TABLE OF CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 23, 1994
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 8166
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8168
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8169
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8169
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8169
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8169
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8170
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8170
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8171
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8171
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8172
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8172
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 8172
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8172
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8173
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8173
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8173
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8174
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 8174
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8175
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 8175
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8176
Motion for concurrence 8176
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 128; Nays, 87. 8176
Bill C-290. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 8178
Motion moved and agreed to 8178
Motion for concurrence in 50th report 8178
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8179
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8179
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8180
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8180
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8181
Bill C-48. Motion for third reading. 8181
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8186
Division on motion deferred 8197
8165
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 23, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy
has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Gauthier,
member for the electoral district of Ottawa-Vanier, by
resignation, effective today, November 23, 1994.
[Translation]
Under section 25(l)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I
today addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the
issue of a writ for the election of a new member to fill this
vacancy.
[English]
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
between 1885 and 1923, immigrants from China had to pay a tax
to enter Canada.
[English]
By 1923 the Canadian government collected approximately
$23 million from Chinese immigrants. After the tax was
removed the government enacted the Chinese Immigration
Exclusion Act which forbid the immigration of Chinese to
Canada and as a result less than 50 Chinese entered Canada
between 1923 and 1947.
The legislation applied only to Chinese separated families
and imposed immense hardship on a community that built the
railway, the national dream.
Both the Chinese Canadian National Council and the National
Congress of Chinese Canadians have called upon successive
Canadian governments to acknowledge the grave injustices and
racial discrimination inherent in the head tax of the exclusion
act.
[Translation]
I encourage the Canadian government to recognize the
enormous contribution made by the Chinese to Canada and to
resolve the problem of the tax and the Chinese Immigration
Exclusion Act as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
this National Patriots Day, Quebecers pay tribute to the
thousands of men and women known as Patriots, who believed
in the need for their people to be recognized as a nation able to
take charge of its own destiny and who demanded that truly
democratic and responsible institutions be created and
fundamental freedoms granted.
Whatever our views today of the appropriateness of the means
some of them used, we must recognize that their actions led to
the establishment of responsible government, on which are
founded our democratic institutions.
When we pay tribute to the Patriots, we are also recognizing
the determination and strength of conviction of well-known
politicians such as Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, Louis Joseph
Papineau and George Étienne Cartier, all of whom were first and
foremost Patriots. It is my hope that this House will take note of
the lessons of history when, in the very near future, it considers a
motion recognizing the true role of the Patriots.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, hostilities in Bosnia have recently increased.
Canadians are concerned for the safety of our troops in the
region.
The United Nations laid down restrictions to prohibit local air
force intervention in the conflict. We support the recent NATO
air strikes enforcing the no fly zone.
A rule laid down and not enforced is worse than no rule at all;
it is important that all combatants understand that the UN means
what it says. Thus, this action has advanced the cause of
protecting declared safe zones and allowing the provision of
humanitarian aid to continue. Once again we want to express our
8166
admiration of and support for our Canadian forces in that
theatre.
Now that the United States has lifted its participation in the
arms embargo, there is concern for how this will affect the
situation in Bosnia. The Prime Minister has on several occasions
stated that if the arms embargo is lifted Canadian forces will be
withdrawn. Britain and France have voiced similar policies.
We hope the Canadian government will soon provide an
update as to what negotiations are taking place and what actions
are being considered.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
term wine and dine has taken on new meaning in my home
province of British Columbia. Going out are the French
Burgundies and California Chardonnays. Coming in are the
British Columbia Pinot Blancs, Pinot Noirs, Gewurtraminers
and Merlots.
B.C. wine industry sales climbed to nearly $20 million in the
last year and a national export committee has been created to
market abroad. Although the acreage used for viticulture in B.C.
is a fraction of that of France, Australia or California, B.C.
wines have won numerous awards over the past few years.
Through the tireless work of the Vintner's Quality Alliance
and local growers the quality of B.C. wines has improved
dramatically over the past decade. Concentration on German
style wines and higher quality vinifera grape varietals has
contributed to this success.
Many B.C. wines, including Cedar Creek of Kelowna, have
won international awards. However the crowning glory came
with the recent award of the coveted British Avery trophy to
Mission Hill Winery of Kelowna. This prestigious gold medal
heralds the maturity of Canada's wine industry. At last our wines
can enjoy the international reputation-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosedale.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of my
constituents have contacted me recently regarding the
advisability of taxing RRSPs. Many of them oppose taxing
RRSPs because they are aware of the importance of RRSPs to
individuals who are not employed by institutions and who have
no other way of saving for their retirement. Taxing RRSPs
would afford such people less protection than those who work
for government, large corporations or other institutions. As a
matter of principle such unequal treatment is unfair.
(1405)
Taxing RRSPs runs counter to our government's active
encouragement of the growth of small and medium size
enterprises. Entrepreneurs running these businesses rely on the
RRSP system to save for their futures.
Finally the Canadian savings rate is low. Investments in
RRSPs may reduce immediate government tax revenue but
create pools of capital for the benefit of all Canadians. This
source of capital must not be forsaken merely to encourage
immediate government consumption.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to recognize National Child's Day and to
recognize the unique needs of children in rural Canada.
It is important for all members to remember what a precious
resource our children are and for us to be mindful of their
interests in our policy decisions. We must remember that the
future that we are helping to create is their future.
We need to support children in our rural communities by
ensuring that they have access to child care. We need to ensure
that they continue to have access to quality health care and
education. We also need to support continued diversification of
our rural communities to ensure that rural children can have
bright futures in their home communities.
In closing, I wish to recognize my own children who have
been a source of joy, inspiration and pride for me and for whom I
will always be thankful.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Sunday night, on the television program ``Soirée
des masques'' broadcast by the French network of the CBC, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage told viewers that he liked theatre,
in fact, he attended it regularly at the House of Commons.
I would like to remind the minister that the House of
Commons is not like the Compagnons de Saint-Laurent. This is
the real thing. When the Official Opposition asked for his
resignation after he intervened with the CRTC, it was for real.
It is reprehensible that our heritage minister casts discredit on
an institution such as Parliament with his inept jokes that amuse
no one, implying that what goes on in this place has more to do
with playacting than with real life.
8167
Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage is unable to see the
distinction between theatre and real life, he is unfit to serve as
heritage minister, a position which entails the responsibility of
ensuring the survival and development of the francophone and
Acadian communities. Their circumstances are neither a
tragedy, nor a farce, but a daily fight for the right to live in
French.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, does this sound familiar: ``As this tired, old
government drones on toward an overdue election the list of
promoted hacks and bagmen grows even longer and so does the
odour of nepotism, patronage and payoffs. In recent days we
have witnessed an orgy of Tory patronage that defies
imagination''? Only last year this was said by my hon. colleague
for Kingston and the Islands in response to Tory patronage
appointments.
It is amazing how going from opposition to government
shortens the memory. I guess that explains the decision to
appoint two more senators for nothing more than pure
patronage. This is an obscene affront to democracy. It just goes
to show the extent to which the Liberals are really concerned
about restoring honesty and integrity in our political
institutions.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment on the statement made
yesterday by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake
regarding the potential funding scenarios to the aboriginal
friendship centre program.
On behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, last Friday I
met personally with the National Association of Friendship
Centres and had an opportunity to listen to NAFC concerns
about the program review exercise and the impact on their
centres, several of which I have visited in recent months.
[Translation]
The federal government recognizes that the aboriginal
friendship centres movement is essential to the cultural survival
of native people who leave their reserves to settle, whether on a
permanent or a temporary basis, in the city.
[English]
The program review exercise is a government wide initiative.
The Department of Canadian Heritage as well as other federal
departments will have to make decisions that will be consistent
with government policies and priorities.
[Translation]
The Liberal government has made it one of its priorities to
help communities-
The Speaker: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon.
member.
* * *
(1410)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure that I rise today to draw attention to an
important day for Canadians of Lebanese origin.
Yesterday marked the 51st anniversary of the proclamation of
the independence of Lebanon. I wish to pay tribute to
Lebanese-Canadians for the contribution they have made to this
country since they immigrated here.
[English]
The importance that Canada places on its relationship with
Lebanon was recently demonstrated with the announcement to
reopen the Canadian embassy in Beirut in the new year. It is my
hope that the peace being established in Lebanon will bring with
it a renewed hope after much suffering.
[Translation]
I would like to extend my best wishes to all
Lebanese-Canadians in my riding of Saint-Denis, and in
particular to those who belong to the Quebec Lebanese-Syrian
Association who recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the
founding of their association.
[English]
Best wishes to all, ahid esteklell, merci beaucoup.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
a great deal of pride and interest that, like all Canadians, I
followed Team Canada's great performance in Asia. I wish to
express all my admiration to the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and
thank him for successfully leading the largest mission ever seen
in China.
Mr. Prime Minister, you showed the entire world that
Canadian expertise is an exportable asset and that our products
are among the best in the world. Through your firmness,
assurance and patience, you have rallied the provincial premiers
and the cream of business people in Canada and Quebec around
you.
Whether Mr. Parizeau likes it or not, Quebec was represented
very well by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.
8168
What more could we ask for?
Mr. Prime Minister, I pay tribute to your know-how. The
contracts and trade agreements you have managed to secure for
Canada are a coup that even Germany, an exporting country par
excellence, could not score.
* * *
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in one
year, the Liberals have had enough time to demonstrate their
management skills. Did they manage to put the government's
fiscal house in order? Unfortunately, no.
The Liberals did not do anything to collect the $6.5 billion
owed in back taxes. They would rather cut social programs
indiscriminately.
The Auditor General's report shows that the government does
not know how effective its programs are, as it prepares to axe
them.
Instead, the Liberals should have the courage to cut the
department of defence. Mismanagement of real property causes
annual losses of $100 million, while $700 million could be
saved on information technology projects. But that is something
they leave alone.
In one year, the Liberals should have brought the
government's finances under control. Unfortunately they failed
to do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thought the golf course at Ferndale penitentiary was too much. I
thought that prisoners getting old age security and GST rebates
was repulsive. Free condoms to support their habits and
conjugal visits for relief was a lot to expect.
Holy smokes, the prisoners are at it again. Cigarettes at
Saskatchewan penitentiary are $1.12 less on the inside than they
are on the outside. At the Edmonton institution they are $1.27
cheaper and at the Atlantic institution $1.42 cheaper, and on and
on it goes.
To commemorate the occasion of cheaper smokes for
prisoners on the backs of the taxpayer, I am introducing a new
brand packaged by Liberal & Co., tested by the health minister
and financed by the Solicitor General. No, they are not Benson
& Hedges; they are Marleau & Grays for the inmate who has
everything.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while I agree with many of the observations made by the Auditor
General and disagree with others, I want to put on the record a
concern of mine which has grown over the years with the release
of successive auditors general reports. The value for money
concept was always loaded in my judgment, but increasingly it
is obvious that the Auditor General is making value judgments,
policy judgments, and policy prescriptions that are the purview
of government and Parliament.
The Auditor General should not be giving us his opinion on
whether social programs create dependence. They may or they
may not. It is not the Auditor General's role to have an official
opinion on this point.
The Auditor General is welcome to point out that the
government is not doing a good job of collecting the taxes owed
it, thus contributing to the deficit, but it is not his business, for
example, if he were to do so, to recommend what kind of tax
system we should have.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress how dismayed the population of
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell feels following the fire that
destroyed one of the most prestigious dairy farms in this
country.
(1415)
The Gillette farm located in Embrun, in my riding, was the
biggest dairy farm in eastern Ontario and was renowned
throughout the international farm community.
I have personally accompanied some of my parliamentary
colleagues and foreigners who wished to tour this remarkable
business. Farmers from around the world have looked to this
farm for inspiration.
Fortunately for our region and for the farm community, the
owners of this dairy farm, Dr. Gilles Patenaude and his sons, are
not letting this tragedy get them down and are already talking
about rebuilding it. We wish them all the courage they will need
to get their operation going again.
_____________________________________________
8168
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Cree chief Matthew Coon Come
was in Washington continuing his smear campaign against
Quebec in the United States, using insulting terms and accusing
the Quebec government of pursuing a racist policy toward the
Crees.
8169
My question is for the Prime Minister. After finding out what
Cree Chief Matthew Coon Come said, did he instruct the
Canadian embassy in Washington to set the record straight with
the American authorities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I obtained information from the Canadian embassy in
the United States. Mr. Coon Come addressed an audience in a
debate in which Quebec and other parts of Canada were
represented and what he said was debated. The other side was
presented publicly at that time. Since it was a debate, the record
was set straight by the people there, who had been invited by a
group of academics. So the embassy did not think that it had to
intervene. Opinions are expressed everywhere in Canada.
As I said yesterday, people whom I know very well and even
see in my riding often say things about me that I do not like. But
in a democracy, we have to live with it. I see that Premier
Parizeau, who was accused, defended himself. Later the Indian
chief said that he did not want to attribute those words to Mr.
Parizeau. According to the information I have, he issued a
correction.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Prime Minister is minimizing the
situation. Keep in mind that in this case a Canadian province and
one of Canada's two main language communities are being
attacked and accused of a very serious charge of racism.
Therefore I think that the Prime Minister should take this matter
more seriously.
How does he explain, for example, that the Canadian embassy
did not intervene to set the record straight the day after Mr. Coon
Come made his remarks, while in the case of clear cutting, for
example, the embassy did a very fine job and quite legitimately
intervened with the American authorities to correct the
information going around Europe on the clear cutting done by
Canadian paper companies, and even spent $4.5 million for this
purpose? Why did it not show the same vigilance, since this
embassy has just demanded the exclusive right to represent
Quebec's interests in Washington?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just given a very clear explanation. It was a
debate. Someone reportedly expressed an opinion that was
contradicted by other people who were there. Today, that person
says he was misinterpreted and did not want to attack Mr.
Parizeau. Mr. Parizeau defended himself. In a democratic
society, that is normal.
Expressing an opinion is one thing. When dealing with forests
or something else, as the Leader of the Opposition raised this
issue in his question- When the Government of Quebec wanted
to go ahead with the new James Bay project for hydro-electric
power, the Canadian government's representative always
defended Quebec's interests against American
environmentalists. But if a Canadian citizen makes untrue
statements about a politician-that has happened to me so often.
