that have
been made.
I asked the chief of defence staff to remind members of the
armed forces of the rules with respect to speaking on military
matters and I do note that Major Armstrong taped the interview
with Le Point about two or three days ago before I made this
announcement yesterday.
I think the best situation now is to allow all complaints, all
concerns by anyone in the forces or elsewhere to go to the
inquiry when it starts in the new year.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as for
the constraints of the inquiry now under way and the trials, I will
remind the minister that he has already taken a first step, at our
request, and moved the inquiry ahead of any possible appeal
process. We think that he should continue in this direction and
instead of asking senior army officers to keep the military from
talking about the events in Somalia, does the minister not
believe that he should act as openly as possible and announce
right now whether he intends to entrust the powers of a real
commission of public inquiry to those who will have to
investigate the situation in Somalia?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to correct one thing the hon. member said. The inquiry will not
prejudice the appeals that will be going on perhaps at the same
time.
With respect to the other part of the question, in terms of the
conditions, the terms of reference of the inquiry, this question
was posed last Friday by his colleague and these terms of
reference are being worked on by the judge advocate general of
the Canadian Armed Forces and also the officials of the
Department of Justice. Once we announce the composition of
the inquiry, the head of the inquiry and the other board members,
the terms of reference will also be announced.
Those terms of reference will be wide enough and broad
enough to deal with all of the complaints made by people such as
Major Armstrong and members of the opposition and other
people in the country who feel that this particular matter is
grave, and we agree, and has to be dealt with as expeditiously as
possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
It seems that this morning, a precarious cease-fire was
concluded at Bihac, where 20 of the 55 Canadian peacekeepers
are still being held hostage by Serb forces. This cease-fire
should provide an opportunity for resumption of negotiations
between the parties concerned and eventually lead to the
resolution of this problem.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what the
situation is now in Bihac and indicate the terms of this
cease-fire?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have no exact information on the terms of the cease-fire in
Bihac. Perhaps I may point out that we only have five Canadians
in Bihac. Most of the soldiers who are being detained, and there
are 55, are based near Visoko, north of Sarajevo.
[English]
There are 55 Canadians currently being detained. Nothing has
changed on their situation. They are in good shape. We are
negotiating for their release. It is part of the larger problem
dealing with the question of Bihac. We do have five Canadians
in Bihac. There have been reports of some cessation of
hostilities today in Bihac and we hope that will mean there will
be some normalization of events.
At the moment there is little change from what we described
yesterday.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear that only five and not 20 Canadian soldiers were
taken hostage in Bihac, but the minister will agree that five is
still five too many.
Considering the fact that Canadian peacekeepers are still
being kept hostage in Bosnia, could the minister indicate what
position Canada has taken vis-à-vis its partners regarding the
possibility of continuing air strikes?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
ambassador in Brussels at NATO was engaged in discussions
yesterday about the future use of air power.
8292
(1125)
Nothing has changed from the course of events that was
decided upon earlier this year, that if a UN safe haven is
attacked, if UNPROFOR forces are attacked, the UN would have
the right to ask NATO to engage in air strikes.
I think it is premature at this point to expect any further
attacks in the next few days. This matter is under discussion not
only between NATO and the UN but also between the warring
parties in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, further to the questioning of the Minister of
National Defence on the Bosnia situation, yesterday he
acknowledged that Canadian troops in Bosnia are in a very
dangerous situation and he indicated that very little has
changed.
The most recent reports indicate that the situation may have
even deteriorated further. Last night retired Major General
Lewis MacKenzie was quoted as saying: ``The United States
was willing to fight to the last Canadian''.
Given the growing danger, will the minister tell Canadians if
he even has one contingency plan and if he does what that plan
might be?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an essential
part of military planning is that you do not reveal what your
plans are to anyone other than the people you command.
It is a tragic situation but the question amuses me. The
reputation and the experience of the Canadian Armed Forces not
only in the former Yugoslavia but elsewhere should lead the hon.
member to have confidence that the chief of defence staff and all
those in the Canadian command, including the rest of the
UNPROFOR forces, know what the problems are and will know
how to deal with any situation that may arise.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would not bring this matter to the attention of the
minister except that we are hearing reports actually back from
the field saying that they are concerned that there is no plan and
morale is becoming lower.
The Minister of National Defence insists on referring to the
detention of Canadian soldiers but let us speak frankly as the UN
commander has done and admit that our troops are now being
held as hostages and as bargaining chips.
As we noted yesterday, the minister promised to withdraw
Canadians if the situation on the ground changed or if their
safety were called into question. How far must the situation
deteriorate before the government acts to remove troops from
this dangerous situation?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can
categorically say there is no morale problem with the Canadian
forces in Bosnia and Croatia. If anything is going to undermine
morale it is the comments of parliamentarians like the hon.
member opposite and his colleague yesterday who made
unfortunate references to possible situations involving fatalities
of our soldiers.
We are all Canadians. It does not matter what party we
represent. These people are our people representing the country,
doing work for the UN Let us not compromise their safety any
more than we have to.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure this House that I speak out of concern and
based on warnings that have been coming forward for several
months.
This is symptomatic of a larger problem. The Auditor General
pointed out earlier this week that policy development systems in
the Department of National Defence have significant
difficulties, that capability objectives are not clearly stated, and
that the Canadian forces are not always sure what they are
supposed to be doing and what equipment they will use.
Will the minister in light of the situation in Bosnia in which
Canadian troops have lacked clear objectives from the
beginning make it a priority to develop objectives to avoid a
repeat of the Bosnian morass?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little
annoyed. We have had two debates in this House about the
engagement, the deployment of our troops in Bosnia and
Croatia. There was a consensus that Canada should discharge its
obligations and stay there. This is not a matter of partisan
debate. I realize some people have reservations. There was a
consensus. We have tried to depoliticize this whole debate.
To link the Auditor General's report, which describes a
situation that we inherited from the former government and one
which we are correcting, to the current tragic situation on the
ground in Bosnia is absolutely irresponsible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his latest
report, the Auditor General found that accounts receivable
totalled $6.6 billion.
(1130)
Last Tuesday, the Minister of National Revenue said, in an
attempt to downplay the problem, and I quote: ``The total
accounts receivable stopped growing last year and is now
declining. I believe that we will continue to be able to reduce
that sum''.
8293
Would the minister agree that last year, the proportion of
unpaid taxes, compared with net tax revenues, continued to rise,
which would indicate a significant deterioration of the
situation?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said to the House on
two occasions last week.
The accounts receivable are in fact accounts receivable. They
are not the area of the accounting system we regard as lost
accounts which we will never collect. It is not that at all. Last
year we collected $8.8 billion from accounts receivable even
though the average level was at $6.6 billion. In other words, I
can repeat to the House that we will collect the vast majority of
the accounts receivable with interest in that $6.6 billion figure.
Canadians should know and fully understand there is not some
pot of gold out there which can be brought in and then used to
reduce the deficit. All the money in the $6.6 billion account
which is recoverable and will be recovered with interest is
money that is already taken into account by the government in
its budgetary calculations.
The hon. member should recognize that this is normal
business procedure. For us to try and collect the $6.6 billion
immediately will result only in more companies in Canada
going into bankruptcy and more honest Canadians being
harassed for their last dime.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the
minister agree that much remains to be done and that his
department should immediately put in place a system that will
accelerate the collection of large accounts receivable, as
recommended by the Auditor General?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only say that one year ago yesterday I
issued a press release announcing a series of measures to
improve the recovery of moneys owing to the government. This
ad resulted in some billions of dollars coming in. For example,
in this fiscal year we anticipate it will result in an extra $3.8
billion coming in as a result of these new measures.
I sent that press release out to everybody, including the press
gallery, one year ago yesterday. The Auditor General at the end
of May when the fiscal year ended, four months after I sent out
this report, looked at the year. Most of the months in that year
were Tory months and not months that I was minister. He said
there were certain things that needed to be done. My press
release was in fact a preface to the Auditor General's report with
respect to collections.
Two months ago the hon. member's colleague who is sitting at
his right hand right now asked me a question about a speech of
the Auditor General in Quebec City. I pointed out to him that it
was something we were collecting and there was no question of
this money not being collected.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence stated that
as a condition of service if individuals have something to
communicate they should communicate through their superiors.
If the culture of the military is such that individuals feel
compelled to remain silent for fear of retribution, is justice
served?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want
to accept the premise upon which the hon. member's question is
based. However, even if there were such concerns surely the
announcement of an open and public civilian inquiry would
allay any of those concerns.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister states that members of the service should
speak only to their superiors yet these are the very superiors who
suppressed evidence to start with. They have to have the
freedom to go outside the normal chain.
The minister has stated there will be a public civilian inquiry
into the Somalia affair. When will the minister table a terms of
reference for the inquiry? Will the minister ensure that the
inquiry is broad enough to reach the highest echelons of the
Department of National Defence in Ottawa up to and including a
previous minister of defence?
(1135 )
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said earlier
that this inquiry will begin after charges are disposed of against
one additional person and that this would not prejudice the
appeals that would perhaps be going on at the same time.
With respect to the broadness of the inquiry, I have assured
people that the terms of reference will be as broad as possible to
answer every single question that hon. members might have. I
would hope that these assurances would be accepted by the hon.
member's party because they have been generally accepted by
people across the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The
Auditor General reported that $700 million could have been
saved on information technologies at National Defence, had the
development of such systems been more carefully planned.
8294
How can the minister explain that, once again, his department
comes first overall in squandering, in spite of the fact that the
Auditor General had drawn attention to this problem many times
already in the past?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the
Auditor General's report covered the term before this
government was elected. Many of the problems he has outlined
are being corrected. We agree with many of the points he has
raised.