If the Leader of the Opposition took the initiative to defend me
every time nasty things were said about the Prime Minister of
Canada in his presence, I would be pleasantly surprised.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the exaggeration in political discussions when a
politician is attacked is one thing, but these discussions must be
level-headed and respect people's reputations. Vilifying a
whole people is something else. I say to the Prime Minister that
as Prime Minister of Canada, if he claims to defend Canada-if
Quebec is vilified everywhere and charged with racism, Canada
as a whole suffers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: That was the preamble to my question, Mr.
Speaker. Are we to understand that the federal government
refuses to set the record straight in this serious matter, because
in the pre-referendum environment it suits the government to
have the image of Quebec and its pro-sovereignty government
discredited in the United States?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to repeat what I said.
There was a debate in Washington among Canadians invited
by a group to debate the situation of Quebec and Canada. The
native leader spoke strongly. He claimed today that he did not
attribute his words to the premier of Quebec. The premier
defended himself today. We have debates like that all the time.
The situation was rectified that very moment by the people
there. The embassy felt there was nothing to do at the moment
because other Canadian citizens had defended the Canadian
population and in particular the Quebec population.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
report, the Auditor General mentions the lack of thoroughness
and the weakness of the data used to justify the closure of
military bases. He refers, among other examples, to the base in
Portage-La Prairie, Manitoba, where the costs related to the
closure were significantly underestimated by the Department of
National Defence. In the end, this measure resulted in savings of
$170 million, instead of the anticipated $411 million.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the
very same scenario is being repeated with the closure of the
military college in Saint-Jean, because he significantly
underestimates the costs of transferring the operations to
Kingston, and does the minister realize that he will never reach
the
8170
objective of $23 million promised by the Department of
National Defence?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the period of
examination of national defence covered by the Auditor General
was mainly for the time before this government was elected.
In discussing the base closures at Portage la Prairie and
Summerside the Auditor General certainly had good reasons for
the claims he made. We did not repeat those mistakes when we
closed bases earlier this year. We were much more meticulous
about the cost savings that would accrue. Of course we have
stood by those figures as they particularly apply to the question
raised by the hon. member for the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the Auditor General of Canada has demonstrated that the
Department of National Defence mismanages all of its capital
assets and has a poor record regarding the closure of military
bases, does the minister recognize that his only argument to
justify the closing of the military college in Saint-Jean, namely
to make savings, is no longer valid, and does he agree that he
should review his decision and take into account the
constructive suggestions made by stakeholders?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously
the hon. member did not hear my previous answer. I stated this
yesterday and we have stated it before. We believe absolutely
that the financial reasons certainly justify the closure of the two
military colleges.
(1425 )
When the hon. member opposite came to the defence
committee sometime last spring he was given all the details and
he never challenged the facts. In fact once he got them he left
and ran away. He did not even challenge the facts.
With respect to the CMR there is no question that our
financial figures are exact. With respect to the general question
on base closures the department learned from some of the
mistakes that were made by the previous government. That is
why even though the painful decisions taken in February had to
go on, they have gone on reasonably smoothly in the rest of the
country.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a few short months the contest between federalism
and separatism will begin in earnest. Surely the Prime Minister
would agree that now is the time for federalism to put its best
foot forward, not its worst. Federalism does not put its best foot
forward through partisan, patronage appointments to key
federal institutions, such as Rideau Hall and the Canadian
Senate.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that continuation of the
Mulroney practice of high level patronage appointments to
federal offices discredits the federal system? Will he promise to
abandon this practice before it infects his entire government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if I should reply to an attack on the
Governor General designate. The man served his country for
about 23 years and is highly respected everywhere. He is the
first Atlantic Canadian to be appointed as Governor General.
Ask anybody to look at the quality of the people I have
appointed. For example this morning I named Jean-Robert
Gauthier, who is not a member of Parliament any more, as a
senator. He served for 22 years as a member of Parliament. He is
the one who proposed a bill to have the Auditor General report
four times a year. I was somewhat sorry he accepted the offer I
made to him because I think he still would have been very good
serving here, but after 22 years he accepted that appointment.
This man had a great contest in the House. It was good for you,
Mr. Speaker, that it was by two votes he did not become the
Speaker. A lot of people thought we had two great candidates
and he lost by only two votes. He is a very respected Canadian
who will make a great senator.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I did not know that I had won by two votes.
My colleagues, may I very gently remind you, and this is not
in the form of a lecture in any way, that some of our institutions
should not be reflected upon negatively, nor I believe should we
attack each other's character. I wonder if we might keep this in
mind with both the questions and answers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister defends partisan patronage
appointments to the highest political offices. In so doing he is
sending all the wrong signals to his ministers responsible for
lower level appointments. He is saying it is okay for the
immigration minister to make patronage appointments to the
IRB. He is saying it is okay for the Solicitor General to make
patronage appointments to the National Parole Board.
(1430)
Will the Prime Minister change the signals he is sending to
those ministers and rescind his latest patronage appointments so
that Canadians can believe he is serious about restoring integrity
to government?
8171
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Constitution of Canada has vested the Prime
Minister of Canada with the responsibility to fill the jobs in the
Senate. Of course when I name someone, I make a decision. It is
always a patronage appointment.
When my predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, selected the father of the
leader of the Reform Party, it was a political patronage
appointment when he became a senator. If the leader of the
Reform Party does not want me to keep that privilege, he had a
great occasion, when we voted in the referendum on the
Charlottetown accord, to make the Senate elected. This
gentleman voted against having an elected Senate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister appears to believe that continued
use of partisan patronage at the highest levels of government is
somehow compatible with his pledge to integrity in government.
He appears to believe that patronage and integrity can live in the
same government and dine at the same table.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Who, if anyone, has he
consulted on the ethics of this matter? Has he consulted the
ethics counsellor? Did he call former Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney on the phone? Who, if anyone, has advised him that
patronage and integrity can coexist within a government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little problem. If someone is a Liberal or
supports the Liberal Party he is disqualified. Then 63 per cent of
the Canadian people are disqualified because they are Liberal.
It is not very good for my humility, but if I were to discard all
the people who have expressed confidence in this Prime
Minister, then 75 per cent of the Canadian people would be
disqualified.
I ask everybody to look at the quality of the people I have
appointed. That is the criteria. Each one is a great citizen of
Canada, making a contribution in his or her own province.
Jean-Robert Gauthier has been one of the greatest defenders of
the French fact in Canada. The Governor General will prove to
be a great choice that the Queen has accepted.
The Speaker: This has to be Wednesday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
The Auditor General is critical of the Department of National
Defence because of its ad hoc approach to closing military
bases, and I quote: ``The budgetary process provides no
opportunity to prepare the labour force or the communities for
change, and to plan a strategy for government assistance''. That
was a reference to the 1994 Budget, not the budget of the
previous government.
(1435)
Will the Minister for National Defence admit that these
closings are the result of ad hoc political decision-making that
is having a harsh impact on local communities, since it does not
include a strategy to help them diversify their economy?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I beg to
differ.
First, the Liberal Party in its red book called for a cut in
defence spending. We acted on that in the budget. It was done in
the budget because we felt we had to discharge our promise right
away for the tax year beginning April 1, 1994.
The Auditor General is a very eminent individual and has
done a lot of work. We work with him closely at national
defence. I believe he acknowledges the fact that we are trying to
improve on the suggestions he makes.
Without being disrespectful, I would say that the choice of
whether or not we enact certain military expenditures in the
budget or otherwise is a political decision made by the
Government of Canada and not by the Auditor General.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
may remind the minister that the red book also talked about
defence conversion and diversification, neither of which has
been done.
Instead of being criticized again next year by the Auditor
General's office for his ad hoc decision to close the Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean, would the minister not agree he
should support the proposal by the mayor of Saint-Jean which
provides for a transition period, in order to avoid repeating the
mistakes of the past?
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 met the mayor of Saint-Jean today at noon to
discuss his proposal. We agreed on the two main proposals: first,
that CMR should be converted to civilian use, and second, that a
period of transition is necessary to make CMR a post-secondary
institution.
Having agreed on the principles, we concluded that the same
principles formed the basis for the July 19 agreement. We both
urge the Government of Quebec to accept the July 19 agreement
8172
signed by the Quebec government, in order to put an end to the
present uncertainty in the region.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Auditor General's report
pointed out serious flaws within Correctional Service Canada.
One hundred and sixty violent offenders have slipped through
the cracks and ended up on the street; those behind bars are
costing Canadian taxpayers up to $80,000 per year each.
Canadians are not getting good value for their tax dollars in a
system that has serious and occasionally fatal flaws.
I ask the parliamentary secretary when Canadians can expect
a corrections system that works for them instead of for the
criminals.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I answered yesterday, we
welcome the recommendations of the Auditor General. We have
already started to implement some of them.
Even though we admit that some persons have escaped from
prison, we would like it if nobody escaped. However from April
1994 until today we have had only 76 escapees. Over the same
period last year we had 147 escapees. I know that is 76 too many.
We would like that figure to be zero. We are working toward that
and I hope the member will co-operate with us.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. According
to the Auditor General, the appointment process for the National
Parole Board seems to put Canadians at even greater risk than
corrections. Many full time appointees are ill prepared to do the
job, much less the part time appointees.
Will the parliamentary secretary promise to put an end to
political patronage on the National Parole Board and introduce a
system based solely on professional skills and merit?
(1440 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we promised in the red
book we have acted. The case is clear. Concerning the
appointment of the chairman, the Solicitor General has gazetted
the position. There was a special experienced panel that
reviewed the candidate and the Solicitor General made the final
review which resulted in a good appointment.
As a matter of fact, the Auditor General states in his report
that it is a good system. We intend to continue with this new
system which was implemented according to our red book
promise.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Auditor General finds it regrettable that the government
is about to conduct a social program reform without first
gathering all the information required to make informed
choices. While the results of social programs cannot be
prejudged, he said, available data is insufficient to use as a basis
for a proper evaluation.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development
claim that Canadians can participate in a real debate on social
program reform, while at the same time providing them with
only partial, incomplete and insufficient information?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
look carefully at what the Auditor General said was a
requirement for additional information, things on impact of
seasonal work, premium reduction, the impact of various forms
of cross subsidization and look at the paper that we tabled on
November 14, she would find that all the information requested
by the Auditor General, is contained in that report.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister is prepared to conduct his social program reform on the
basis of incomplete information, does he recognize that his sole
objective, rather than to improve social programs, is in fact to
make cuts in assistance programs for the disadvantaged?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this
question many times in the past.
If one looks clearly at the objectives set forward in the green
book, in the various supplementary papers that we put forward,
we are challenging members of Parliament, as we are
challenging Canadians, to find a better way of delivering social
programs, particularly to improve employment opportunities.
The whole purpose of revising and modernizing the
unemployment insurance program and the Canada assistance
program is to give unemployed Canadians, those on social
benefits, a much better set of tools to help them get back into the
workplace. That is the primary basis of reform.
The best way of dealing with a fiscal crisis is to have more
people back at work.
8173
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Canadian Race Relations Foundation will cost taxpayers
$24 million. Of this, $3 million will go to pay the salaries of the
30 governor in council appointments.
When in opposition, the Liberal member from
Scarborough-Agincourt challenged these appointments. He
criticized their partisan nature by suggesting that the
government would appoint only those people who support it and
that the government would probably place as president of the
foundation somebody who has raised funds for the government.
Given that the Prime Minister has recently made more
patronage appointments, how can he guarantee that he will not
fill the 30-odd appointments for this board with more Liberal
hacks and bagmen?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
answer to my colleague, I sense a mean spirited approach behind
her observations-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. minister does not want to
attribute motives. I would ask her to withdraw the words ``mean
spirited''.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I guess I really thought she was
mean spirited but if that is-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Will the minister withdraw?
(1445 )
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I thought the
remarks were without understanding of the wonderful
appointments that our leader has made in the past. I am so proud
of what he has already done that I was moved to a wrong
observation in that regard of the character of the person.
The Speaker: Is there a withdrawal in there? Will the
secretary of state withdraw?
Mrs. Finestone: With the greatest of respect to you, Mr.
Speaker, of course I withdraw.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would really like an answer to my question today, but I will
continue with my supplementary question.
The government appears bound and determined to spend more
tax dollars on multiculturalism. During debate on the issue in
1990 the president of Canadian municipalities stated that social
harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary
contests or even by co-operation between business and
government or by directed government action.
The real challenge is in the hearts and minds of each of us as
individuals. When will the Prime Minister recognize the truth of
that statement, terminate the Race Relations Foundation and
save Canadian taxpayers $24 million?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
the hon. member, while we have not proclaimed the Race
Relations Foundation as yet, we are a party and a government
that believes in its commitment to the people of Canada and is
committed to its word.
The member will find in the red book a strong undertaking
about the Race Relations Foundation. The Prime Minister
announced it in his speech from the throne. It was included in the
finance minister's speech in the budget. We are committed and
we will proclaim en temps et lieu.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General reminds us that recording revenue
and expenditures of the UI account with those of the federal
government distorts the government's budget results, since
Ottawa has not contributed to the UI account since 1990. The
account is financed entirely by workers and employers.
Does the Minister of Finance admit that, without the net
surplus of $2.7 billion in the UI account, his deficit for the
current year would not be $39.7 billion, as he claims, but about
$42 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is responsible for any deficit in the UI account.
True, the money comes from the private sector. However, since
we are responsible for the deficit, if there is one, these figures
must really be included in our budget. It is very clear that we are
responsible.
Also, I must tell you that the Auditor General himself insists
on this accounting policy.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that the
Auditor General is not the only one denouncing this procedure.
A recent report by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries stated that
since the UI program is totally self-financed, the current
mechanism distorts the government's budget results.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
Instead of using this questionable procedure to hide the
government's disastrous financial situation and make himself
look good as a manager of public funds, why does the Minister
of Finance not use the UI account surplus to reduce employers'
and
8174
employees' premiums, thus creating thousands of jobs? He
should cut the rhetoric and take action.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the
accounting procedure used by the government is the one that is
suggested and on which the Auditor General himself insists. We
are simply following his directives.
Second, about the government's ability to reduce UI
premiums, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
Minister of Industry and myself all agree that it must be done.
(1450)
That said, what the business community wants, really, is
stable premiums. As soon as we have a surplus, as soon as we are
really confident that we can reduce premiums, we will certainly
do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
A convicted pedophile who had served his full sentence came
to Peterborough recently in a blaze of publicity. This was a
shock for the entire community, for those concerned about
children and for those who try to help former offenders.
The judicial and penal system has failed in this case. Can the
parliamentary secretary inform us of the steps being taken to
protect our children from dangerous offenders and improve the
penal system?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague
knows, there is presently a federal-provincial-territorial task
force on the study of high risk offenders. This report will be
brought to our attention early in the new year.
I should add that last week the Solicitor General also
announced the creation of the Canadian police information
centre which will screen out various individuals who wish to
work with youth organizations across Canada. We will be sure
that no sexual abusers are allowed to work with children.
I would conclude by saying that the announcement made by
the minister is a follow up to our red book commitment to help
prevent sexual abusers taking part in various organizations,
volunteer organizations such as Big Sisters, Big Brothers,
Scouts and whatnot.
I reassure the hon. member that it is our commitment to make
sure we protect children.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
Documents obtained through access to information reveal
that the government has promised civil servants that it would
honour the workforce adjustment policy which says in essence
that civil servants cannot be laid off. Yet the minister has
promised to cut $5 billion in government programs.
Attrition alone will not save $5 billion, so how does the
minister propose to honour the workforce adjustment policy and
his commitment to reduce the size of the public service at the
same time?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are currently in discussions and negotiations with
the bargaining agents for the public service employees with
respect to the workforce adjustment directive.
Understanding the points that are made by the hon. member,
matters are under discussion at the present time and will
subsequently be reported as the negotiations are completed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury
Board.
The Auditor General's report says that the purpose of the
workforce adjustment directive, which is preserving jobs,
stands directly contrary to the government's purpose of
reducing the size of the public service. If the minister is not able
to renegotiate the terms of the workforce directive with the
unions, is he prepared to bring in legislation to change that
directive?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it quite clear in the government that we
would negotiate with the bargaining agents. It is a matter that is
subject to collective bargaining as it is part of the agreements
with our unions and we will negotiate with them.
There is no doubt that there is going to be an impact from the
program review in terms of the public service employment
levels. Those are matters that we will negotiate with the unions
and subsequently when they have been dealt with we will report
them to Parliament.
8175
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Transport attempted to trivialize the
generous interest-free loan of $300,000 granted to Mr. Paul
Tellier by Canadian National toward the purchase of a home in
Westmount. The minister tried to explain this loan by saying it
was in line with so-called similar practices in the private sector.
At a time when the CN is cutting 10,000 positions as part of its
rationalization plan and the government is asking all its
employees to make sacrifices, what is the Minister of Transport
waiting for, as sole shareholder, to step in and put a stop to this
outrageous privilege enjoyed by Mr. Tellier, one of the people
most highly paid by the Canadian taxpayers?
(1455)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, I indicated in my answer that the practice
with regard to the president of CN was one for which there were
precedents at CN with previous presidents. I also explained that
this was a situation that was commonplace in the private sector,
given that CN is a Crown corporation.
Certainly, we are all aware of the upcoming changes at CN
and elsewhere in the Canadian railway system. The salary of the
president of CN was set by order in council before this
government came to power. There is no doubt that the situation
identified by the hon. member is of great concern to us. I can
assure this House that, if it were up to us to decide, no such
things would ever happen again in the future.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the minister explain that there was no mention of the
interest-free loan granted to Mr. Tellier in the annual
information circular tabled last April by CN, CN declaring at the
time that no loans had been made to any of its administrators or
officers?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is undoubtedly a very serious matter.
As I indicated, the salary paid to the president of CN is set by
order in council. The question of other benefits is an
arrangement between the president and the board of directors of
CN. I believe, as is the case of every member of the House and
any person who is working in the public sector, they have an
absolute obligation to explain exactly what the arrangements
are.
I fully expect the president of CN will avail himself of the
opportunity to come before the press to explain to the hon.
member who has raised the question or to anyone else exactly
what arrangements he has concluded with his board of directors
in a crown corporation that operates at arm's length from the
government.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, immediately after firearms were stolen from a store in
B.C. a man arrested with them was only charged with possession
of stolen property. For this he received a six-month jail term. In
Ontario an individual apprehended with a fully automatic
sub-machine gun received a $1,000 fine.
Could the Minister of Justice explain to Canadians demanding
sentences that would prove to be a real deterrent why the penalty
for the theft of firearms or the possession of prohibited weapons
is so lenient under the government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on
the sentences in those specific cases because I do not know the
facts beyond what the hon. member has said.
The hon. member and I are on common ground in terms of the
need for stern and certain punishment for the kinds of offences
he has described.
The government will be introducing in the House during the
coming weeks specific proposals in relation to firearms that will
include very significant changes to the penalty provisions for
the kinds of crime he has described.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a young man in my riding had his .22 stored under the
seat of his truck as the current storage regulations call for. When
he lent his truck to a friend who was stopped for speeding the
young owner was charged with lending a firearm to someone
who did not have a valid FAC. This can be an indictable offence
punishable by up to two years in jail.
While it seems harder to get a straight answer from this
minister than it is blood from a stone, would he care to comment
on the gross inequity whereby a criminal possessing stolen or
prohibited firearms receives a slap on the wrist yet this young
man is facing a criminal record because he lent his truck to a
friend?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rather than comment
on specific cases that have been selected for the member's own
purposes I would like to speak about the criminal law in general.
8176
We are in the course of preparing for presentation to the
House of Commons comprehensive proposals with respect to
firearms that will disclose the government's priorities in
relation to safety and criminal law.
The hon. member will find, when they are presented, that they
are entirely consistent with the public interest which is safety in
Canadian society.
* * *
(1500 )
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
are nearly 1.3 million poor children in Canada.
When releasing his discussion paper the Minister of Human
Resources Development said that reducing child poverty would
be a central objective of social security reform.
What measures is the minister considering to ensure that
Canadian children, our national resource, no longer go hungry?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the eradication or
elimination of child poverty is a major objective in the proposed
social security reform.
As the hon. member knows, one of the most important ways of
doing that is to change the conditions under which people can
get back to work and to provide much better child care and
employment assistance services, particularly for single mothers
faced with the most serious child poverty situations.
In the last several months under the strategic initiatives
program of the government over 20,000 Canadians have been
given direct assistance in an innovative, flexible, creative way
to enable them to get back into the work market, the job market,
so we can ensure that their children have a proper income and
proper upbringing.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Ishmael Alphonsa Roett, MP
and my brother Speaker of the House of Assembly of Barbados.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to
now proceed with Ways and Means Motion No. 16 instead of
Routine Proceedings and, if necessary, to immediately vote on
it, without ringing the bells.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)
moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax
Act and income tax application rules, laid upon the table on
Tuesday, November 22, 1994, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 116)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
8177
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wells
Young
Zed-128
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)-87
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Bellemare
Berger
Crête
Daviault
Dubé
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Karygiannis
Lalonde
Lebel
Lincoln
Patry
Plamondon
St-Laurent
(1510)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
8177
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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
48 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the reports of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association regarding the annual
OECD debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, which took place in Strasbourg from October 4 to
October 6, 1994.
* * *
(1515 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill
C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. It is reported with
no amendments.
[Translation]
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 50th report of the
Standing
8178
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of
associate members of committees.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in
the report later this day.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-290, an act providing for equal
treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a
conjugal relationship.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. You will understand that I am proud
to introduce today a bill which, if it is passed, will end a more
than secular type of discrimination by amending 40 acts, so as to
formally recognize legal equality for same sex spouses. I do
hope that the House will support this legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That six members, three staff and three interpreters from the Standing
Committee on Transport be allowed to hold informal hearings in relation to the
committee's airport study in Vancouver, Kelowna, Calgary and Winnipeg from
November 27 to December 2, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another motion:
That the date December 2, 1994 in the motion approved by the House on
September 28, 1994 authorizing the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development to travel to Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver be
replaced with December 4, 1994.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are on a roll today. I move that the 50th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented
to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present to the House a petition
signed by 1,152 Canadians from across Ontario.
The petition addresses the serious decline we have
experienced in our ore reserve in the mining industry. The group
Keep Mining in Canada has developed a 10-point plan to
address this concern.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take action that will
create employment in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild
Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and
most of all keep mining in Canada.
(1520 )
I congratulate this group for its initiative and I totally support
its objectives.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to draw to
the attention of this House that mining is an important industry
to Canada. Over 150 communities in every province and
territory contribute to Canada's export to the tune of over $20
billion a year. Canada is an important mining country and
hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on a healthy
investment climate to continue with this important industry.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take action to improve
the climate, increase reserves, preserve our communities and
keep mining in Canada. I support the petition and the 358
Canadians who have signed it.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table a petition on
behalf of the residents of Bruce-Grey.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the
8179
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions today.
The first petition is signed by approximately 800 residents of
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. It prays that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition I have is signed by various residents of the
municipality of metropolitan Toronto.
The petitioners believe there has been a rise in violent young
offender crime. They pray and request that Parliament recognize
and address the concerns of the petitioners and that Parliament
amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders
Act to provide for heavier penalties for those convicted of
violent crime.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition is signed by residents of communities in
Ontario such as Perth, Smiths Falls, Lanark, Fallbrook, Almonte
and other communities in the area.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
of sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition
today signed by residents of Okanagan Falls in my riding.
People from Calgary, Grande Prairie and Slave Lake, Alberta, as
well as several other communities in western Canada, have also
signed the petition.
The petitioners are opposed to further legislation for firearms
acquisition and possession. They are asking Parliament to
provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing for use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I would like to mention that thousands of people are adding
their names to this petition which is being circulated in western
Canada. To date I have delivered 829 names to the House. I
concur with the petitioners.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to present and table with the House petitions
asking that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of
sexual orientation.
(1525 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present a petition from the people in my riding of Prince
George-Bulkley Valley.
The petition deals with section 241 of the Criminal Code. The
petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241
of the Criminal Code in any way and upholds the Supreme Court
of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide and euthanasia.
I would like to add that I personally support the petition.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): In
the second petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament not amend the human rights code or the
Canadian Human Rights Act to indicate societal approval of
same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending
the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
The petition is signed by constituents of Prince
George-Bulkley Valley. Once again, I personally support the
petition.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions to present on behalf of my constituents of Egmont.
These petitions are very similar to others presented today.
In the first petition, the petitioners pray that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
8180
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition, the petitioners humbly pray that Parliament
ensure 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.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): In the last petition, Mr.
Speaker, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to present quite a few petitions under Standing Order
36 dealing with the whole question of euthanasia.
Constituents from all parts of Haldimand-Norfolk pray that
Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or
allow aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I also have the pleasure to present to the House a petition from
constituents from Haldimand-Norfolk regarding the whole
question of same sex relationships.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): In the last
petition, Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk
ask the government to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition organized and collected by a large
number of young Canadians in the riding of
Scarborough-Rouge River.
It calls upon Parliament to act in such a way as to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of the cards
known as killer cards or killer trading cards.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present. The first one is that the justice minister
is proposing unfair anti-gun legislation. It will do little if
anything to reduce the incidence of violent crime in Canada, but
will simply restrict or eliminate entirely the rights of honest
law-abiding hunters and target shooters.
I would like the petitioners to know that I agree with their
point of view.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have the pleasure to present a total of 178 pages of petitions with
respect to the issue of mining. Canada's investment climate is
forcing its mineral industry to look for new opportunities
elsewhere, a trend which has eroded industry employment
substantially in this decade and threatens the long term viability
of mining in Canada.
I concur completely with the sentiments expressed in the
petition. In subsequent events in the House I will be making a
presentation as we debate Bill C-48 on natural resources
speaking in support of the mining industry.
(1530)
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present some
petitions on behalf of grandchildren and grandparents in Canada
asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to grant standing
before the courts to argue for continuous access for grandparents
to their grandchildren.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present today, two on behalf of the constituents
in my riding of Simcoe Centre and one on behalf of the
constituents in Sarnia-Lambton.
The first one is from Simcoe Centre dealing with the issue of
euthanasia. The petitioners request that current laws regarding
active euthanasia be enforced.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition from Simcoe Centre deals with sexual
orientation.
The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined
phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to
the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
8181
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is dealing with official bilingualism and I present
it on behalf of the citizens of Sarnia-Lambton.
Given that the large 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.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that the one notice of motion for the
production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8181
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the third
time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this
afternoon to speak on the occasion of the third reading of Bill
C-48, a bill to establish the Department of Natural Resources.
This afternoon I wish to focus my brief comments on the
important role of research and development as these concepts
relate to the resource sectors and my department.
In the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada we stated our
commitment to encourage progress toward the concept of
sustainable development by integrating economic and
environmental values and objectives.
One of our key challenges as a government in meeting this
commitment is to create resource production and processing
technologies that are less harmful to the environment and
government and industry must meet this challenge by working
in collaboration and partnership.
Government research facilities will continue to make an
important contribution to R and D but the involvement of
industry, universities, colleges and levels of government other
than federal is essential.
The role of the federal government in the natural resources
sectors is that of partner and that of a natural bridge between
industry, other levels of government and the academy.
Natural Resources Canada has a lead role to play in the way
our natural resources are managed. NRCAN, along with other
science and technology departments, is responsible for ensuring
that the Canadian taxpayers' investment of approximately $7
billion in science and technology is focused on areas that have
the highest priority in terms of meeting our important economic,
social and environmental goals.
By facilitating co-operation between all stakeholders
government can ensure that the science and technology at work
in these sectors contributes to the wealth of our economy and the
health of our natural resources.
NRCAN has four main scientific branches: the Canadian
Forest Service, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada
Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, otherwise known as
CANMET, and Geomatics Canada. All these branches make
important contributions to research and development in
partnership with others.
(1535 )
Let me now give some specific examples of how my
department fulfils this important role. In mining let us look to
the problem of acid mine drainage, an environmental liability
for the Canadian mining industry, with a potential price tag of
between $3 billion to $5 billion.