We obviously agree that improvements could be made in
terms of management, especially in the information systems
area, something which concerns me particularly. I have asked
officials to ensure that all future projects in the information
systems area are reviewed so that we do meet the expectations of
the Auditor General.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence cannot skirt the issue by
throwing the blame on previous governments.
Does the minister not realize that it would be possible to cut
$1.6 billion in his department's budget, as suggested by the
Official Opposition, without impeding operations, just by
eliminating squandering and unnecessary spending, given the
new international order?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I
remind the House that the hon. member's party has called for a
25 per cent reduction in defence spending. This would have
severe ramifications on operations.
As we know, the defence committee just issued a report. It is
being studied by the government and a white paper will be
issued shortly.
If the hon. member has details of how we could save money I
would love to receive them. He could table them in the House or
send them to me directly. However I doubt very much whether
he would have enough projected savings to account for a 25 per
cent reduction in expenditures of the armed forces. If we do that,
it would certainly have a great effect, especially in his own
province as in all other provinces.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Auditor General says that the workforce adjustment
directive must be changed if the government hopes to reduce the
size of the public service. The minister is negotiating with the
unions now to do just that. However the president of the largest
public service union in Canada said: ``We obviously will never
agree to changes that would weaken the workforce adjustment
directive''.
Could the minister explain how he can change that directive to
reduce job security when the union says up front that it will
never agree to it?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understood the President of the Treasury Board
this week indicated that he was having negotiations with the
unions on the possibility of changing the directive. However, I
understood him to also indicate that other options were being
considered. I think the work on this is continuing. Obviously we
will have more than one option when the time comes to make the
decisions.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
so far the government has honoured the workforce adjustment
directive by encouraging voluntary departure. The cost this year
in the Department of National Defence alone is over $120
million. In fact, some officials are receiving a golden handshake
worth $200,000 a pop.
(1140)
Will the minister admit that the government plans to cut $5
billion during its program review? This means it will have to
change the workforce directive and if not through negotiation
then through legislation.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as a result of program review
the government will be downsized. It will be downsized for
reasons that have been clear to the opposition and to ourselves
for quite a while.
There is also no doubt that this will create a problem in terms
of workforce reduction. We intend to apply the best possible
measures including, as I mentioned, a modified workforce
adjustment directive or other options as they become available.
8295
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The federal government spends $1 billion each year on tax
incentives to encourage research and development, its main
contribution in that regard being a scientific research and
experimental development investment tax credit.
Does the minister deem acceptable that the government not
exercise any control over the refund of investment tax credits
for scientific research and not conduct any formal evaluation of
the impact of this program on the Canadian economy, as the
Auditor General pointed out?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
The member is well acquainted with this government's
commitment to scientific research and development. As he
knows we are currently going through a program review and no
final decisions have been taken.
The member also knows that this government has made a very
strong commitment to this country's small and medium sized
businesses because we believe that is where the new jobs will
come. A central component of small and medium sized
businesses is research and development. I believe the
government will take the right steps to make sure the
entrepreneurial spirit we are trying to rebuild stays on track.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not wish to make the minister's hair go even
greyer, but will he recognize that the federal government's lack
of rigour in the administration of all these R and D investments
accounts largely for the poor performance of Canada in that
regard, with Canada ranking second to last among G-7
countries?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General raised very
serious questions about how the SRTC moneys were spent.
Under the old program up to 1985 the tax credit was given out
before the expenditures and not after. The current system has
much better controls on it. Through Revenue Canada we make
sure that the proper expenditures are made before the tax credit
is given out.
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The Auditor General was very positive about the minister's
efforts to combat the underground economy to make sure that
everybody pays his or her fair share in this country but he also
said that much more could be done.
What plans does the minister have for combating the
underground economy in future? Could he be specific about
projects now in train or planned to combat this situation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered many aspects of this
question previously.
As the hon. member comes from Newfoundland, I will point
out that yesterday we signed an agreement with the province of
Newfoundland. It is part of a series of agreements with all
provinces across the country so that we can combine audit
information and the work of our auditors. We can thus have
much more efficiency in what we do. We can increase the
revenues to both the provincial and the federal levels of
government.
Perhaps most important, this helps cut down on the
duplication of government work and the harassment of ordinary
honest citizens who presently sometimes find themselves faced
with an audit by Revenue Canada and three weeks later faced
with another audit by provincial authorities, neither of which
have talked to each other.
This new agreement will go a long way to encouraging better
revenues for both levels of government and less hassle to the
public of Canada.
* * *
(1145 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
underground probably has two tunnels, the one that the minister
has been speaking about and the other one for smuggling into
Canada. It seems as though the minister lacks commitment to
the enforcement side of Canada Customs. The justice minister
said that 70 per cent of the guns used in indictable offences are
smuggled weapons and we have a well documented problem
with liquor smuggling.
Does the revenue minister agree that his sorrowful lack of
priority respecting customs enforcement places law abiding
Canadians in jeopardy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really quite amusing that the Reform
Party is constantly telling us to slash expenditures and at the
same time fails to point out that we increased the number of
customs officers at the border by 25 per cent last February in
response to need. If we accepted its general suggestions that
8296
everything be cut across the board, the situation the member
described would be infinitely worse.
With respect to gun smuggling, there is no question that it is a
serious problem. We have a country adjacent to us with an
enormous population and that country is literally awash in
weapons. We have a border which has 130 million transits a
year. We have in addition the world's largest trade between any
two countries. We have vast numbers of tourists. It is thus
impossible to create the type of Berlin wall that the member
seems to think would stop the smuggling that he speaks of.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
revenue minister took time to understand what the Reform Party
was saying, the one area that we would not be cutting is in the
area of control and justice. That is one area we would not be
cutting.
We have heard this 25 per cent figure before. As a matter of
fact I think the minister gave it to us on February 8. Yet there are
numerous press reports that indicate customs is in the process of
laying off customs people in the front lines. How can he
reconcile the difference between his statement and the press
reports?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Very simply, Mr. Speaker. We have increased the numbers
overall at the border as indicated.
On the other hand, as the member knows, we have tremendous
fluctuations in numbers of tourists who come to Canada at
different times of the year. In addition we have differing
requirements at different areas of the border. We do move people
around within the regions and indeed within Canada as a whole
to deal with the demand at certain times.
I specifically refer the member from British Columbia to the
extra 65 people we brought into Victoria during the
Commonwealth Games to make sure that we had quick and
effective customs surveillance at that point.
It is a simple issue of good management by customs officers
and not a question as he seems to suggest of reducing
enforcement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of heritage. Yesterday, former CBC
chairman Patrick Watson accused the heritage minister of being
invisible and lacking the will to protect Canadian cultural
industries. We rarely hear such a credible member of the cultural
community condemn a minister's inaction so strongly.
Does the minister not agree that Mr. Watson's very strong
words about him amply demonstrate once again his lack of
leadership and credibility in the cultural community?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Watson spent almost all his life in the
world of show business and news reporting. Of course, visibility
is important in these sectors, but we are in the business of
governing and the way to do it is with authority. We do not need
to show off. If that is what our Bloc colleague wants, she should
do so while we are busy running the country.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder who is showing off.
How can the minister reconcile his current position on stable
financing for the CBC with the promises he made to the
corporation at the time of his appointment as heritage minister?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that our colleague is badly
misinformed; she should know that the Liberal government
helped the CBC avoid a major financial crisis.
(1150)
That is what we have done this year. We allowed the CBC to
reposition itself in the 500-channel universe we have heard
about. I supported the CBC in this matter. With the help of the
finance minister, we will continue to ensure that the CBC
remains the flagship of Canadian culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
reason for negotiating international trade deals like the free
trade agreement, NAFTA or GATT should be to tear down trade
barriers rather than build them up. Yet access to the American
market has decreased for the Canadian sugar industry due to
protectionist measures. In jeopardy are some 1,700 Canadian
jobs at the present time.
My question is to the Minister for International Trade. What
will the government do to protect the jobs in the Canadian sugar
industry and to improve Canadian access to American sugar
markets?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for his question. I know he is very interested in this issue. I
assure him that we are working with the industry. We are
pressing the American authorities to give us a response as soon
as possible.
8297
The Minister for International Trade has contacted his
counterpart, Mr. Kantor, to ask for a response as quickly as
possible. We are hopeful that we will be able to find a solution in
the best interest of the Canadian industry.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Can the minister indicate what type of
measures the government is planning to put in place in terms of
removing some of the protectionist opportunities that the
American government may take with regard to GATT or what
other measures can be taken that will protect our industry on not
only a short term basis but a long term basis as well?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously it is good
news that we will be seeing fairly soon, hopefully effective
January 1, 1995, the introduction of the World Trade
Organization as a mechanism whereby all trading partners
around the globe will be able to go to it whenever we have a
dispute. We will be able to solve it through that mechanism.
When it comes to bilateral relations of course we would have
to continue to work within the framework of NAFTA between us
and our partners in North America. We are confident that
through bilateral negotiation and through the multilateral forum
we will be able to resolve many of those issues as my colleague
has suggested.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
In view of the recommendations made by the Reform Party,
which wants to eliminate all programs related to
multiculturalism, can the minister tell us again how Canadians
benefit from the policy on multiculturalism, and can she also tell
us if it is worth investing in such a policy? In other words, could
the minister shed some light on this issue?
An hon. member: Let us see the light, madam!
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would certainly like to help them see the light, but I do not know
if it is possible.