To address this challenge the mine environmental neutral
drainage program, otherwise known as MEND, unites the efforts
of four federal government departments, eight provincial
governments, seventeen mining companies and a number of
academic institutions. It has developed new leading edge
technology that can be transferred and marketed around the
world. The program has also saved to date hundreds of millions
of dollars for Canadian mining companies.
Let me move to the area of geomatics. When it comes to a
discussion of innovative technology I believe that some of the
most remarkable and innovative technological developments
have occurred in the field of geomatics. Integrating economic
and environmental objectives for resource development begins
with accurate information. Working in partnership our
geomatics industry and the Government of Canada have been
instrumental in developing, applying and transferring both
innovative
8182
technology and expertise to Canada's resource industries and to
countries around the world.
For example, we can receive images at the Prince Albert
satellite receiving station, a world class Canadian built facility,
which is located in Saskatchewan. Then we can digitize this
information and use it in computer based tools to explore for
new resources, to develop new mines or to monitor changes in
our environment. Those are only a few of the uses of geomatics
technology.
Let me move to the forestry sector, one of the single most
important areas of Canada's industrial strength. In the forestry
sector advanced technologies based on remote sensing and
computer science are giving us new techniques for managing the
forest resource and its ecosystems.
Canada has developed highly successful forest health
monitoring systems including the forest insect and disease
survey, a partnership between the federal and provincial
governments and the acid rain national early warning system.
Canada also leads the world in the development of forest fire
danger rating systems and related decision support systems.
These are just a few examples of the valuable partnerships that
exist between government, industries and universities.
However the challenge is clear. We can no longer tackle
problems in traditional ways and government must continue to
find innovative solutions through our partnerships and through
science and technology which is the key to progress toward
sustainable development. My department, NRCAN, is in the
process of drawing the road map for natural resources
development in the 21st century. It is a map for success because
of the consensus that we have achieved by bringing together key
stakeholders in the resource sectors.
NRCAN is a major federal force behind science and
technology and is the leading federal agency responsible for
natural resource issues. These roles provide NRCAN with the
capacity to help address the challenges industry faces and to
contribute to the fulfilment of the government's policy
priorities.
Increasingly the department's policy and science and
technology efforts focus on two interrelated objectives, helping
the resource industry to maintain its international
competitiveness and doing so in a way that is environmentally
sustainable. Together these two objectives capture the essence
of the concept of sustainable development, the integration of
economic and environmental objectives and values.
In conclusion, it was a pleasure to address the House this
afternoon on the occasion of the third reading of Bill C-48, a bill
that will when enacted provide the legal framework for the new
Department of Natural Resources.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will have to repeat a number of points I raised previously, since
I find myself in the position of a teacher faced with a student
who is the opposite of a quick study. This certainly does not
apply to the minister but it does to her government.
They should start making a serious attempt at understanding
what is at stake, because this is a very complex issue. Yesterday,
we presented a number of amendments that I feel were entirely
appropriate and justified, but they did not pass. They were
defeated.
I will go back to what we proposed yesterday to explain why
normally, these amendments should have been accepted by
everyone.
We should recall that Bill C-48 was introduced as part of the
present government's plan to restructure the federal public
service. The purpose of the bill before the House today is to
legislate the creation of the Department of Natural Resources.
Once the bill is passed, one minister will have the powers and
duties that today are vested in the ministers referred to in the
Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy,
Mines and Resources Act. As far as this bill is concerned,
obviously we cannot object to bringing Forestry and Energy,
Mines and Resources together in a single department. Of course
not.
As such, this is a laudable objective. Regrouping certain
duties to provide a better service may be justified, provided they
are ours to regroup. That would not seem to be the case when we
are talking about natural resources. I will get back to this later
on, because I feel the present government failed to take
advantage of this opportunity to reach an understanding with
Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.
I also feel that if this government had done what it should
have done, today we would be able to say that it fully intends to
respect its partners. That is not the case, and unfortunately, I see
no sign of it in this bill. In fact, I see more duplication.
According to the bill before the House today, the term natural
resources is applied to all resources mentioned in the
Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy,
Mines and Resources Act. This means that anything connected
with natural resources is affected by this bill.
Furthermore, and this is very important, the bill refers to
integrated management and sustainable development, which we
8183
fully endorse. Those are principles we in the Bloc are prepared
to support, because, as I said before, this is very important for
the future of our children and grandchildren.
These principles are already being applied in my riding, in
Matapédia-Matane, and more specifically in connection with
forest management. We did not invent these principles but we
support them wholeheartedly. In the last 20 years, we have
really invested in our forests, and there are some wonderful
things to see and some wonderful things are happening as a
result of our efforts.
(1545)
In my opinion, it is no longer possible to speak about
development of natural resources without speaking about
sustainable development. The bill before us therefore has the
advantage, and we support this, of applying the principle of
integrated management and sustainable development to all
natural resources.
This being said, I and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois
understand perfectly well that the objective of the present bill is
to formalize what is actually taking place.
I hope that our colleagues in the Liberal Party do not expect us
to support this bill to establish the Department of Natural
Resources. It is a bill to which we have no trouble speaking.
Quebecers elected us, a sovereignist party, to defend the
interests of Quebec and, at the same time, to initiate dialogue
with the rest of Canada, with a view to laying the groundwork
for our eventual sovereignty.
I note, however, that the present Liberal government seems to
has absolutely no intention of respecting the jurisdiction of
Quebec or even that of the other provinces, although this
jurisdiction was conferred under the Constitution that governs
us. I would remind the government that natural resources are a
provincial responsibility, under the Constitution of 1867, and
that this right was reaffirmed by the 1982 Liberal coup.
So much for this government's respect for its partners. By
establishing this department, the government repudiates the
basic principles which should govern efficient management of
this country. It also creates a new bone of contention between
the provinces, the territories and itself.
I will never lay enough stress on this issue. I have said it
before and I repeat: Natural resources are a provincial area of
jurisdiction in which the federal government has no business.
We have to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over natural
resources and will always do so.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, would renege on our promises and
most of all neglect the mandate our constituents have given us, if
we were to keep quiet about the federal government's
involvement in an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction.
We cannot stand idly by in the face of such an attack and a bill
which, as it stands now, is an affront to the politicians in Quebec
and the other Canadian provinces.
I do not understand how they can boast that they are acting in
the best interests of the country, when they do not even abide by
their own Constitution. If the government really wanted to
respect the terms of the Constitution of Canada, it would abolish
the Department of Natural Resources and let the provinces
manage this area which comes under their own jurisdiction.
Since the very beginning, every successive Quebec
government has defended the provincial areas of jurisdiction
defined in the Canadian Constitution, starting with Mr. Lesage,
``Masters in our own house'', and then Mr. Johnson,
``Sovereignty or Independence'', but even before their time,
Quebec had always requested provincial autonomy.
Even the more federalist of the Quebec premiers have insisted
that the Constitution be fully applied, especially in the area of
natural resources.
(1550)
As is, this bill allows the government to enter into agreements
with organizations as well as individuals and companies. It
allows the government to award contracts in the natural
resources and forestry sectors, even to individuals. Yet, the
achievement of 1982, the 1982 Constitution Act, defines very
clearly the provincial areas of jurisdiction enshrined in section
92(a) concerning the development, conservation and
management of forest resources, including laws in relation to
the rate of primary production therefrom.
Every successive Quebec government has asked that Quebec
jurisdiction over natural resources be respected and now this bill
negates these repeated requests.
Just one year ago, a known federalist, Quebec minister Sirros,
stated in the National Assembly Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction
over the management of natural resources over the Quebec
territory. It seems that this government did not pay heed to his
call, since we have here an Act to establish the Department of
Natural Resources, which, if this bill is passed, will have full
jurisdiction in this area.
With this bill, the Canadian government assumes powers and
rights that directly infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of
the provinces in terms of natural resources and this, to us, is
unacceptable.
Clause 27.3(1)(c) of Bill C-48 is a very good example. It
reads:
(c) may enter into agreements with the government of any
province or with any person-
This is where the problem lies:
-for forest protection and management or forest utilization, for the conduct
of research related thereto or for forestry publicity or education;
8184
If there is an area in which we, Quebecers, have excelled, it is
forestry. If there is an area which is truly ours since 1867, it is
also forestry. And yet, Bill C-48 allows the Canadian
government to put Quebec's jurisdiction aside and to enter into
agreements with individuals, organizations and companies.
If at least the government had included an obligation to
consult the governments of Quebec or the other provinces
concerned, Bill C-48 would not have been acceptable, but it
could have been less offensive, less detrimental to
federal-provincial relations.
Clause 35 is a good example of this desire to interfere in an
area under provincial jurisdiction. In order to understand the
significance of this clause, I think it is worth reading it again. It
reads as follows:
5. The Minister may cause distribution to be made of duplicate specimens to
scientific, literary and educational institutions in Canada and other countries, and
may authorize the distribution or sale of publications, maps and other documents
issued by the Department.
There is nothing too serious up to that point. I will continue:
6. Subject to section 4 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act
respecting the powers, duties and functions of the Minister in relation to matters
mentioned in that section over which Parliament has jurisdiction, the Minister
shall be responsible for coordinating, promoting and recommending national
policies and programs with respect to energy, mines and minerals, water and
other resources-
(1555)
All this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Clause 35 of
the bill goes on as follows:
-and, in carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Minister may
(a) conduct applied and basic research programs and investigations and economic
studies in relation to those resources, and for that purpose maintain and operate
research institutes, laboratories, observatories and other facilities for exploration
and research related to the source, origin, properties, development or use of those
resources;
Again, all this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Let us
move on. The Minister can:
(b) study, keep under review and consider recommendations with respect to matters
relating to the exploration for, or the production, recovery, manufacture, processing,
transmission, transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange or disposition of
any of those resources, and with respect to matters relating to the sources of those
resources within or outside Canada.
We are still in an area of provincial jurisdiction as recognized
by the Canadian Constitution. But the highlight of the bill is
undoubtedly the following paragraph.
7.(1) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and
functions mentioned in section 6, formulate plans for the conservation, development
and use of the resources specified in that section and for related research and the
Minister may carry out those plans in cooperation with other departments, branches
and agencies of the Government of Canada.
The federal government assumes all powers in an area which
comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction. Allow me to draw
to your attention the fact that provincial governments have not
been mentioned once since the beginning of clause 35. Clause 35
concludes in these terms:
In formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (1), the Minister
may:
(a) cooperate with the provinces and with municipalities;
(b) enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government
of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government,
respecting the carrying out of those plans; and
(c) make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in
Council, provide other forms of financial assistance.
(3) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and
functions mentioned in this section, including in relations to technical
surveys, consult with, and inaugurate conferences of representatives of
producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal
authorities.
That means the Minister can even go directly to
municipalities without consulting the provincial authorities. In
my opinion, clause 35 represents one of the worst attacks this
government has ever made against powers handed down to
provinces since it came to office. Voting against this bill is of the
utmost importance.
Since when can the federal government enter into agreements
with municipalities without the province's consent? Since when
does the federal government have the right to invade a field of
provincial jurisdiction without the province's agreement or
without even having to consult it? Such an attitude leads me to
believe that no understanding, no harmony is possible in a
country where the central government acts without the
agreement of its main partners. One would think that this
government cannot read its own Constitution, that of Canada.
One would think that it is deaf when it comes to Quebec's and
the provinces' claims.
(1600)
What we see with Bill C-48 is a government insisting on
trespassing on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction
without the legitimacy that the explicit agreement of Quebec
would confer on its action. A government which is getting
involved in the writing of Canada-wide standards regarding
natural resources. A government which has not learned from
past mistakes and still believes that coast-to-coast policies are
the key to collective wealth. This is completely false.
It is also a government which is harbouring the very same
illusions it denounced in the past. This government is giving
itself the means to act directly, without anybody's agreement,
particularly that of the main stakeholders, the provinces, by
8185
financing agencies or individuals directly. It is also a
government which is bypassing the provinces, dealing directly
with municipal governments, even though, under the 1867
Constitution, they come under the authority of provincial
governments.
Finally, Bill C-48 confirms that this government could not
care less about the claims of Quebec and the provinces and that
it intends, as much as possible, to disregard the Constitution
which governs us, in order to act as it pleases and achieve its
ends, no matter what the cost to taxpayers in Quebec and this
country.
I will bet that many of my colleagues from the other provinces
agree with me. I will bet that many of my colleagues opposite
think the same way but will never dare come out into the open
about it, for fear of being repudiated by their own government.
Let me tell them any way that such unsolicited federal
interventions in a provincial area of jurisdiction cause awful
overlapping all over the place.
We are going through difficult economic times. The provinces
already have long-established natural resources strategies.
What is the federal government doing if not duplicating
whatever is already there? I am sure that Canadian taxpayers, to
whom this government is so committed, would not approve of
this. If they were asked tomorrow if they agreed with paying
double for the sake of satisfying this government's centralizing
designs, I know what they would say. Their answer would be a
clear one. I am sure that they would never agree that the current
Liberal government act this way. As far as we, in Quebec, are
concerned, it goes without saying that we will not accept this
disgraceful luxury of paying double all the time.
Let me give you an example with respect to forest
management, over which this government is unduly assuming
power by establishing the Department of Natural Resources.
The provincial strategy tabled by the government of Quebec in
May 1994 illustrates my point. This strategy is well and truly
independent from the National Forest Strategy developed by the
federal government and the Canadian Council of Forest
Ministers. The people of Quebec have to pay for both strategies.
The people from my riding have to pay for both. We are sick and
tired of that.
This government completely disregards the Constitution that
governs it. It has also completely disregarded the very
legitimate demands of all Quebecers for at least 30 years. The
time has come for Quebecers to make a decision that will allow
them to finally exercise the powers they are entitled to.
(1605)
In November 1990, the House Standing Committee on
Forestry and Fisheries, although made up of hard-core
federalists, said that in the 20th century, the government tried
several times to influence national forestry policies, but that it
encountered provincial resistance to any potential interference
in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Committee
members felt that the federal government clearly had to play a
much more serious role in guaranteeing the success of any
national forestry policy.
We must come to the conclusion that the current government
has not learned anything from the past. We also note that,
although many observers recommended that the federal
government take the Constitution into account in dealing with
natural resources, this government continues to display the
same interfering and contemptuous attitude toward a level of
government which nonetheless has jurisdiction over natural
resources. Quebec has always demanded the same powers over
natural resources and forestry. Quebec was opposed to creating
the Department of Forestry, which it rightly saw as federal
interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec also did not ratify the National Forest Strategy. Since
1991, after the resounding failure of the Meech Lake Accord, no
Quebec minister has participated in the activities of the
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. In fact, Quebec just
recently released its own strategy on forest management. It is
certainly its prerogative, considering that this sector falls under
provincial jurisdiction.
We will never support Bill C-48. We will never tolerate this
undue and unacceptable interference in a field of provincial
jurisdiction. I am not just referring to Quebec but also to the
other provinces. We will never tolerate this unjustifiable desire
to deprive another level of government of its vested powers. As
Bloc Quebecois members, we will never support this kind of
action.
Nor will taxpayers, and particularly those in my riding of
Matapédia-Matane, ever let those who govern waste public
money by duplicating services. As the elected representatives of
Quebecers, we will never let the government ruin the efforts of
generations of Quebecers to develop their natural resources the
way they wanted to do it.
I hope that members will seriously consider the implications
of this bill and will send the government back to the drawing
board. If necessary, I will be pleased to make my plea again and
again, because the government does not have the right to resort
to useless duplication in order to gain some specific power.
Since it took office, this government has been centralizing over
and over. This legislation is yet another attempt to gnaw away at
the powers of Quebec and the other provinces. The government
is increasingly bent on gaining power, instead of trying to
manage taxpayers' money. The Bloc Quebecois will oppose any
such attempt to gain power.
8186
(1610)
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill
C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources
and related acts.
We do not have any significant problems with the bill at
present, so I will use this time to expand on some ideas on
natural resource management that our party would like to put
forward to help improve this very important aspect of our
country.
Canada has a number of resources, both human and natural.
Being so large and so rich in so many of these resources, it is
critically important that we manage them properly. Our natural
resources, including fish, lumber, mining and water, are
extensive. Few countries in the world can claim to be as rich as
we are in natural resources. In fact the standard of living of all
Canadians is intimately associated with these resources.
Natural resources are under siege, as they are in every other
country in the world. What we do now is critically important in
how these resources survive in the future. I would first like to
deal with the latter, our natural resources, and go through some
of the specific principles that we need to apply to them to ensure
they will survive in the future for coming generations. I would
also like to deal with some specific problems, in particular some
of the problems affecting where I live in British Columbia.
First and foremost, the most important principle in natural
resources is sustainable development. Much damage has already
been done by the generations that preceded us and the current
generation in dealing with our natural resources.
Everybody hears much about the ozone depletion, about the
decrease in biodiversity that has occurred all over the world,
from the flora and the fauna, the well known animals and plants
now being affected such as the tigers and black rhino to the
lesser known plants that are being decimated and wiped off the
face of the planet every day.
As an aside, this lack of biodiversity is a huge loss to us as a
species. For within that wealth of biodiversity exists a potential
for those species that have become extinct that will never be
explored, a potential we can use in industry, in medicine to save
lives, to help our species and other species on the planet.
Desertification has occurred as a result of the
mismanagement of our natural resources. A wide swath is gone
all over our world that has rendered arable land into deserts.
Land that was once productive now is not and never will be
again, at least not in our lifetimes. It will never be able to
produce the food stuffs, the agriculture, the homes that the
people of the world need and that our burgeoning population
will require.
As a country we have been very guilty of deforestation in the
past. We have criticized Brazil for its deforestation practices,
but we have been as guilty as them. Much has been done over the
last few years to undo this, in part because of the loud outcry and
the interest of the Canadian people, but also because of special
interest and environmental groups that have comes on side to
help be watchdogs for what has gone on in our natural resources.
Pollution plays a very important part because various aspects
of pollution are decimating areas that we will forever have to
live with on land, in lakes, water bodies and in the Arctic. All we
need do is talk to the aboriginal people that live in the north to
know what horrible things have happened to the pristine areas
that once existed in our north.
(1615)
This is not something that is only specific to our country, but
to all of the countries that share the Arctic borders. Pollution is
rampant. Foodstuffs are going down and they too are being
polluted. It is happening all over. Toxic wastes are being
dumped. All these things are occurring now and need to be
addressed now for, as I said before, what we do at this moment
will forever impart on future generations. Things are not getting
better.
Look at the acidification that has been occurring in the Great
Lakes. Where I used to live in Ontario, thousands and thousands
of beautiful lakes that used to have such an enormous resource
of fish are dying. There is a wasteland of lakes in Ontario and in
Quebec that has been rendered useless because of the
acidification and the dumping of acid rain into these lakes, a
profound tragedy, lakes that now it is too late to do anything
about.
Perhaps if we address this problem now, in the future we can
get a handle on it and prevent this from happening and do things
to bring them back to the state that they were once in.
We should also like to address another aspect that is not often
discussed in natural resources, that is the burgeoning world
population, a population that now stands at 5.7 billion and in a
mere 37 years will double to over 10 billion people. It is
interesting to note that it has taken the entire history of man to
get to our current stage of 5.7 billion but it will only take 37
years to double that.
I ask everybody to consider what will happen to the future of
our population and our world when that population doubles.
When that happens we will have an increase in the demand on
our resources, an increase in the demand on our natural
resources, on our environment and on our security. A broadened
definition of security, we are now finding, will include our
military security, our environmental security and our social
security.
8187
These increasing demands on our limited resources will result
in conflicts among people, which will result in migration of
people from areas that have not to areas that have, which will
impact on every country in the world. Do not think because we
might live a half a world away that it will not because it certainly
will. There are recent historical precedents to support that.
I would like to put forth some constructive solutions that we
can all work together to fulfil. First, I support and urge the
government to engage in fulfilling transboundary agreements
throughout countries over areas such as pollution, in particular
with the United States, and with the transboundary agreements
that we will need to fulfil with countries bounding the Arctic.
We need common rules on trade and the environment that will
enable us to fulfil a rules based free trade agreement that will
provide us, a relatively small country, with the powers to fulfil
and protect our own environmental areas.
I would also like to see a larger emphasis from our dwindling
foreign aid dollar to be put on providing for education and safe,
effective birth control measures for all people no matter where
they live.
We need to have education for the public for, as members of
the House know, 80 per cent of the world's resources are
consumed by a mere 20 per cent of the people. Not only must we
address what goes on half a world away, but we must look into
our own areas, our own spheres of influence to address these
problems in our own home. Without doing this we cannot
credibly ask other countries to do the same.
We must aggressively market our natural resources in a
sustainable fashion. I would suggest that we put an increased
emphasis on our value added product.
One of the great accomplishments in recent times of our
country has been the ability of our country to negotiate the
World Trade Organization, an enormous accomplishment for a
country as small as ours. I hope this will improve the links
between trade and sustainable development that will occur
among a number of countries and we as a country can actually
act.
On the World Trade Organization, I hope we can enter into
this rules based system. This brings to mind one of the enormous
strengths that our country has that we as Canadians tend to
downplay.
(1620 )
I have said this before in the House. We are one of the few
countries in the world that has the ability in terms of diplomacy,
in terms of international respect, to bring countries together,
bring them to the table, bring them to negotiate problems before
they happen and to engage in discussions and agreements that
will help to provide for sustainable development aspects and
controls over pollution for a number of countries.
I do not have very much time but I would like to address a
couple of aspects that affect in particular the west coast of
British Columbia. One is the fisheries department.
We have on the west coast a horrible situation with the
widespread decimation of fish which is definitely a sustainable
resource, one that has been recently decimated, one that is on the
verge of going the way the east coast fishery has tragically gone.
I hope our minister of fisheries will accept some of the
suggestions we have made and look at some of the solutions that
we have put forth.
The problems occurring on the west coast are not merely
environmental. There is terrible poaching occurring by all facets
of the fishing industry, by commercial fishermen,
non-commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, Canadians,
Americans, aboriginals and non-aboriginals. All people within
these sectors are responsible in part for this terrible decimation.
I would encourage strongly the minister of fisheries to engage
in a judicial inquiry to determine once and for all what the root
cause is and to root out the terrible things that have occurred in
our west coast fishery. We cannot hide our head in the sand any
longer to what is occurring.
Within the context of fisheries I know that we are constrained
very much by fiscal restraints. I would suggest that the minister
streamline the administration of the department of fisheries,
there is a study that was done some years ago to this extent, but
on the other hand to buttress up the department of fisheries
officers who do an incredible job to try to save and help the west
coast and east coast fisheries.
Another aspect is the forestry industry. Half of all the money
that we actually earn on Vancouver Island comes from forestry.
Recently we have come to an agreement that will enable us to
have a sustainable west coast industry. I hope we will be able to
use the expertise from that to teach other countries what we have
learned from our mistakes.
Certainly there are terrible miscalculations and forestry
practices that have occurred in the past in British Columbia. I
think we are on the way to mending those. I hope in the future we
will not lose sight of the recent accomplishments that we have
made in this area and that we will be able to go ahead and expand
these to not only involve forestry but also to involve the mining
industry and other industries.
I would make a few suggestions about the division of natural
resources. In these days of fiscal restraint does it not make sense
for us to further divide the areas of responsibility? Clearly most
of the responsibility lies with the provinces. I would encourage
this government to give some of the federal responsibilities to
provincial jurisdictions where they truly belong. In this way we
could streamline the administration, streamline the
responsibilities, decrease the administration and save the
taxpayer a great deal of money.
8188
In conclusion, we are faced with a balancing act between the
needs and demands of an economy and a people who have to earn
a living and must provide for themselves and on the other hand a
need to balance the needs of our environment. Without a
sustainable resource, without a safe, effective environment for
ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren we will not
be in a world that we will want to live in.
I hope we will take these principles and apply sustainable
development to our beautiful natural resources so that we and
future generations will be able to enjoy them.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill which
sets up the Department of Natural Resources. It is a very
important one. It amalgamates the old Department of Energy
Mines and Resources and Forestry Canada. Forestry Canada has
been of extreme importance to this nation as a whole since day
one of Canadian colonial history. I have said before in the House
that the three things that were the economic foundation of
pioneer days in Canada and certainly since Confederation were
the fisheries, forestry and agriculture. All of them certainly have
their challenges in today's world.
(1625)
Bill C-48, the bill before us today, makes explicit reference to
the minister's duty to foster the sustainable development of
Canada's energy, mineral and forest resources. This means that
the government's economic, social and environmental
objectives will be factored into all decisions about resource
development management and use.
One way the new department will pursue sustainable
development is through the work of its scientific branches.
Natural Resources Canada will continue to have vibrant science
and technology arms in the form of the Canadian Forest Service,
the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral
and Energy Technology, and Geomatics Canada.
Much has been said in the House today about the rights of the
provinces. We are all very well aware that the provinces have a
big say in natural resources. I, coming from Ontario, also know
how some of those resources have been managed over the years.
It is time for a co-ordinated and sustainable development
program in co-operation with both provincial and federal
governments.
There are many examples of partnerships between the federal
government and the provinces. Great efforts have been made to
build a bridge for the two. For instance, the Canadian Council of
Forest Ministers from across Canada has recently agreed on a
framework for future co-operation in the areas of science and
technology, international trade issues, regional development,
aboriginal forestry and national co-ordination.
In the energy area the department is working closely with
Environment Canada officials, the provinces and other
stakeholders to develop a national action program on climate
change. This is in keeping with Canada's commitment to
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year
2000.
This commitment follows our international obligation under
the convention on climate change which Canada signed at the
1992 earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The reason I raise
this matter is that in today's world it is not as simple as in past
Canadian history to say this little compartment belongs to the
provinces, this belongs to the federal government, and so on.
With new technology, new demands and our outlook in the
global world today we have to have more co-operation and
bridge building between federal and provincial governments at
home if we are going to compete effectively and efficiently.
Across the country we have several research and development
institutions with regard to the forest industry. In my own
constituency we have a national forestry institute located near
Chalk River. It is called the Petawawa National Forestry
Institute because it is actually located on property owned by the
Department of National Defence.
It is very important because of the fire research. What is better
for sustainable development than to have expertise in fire
research out there? How many hectares of property, how many
square miles of forest is destroyed every year by forest fires?
Therefore the more we know about controlling fire the better it
is for sustainable development.
(1630)
What better program can we have than for example the
research and development on the rapid growth of trees that goes
on at the Petawawa National Forestry Institute? It has
experimental plantations which date back to 1917.
Base Petawawa itself was first set up by the Laurier
government in 1905. Twelve years later, what is called Forestry
Canada today had its roots-if I may use that term-on 41
square miles of that territory which was purchased by the
Government of Canada in 1905 for a military base. The
Department of National Defence has honoured the research
going on in that 41 square mile area. Research cannot be turned
off overnight. Some of the ongoing experiments there are
decades old. It is a very important institute.
Other institutes across Canada, in western Canada, Quebec
and Atlantic Canada also have a tremendous amount of work
going on of a positive nature for the country's forestry industry.
I have no problems with the Department of Natural Resources
promoting forestry research in Canada. It has always been a
federal responsibility in Canada to do part of forestry research.
The provinces do part of forestry research. There is no big
conflict. They are talking to each other and co-operating. That
8189
is what Canadian federalism and the Canadian national spirit is
all about.
Some other very important institutions are attached to the
Department of Natural Resources. I want to talk about one of my
favourite subjects today. That is Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited which reports through the Minister of Natural
Resources to the House of Commons.
I was quite concerned one day not too long ago. I was sitting in
the House listening to a speaker from across the way talk about
the waste and lack of productivity in crown corporations and so
on. I was trying to get the floor but time ran out so I am going to
say now what I wanted to say then.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a crown corporation and
has been around as a corporation since 1952. It was started by
the National Research Council of Canada in about 1945. I will
give some very revealing highlights of this crown corporation
which has been a success to the country.