[English]
For less than $1 per Canadian per year, I think we are getting
the best investment possible for our money, less than the cost of
a chocolate bar, in order to ensure social peace, social cohesion
and a country of prosperity that includes all Canadians.
I suggest to my colleague, who is a very concerned and
considerate member representing a wonderful riding on the tip
of Quebec between the two borders, that the amount of money
we invest and the efforts that are deployed jointly by many
groups in this country puts us at the forefront of fighting
bigotry, racism and prejudice that is still found in the minds and
hearts of many Canadians, contrary to certain thoughts
expressed elsewhere in this House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In his report, the Auditor General criticizes the defence
department for mismanaging its capital assets and wasting over
$100 million per year in the process.
(1155)
Given the magnitude of the problem and the need to reduce
government spending, will the Minister of National Defence
demand that the senior officers of his department provide him
with a plan to quickly correct this totally unacceptable
situation?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last
year there has been a virtual management revolution in the
ministry of defence.
We are trying to have many services contracted to the private
sector. We are trying to adopt many private sector methods such
as in warehousing, in having on time just in time delivery where
suppliers actually keep the particular components rather than
having them stored. We are in the process of installing a state of
the art computer system that will keep track of all of the
components in the materiels group. Indeed, we have
restructured the materiels group, which is the largest section of
national defence, in charge of procurement and administration
of all big capital programs. We have totally restructured that and
in the next year there will be more and more layers of
management eliminated. I think when it is all done the taxpayers
will get better value for their dollar.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
When the CRTC issued its decision after the restructure
hearings it decided not to allow the American company Direct
TV into Canada. The industry minister and the heritage minister
have met with Power Corp and have jointly decided to disregard
the CRTC decision.
8298
Given the confusion and speculation surrounding this
decision, is the minister prepared to explain the cabinet decision
to override the CRTC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question under
advisement so that I may consult my colleague.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this year will see the phasing out of the northern
tax allowance program initiated by the previous Tory
government. Residents of hundreds of northern communities
will lose the benefit that recognizes their residential distance
from federal government services.
Is the Minister of National Revenue or officials in his
department prepared to reconsider the elimination of this
valuable program to ensure that tax increases are not now going
to be unnecessarily forced on northern residents?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised several
times by the governments of the north. As part of our pre-budget
consultations we are receiving representations on a number of
very important issues that affect the budgets and the lifestyles of
northerners. We will continue to listen to these in the next few
months.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance.
My constituents have been asking me what they can do to help
with our debt and deficit problems. They are especially worried
about our foreign debt and say it is time for a victory bond
program to help us buy back that debt.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if the minister is
taking this proposal seriously and what exactly is he doing about
it.
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this idea has been presented not
only to the Minister of Finance but also to the committee on its
travels throughout the country.
It shows an anxiousness that Canadians have to see the deficit
resolved and their willingness to participate in widespread
efforts to bring down that deficit. We are looking at a number of
instruments including the victory bonds to ensure there is
opportunity for Canadians to help us out with this very difficult
task.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
Auditor General's 1993 report it was indicated that police forces
are concerned that a serious firearms smuggling problem exists
and appears to be increasing.
Inasmuch as this government has been unable to stop the
smuggling of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol into this country, how
does the Minister of National Revenue propose to stop or reduce
the smuggling of guns into this country?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that we
have one of the most effective customs services in the world
which operates extremely efficiently along our border.
He should also be aware that the numbers of officers have
been increased substantially within the last year, indeed in
February of last year and thereafter.
He should be aware because his specific concern is that of
firearms that we have a situation involving our border with the
United States, a country which has a vast number of weapons, a
country which has a tradition of people both carrying and using
weapons which is quite foreign to our own. It is very important
for us to use, as we are doing, modern equipment, dogs to sniff
out weapons, which they can do and also as many custom
officers as we can. We are using all possible means to intercept
weapons at the border.
(1200)
However, I warn him that it is not possible-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
When she was in Winnipeg, the minister told a group of
seniors that the government intends to amend the legislation on
drug patents, the old Bill C-91, this in spite of the commitment
made on numerous occasions by her colleague, the Minister of
Industry, not to review this legislation before 1997.
Are we to understand that the minister has already made up
her mind and that she intends to propose a reduction of the
exclusivity period for patents when the legislation is reviewed,
which should normally happen in 1997?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my comments were certainly not interpreted correctly.
What I said is this: We intend to review the drug patent
legislation, that is Bill C-91, before 1997. This is what we have
been saying since the very beginning.
8299
I mentioned, for example, the problems we are experiencing
with the use of medication by certain groups, including elderly
people, who often use drugs without being in possession of the
necessary information. In recent years, we have noticed an
increase in the number of prescriptions. This costs governments
a lot of money and is a real source of concern.
As for generic products, I increased the departmental staff
responsible for reviewing applications for these products,
because no name drugs help us keep costs under control.
_____________________________________________
8299
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments which were made by
the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
13 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 51st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
its April 19, 1994 order of reference in relation to the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
This report is the first being tabled in accordance with
Standing Order 68. Your Honour will recall that the committee
was directed to draft and bring in a bill on this subject. Therefore
the report includes a draft bill entitled an act to provide for the
establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
I know all hon. members will be interested in the contents of
the report. The draft bill makes fascinating reading. I thought
with the weekend coming up members might want to take it
home for the weekend. Accordingly I am pleased to table it
today.
I am also pleased to present the 52nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on
Government Operations.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the report later this day.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry on Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts.
The committee has examined and agreed to report the bill,
with amendments. I would like to thank witnesses, members and
staff for their contribution to the committee's proceedings.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence,
that the 52nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs presented to the House today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
four petitions to present today. The first petition requests that
the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to
include the phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges
as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on the subject of the family.
The petitioners request that Parliament oppose any legislation
that would directly or indirectly redefine the family, including
the provision of marriage and family benefits to those who are
not related by ties of blood, marriage or adoption, where
marriage is defined as the legal union between a man and a
woman.
8300
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is on the subject of child care.
The petitioners believe that current federal government child
care policies are intrusive and discriminate against many
families. The petitioners request that Parliament oppose any
legislation that will increase child care expenditures or that
attempts to regulate day care standards at the federal level.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition is on behalf of the citizens of Brant riding.
Given that the majority of Canadians are opposed to the
official languages policy imposed on them by a former Liberal
government, the petitioners request that a referendum be held to
either accept or reject this flawed policy.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to
once again rise in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
present several petitions bearing many hundreds of names on
behalf of constituents of Kent, Lambton, Sarnia and Essex. The
petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the
following.
The majority of Canadians are law-abiding citizens who
respect the law. They respect the sanctity of human life and
believe that physicians should be working to save lives, not to
end them.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament ensures that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present petitions on
behalf of British Columbians.
They ask the House to amend the Divorce Act to include the
right of grandparents to stand before the courts during divorce
proceedings. Grandparents can then ask the courts for access to
their grandchildren.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present. The first one is the same as the one
presented by the hon. member for Kent dealing with assisted
suicide.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is
Mining Week, which allows us to publicize our efforts to keep
mining in Canada.
I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 that calls on
Parliament to take action which will see employment grow in
the mining sector, that exploration will be promoted and we can
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and keep mining in Canada.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 500 residents of the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, who, considering rumours that the
passengers railway connection between Jonquière and Montreal
will be closed, are asking for a moratorium before any decision
is made and for public hearings to be held so that the people of
the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean can express their concerns and
present arguments in favour of maintaining this railway
connection.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
81 and 84.
[Text]
Question No. 81-Mr. Harper:
With respect to each of the following projects, what was the result of the
cost benefit analysis conducted by the office of the Minister responsible for
Infrastructure; (a) the construction of a park building and Canoe Hall of
Fame in Shawinigan, Quebec, (b) the construction of bocce courts in
Toronto, Ontario, (c) renovations to Northlands Coliseum and Duccy Park
reconstruction in Edmonton, Alberta, (d) renovations to the Calgary
Saddledome in Calgary, Alberta, (e) removal of overhead wires in Shelburne,
Nova Scotia, (f) construction of world class marina at Lewisport Harbour by
Gateway Development Inc. in Newfoundland, (g) development of two
residential development areas for the Ebb and Flow First Nation, (h)
redeveloping duck/pond gardens in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (i) air conditioning
a community hall in the Village of Debden, Saskatchewan and (j)
construction of a building to accommodate circus training and production
facilities for Cirque du Soleil in Montreal, Quebec?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): The
federal office of infrastructure does not conduct formal cost
benefit analyses of infrastructure project proposals. It is
responsible for setting up national framework agreements and
reviewing project proposals received from federal
implementing agencies and departments.
8301
Costs and benefits are determined at the provincial and local
levels. To be eligible for funding under the program, projects
submitted by local partners must meet certain provisions of the
national criteria established in the framework agreements
between the federal government and the province or territory.
Question No. 84-Mr. White:
How many federal inmates currently receive each of the following
payments: (a) old age security, (b) Canada pension plan, (c) income
supplement, (d) unemployment insurance and (e) GST rebates and what
crimes were they incarcerated for?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am
informed by the Departments of Human Resources
Development and Revenue Canada as follows: (a), (b) and (c).
Under Canada pension plan and old age security legislation,
beneficiaries are entitled to continue receiving benefits while in
prison.
However, to answer these parts would require the exchange of
information on inmates between Human Resources
Development Canada and Correctional Service Canada. The
existing Old Age Security Act and Canada pension plan/income
supplement legislation do not permit such an exchange.