Research and development is the force that drives the
economy in any nation and I will give some facts. In developing
Canada's nuclear energy capability, the federal government has
appropriated $4.7 billion to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
since 1952. That is for the last 42 years. After putting $4.7
billion into it, what is our return?
Ernst & Young, a well-known consulting firm, has made a
report on that very issue and has come up with this evidence. At
least $23 billion was contributed to Canada's gross domestic
product by the nuclear industry from 1962 to 1992. Within a
30-year period $23 billion came back into the gross domestic
product of this country from an investment by the Canadian
taxpayers of $4.7 billion over the 40-year period from 1952 to
1992. If we simply subtract $4.7 billion from $23 billion there is
a gross net gain of $18.3 billion for Canada's economy. And
someone has the nerve to stand in the House and state that it has
been a drain on the Canadian economy.
(1635)
Let me give another fact. Ontario has a large industrial
community. Yes it was hurt by free trade for a while but it is
coming back. A rather interesting statistic is that today 60 per
cent of the energy supplied for industrial and domestic use in the
province of Ontario comes from CANDU reactors. If we did not
have them we would have to use more coal.
Because of geography, the coal for the southern Ontario coal
burning plants has been imported from the United States.
Ontario Hydro estimates that from 1965 to 1989 nuclear energy
has saved the Canadian economy approximately $17 billion on
foreign exchange. That is because we are not shipping money
out of Canada to Pennsylvania and other areas in the United
States to buy hard coal for coal powered plants. Think of what
the saving is on environmental issues in the province of Ontario
alone.
These facts have to be put on the record because there are too
many statements made which attack Canadian organizations and
other traditions and institutions of the country without having
the proper facts to back them up.
In the 1990s foreign exchange savings will amount to
approximately $1 billion a year.
We recently sold two reactors to China. That will mean a lot of
money to businesses in this country. One thing was not highly
emphasized during the recent trade negotiations with China. An
important event that happened during the visit of the Prime
Minister, the nine premiers and approximately 375 business
people to China was the signing of a nuclear non-proliferation
treaty between Canada and China.
Once again Canada is leading the way in putting in place those
cornerstones of international necessity with this agreement
between our two countries. That reminds us of something else. It
was Canada that first recognized Red China, as it was then
called, and recognized China as an official state. That opened
the door for the U.S. to follow. That opened the door for
President Nixon's visit to China. That opened the door for some
communication which was absolutely necessary during those
cold war days. It has fallen upon Canada to bridge the gap
between ourselves and China and other nations can follow
thereafter.
(1640)
Direct employment in Canada's nuclear industry in 1992 was
estimated at 30,000 jobs. Direct employment increased
approximately 9 per cent in a three-year period alone. A
minimum of 10,000 jobs in other sectors indirectly depend on
the nuclear industry, another contribution. Nuclear energy
supplied 15 per cent of the total electricity across the whole of
Canada in 1992 which was valued at $3.7 billion.
Private sector companies which supply nuclear products and
services had total sales of $9.4 billion between 1988 and 1992.
The federal government receives approximately $700 million
annually from the nuclear industry in the form of income and
sales taxes. Canada's nuclear industry had a trade surplus of
approximately $500 million individually in recent years.
Those are some of the facts of the tremendous contribution to
economic growth that I wanted to put on the record today.
The problem with research and development in Canada over
the years has simply been that people look for a return the
morning after investing their money. That cannot be done with R
and D.
8190
In the future we have to encourage private enterprise in
Canada to do more and more R and D on its own. However
government will always have a place in Canadian research and
development. Certain areas of development would not take
place if they were not started by the government itself. Then
private enterprise moves in and there are spinoff industries and a
bigger return.
Let me give one more example of something I certainly want
members of the House to know. There are 690 hospitals across
Canada. I doubt very much if there is a single member in this
House who is not affected by the fact that those 690 hospitals are
licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board to receive medical
radioisotopes for their hospitals for sterilization for example.
Where do we get medical radioisotopes? From a nuclear
reactor. One thing the Tories did badly when they were in power
was that they sold the radiochemical part of AECL to the
company that eventually became Nordion International. The
whole incident has resulted in a dispute between Nordion and
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. A facilitator is trying to put that
together today.
Canada controls 88 per cent of the world's market in
radioisotopes. The Americans heard that the former president of
AECL had cancelled the Maple-X reactor which was in the
process of being built. The Americans got into the act and
hauled one of their old reactors out of Los Alamos. They tried to
build it up so that they could produce medical radioisotopes.
(1645 )
One of the greatest contributions that can be made to Canada
today is getting the medical radio isotope dispute settled quickly
and getting on with the business of retaining the 88 per cent of
world trade in radio isotopes. It has been a great contribution to
medicine. A considerable amount of research into cancer and
many other medical problems has been done by Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited.
I wish the minister well in the administration of natural
resources and those organizations that are attached to her
department because the natural resources department means a
great deal to the future of the country. We need research and
development, new science and technology and a good
management system for our natural resources. That means
sustainable development.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Grain
Transportation.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
presently on third reading of Bill C-48, which will
unfortunately end up in the bill being passed as is by the Liberal
majority in this House.
Relevant suggestions were made by my colleagues and myself
at second reading to bring it more into line with the spirit of the
Canadian Constitution, but our efforts have been in vain.
In committee, we tried again to have certain clauses of Bill
C-48 changed, so that the leading role of the provinces with
respect to natural resources would be recognized. But again, the
Liberal majority systematically rejected any proposal along
those lines.
Hon. members are well aware by now of all our reasons for not
supporting this bill, but it is important to repeat what these are
for the benefit of those who are watching the proceedings on
television. The public must understand what this debate is really
about and why the Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-48, which is
not flawed in its structure, but in its very essence.
On behalf of the people of Quebec, who have elected us to
look after their interests, I would like to go over once again the
reasons, albeit obvious, why we are asking that the bill, as it
stands, be purely and simply withdrawn.
As my hon. colleague from Matapédia-Matane said earlier,
anything having to do with natural resources is affected by this
bill. The bill does not recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the
provinces over natural resources and, therefore, is in
contravention of Section 92(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867,
which clearly states that mines and forest fall under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction, and this was confirmed by the patriation
of the Canadian Constitution in 1982.
Such interference maintains redundancy among all natural
resources ministries and departments in this country, hence the
risk of contradiction, duplication and overlap in many regards.
We must conclude that the federal government's lack of
co-operation is not a healthy way to manage this country,
because it does not look for ways to eliminate overlap and
duplication at the Department of Natural Resources and is
unwilling to recognize the provinces' predominance by staying
in the background and letting the provinces design their own
programs.
The issue of mining and the environment is a good example.
Contrary to common sense, the federal government is set to
proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and will
soon table amendments to this 1992 act. It wants to create a
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to replace the
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
As usual, this environmental bill is not bad per se, but not
bringing it into line with the various provincial programs will
cause often unjustified delays because it will be cumbersome to
8191
deal with two administrations instead of one. The only
acceptable administration is that of the province concerned.
(1650)
In this regard, the mining industry is very worried about
possible delays in processing mining licence applications.
Decisions already take too long-often more than one
year-and jeopardize projects because of the amounts involved
that must be frozen over long periods of time, thus reducing
profitability.
For example, the Grevet mining project in my riding, which
involves potential investments exceeding $100 million, was put
in great jeopardy by the wait for the mining licence, in particular
for the environmental permit. This example shows that Bill
C-48, by failing to recognize provincial predominance, opens
the door to interference that could seriously harm the industry,
thus endangering jobs we all need.
The federal government knows that the provinces have long
had their own natural resources strategies. The provinces
already carry out environmental assessments of projects, and
the process that the federal government wants to put in place
will increase overlap and duplication. The federal government
refuses to recognize the provinces' legitimate rights; its
assessment and review process is outrageous. It will cost
everyone very dearly and will continue to do so if we do not find
ways to have a ``single window'' where industry will be able to
obtain information and where the projects will be accepted in as
little time as possible.
Unfortunately for the industry, which wants to be efficient
and profitable, the federal government has new requirements. It
wants new regulations. It wants more projects to be subject to a
thorough review. Clearly, this means a waste of time and money,
confusion and long delays in approving and implementing these
projects.
As an aside, I would like to give a specific example of the
slowness of government bureaucracy, in particular in the
Department of National Health and Welfare, to which I wrote on
May 24, 1994 on behalf of several of my constituents; I received
a reply only on October 27, 1994. If it took five months for a
department to answer something relatively simple, Mr. Speaker,
imagine the delays that more complex issues, like
environmental assessments, will involve.
In the present economic environment, we must streamline,
and Bill C-48 would have been a good chance to do that.
Increasing the number of structures and the amount of
duplication must stop before it is too late. In our work on the
parliamentary committee studying Bill C-48, we could with
simple amendments have made several clauses reflect the
provinces' primary jurisdiction over their natural resources.
For example, in clause 5 on the powers, duties and functions
of the Minister of Natural Resources, it would have been enough
to say that these powers, duties and functions are subject to the
principle of provincial predominance in the field of natural
resources. This would not have reduced the powers, duties and
functions of the minister, but it would have reasonably put them
in relation to provincial priorities.
As regards clause 7, the Bloc Quebecois wanted an annual
report to be tabled by the minister, so as to make her department
accountable for its mandate and objectives. In his most recent
report tabled yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada states
clearly, on page 8 of the booklet on main points: ``7.1 Two years
ago we called for government to reform its departmental
reporting to be more transparent. We suggested that Parliament
should expect and receive a regular accounting for the exercise
of the entire business of government: in a phrase, global
stewardship. This year, we continue this theme of transparency
by following up on our 1992 Report, and extend it to the sectoral
activities of government''.
``7.4 We believe that there should be better sectoral reporting.
This means that when a sectoral activity is identified, one
department has to be given the lead responsibility to provide a
summary-level report to Parliament for the entire sector''.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that we did not ask for an
extensive report: we simply wanted an internal report on the
quality of services.
Here is one last excerpt from the Auditor General's report:
``7.5 But in the end, reporting of any kind will not change soon
unless Parliament is explicit in letting government know that
current reporting is inadequate and that it wants it changed''.
The Auditor General's report seems to confirm that it was not
such a bad idea to ask that Bill C-48 be amended so that a clear
and concise report be submitted at least once a year.
(1655)
It was certainly legitimate to table this amendment so that
parliamentarians and Canadians could monitor the usefulness
and the efficiency of the programs developed by the Department
of Natural Resources.
As regards clause 27 of Bill C-48, we wanted the minister to
have the authority to enter into agreements only with the
provinces and not with any person or body of her choice, since
only the provinces can define their policy on natural resources.
Clearly, overlapping and duplication could resurface if, for
some reason, the minister decided to promote a specific policy.
Finally, clause 35 of Bill C-48 not only suggests overlapping
and duplication but also federal interference in a field of
provincial jurisdiction, as stated in the Canadian Constitution.
Indeed, through clause 35, the minister is giving herself the
power to enter into agreements with any person or body in a
province, without that province having any say. As I mentioned
earlier, the issue is not the quality of the federal government's
action. The member who spoke just before me noted that it is
sometimes necessary to have a national policy as, for example,
in the case of nuclear energy. No province has a concrete
8192
nuclear energy policy, although many provinces have policies in
terms of forestry and mining.
The issue here is not to control the quality of federal
measures, but to ensure that the federal government acts within
its jurisdiction and respects the agreements and policies
elaborated by the provinces.
In fact, Quebec has never signed the National Forest Strategy
nor the Whitehorse Work Group Agreement concerning the
mining industry. Quebec wants the federal government to
recognize the predominance of provinces in the area of natural
resources before signing any document appointing the federal
government as the national director whose decisions provinces
would have to follow in order to get tax money.
This is why Quebec wants the right to opt out, that is to
withdraw from a federal program with full financial
compensation.
Given the financial crisis we are going through, we are
entitled to ask politicians and legislators to focus on efficiency.
It is possible.
Right now, all the members sitting on the Standing Committee
on Natural Resources are examining briefs concerning the
mining industry which were submitted by witnesses from
various provincial governments and the industry. Their goal is
to prepare the most accurate report possible on the tools needed
to promote the mining industry and job creation in this area.
This type of co-operation is a credit to the members. Efficiency
could have been the main concern during the drafting of Bill
C-48, as in the case of any other bill.
In concluding, I would like to mention the position of the
Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, presented by Mr.
Jacques Robitaille at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Council of Forestry Ministers on October 4 and 5, 1994, and I
quote:
Regarding the main point on the agenda, Quebec's position is as follows: We
will not be a party to preparing and ratifying a framework agreement whose
purpose would be to assign a role to the federal government in an area over
which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction.
Both Constitution Acts are perfectly clear on the forestry sector, in that
management of forest resources is the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures
of the provinces. In this context, we could not consider approving any
intervention in this sector by the federal government.
Furthermore, as far as financing is concerned, Quebec favours bilateral
agreements that identify funding procedures for programs based on the
priorities of the provinces and administered and delivered by the provinces.
This position is clear and ought to be reflected in the spirit of
Bill C-48. Considering that the principle of provincial priorities
is not reflected in Bill C-48, we will vote against the bill.
(1700)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-48, a bill on natural
resources. This is particularly important to my constituency of
Kootenay East because many of its people are directly employed
in the resource industry.
I would like to speak briefly about mining and about forestry.
In my constituency I have Canada's largest operating mine. In
1991 over 5,200 British Columbians were employed directly by
the coal industry. These jobs represent 12,500 jobs in the service
sector. As a matter of fact, over 15,000 workers in the
transportation and service sectors rely on the coal industry for
their livelihoods.
My constituency office is in the town of Cranbrook and is as
directly related to that as is the Elk Valley. The House should
also recognize that coal accounts fully for 20 per cent of all rail
traffic in Canada. Therefore coal is a very important issue to
Canada and to our natural resources.
One of the difficulties I have had in coming to Ottawa, indeed
in coming to the House, is that there is very frequently the
impression left that natural resources somehow are a sunset
industry, that is that industries related to natural resources are
somehow in sunset and that the information highway is going to
carry us off into the future.