On October 7, 1994, the Minister of Human Resources
Development tabled a bill, C-54, which proposes to amend
these two acts to allow for better information sharing between
government departments. The Solicitor General has also tabled
a bill, C-45, allowing for similar amendments to the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act. These, if enacted, will allow for
the exchange of information necessary to respond to these parts.
(d) Section 32 of the Unemployment Insurance Act
specifically denies payment for the period during which a
claimant is an inmate of any prison or similar institution.
There are control programs in effect to enforce this section of
the act.
Human Resources Development Canada is not aware of any
inmates receiving payment of UI benefits during a period of
incarceration.
During this calendar year, January to August, there have been
1,688 disentitlements imposed denying benefits for the reason
that the claimant is an inmate of a prison or similar institution.
The courts, however, are providing a more varied approach
when imposing sentence on certain offenders. Payment may be
made to persons serving a sentence who are not confined to an
institution and who meet all the conditions of entitlement.
Examples of this would be incarceration during weekends or
evenings only, or electronic surveillance.
As to the question what crimes were they incarcerated for, this
is of no relevance to the determination of entitlement to UI
benefit. Accordingly, information on the reasons for
incarceration are not collected.
(e) Correctional Service Canada provides to Revenue Canada
the following information: name; date of birth; date of
incarceration; date of release and nature of parole arrangements
if any. This information is used to ensure that only those
individuals who are entitled under the law to GST credit benefits
receive them. Inmates who are confined to prison at the end of
the taxation year, and had been so confined for at least six
months in the year, are not eligible to apply for the GST credit
benefits.
The latest information concerning the number of individuals
who received the GST credit would be based on the 1993
taxation year. However, the number of federal inmates who
received the GST credit is not data that is accumulated for
purposes of administration of the Income Tax Act. This
information is not readily available and would require a
considerable expenditure and reallocation of resources to
assemble. The reason for the incarceration is not provided to
Revenue Canada as it is not a determining factor in providing
GST rebates. To determine the nature of the incarceration of any
GST credit recipient, income tax information would have to be
communicated to Correctional Service Canada and that is
precluded by the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax
Act.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The questions as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8301
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-55, an Act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning
disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon
Territory and to amend other Acts in relation thereto, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
concluding, I simply want to say that as far as aboriginal land
claims are concerned, whether we are talking about Canada or
Quebec, I think it is important to put this debate in its proper
historical and geopolitical perspective.
I also wish to emphasize that at the negotiations, a spirit of
justice and tolerance should prevail, both among federal and
provincial authorities and leaders of aboriginal communities. I
think anyone with political responsibilities in Canada has a
moral responsibility to ensure that in these discussions, we do
everything in our power to avoid making accusations that are
sometimes unfair and that merely create ill feeling, so that the
people of Quebec, the people of Canada and the aboriginal
8302
peoples concerned can live in harmony on Canadian and Quebec
territory, and this vast issue of aboriginal land claims will
finally be settled in Canada as far as possible.
I agree one can never obtain satisfaction on all aspects of
these claims, but I think that if we develop a spirit of justice and
tolerance, we can conclude agreements that are acceptable to the
various communities concerned.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to make a brief comment.
I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from
Jonquière. I am proud to be the colleague of this member who
spoke very openly and generously about the native
communities. It would be so easy to make speeches that raise
tensions and play on the public's emotions, in short, to engage in
demagogy.
The member for Jonquière took a radically different
approach. His speech well reflects the thinking of Quebecers on
this issue and I call on all members of this House to reread my
colleague's speech. It is an unfailing source of wisdom in
dealing with the issue of respecting native rights.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make at third
reading of Bill C-55, Yukon Surface Rights Board Act.
It gives me a considerable amount of pleasure to see this bill,
having come through all stages, and be able to say a few words at
the conclusion of the debate.
(1215)
At the same time I want to congratulate the parties that were
involved in the negotiation of the agreement and in the
execution of the legislation that has led us to this point. A couple
of very specific congratulations, one to my own leader, the
member for Yukon. The member for Yukon has been actively
engaged in the discussion, debate and negotiations leading up to
this point today.
I commend to the House the work that she has been able to do
for her constituents, members of the Council for Yukon Indians,
members of the communities of Yukon, all residents of Yukon.
The member for Yukon has spent a considerable amount of time
relaying information in one direction, discussing with
ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairpersons
throughout the course of the debates on all three parts of Yukon
self-government and land claims process which concludes the
proclamation of this act.
I was very pleased to have been in a number of meetings that
the member for Yukon initiated and attended. I am very pleased
to have been able to work with her throughout this process as the
New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs and northern
development critic.
I also want to congratulate the people of the Council for
Yukon Indians and all of the people from Yukon who have
worked so hard for so long to ensure that this day would come. A
lot of changes have been made in people's positions and
attitudes over the years, that this idea has been in front of not
only the people of Yukon but now the people of all of Canada. I
congratulate all of those who over the years have been involved
so diligently in this process.
I would like to now spend just a couple of minutes indicating
to those who are tuning in this afternoon for the first time some
idea of what is in front of us on this bill that we are concluding
today and to indicate to the House that I and my party are very
pleased to support the legislation in front of us, just as we were
pleased to support the previous two bills that are part of this
three part package.
We know that Bill C-55 is a companion piece of legislation to
what was Bill C-33, Yukon First Nations final land claims
settlement act and Bill C-34, Yukon First Nations
self-government agreement. Both acts were passed in the spring
session of this Parliament but they will not come into effect until
this act, Bill C-55, is concluded.
Bill C-55 establishes a process in Yukon for obtaining access
to private and public lands based on models used in the western
provinces. I come from Saskatchewan, a province that
successfully negotiated a land entitlement agreement with a
large number of the aboriginal communities in our province. I
am very pleased to be able to see that models which were
discussed in Saskatchewan are being useful in the negotiations
of agreements in other locations.
The bill in front of us also establishes Yukon surface rights
board to resolve disputes between parties guaranteeing access to
vast holdings of private land.
The bill is very technical. Anything that subjects parties to an
agreement has technical aspects to it. In essence Bill C-55
provides guidelines whereby land disputes will be settled by the
surface rights board. Under the legislation a person may apply to
the board for the arbitration of a matter only after that person has
first attempted to negotiate an agreement with the other party.
The board will have jurisdiction over other matters such as the
disputes between persons holding surface rights and those
holding subsurface rights, the amount of compensation for the
expropriation of settlement land, and the amount of
compensation for pockets of government lands retained within
settlement lands.
(1220)
If parties cannot reach agreement in a matter relating to
access to lands the board has the power to establish the terms
and conditions of a right of access, award compensation for the
right of access and for damage resulting from that access, and
periodically review orders previously made by the board with
regard to land disputes. Orders by the board are final and
binding. Final decisions are enforceable through the Supreme
8303
Court of Yukon territory. The board will not retain any
permanent staff and will meet only as needed.
As well, the bill confirms the legal rights of minors and is said
to address concerns raised over the need for certainty pertaining
to land title in Yukon. Greater certainty pertaining to land title
will facilitate exploration and resource development in Yukon,
matters that we know go to the heart of the economy of the
territory.
I would also like to indicate that final passage of Bill C-55
clears the way for implementation of four Yukon First Nations
land claim settlements already negotiated and will trigger
financial compensation agreements already signed with these
four individual First Nations.
Earlier in the debates on this bill when my leader, the member
for Yukon, spoke she indicated a couple of things that I would
like to repeat for the benefit of the House as we close the debate
today.
I quote the member for Yukon representing her constituents'
interests in this bill. She stated in the House of Commons on
November 1, 1994: ``Bill C-55 ensures that all Yukoners,
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, have the tools to move
forward with the certainty that is necessary for business with the
respect and dignity accorded to First Nations in Yukon and that
will lead toward self-sufficiency for Yukon territory.
``What we are showing can be done within Canada is that we
can respect the languages, the cultures and the historic traditions
of all peoples within a certain territory and we can do it under
the flag of Canada''.
These are very important words looking at a long history of
negotiation of a very difficult matter that now seems to have
been resolved quite peacefully and satisfactorily.
We in the New Democratic Party are proud of the work of all
those who have been involved in this process and we are pleased
today to commit ourselves to agreement on Bill C-55.
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.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion
among members in the House to proceed immediately to private
members' hour. I see the proponent of the private member's
ballot item in the House.
I think if you were to ask for that consent you would find that
the House is now prepared to move to private members' hour.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
to Private Members' Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway has given written notice that he is not able
to proceed with his motion on Monday, November 28, 1994.
Most regrettably there have been, I am told, 30 members who
have been contacted to ask if they could fill in on Monday and
none of the 30 to my knowledge has indicated that he or she is
willing to do that.
Accordingly, since we cannot exchange the debate for
Monday, I would direct the table officers to drop the item of
business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private
members' hour will thus be cancelled. Pursuant to Standing
Order 99(2), the House will meet to consider Government
Orders at 11 a.m.
(1225)
[Translation]
There is unanimous consent for the House to proceed now to
the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8303
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of
access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent), be read the
second time and referred to committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to begin the debate on Bill
C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act. I am speaking today on
behalf of all our grandchildren who are without their
grandparents at this time and on behalf of all the grandparents in
Canada who have worked long and hard to convince the
legislators of Canada that this bill is necessary.
In the time I have to speak today I would like to go through
exactly what this bill sets out to accomplish and then discuss the
need for the bill. Finally, I will attempt to give enough reasons
so that all members of this House can unite in support of this
bill.
The main purpose of Bill C-232 is to fill a void in the Divorce
Act in the area of access and custody. At present only parents of
a child are allowed to discuss access and custody in a court in the
case of divorce. The practical effect of this is that grandparents
8304
who may have spent considerable time with their grandchildren
have no automatic right of standing in court.