Truly we do have to be working on the high tech side of our
economy but as I see it we continue to be in Canada, whether we
want to be or not, very dependent on natural resources. In 1991
B.C. coal producers exported 22 million tonnes of metallurgical
coal and 2.8 million tonnes of thermal coal. These sales were
worth $1.6 billion. That is a lot of money. When I combine that
together with the international sales of forestry of $22 billion,
we get an idea of the importance of natural resources.
The problem particularly in the case of the mining industry is
that the multilevel of Canadian governments is basically taxing
the business out of existence in Canada. Between 1987 and 1991
the B.C. coal producers combined earned only $8 million, but
they were taxed $454 million. Let me repeat that because I think
it is very significant. Combined over a five-year period the B.C.
coal producers earned only $8 million but in the same period of
time paid taxes of $454 million. For every $1 of profit these
producers were taxed $57.
Since 1991 tax increases in B.C. have added $12 million to
$15 million a year to the coal producers' costs. The B.C. coal
industry is facing a grim future. The choice is between coal
output and reducing employment. Unfortunately for the workers
in the Elk Valley they are too familiar with the choices that are
8193
currently having to be made. The cost of increased production is
unmanageable. The only choice in order to remain solvent is to
reduce jobs.
In 1992 two of the coal mines in my constituency closed,
causing the loss of 1,900 jobs in an area with a population of
approximately 10,000. We can see the significance of this.
Although the mines have reopened, they now only employ half
the original number of employees. The House should also also
be aware of the fact that human resources development currently
has decided to go against a ruling by Revenue Canada and is
going after registered retirement pension funds of the former
employees in an attempt to regain overpayments of UI.
I am currently fighting that on behalf of the workers in the
area. We get an idea of how far we have gone. Some of these
people are losing their homes and the government, right now
with two departments in conflict with each other, is going after
these people's registered pension funds. I find that absolutely,
totally unacceptable.
(1705)
Back to the issue at hand, the Canadian mining industry is
already taxed higher than any of its international counterparts
and because of the larger tax burden Canadian coal has become
less competitive in international markets. The fact is that
international prices have plunged 35 per cent in metallurgical
coal and thermal coal has plunged 20 per cent since 1987. Yet
what has happened to taxes? We know what has happened to
taxes. They have increased.
Another problem for the coal miners in my area is that mineral
minimum taxes are more than three times higher for coal mines
and hard rock mines in British Columbia. Property taxes are
more than three times higher for coal industry than residential
rates.
Mr. Milliken: Tory times were hard times.
Mr. Abbott: If Tory times were hard times it would be very
advantageous if the Liberals would learn from the hard times of
the Tories and do something about the situation in my
constituency. The simplest way to describe taxes is confiscation
of capital, confiscation of the capital required by the companies
to be able to do the job.
When the GST was introduced it was sold to industries as a tax
that would benefit the export industry because it removed
hidden taxes. The $100,000 of federal sales taxes the GST
removed from the average mine was overshadowed by $600,000
to $1 million created in fuel taxes. Coal producers paid $4.4
million in federal fuel taxes and another $5.4 million in
provincial taxes.
Furthermore, to move the coal from the coalfield in the
southeast corner of British Columbia to port, those fuel taxes are
yet another factor that puts them at a severe disadvantage to
other producers around the world.
It was interesting that the member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke was referring to the fact that
the thermal plants operated by Ontario Hydro are powered by
coal imported from the U.S. He said it very well. What this
basically means is that the coal miners, the workers in Canada,
do not have the jobs. Furthermore the coal imported from
Kentucky has a significantly higher sulphur content than the
coal that is currently available in my constituency.
Why are we not using a more benign coal, the B.C. coal, at
Ontario Hydro? Why are we not employing the people in British
Columbia to mine and refine the coal and deliver it to Ontario
Hydro? Why are we sending the dollars to the United States? It
is because taxes cost jobs. The taxes on the transportation of the
coal from the southeast corner of British Columbia to Ontario
means that we use a dirtier coal, coal from Kentucky, we send
them our money and we let their workers work. Taxes cost jobs.
The country was founded on its abundance of natural
resources. Our rich mineral deposits have sustained the quality
of life which Canadians have become accustomed to. We only
need to take a look at what has happened in the fishing industry,
particularly on the east coast and now under the current minister
of fisheries. I should call him the oceans minister. We are
coming to much the same kind of situation on the west coast.
The difference is that due to the mismanagement by the
department of Canadian oceans we have lost our resources. In
the case of the west coast due to the continuing mismanagement
our resources are under threat.
The difference is that in this case, in mining, the resources are
still available but the mining is being taxed out of existence
rather than the resources going away. We need to make sure that
we have the ability to continue to draw on this resource. The
mineral resources in British Columbia, the current proven
mineral resources, show us that at the current rate of production
there is another 500 years of production available.
The European governments provide $14.8 billion U.S. in
subsidies to their domestic coal producers. I am not suggesting
that we should subsidize our coal producers but I am saying that
we must stop taxing the life out of Canadian mines.
(1710 )
We are going right at the moment into the abyss of a chasm
that we require a rail bridge across. When we put that rail bridge
across the chasm in the mountains we then say that is a property
improvement. As a result the regional districts along the way
between the coal mines and port end up actually charging
8194
municipal taxes on the bridges, on the rail line, in the mountains
going across the chasm.
What is going on in Canada at the moment is that we are
taxing our mines, taxing our natural resources at such a rate that
we are going to put them out of production.
The government saw firsthand how a reduction of cigarette
tax created a greater volume of revenue through the increase in
consumption. If we were to take a hard look at what we are doing
in terms of taxes on our coal mines, on our mineral producers, on
our natural resource producers, we would see that by lowering
the taxes they would be able to increase demand.
Our party is in an interesting position because on one side of
the coin, particularly with respect to Bill C-48, we are saying
that the Department of Natural Resources must be downsized at
the federal level. There must be more power to be able to
regulate at the provincial level. We must see a decrease in
expenditures at the federal level and we must see a decrease in
control.
That is our position. However I must relate to the House that
there is an interesting situation in the province of British
Columbia where there is an NDP government. It seems to have
some kind of an idea that it can do things completely out of
context to what world demands are. It has come forward with a
study called ``The Committee on Resources and Environment'',
CORE. Under CORE there have been studies. There has been
input from a tremendous number of people. It has come back
with a report that supposedly has a very broad base. I see more
regulation, not only taxes.
It is not just me. I will read very briefly from a couple of news
reports. Cranbrook city council will oppose implementation of
the east Kootenay CORE report recommendation. In unveiling
the report Owen, the person responsible for putting the report
together, said east Kootenay CORE table members can take
pride in the fact they put it together. This has been an ongoing
process for about 18 months. That did not sit well with
councillors Ron Tarr and Jim Kenelly. ``It was not a made in the
Kootenay report'', Tarr said. ``It was a Stephen Owen report'',
said Kenelly.
In speaking to the people who took the time, and they took a
lot of time to get into the consultation process, I am told that the
CORE report simply does not reflect what was agreed to at the
table. The regional district of east Kootenay on Friday passed a
resolution asking the provincial government to delay adoption
of the CORE report until it heard from area municipalities. The
east Kootenay district said it had grave concerns about the plan.
Lest we think it is just the politicians who are getting into the
act here, the workers at Crestbrook Forest Industries Cranbrook
sawmill have joined the list of those opposing Stephen Owen's
east Kootenay land use report. Scott Manjack said CFI
management has had its say and now it is their turn. The workers
may agree with company officials but feel they should have a
voice as well. In this instance we are on the same side, which is
not always the case.
We would not normally expect the workers on the green chain
or the workers who are on the tools to necessarily be in tune with
the company. Then we hear from a person who is actually in the
office with the staff. There is a grassroots opposition group
forming to fight the east Kootenay CORE report. Members fear
it could ruin the industry. ``We are little concerned about its
economic implications'', said Kay Eff, ``no we are a lot
concerned''. Eff is a member of the Canadian Women and
Timber Organization and an employee of Crestbrook Forest
Industries. She said: ``This is not about my employer; it is about
our economic future here''.
(1715 )
Finally, we look again at the mining side. The CORE report
recommends increasing protected areas where resource
extraction is excluded from 13.1 per cent to 16 per cent. Coal
bearing crown lands in the east Kootenay represent
approximately 4 per cent of the area and yet coal mining is the
single largest contributor to economic wealth. Coal lands
designated as dedicated represent only 35 per cent of the total
area of coal bearing lands, excluding private lands.
The difficulty with this report and the reason I bring it to the
attention of the House is that even when we talk about the
potential of downloading some of the responsibility, the people,
our constituents, whether they are voting at the regional district
level, at the municipal level, at the provincial level, or at the
federal level, must make their representatives accountable. The
representatives must be responsible in the recommendations
they bring forward.
I had an opportunity a number of months ago to make a trip on
the west coast with some members of the European Union. They
came over to take a look at our clear cutting. I found it quite
fascinating that as we were travelling north from Nanaimo to
Port Alberni they were looking out the window trying to figure
out what these tall things were beside the road. Of course they
were 90-foot trees. They were a little bit nonplussed. They
really did not know what it was they were looking at because a
map that had been provided to them in Europe by the Sierra Club
showed it as a desert.
The legend of the map said that this area had been logged, was
going to be logged, or was actually out of production. Yes, it had
been logged. It had been logged 40 years ago and now we have
90-foot trees beside the road. They were wondering what was
going on.
As a direct result of that trip the natural resources committee
undertook a study on clear cut logging. The committee made a
couple of recommendations and this comes from the report back
to the House from the natural resources minister: ``Canada
believes that internationally agreed rules would help all nations
in their efforts to move toward sustainable forest management.
Canada through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers and in
consultation with a broad range of stakeholders has begun a
8195
process to define criteria and indicators that will be a scientific
and technical basis for measuring our progress toward our goal
of sustainable forest management.
In addition, Canada is actively participating in an
international process to define criteria and indicators for
temperate and boreal forests. During the past year Canada has
cohosted with Malaysia the intergovernmental working group
on forests to help determine the future path for international
sustainable forest management. This will contribute to the work
of the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development
as it reviews progress toward the goals agreed to at the
UNCED''.
I absolutely recognize, contrary to my friend in the Bloc, that
there is a place for a Canadian natural resources department,
particularly as it relates to international trade and international
issues.
In the area of communication, the recommendation from our
clear cut committee was that the federal government, in
conjunction with the provinces and territories, industry,
environmentalists, and other stakeholders, strive to consolidate
the communication strategies currently employed in
international markets into a single and effective campaign to
promote Canada's forest management practices abroad.
The response by the minister was supportive of that. Her
department says the Government of Canada agrees with this
recommendation and recognizes that foreign customers,
retailers, and nations are seeking assurances that the forest
products they purchase originate from sustainably managed
forests.
With 50 per cent of Canada's forest products being exported,
the economic health-
(1720 )
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. In the interest of time,
brevity is important.
I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of
interest. He spent 20 minutes on a wide range of subjects, some
of which I am quite grateful for the interventions that the
member made. I understand he supports the bill just as I do, but I
did not hear anything in his speech about why he supports the
bill. I wonder if he might briefly give us some indication why
the legislation in front of us-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay East.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I apologize because unfortunately I
did not see any signal from the Speaker so I did go over the time.
My apologies.
In response to the member, the main reason I support the bill
is because I believe, in terms of the consolidation of the
departments and the way in which the bill has been put together,
it will create efficiencies.
My major concern however is that we make sure the
Department of Natural Resources at the federal level does not
encroach on other levels of government. As a matter of fact we
should be looking to efforts, as I have suggested, to divest the
natural resources department at the federal level of some of its
control and give it to the provinces.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-48, a bill that reorganizes the Department of Natural
Resources.
The issue of natural resources is very important to my
constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster. Primary industries
form almost the entire economy of west central Saskatchewan
and are affected by this department or by the department of
agriculture. Agriculture is also a natural resource.
Within my riding there are two potash mines, the Cory mine
near Delisle and the Cominco mine near Vanscoy. There are also
two Domtar salt mines, one near Biggar and the other at Unity. I
have a vibrant oil and gas industry within my constituency, as
well as the controversial government megaproject, the heavy oil
upgrader at Lloydminster. The majority of my constituency is
involved in the greatest natural resource of all, agriculture.
I have included agriculture as a natural resource even though
it is traditionally thought of as separate from the other primary
industries and perhaps is not affected by Bill C-48. It is
appropriate in today's tough fiscal climate to reconsider the role
of government in the lives of those working in primary
industries. After all, this sector is the primary stimulus of all
other economic activities.
Currently Canada's primary industries are divided into three
categories by the federal government. There is agriculture and
agri-food, fisheries and oceans, and then mining, forestry, oil
and gas, atomic energy and other energy sources grouped
together in the Ministry of Natural Resources. As the direct role
of government in these industries decreases it may be time to
consider an administrative merger of these departments.
It is worth while to consider that most of the provinces also
have these three departments. Once we can agree which of these
responsibilities are federal and which fall within provincial
jurisdiction it will be easier to avoid duplication of effort. This
will lead to less bureaucracy and may facilitate a merger of the
federal ministries at considerable savings for Canadians.
8196
I do not want to give the impression that it is the policy of my
party that these three ministries be immediately merged. I am
merely suggesting that the current division between Canada's
primary industries are somewhat arbitrary. On examination it
may prove optimal to merge two or three of these departments.
Currently the federal government seems to have its priorities
reversed when it comes to funding our primary industries. The
Lloydminster upgrader in my riding is a good example. Within
the oil and gas industry the federal government concentrates its
efforts on subsidizing the most expensive oil to produce like the
heavy oil upgrader, the Alberta tar sands and the Hibernia
project. The conventional oil and gas industry is then taxed more
heavily to provide the money to subsidize the otherwise
non-viable enterprises.
If governments would avoid the megaproject boondoggles
and reduce the tax burden on the smaller companies that are
making a go of it on their own the industry would blossom and
flourish. We would find that both productivity and employment
within the industry would increase. The government would
discover that the industry would employ more people than the
megaproject would employ in any case.
(1725)
Those real jobs within the industry are more likely to be
permanent jobs than the jobs created by government subsidy
where megaprojects lose money or perhaps even collapse. The
same is true throughout Canada's primary industries. The
conventional industry, which provides most of the jobs and job
growth, is heavily taxed in order to subsidize government
megaprojects.