At the present time if grandparents are concerned that this
access might be cut off as a result of the divorce, they must first
seek leave of the court to raise the access or custody issue.
Should leave be granted, then and only then have they a right to
ask the court to put a right of access clause for them as
grandparents in the divorce decree of the parents.
Dealing specifically with the provisions of the bill, the first
clause would amend section 10 of the Divorce Act. This is the
section of the Divorce Act which deals with access and custody.
Under clause 1, grandparents would have standing in court to
seek either access or, I suppose in some exceptional
circumstances, custody of the grandchildren.
Clause 2 of the bill seeks to amend section 17 of the Divorce
Act dealing with applications to vary access or custody orders.
Therefore, if at a time after the order for access or custody was
granted under section 16 and it was found that the original
decision was not appropriate, then it would be open to the
grandparents to go back to the court just as parents can do to
seek amendment of the original order.
Again, with the adoption of this clause grandparents would
have the automatic right to standing in the court should either
the parents or they seek to wish alteration of the original access
or custody order.
Finally, the bill would add a new clause to the Divorce Act
which deals specifically with the amendments contained in Bill
C-232. This new clause requires that the clauses contained in
this bill be referred to an appropriate committee of this House
four years after their coming into force so that a committee of
this House can review the effectiveness of the provisions.
One part of the bill I did not refer to is clause 2 part (2). This
clause seeks to amend subsection 16, part (5) of the Divorce Act.
It would give grandparents who have a right of access a right to
make inquiries and to be given information as to the health,
education and welfare of the child.
I have had discussions on the legality and appropriateness of
this clause with my friend on the other side of the House, the
member for Nepean. My friend from Nepean has a private
member's bill on the Order Paper quite similar to Bill C-232.
We have approached this matter in a non-partisan fashion.
She has brought to my attention that this subclause could give
grandparents more rights than the parents of the children
presently enjoy. This subclause may also contravene privacy
acts or rights of the child which may exist by statute or common
law.
Therefore while procedurally it cannot be removed at this
time, I trust when the bill gets to committee this clause can be
deleted.
While I am dealing with technicalities, I thought it important
to bring to the attention of the House the wording of the new
Quebec Civil Code as it relates to grandparents and the issue of
access arising out of divorce of the parents. It states in section
611:
In no case may the father or mother, without a grave reason, interfere with
personal relations between the child and his grandparents.
Failing agreement between the parties, terms and conditions of these
relations are decided by the courts.
Therefore in Quebec, thanks to the Civil Code, grandparents
enjoy the right of standing in court and therefore this bill would
compliment the Civil Code or simply not be operative in the
province of Quebec, as the matter is already covered by
legislation.
Having dealt with what Bill C-232 does, it is important now
to turn to the need for such legislation.
(1230 )
This proposal has a long history. In the last Parliament it
appeared as a private member's bill in the name of the former
member for Delta from the Progressive Conservative Party. In
this Parliament there is a private member's motion by the
member for Winnipeg Transcona. The subject matter has also
been the subject of the member for Ottawa West's householders.
Of course my good friend from Nepean also has a private
member's bill on the Order Paper dealing with the same subject
matter.
Therefore, the subject matter of this bill receives wide
support in the House. For that reason I want to make it clear this
is not a partisan issue, not a Reform issue, not a political issue,
but a grandchildren's and a grandparents' issue, a human issue
which has to be addressed now.
When we discuss grandchildren we usually envision a happy
family scene with the entire family present. Perhaps it is a
holiday time like Thanksgiving or Christmas, when
grandparents are always a part of the celebration, or Mother's
Day or Father's Day, when a special part of the day recognizes
grandparents as well as parents, with gifts made by children who
are also grandchildren.
It is my sad duty today to remind Canadians everywhere that
this happy scene is not always the case, that in fact many of our
senior citizens no longer have happy Christmases or
Thanksgivings, or any other holiday celebrations, because one
of the major parts of the whole is missing. Many Canadian
grandchildren no longer see their grandparents.
I suppose many of us, busy with our lives, never took the time
to care or find out that some Canadian families are missing vital
parts to keep them whole. We cannot do anything about the
growing divorce rate which seems to know no check point.
These are adults who must make their own decisions. We can
address the needs of the family members for whom no one
seems to be speaking, the rights of the grandchild, the rights of
8305
all our grandchildren to see, to visit, to talk to their
grandparents.
The movement for this type of legislation, which will only
give grandparents standing before the courts, began a number of
years ago in 1986 in British Columbia with the founding of the
Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association. Now we have other
chapters across Canada.
In Ontario, one grandparents group goes by the name of
Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity or GRAND.
Another Ontario support group is Grandchildren/Grandparents'
Rights of Wholeness through Heritage or GROWTH. It was
formed by the group of grandparents concerned over the failure
of provincial and federal legislation to adequately address the
issue of grandchildren's rights to visit with their grandparents.
All these groups and others I have not yet mentioned are
trying to address grandchildren's rights. Article 5 of the
convention of the rights of the child, which was adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989,
requires state parties to respect the responsibility, rights and
duties not only of parents but also of members of the extended
family.
Article 16 of the said convention provides that no child shall
be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family.
Preventing a child from seeking his or her grandparents without
just cause is unlawful interference with family. It is important
that we look at why it is important that contact between
grandchildren and grandparents be maintained after the divorce
of the parents.
Would it simply not be cleaner and neater to cut off access so
the children of the divorce, the memories of grandparents and
the way it used to be when mommy and daddy lived together
simply faded with the passage of time? Fortunately this is not
the opinion of experts in the files of family psychology. Anton
Klarich, chief psychologist of the French language separate
schools in Essex county states: ``A tremendous amount of love
and security can go a long way to help children who are worried
about what lies ahead of them in an increasingly uncertain
world''.
Klarich was referring to a report released in August 1993 by
the Ontario government which showed that children as young as
10 are overwhelmed by the helplessness that grips family
members worried about personal and financial problems. The
children absorb feelings of insecurity, worry and fear. Klarich
says: ``With such a scenario it's good to know there is someone
there within a child's family, the grandparents, who always
provide love and stability''.
This short poem reflects just such a feeling of love and
security instilled in a young grandson by his grandpa entitled
``Grandpa and Me'':
He's never too busy to listen
He's never too tired to play
We go up on a hill and down together we ski
My Grandpa and me.
We go camping and we go fishing
A great fisherman is he
And then we sleep out under the trees#
My Grandpa and me.
I know that someday he will leave me
And I'll be as sad as can be
But I'll always remember the good times we had
My Grandpa and me.
This poem was written by an 11-year old grandson and I think
he says it all very well. Lynn Wells, chief psychologist for the
Wellington Board of Education in Guelph, Ontario, believes that
grandparents contribute to the upbringing of grandchildren in
more positive ways than they realize.
(1235)
Her quote:
Young children create their self-concepts from the comments that people
give them. So the more positive and loving people that are around them, to
give them different perspectives of themselves, the more widely developed
their self-esteem is.
A study in 1986 at the University of Guelph found that
grandmothers have an innate tendency to respond to the needs
and emotional upheaval of a grandchild.
The study was conducted by Jim Gladstone, a professor of
social work surveyed 80 grandmothers in southwestern Ontario
whose children had divorced or separated. Gladstone has said:
``Previous research on children of divorce suggest that young
children have very little opportunity to talk about the break-up.
Grandmothers seem to be prepared to talk and listen to their
grandchildren''.
I want to share with members a poem written by a
grandmother who has been denied access to her grandchildren. I
believe she is asking us to listen:
The Voice of the Children
We've given our all or we wouldn't be here
And I'm saddened to say we don't have the ear
Of those, who we pray, might listen to us,
Until then we'll cry and try not to fuss-
Or worry about the children we love-
May they be safe, while God up above
Listens and answers our prayers from the heart-
While giving us guidance and some way to chart
A way, to the children, so near yet so far-
Hoping their plight is not going to mar
An innocent child, whose crime was to be Bonded
to parents who don't wish to see
The child is a victim, who does not deserve
To be treated as chattel-the purpose they serve
When used in a battle they can't understand-
Their cries go unheeded-the laws of the land
Must soon see the light, in the grandparent's role,
Until then, their lives are the terrible toll
8306
That are paid, while they suffer, alone, with no way
To fight for their rights, with so little say
In who they might see or what they may do-
To whom they can speak-yet never to you-
Do they forget-believe we don't care?
I pray they are happy and not as aware
As I, who am saddened, with each passing day,
Not seeing their sweet little faces, at play-
With tears, never ending, at least in my heart
Each day is forever that we are apart-
Grant me some wisdom-the strength I will need
To comfort another, for I know how they bleed-
In their anguish and sorrow they look for a sign
As their tears intermingle, so freely, with mine-
All children are precious and sacred to me-
We're fighting a battle to help them be free
Of parents who own them-both body and soul
As long as I live may this be my goal!
They suffer, in silence, and never a word-
The voice of the children needs to be heard!
This poem is both a statement and a question. It is from one of
our many hurting grandparents.
Ruth Isbister, Toronto author of Grandparents Don't Just
Babysit says that the role and function of grandparents as the
connection between past and future has not changed nor has
their natural ability to make a child feel special. ``You transfer a
feeling of confidence to your grandchild''. By their presence,
grandparents add something to the child's comprehension of the
continuity of life.
In fact one of the leading jurists in the United States in the
area of grandparents' rights stated in 1992 that there were over
three million children nationwide in the states being raised by
grandparents.
The case for grandparents' rights has also been captured
dramatically in the brief submitted by the Canadian
Grandparents Rights Association of Richmond, B.C., to the
Department of Justice. I would like to quote some passages from
this brief:
The experience of the grandparents' society shows that the true safety net
with regard to child rearing is not the state but the grandparents.
It is important to understand that this safety net is provided by
grandparents not based upon the hopeless inefficiency of state bureaucracies.
It does not function on the basis of filling out forms, making appointments,
or qualifying by any test, nor is it governed or supervised by a psychologist,
a counsellor, a therapist or a mediator. It is usually available on a phone call,
the call often being a product of an emergency and attracts no publicity at
all. It does not become an occasion for grandstanding in the press or in the
courts.
The brief goes on to say:
At present when there is a family break-up and the need to look after children,
there is no obligation on the state to even notify members of the extended families,
let alone consult with them, although state agencies will occasionally issue
statements suggesting that that is the policy. In fact the state's policy is that the
family ends with the parents which defies the social practice of Canadians across the
country. In dealing with aboriginal communities in B.C. the same policy has come
to be quite otherwise. An Indian band for instance will be notified if children of a
band member have been apprehended. They will be given every assistance to look
after the child within that community.
(1240)
It is not clear to us why a perfectly sensible policy now
developing in the case of aboriginals should be denied the
overwhelming majority of Canadians. ``This, with regard to
grandparents specifically, where they are often more than ready
to look after the children of a broken family.
When family is available, grandparent or extended family, it
should be preferred to strangers in matters of custody, and that
should be a statutory presumption. Access should be provided to
grandparents also by a legal presumption, so that a parent who
would deny it will have to make that case, will have to go to a
judge and persuade''.
I think you will agree this is pretty powerful stuff. On the
other hand it is written by people who have contributed to
society for a great many years and are now frustrated by the
rules of that society.
There is another issue here we need to address. We have a
growing crime rate with young offenders. Jails are crowded
already. Is it not time we began to use common sense and
preventive measures? We must reach children before they begin
school. This is not a problem to be dumped on teachers. It begins
in the home. Responsibility begins in the home.
Why then are we ignoring the very group in our society who
can help build strong character and a sense of responsibility
within our children, our senior citizens. They are experienced.
They are wise. They are loving. They are willing to help, yes,
willing to help.
I recently had the honour of listening to Judge Andrea Ruffo
speak of her concerns that children know they are loved and
needed, that they are encouraged to try to follow their dreams.
Grandparents have the time to discuss our grandchildren's
dreams with them and to encourage them.
I am not suggesting that all grandparents should have access
to their grandchildren. I know there are some problems. That is
why I stress the courts will make the decision in the best
interests of the child. We must not punish 95 per cent of
grandparents for 5 per cent of the problems.
Bill C-232 is designed to relieve some of this frustration. We
owe it to these grandparents and we owe it to the grandchildren
to see this bill passed into law. This is the year of the family.
Families should include grandparents and great-grandparents.
It is important that grandparents be given the rights set out in the
bill.
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the House, we can do
something. We have been sent to Parliament to make a
difference. The passage of Bill C-232 will not cost the Canadian
taxpayers anything except the cost of a stamp to alert
grandparents when the divorce case will be heard before the
courts. This bill will only give Canadian grandparents the right
to be heard.
8307
Access will only be granted if the judge feels it is in the best
interests of the grandchild.
We often say we can do nothing. We have no excuse to say
today we can do nothing. If and when this bill goes to
committee, necessary changes can be made if it is decided in the
best interests of the child.
Bills are amended every day if necessary. Here we can address
a problem too long denied in our country, the right of the child to
his or her family. May I suggest that this is such a time to relieve
the frustrations of grandparents not able to visit or see their
grandchildren.
I know that some will question the appropriateness of this bill
because it deals with the problems of a very small group of
people. It can be argued that this type of change should be made
in the context of an overall review of family law at the
provincial level. There it could deal with common law
relationships and with children put in foster homes.
I can tell you that the grandparents groups that tried this
avenue have been given the usual bureaucratic runaround. It is
time to do something positive for those who helped to build this
great country, grandparents. If this bill is passed and becomes
law then perhaps the provincial jurisdictions will move to
broaden the group who could benefit from such as law. However,
let us, the members of this federal Parliament, take a stand today
and get on with this bill.
May I remind the House our Prime Minister on his recent tour
to China made the comment that representatives of different
political stripes can pull together for the benefit of the country
and all Canadians.
As I said at the beginning of my speech this is not a partisan
issue. I hope and I know grandparents across the country hope
that the government will support this measure so that it will be
passed into law and fill one of the large holes in the Divorce Act.
The voice of the children needs to be heard.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to speak to Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act
which is the granting of access to or custody of a child to a
grandparent proposed by my colleague, the member for
Mission-Coquitlam.
It is especially important to note, as she has mentioned in her
comment, that I am standing in support of this bill. One of the
nice things that can happen in this House is that members from
different parties can agree on an issue when it is relevant to all
Canadians. It is particularly relevant in this International Year
of the Family that we are discussing this important relationship
between grandparents and grandchildren. More important, we
are talking about protecting that relationship.
(1245)
I am a grandparent. As we all know grandparents can and do
play an important role in the psychological and social
development of grandchildren. They provide an additional
source of love, affection, support and understanding, all of
which serve to enhance the child's self esteem and confidence.
Grandparents serve as mentors and as teachers to their
grandchildren, giving them the benefit of years of experience
and a sense of their roots that cannot be obtained from any other
source.
Especially important is the relationship between grandparents
and grandchildren when families dissolve and separate.
Children are the innocent parties of a marriage breakup. They
are the ones who are least capable of coping or understanding
the problems that divorce creates. As a result, their disrupted
lives and broken hearts need healing. They need someone who
can hold them together in this very complicated and stressful
time.
Grandparents do play an integral role in this process of
healing. Grandparents give a real sense of security and
continuity. They provide a sense of being wanted and loved. A
grandparent's love is unconditional.
Despite the positive role that grandparents play in the lives of
their grandchildren prior to the family breakup, during
separation and after the divorce they often do not have access to
these vulnerable young people. As a grandmother it is very
difficult for me to understand not having access to my wonderful
grandchildren.
They are sometimes denied the right to visit or to have contact
with their grandchildren. Grandparents rights organizations
across Canada have thousands of documented cases where
grandparents have been obstructed from contacting their
grandchildren.
I recall a case in Toronto in which a woman lost contact with
her seven year old grandson when her former daughter-in-law
refused to take her phone calls or allow her any visitation rights.
After considerable attempts to contact the mother in order to
work out some kind of visitation, the grandparent was charged
with phone harassment and thrown in jail, locked up with the
criminals.
Yesterday I received a letter from a grandmother in my riding
of Nepean relaying her anguish to me over her inability to see
her young grandson. I would like to quote from her letter. She
says: ``Because of a pending divorce I am having difficulty
seeing my grandson and this is a cause of constant pain in our
family. We waited 11 years for a grandchild. Much of the joy of
this wondrous event is now tarnished as we have no right to
access. Denying or making it difficult for us to visit with our
little guy runs contrary to most people's idea of family. A child
has two families and deserves to know them both well. To know
he is treasured, to have pride and love from both sides of the
family is a birthright''.
8308
I could go on and on with testimonials from grandparents
across the country fighting for the right to see and speak to their
grandchildren. There are many.
On October 5, 1994, I presented over 3,000 signatures in this
House of Commons seeking a remedy to this problem. Just
yesterday I received another 802 signatures. In many of these
cases it is a personal tragedy for the grandparents. More
important, it is a personal tragedy for the grandchildren of
immense proportions that will probably affect them for the rest
of their lives.
There are a number of organizations across Canada that are
working very diligently to help grandparents who are
experiencing this situation. I would like to take this opportunity
to mention the organizations I have been working with. I cannot
mention all of the people, but I see some here in the gallery
today, although I know I am not supposed to mention that. They
include GRAND, Florence Knight of the Canadian
Grandparents' Rights Association, Liliane George of the
Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity and Madeleine
Bremner of the Grandparents Right of Wholesomeness Through
Heritage.
I congratulate them and all of the many people who have
worked so hard in this regard. All of these people have done a
tremendous amount of work. I congratulate all of you.
In Canada federal legislation states that grandparents have no
legal access to grandchildren. That is sad. If a grandparent wants
to see one of their grandsons or granddaughters who for example
is living with a former daughter-in-law they may have to go to
court unless there is an agreement made with the divorcing
parent.
This process can be terribly expensive and time consuming. It
pits grandparents against an aggressive and adversarial court
system. This is not conducive to the maintenance of harmonious
relationships.
(1250)
Many countries in the world recognize the unique
relationships between grandparents and grandchildren. In most
cases they have granted either through legislation or through
jurisprudence that parents may not without serious cause place
obstacles to relations between the child and his or her
grandparents.
Since 1980 the Quebec civil code has stated that ``in no case
may the father or the mother, without serious cause, place
obstacles to personal relationships between child and
grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the
legalities of the relations are settled by the court''.
This recognizes that the personal ties between the grandparent
and the grandchild must not be interpreted as an intrusion in the
life of the custodial parents, but as an opportunity for the child
to maintain a link with his or her ancestry and cultural heritage
as well as an opportunity to maintain that unique relationship
with his or her grandparent.
The amendments to the Divorce Act proposed by Bill C-232,
and my colleague has joined me on this side of the House, would
serve to complement this section of the civil code on
grandparents.
Bill C-232 recognizes the federal government's role in
ensuring grandparents' access to grandchildren by amending the
Divorce Act to recognize them as a distinct category of third
persons who may apply for access to a child without requiring
leave of the court.
The Divorce Act would also provide a presumption that this
relationship is in the best interests of the child and that this
relationship should therefore not be disturbed unless it can be
demonstrated to a court that it is not in the best interest of the
child for the grandparents to have access to this grandchild. My
colleague mentioned that in her comments.
Upon seeking legal advice with regard to my bill, which is
similar to this Bill C-232, there is a clause in my bill as well as
in hers that causes me concern. It was lines 10 through 17 which
reads: ``Unless the court orders otherwise, a spouse or
grandparent who is granted access to a child of the marriage has
the right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the
health, education and welfare of that child''.
There is concern with this proposal because this type of
information is private and normally only available to parents in
normal marriage situations. If this amendment were included in
the Divorce Act the effect may be that grandparents of the
children of divorced parents could have rights to receive health
and educational information that grandparents of children in an
intact family do not have.
While I wholeheartedly support the principles laid out in the
bill and I will support it, I will seek to amend clause 1 through
the justice committee's review. I would amend it by possibly
deleting lines 10 to 17. First and foremost, and I must say this
quite categorically, I will be supporting this bill and will work to
ensure that it reaches final approval in this House of Commons.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this bill. The
relationship that exists between grandparents and grandchildren
is unique. During these times of rapid social change, this bond
provides a sense of continuity and hope in the lives of our young
people. When obstacles are placed in the way of this relationship
the results can be devastating for both grandparents and
grandchildren.
I call on all my colleagues in this House to support Bill C-232
to amend the Divorce Act, to protect the rights of grandparents
to have access to their grandchildren.
8309
I am delighted to stand here today in support of Bill C-232
and I would hope that all my colleagues would do the same.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to this bill to amend the Divorce Act, Bill C-232.
The bill would amend the Divorce Act to provide for a person to
be granted custody of or access to any of his or her
grandchildren. By virtue of this change, grandparents would no
longer be required to obtain leave of the court to make such an
application.
Furthermore, this bill would give grandparents the right to be
given information as to the health, education and welfare of the
child. Finally, this bill provides that these amendments to the
Divorce Act would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee
four years after coming into force.
Taken at face value, this bill appears eminently acceptable
and I must admit that, as a grandmother myself, my gut reaction
would be to support the bill.
(1255)
After all, what grandparent would accept to be denied access
to his or her grandchildren after their parents separate or get
divorced? Of course, such sensitivity and feelings are only
human and quite normal when, for example, they have fewer
kids and they live far away, in poverty and in sickness, as the
case may be.
Nonetheless, we think that this bill wanders from the primary
objective, which is the welfare of the child. The emotional needs
of grandparents should certainly not come before their
grandchildren's quality of life.
As Madam Justice Andrée Ruffo said, it may be more
appropriate to talk in terms of the rights of children to be granted
access to their grandparents than the other way around. When
there are children involved, the paramount criterion should be
their best interests.
All in the name of commendable principles such as the rights
of grandparents and the welfare of grandchildren, I can see how
Bill C-232 could put the child in the middle not only of family
disputes, but also of jurisdiction disputes.
Let us be quite clear on this point. Bill C-232 is inefficient if
its primary goal is to facilitate contacts between grandparents
and grandchildren. It may make the process easier for
grandparents, but it may in turn make things more complicated
when the parents are deemed to have retained parental control
and there are no reasons for them to be disqualified.
Parental control, incidentally and to the best of our
knowledge, is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction under
paragraph 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We wonder if
giving more rights to the grandparents, when there is a divorce,
is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction.
As we know, the federal government has jurisdiction in
divorce matters. In a general sense, we wonder if Bill C-232 is a
challengeable extension of federal jurisdiction over divorce at
the expense of provincial jurisdiction in family matters.
Other questions come to mind. What are the rights of
grandparents when the parents are not married, as is now the
case for 40 per cent of children born in Quebec? Federal
parliamentarians must note that the continued rise in the number
of children born outside marriage means that provincial family
law is gradually replacing the federal Divorce Act on issues
relating to child custody and access rights.
It must be understood that Bill C-232 only affects the children
of couples in the process of divorcing or already divorced. Most
children are not affected by divorce, while others live, as we
have just pointed out, with parents who are not legally married.
This bill may not be as helpful to the grandparents who want
access to their grandchildren as it purports to be.
Furthermore, the parents or people with legal custody of a
child have primary responsibility for looking after the child's
best interests. In abuse cases, judicial remedies may be
authorized by provincial legislation. Provincial legislation also
applies to all family situations, even in the absence of marriage
leading to divorce.
After reviewing this bill, we fear that, despite honourable
intentions, C-232 only compensates for some provinces'
reluctance to legislate in this area.
(1300)
As for Quebec, it passed legislation on this issue 14 years ago.
Indeed, the Quebec civil code, through article 611, allows
grandparents who suffer a prejudice, in terms of their relations
with their grandchildren, to ask the courts to examine the details
of these relations.
Article 611 of the Quebec civil code provides that fathers and
mothers cannot, unless they have a major reason to do so,
interfere with the personal relations of a child and his or her
grandparents. Unless there is an agreement between the parties,
the details of these relations are defined by the court.
This article from the Quebec civil code is not only
comprehensive, it is also clear. It can be invoked before or after
a divorce, in the case of married people, as well as in the case of
common-law couples, single-parent families, or after the
adoption of a child by a new spouse.
Quebec's legislation is already far ahead of this unbalanced
bill. As we said earlier, the federal government does not have to
compensate for the reluctance of other provinces to legislate.
We have problems with another provision of this legislation. I
am referring to the fact that grandparents would have the right to
make inquiries as to the health and education of a child. Based
on Quebec's legislation on personal information, we thought
8310
that the protection of information on health and education also
fell under provincial jurisdiction.
It goes without saying that the parent of parents having
custody of a child must not be allowed to break the contact
between that child and his or her grandparents. The underlying
principles of Bill C-232 are closely related to those of the
Quebec civil code. However, the Divorce Act may not be the
most appropriate tool to grant and recognize rights to
grandparents.
I will conclude by saying that, as regards Quebec, we fear Bill
C-232 would accentuate the existing double jurisdiction
concerning family law. As you know, the federal Parliament has
exclusive jurisdiction over marriages and divorces, while
Quebec can legislate wedding celebrations, property and civil
rights, marital regimes, adoptions, separations from bed and
board, child custody and so on. This double jurisdiction not only
leads to inconsistencies in family law, but also prevents Quebec
from making an appropriate reform and creating a unified
family court. Bill C-232 might worsen the situation for Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that this bill is premature and
inappropriate. I want to point out to the hon. members that we
only wanted to question the merits of that legislation, not
necessarily oppose it.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I did not prepare in depth notes today because I was
not aware that I would have an opportunity to speak. However, I
am very pleased to stand and support this bill by the hon.
member for Mission-Coquitlam.
I have had numerous calls and responses from people in Nova
Scotia. Certain things come up frequently from the parents and
grandparents in particular who are for the most part over the age
of 50. These people through life experiences, through living and
through working, have accumulated a great deal of experience in
nurturing, guidance, sharing and loving. It is that experience
that quite often the child of the second generation needs.
(1305)
Very often in many instances we see that the parents, whether
through divorce, through emotional breakups, through living
situations, arrangements that are so different and complex
today, are so directly involved with the children through
emotion and sometimes the direct link. It does not give them the
vision to see the grandparents' needs and it does not give them
the opportunity. The grandparent is at an arm's length so to
speak and they can look at situations quite often more
objectively than in an emotional situation in which two parents
or two partners are having difficulty with children.
Although this does come under federal jurisdiction, and the
hon. member from the Bloc has pointed out the complexities
that might arise because of this and because of family law in
some provinces, I believe that we can work on those details, that
we can look at this bill in depth and bring in the changes or the
amendments, whatever is required, to make it more workable,
more effective.
It is imperative. I have seen, as I am sure all of my colleagues
would have seen, throughout our provinces that today we have
so many young people raising children in isolation quite often
without access to the experience of the older population of both
men and women who have lived long and have that experience of
living and working and have the wisdom of nurturing and
sharing without the biases and the direct emotional interference
that the first generation often has to combat.
I have recommended this in my own province. Quite often the
young women today having babies and being isolated in
apartments on their own have no guidance. They have no
connection to those older people in society who have the
wisdom of common sense, love and nurturing. This is a fault in
our society.
I believe this bill would bring in a closer connection to that
whole realm of family and bringing love, nurturing, guidance
and common sense of old wisdom that just comes from raising a
family.
This bill might go a long way in not only having grandparents'
rights to the children but more than anything serving the
children who need to know the love and nurturing and wisdom of
living.
A survey was done in one of the American schools asking the
children how many of them could cite their grandparent's name.
It was unbelievable the high number of children who could not
even tell their grandmother's or their grandfather's name. To
me, that is quite deplorable. It is a fact of society today.
I believe we are on the right track with this bill in helping
society, in helping parents to get an added abundance of love and
nurturing that can come from the grandparents' side.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-232, a
bill put forward by my hon. colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam.
Bill C-232 would amend the Divorce Act in such a way to
give grandparents the right of access to their grandchildren. In
this the International Year of the Family is it not the perfect
opportunity to legally recognize the important place that
grandparents occupy in the family unit? I am pleased to see
support in this House as we take the initiative in this important
area of family development.
8311
Today's family structure is threatened by a host of
uncertainties, tensions and stresses which can be attributed to
unfortunate financial circumstances, job loss, career or
vocational instability or family breakdown. There are occasions
when the provision of adequate care for children within these
situations becomes secondary to the unexpected disturbances or
turbulence within the family setting. The very urgent and
oftentimes invisible needs of the children in such an
environment can be overlooked.
(1310 )
I am sure all of us here have met adults who, despite being
adequately nourished and cared for physically as children,
demonstrate the impoverishment of their emotional upbringing.
While it is unlikely that any single event can be said to be
responsible for all adult distress, we can nonetheless argue there
is abundant evidence to suggest that the adult personality is
constructed to a considerable extent from childhood experiences
and that those who care for young children determine and define
the nature of these experiences.
As we consider this bill, let us not forget to address how best
to meet the needs of children in dysfunctional settings,
acknowledging that those who care about the children are also
likely to be better able to care for them.
Under the provisions of this bill and in the case of divorce the
trial judge would be permitted to address the needs of the whole
family at a time when it is least able to deal with problems. It is
difficult for children after a marriage breakup to adjust to this
change and if in addition they lose their grandparents, it can be
devastating. It is devastating for the children because they lose
what may seem to be the only stable element in their young lives
and devastating for the grandparents because the children they
love can be taken away from them with little legal recourse.
Since most grandparents are on fixed incomes and cannot
afford to initiate a court action to help their grandchildren
maintain some security and stability in their lives, I believe the
government should intervene to alleviate the fear of losing their
grandchildren. Many grandparents experience a sense of
tremendous loss during divorce proceedings and this sense of
loss in many cases becomes a reality. Bill C-232 sets out to
change this.
The bill before us would amend the Divorce Act in such a way
as to provide a person wishing to make an application under the
Divorce Act to be granted access to or custody of any of his or
her grandchildren and shall not be required to obtain leave of the
court to make such an application. The bill would also provide
that a person who was granted access to any of his or her
grandchildren shall have the right to make inquiries and to be
given information as to the health, education and welfare of the
child.
To make sure these amendments to the Divorce Act are
actually serving their intended purpose they would be subject to
a review by a parliamentary committee every four years after
their enactment.
Most grandparents are concerned about the well-being of
their grandchildren. This whole subject was debated in the
Alberta legislature. I would like to read from its Hansard. In her
speech Mrs. Hughes quoted a study by Jim Gladstone from the
University of Guelph. Gladstone conducted a study in 1986 that
reinforced the importance of grandparents, that relationship of
grandparents to grandchildren.
That report concluded that when marriages break down,
grandmothers have more contact with their grandchildren than
before the breakdown. Gladstone believes this means
grandparents have an innate tendency to respond to the needs
and emotional upheaval of their grandchildren. Previous
research on children of divorce has suggested that young
children have very little opportuntiy to talk about the breakup.
Gladstone believes that through the child's unique
relationship with the grandparents they can obtain the kind of
counselling, comfort and reassurance that they need providing
they have continuous access.
In the Winter 1991 issue of Your Better Health Magazine, a
writer Jane Widerman writes of the personal devastation
experienced by estranged grandparents: ``Until recently when it
came to the fallout from divorce, the primary focus has been on
the nuclear family''.
Professor Edward Kruk of the University of Calgary does
social work there. He first began to formally study the effect of
divorce on the extended family. He says: ``Mental health
practitioners have tended to ignore the extended family and the
importance of the grandparent-grandchild attachment, which
doesn't decrease after divorce''.
Social work experts are beginning to recognize that the
phenomenon of estranged grandparents is larger than was first
suspected and Kruk agrees. In his recent study of non-custodial
fathers he found that more than 50 per cent lose contact with
their children. By extension, the fathers' parents probably also
suffer the loss of access which, says Kruk, likely translates into
major mental and physical health problems for grandparents.
It is called involuntary child absence syndrome when
referring to non-custodial fathers. The symptoms encompass a
range of health problems including disrupted sleep, anxiety
attacks, grief, mourning and depression. It is bad enough that
anyone should suffer. But what parents may not realize is that if
the grandparent-grandchild relationship is sabotaged the
children are casualties too.
8312
(1315)
Kruk says that older relatives represent stability, giving
children a sense of personal history, a sense of personal
belonging. This becomes even more important when one link in
the familial chain is removed. During the trauma of divorce
grandparents can be a huge source of comfort to the children, a
sort of neutral territory in the divorce battleground.
Children cut off from their grandparents experience the
double whammy of separation from the non-custodial parent as
well as one set of grandparents. Therefore, there is a necessity
for creative legislation to protect access for grandparents. Bill
C-232 would legally recognize these unique relationships.
We need to also look at the precedents in legislation. For
example all 50 states in the United States have similar types of
legislation. In Canada, Quebec in article 659 has dealt with this
item as my hon. colleague previously mentioned as has Ontario
in article 59(4).
It therefore seems to be at the very least reasonable and
psychologically sound to argue that children should be nurtured
and cared for by people who have actively chosen to be with
them and to have a commitment in their development and
well-being. I urge all hon. members of the House to give
thoughtful deliberation to this bill and based on its merits and
for grandparents and grandchildren everywhere give it their
vigorous support.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to advise the House that I am going to be a
grandfather in February for the very first time. This is a rather
interesting experience. I have always wanted to be a
grandfather. However when my wife's aunt asked what I thought
it was going to feel to be a grandfather, I thought: I cannot be
that old. It is a very unusual feeling.
I am standing to speak in favour of this bill not only from a
personal point of view but also from the point of view of the
concerns that many of my constituents have passed along to me.
The stability of children is the question we are discussing
here. When children have stability as they grow to be adults that
our society will have stability. Our society is made up of
individual components, 29 million of us. As we have individual
stability so our society will be as well.
Unfortunately, it is a widely accepted premise that during the
course of a divorce many children if not the majority feel as
though somehow they are the people who are to blame. They end
up blaming themselves for all of the fracture within their family
unit that is going on around them. They truly need stability.
Almost invariably there is hostility at that particular time.
Again, children pick up on that and unfortunately part of that
hostility can be focused specifically toward the grandparents. In
other words when the parents are fighting with each other,
particularly if their parents in turn become part of that fight,
there ends up being this hostility.
If we are going to be able to work in the direction of creating a
feeling of roots and self-worth, then the grandparents have a
very, very important place in that. Children have to have a
feeling of ownership, that they are part of something. Children
have to be able to develop a feeling of self-worth.
I also believe that each of us in our own way feels it is
important that we have a feeling for our heritage. Many of us
have travelled to the places our grandparents came from, places
we have never seen before. Perhaps they are overseas or perhaps
they are in this country. We have never seen them and yet we
have a feeling of belonging and a feeling of heritage.
(1320 )
For all of those reasons I speak in favour of this bill. However
I knew that the Liberal members would be disappointed if the
Reform Party did not end up talking about dollars and cents at
some point in this debate so I will not disappoint them. I quote
from a submission on behalf of the Canadian Grandparents
Rights Association to the Custody and access project, family
and youth law policy section of the Department of Justice:
We believe that one large problem in this area is a gross misconception of
the powers and capabilities of the state. In British Columbia for instance, out
of 850,000 children, the state has seen fit to apprehend into its custody about
6,000 at current levels. Most of these are children who have been in and out
of custody repeatedly, rebellious teenagers, or Indian children. Less than
2,000 will be small children it was necessary to remove from their parents.
Even this small number (one that has been declining for two decades) creates
a huge financial obligation for the state in terms of immediate care, foster
care, and the associated activities of the state, including investigation,
apprehension and after care. It is hard to reach a definite conclusion as to
what those costs are, but we believe they are more than $50 million a year.
There we have it. We have a dollar and cents argument to
something that to any rational and reasonable person is not a
dollar and cents issue. Nonetheless it does have implications for
our society.
Rather than standing and beating my gums for another eight
minutes what I simply would like to say is that I speak strongly
in favour of this bill. I believe as we have strong citizens in our
country with a strong feeling of self-worth which comes in no
small part from the feeling of heritage and parentage that we
will be building a better and stronger society.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am also
pleased to stand in support of my hon. colleague's bill. I have a
leg up on the hon. member who just spoke because I already am a
grandfather.
I put this all into perspective. It is a great privilege to be part
of a family. When I think of the influence my parents have had
on our children and indeed the influence my grandparents had on
8313
me, I think that we greatly err if we do not do everything
possible to preserve that familial connection.
I remember when I was a young man leaving home for the first
time to go to university in Saskatoon. My parents made a special
point of taking me over to my grandparents' place to say
goodbye to them. I will never forget that my grandfather, who is
long gone now, took the time to pray with me. That was very
important to our family. We had an opportunity to pass on those
most deeply held values from generation to generation. Our
grandparents were of great assistance.
I think also particularly of my children's grandfather, my
father-in-law, who was a tremendously strong influence in their
lives. He was most influential and was such a solid and loving
man.
To a large degree I will speak on behalf of grandfathers. At the
beginning of this debate it was our female members who were
promoting it which is wonderful. However I do not want people
reading this record to think that we men do not care because we
do care deeply. I am thinking particularly of my own children
and the high esteem in which they held Grandpa Klassen as we
called him, my wife's father, and how we all were so close
together during that time when he was fighting cancer. He
passed away just a little over a year ago. Therefore those are
extremely important connections.
I think too of the occasions that we have had in working
together with a number of families in recent years who have
experienced this devastation of the family breakup. I remember
not long ago speaking with the father of a couple, I will not
identify them, who were breaking up and how he literally cried
when he thought of his grandchildren.
I can only, as forcefully as I can, support this bill and say how
important it is for children, for grandfathers as well as for
grandmothers. I commend and congratulate my colleague for
bringing this forward.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island will
have four minutes if he wishes the next time this matter comes
up for debate. That is the time remaining to him.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 1.26 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.26 p.m.)