Being a farmer I am familiar with agriculture but the past year
has given me the opportunity to become familiar with other
primary industries within my riding. Earlier this spring I toured
the heavy oil upgrader. I was impressed with its operation but on
my tours through my constituency, I was even more impressed
with the level of ingenuity and diversity of the people who are
proving that large scale government intervention is not required
to make industry work.
The renewal of the agriculture industry and the strength of the
oil and gas sector has happened, some would say, despite the
best efforts of the federal government.
The infamous national energy program of a previous Liberal
administration is an example of Liberal gouging that still haunts
the energy industry. The industry will not stand for another form
of carbon tax no matter how the government chooses to disguise
it. Instead of presenting these reorganization bills such as Bill
C-48, why does the government not assure us that there will be
no raping of the energy industry via taxation or via regulation?
The reason I mention all these activities in my constituency is
to demonstrate that large scale government intervention is
neither necessary nor is it wanted. If farmers, foresters, fishers,
and oil men and women are left to run and develop their own
industries then more economic activity will result. Not only
does the government activity in these areas not lead to a
rejuvenation of the economy, but it is largely counterproductive.
These megaprojects create an artificial competition which,
when combined with the higher taxes needed to support
government enterprises, stifles the growth and productivity that
would naturally occur.
Bill C-48 is yet another housekeeping bill brought in by the
Liberal government. For the most part, it merely amalgamates
the old Department of Forestry with the Department of Energy,
Mines and Resources. I support the principle of consolidating
government departments but it seems to me that when the
government is reorganizing departments it makes sense to
rethink its whole involvement.
What better time is there to seriously re-evaluate the role of
the government in the area of natural resources? What better
time to do this than in the first year or two of a new Liberal
administration? Unfortunately what we have is an old bill
reintroduced into the House with a few new brush strokes and no
new imagination or input.
Rather than conduct a long overdue and in depth evaluation of
the role of government, the Liberals would rather do nothing and
just pass the legislation prepared by the previous government.
I support the small step the bill takes in reorganizing the
government bureaucracy but I do not feel that the bill will
improve the plight of the industry at all. There is still a long way
to go. I am looking forward to the day when the government
introduces some serious legislation in the area of primary
industries.
The current model of government involvement does not
reflect the reality that exists today outside the Ottawa bubble.
The massive amount of bureaucracy and administration
supporting the megaprojects is outdated and hurting the rest of
the industry. The administrative overlap and high costs have to
be cut. The natural resources industry is too valuable to the
Canadian economy to be regulated to death.
In closing I will repeat my support for the principle of the bill.
I look forward to the day when the House can consider some
legislation with a little more meat in it.
[Translation]
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: Yes.
8197
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by
the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip to
defer the division until a later time.
[English]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8197
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of improving housing for First Nations people, and in particular
First Nations elders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present to the
House for consideration and debate a motion that I consider to
be of utmost importance.
It almost goes without saying that the living conditions
endured by many of Canada's first peoples are deplorable. Study
after study have established mountains of facts to support the
need for addressing this serious problem. Year after year the
federal government has found a new reason, a new excuse not to
take the action that is required. The House's own standing
committee said exactly that in its December 1992 report to
Parliament ``A Time for Action''.
I would hope that MPs from all parties here today would
support this motion so that the weight of Parliament can be
added to the voices from First Nations communities calling for
action on housing.
Before this debate today I called around to some of the leading
voices in Indian country to get an up to the minute reaction to the
current state of Indian housing. Briefly, they all speak in unison:
not much has changed, the federal government must act
immediately.
If we look at some available statistics and read some of the
recent newspaper articles we can tell that the situation is
actually getting worse. The Assembly of First Nations tells us
that an assessment of the on reserve housing stock in 1984
indicated that 47 per cent of the stock failed to meet basic
standards of physical house conditions, 36 per cent was
seriously overcrowded and 38 per cent lacked some or all the
components of basic amenities by which I mean running water,
indoor toilets, a bath or a shower.
By comparison, a 1991 report by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development indicated that of the 64,402
housing units on reserve 56 per cent failed to meet basic
standards of physical house conditions. Of these 24 per cent
require major renovation and 10 per cent require complete
replacement. Thirty-one per cent have neither piped nor well
water and 31 per cent in 1991 had neither piped sewage service
nor septic fields.
Among the newspaper reports that I have in front of me is one
that is written about a reserve in my own constituency. The
headline from the October 19 issue of the Saskatoon
Star-Phoenix reads: ``Waiting list long for homes on reserve''.
It concerns the situation on the Mistawasis Indian reserve just
75 kilometres west of the city of Prince Albert.
After a fire left a family of eight homeless there was no
replacement to be found. According to Mistawasis Chief Leona
Daniels, quoted in the newspaper article, the band has 52
applications for houses from band members waiting for
adequate housing. This number is not unusual says the
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the organization
that represents most of the province's Indian bands. This
number is not unusual because among all the reserves there is
likely a shortfall of some 800 houses in Saskatchewan at this
moment.
(1735)
At the Red Pheasant reserve just south of Battleford, also
within my constituency, Chief Mike Baptiste says there is a
current shortfall of 146 units. The band has a number of young
families on reserve looking for their own homes. There are a
number of elders who are crowded into the homes with many
children. There are many band members currently living off
reserve who want their children to be raised on the reserve and
attend the band administered school but they cannot because
there is no housing available.
8198
The newspapers are also full of stories concerning the
situation of the Big Cove Band in New Brunswick where the
council has reported that it has more than 500 people on a
waiting list for housing. The band council has said that the
response of the minister of Indian affairs to their
problem-Indian affairs approved the construction of six new
units this year, if you can believe this-is criminal.
Earlier I referred to the report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs, an all party committee that travelled
extensively and heard from First Nations people throughout
Canada. I urge all members and particularly government
members to have a look at this important and definitive report.
Despite the fact that committee members expressed a sense of
sorrow and helplessness in some of what they saw and heard,
they worked to write a report with recommendations ``intended
to provide a path to resolve the housing problems that exist for
native Canadians in order that they may achieve suitable,
adequate and affordable housing''.
Prior to writing the recommendations the committee noted:
``There is inflexibility in federal housing programs, limited
economic spinoffs for aboriginal and northern communities,
lack of co-ordination between governments and programs, and
difficulties assessing programs''.
The committee went a long way to resolving these problems.
First, the committee recommended that the federal government
conclude the review of aboriginal housing that has been kicking
around the department of Indian affairs since 1975 and to get on
with the business of addressing the problems that are all too
evident.
Second, the committee recommended that the government
deliver all its funding for aboriginal housing through one agency
and then transfer control of housing programs along with
sufficient resources to aboriginal people.
An important part of the solution is sufficient resources. To
this end the committee recommended that the necessary funding
be provided. It particularly singled out the special needs of
seniors, the homeless, the disabled and the victims of abuse. I
will have more to say about this in a moment.
The committee also stressed that aboriginal people's cultural
and practical needs have not been addressed in existing
programs: ``The committee recommends that the Government of
Canada recognize that the only way to provide the flexibility
that aboriginal people need to ensure the delivery of the kind of
housing best suited to their particular needs is through
self-government for aboriginal people''.
Every group that appeared before the standing committee
urged aboriginal participation and control over housing
programs.
Before I leave the work of the committee I want to bring to the
attention of this House the words of just a couple of witnesses:
``One of the things so very important in community life, whether
in Sioux Lookout, in British Columbia, or anywhere else is
housing. It is important because it has all the ingredients to
make the family work''. That is a quote from Mr. Eno Anderson,
executive director of the Shibogama Tribal Council.
From Bob Decontie, housing co-ordinator with the Assembly
of First Nations: ``Many of the communities have large numbers
of houses that are overcrowded close to urban centres such as
Calgary. We hear stories that there are 20 people in one house.
These are things that have to be addressed. We have to address
issues such as if you don't have a place to study what are the
chances of you going to or doing well in school''.
Even Canada's Auditor General in his 1991 report criticized
the federal government for its handling of Indian housing issues.
(1740 )
I would like to quote briefly from the Auditor General's
report, 1991:
Inadequate and overcrowded housing, among other things, can contribute to
societal and health problems, such as sickness, marriage breakdown, alcoholism
and child abuse. The financial results can be measured in terms of higher cost of
health care, social assistance benefits, policing and penitentiary services.
Solving the housing problems on reserve could reduce the cost of health
services and social assistance by improving social and health standards.
Again, here we are in follow-up three years later with a new
Auditor General's report and still no action in this regard.
My motion today also specifically singles out the difficulties
faced by Indian elders. I want to go beyond what has so far been
debated on the issue, to look at the special needs faced by the
growing population of elders living for the most part on reserve.
Non-Indian society has spent a great deal of time in the past
40 years developing a social security system that benefits our
seniors. When it comes to aboriginal elders, we have forgotten
they exist. From my own experience, I am proud of the seniors'
special care homes that have been built in smaller rural
communities across the prairies. When I visit nearby reserves I
see nothing that compares. Indian elders who need special living
arrangements or special care are often moved off reserve, away
from their closely knit families and moved into the completely
non-Indian environment in the nearest community with a
seniors home.
On reserve where housing dollars are limited elders are
frequently unable to obtain sufficient funds to upgrade their
homes or move to a newer home because the money is not there
to do that. In this case I would like to single out the work of the
Sandy Lake or Ahtahkakoop First Nation. Indian leaders have
done a fine job of developing the elders' lodge concept where
Indian elders are cared for in a family and co-operative way,
given independence in their day to day life and included in the
8199
central activities of the band, including support for band
government and the youth of the community.
This concept has received praise from every corner of the
country but nothing has happened because there is no money and
the elders are just expected to remain in their own home or on
the couch in the living room of the home of their son or daughter.
The Ahtahkakoop elders' lodge was designed to meet certain
needs. Let me quote from its proposal:
Currently the elders are living in relative isolation from each other and the rest
of the band due to the remote nature of their homes and they are restricted in their
mobility by age or disability. This isolation has resulted in incidents of
mistreatment and neglect. There is no capability for native people to service the
needs of their elders and infirm within their own communities. As a result the sick
and the elderly are removed from their homes and family to be treated or admitted
into facilities capable of providing the longer term, higher care required.
The Ahtahkakoop study and proposal was done in 1990. It has
had no movement from the federal government since then. I
might add that other proposals along the same lines have been
developed on numerous reserves in my own constituency and
across Canada, concepts that include the ability of the
community to best meet the needs of the elders who are living
within that community.
We have heard about the money problems in housing. If Sandy
Lake or the Makwa Sahgeiehcan Band in my own riding near
Loon Lake, or the Sweetgrass Band near Battleford, also
involved in wanting to build and support an elders' lodge, want
to do this they have to use all of the money that is allocated to the
Band for housing for three or four years.
That means that the only means available to properly treat
aboriginal seniors on reserve is to take away all the renovation
and all the new housing money available to everyone else on the
reserve, including new families, returned Bill C-31 Indians and
the disabled.
I would like the federal government to do some soul searching
today in its deliberations on housing programs and its response
to the need for greater aboriginal control and increased financial
support. I also ask the government to consider the special and
immediate needs faced by Indian elders.
(1745 )
It would be appropriate for the federal government to
establish a new program that would make special financing
available specifically for the construction and operating of
elder's lodges so that the elders do not continually have to
compete with others on the reserve for the housing dollars that
do exist. The Minister of Indian Affairs has admitted that
housing will be his priority in 1991.
We have heard the minister comment in the Chamber and to
the media outside the Chamber about the royal commission on
aboriginal affairs. When the minister was asked if he thinks the
money is being well spent on the royal commission, his response
was if he had that money to spend, he would rather spend it on
housing. I think that acknowledges that even the Minister of
Indian Affairs recognizes the priority nature of the crisis in
aboriginal housing.
This is a new Parliament and there is a new government in
office. The previous House was told by its own committee that
action must be taken on aboriginal housing issues. At this early
date, just one year into this Parliament, I urge prompt
consideration and recommend that we cannot afford to wait for a
better time to act. It is indeed, as the title of the House report
stresses, a time for action. Too many people are suffering as we
speak.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise and speak on the motion introduced by
the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake on
aboriginal housing.
I begin by thanking the member for bringing this matter
before the House. I can assure the House that the government
and I share his concerns. I can also assure the House that we
intend to address this issue as quickly as possible and in a
manner that is socially and fiscally responsible to Canadians.
As the hon. member has made clear, the housing situation in
many aboriginal communities has become extremely difficult in
recent years. In some communities the qualify of shelter is truly
appalling for a nation such as ours. In others the shortage of
housing has reached crisis levels. These housing problems
affect not only the elders, as was stressed in my colleague's
remarks, but all sectors of the population including the rapidly
growing proportion of young people.
A clear and decisive plan of action is required to correct these
inequities which are contributing to many health and social
problems on reserve, again as the member said.
My colleague is also correct in stating that in 1992 the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recommended a
number of very specific actions to address the shortage of
adequate shelter in aboriginal communities. However, due to the
dissolution of Parliament none of these actions were taken.
The election that followed the dissolution of that Parliament
gave Canadians the opportunity to vote for change, for a new
approach to issues that face our nation. As we all know,
Canadians took advantage of that opportunity in an
overwhelming manner.
8200
I am convinced that one of the reasons Canadians elected the
Liberal Party to majority government was the sincerity and
progressive nature of our policies for aboriginal people.
Canadians have long acknowledged that action must be taken on
aboriginal issues and the Liberal Party of Canada has the
political will to deal with those issues.
The Liberal plan for Canada, the red book, which outlined the
Liberal Party's policy initiatives during the election campaign
made some very clear commitments to aboriginal people,
commitments we have been working hard to fulfil.
For example, we made the commitment to implement the
inherent right to self-government, something we are now
working on with aboriginal leaders and others. We will achieve
this. The advantage is that it moves toward the local control for
which the member was arguing. We made a commitment to
dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, a process which has already begun in Manitoba.
(1750)
That dismantling will leave the local control which the
member knows is necessary to deal with this particular problem.
We made a commitment to uphold the honour of the crown by
settling land claims through a fair and equitable process. This
House has spent a great deal of time and energy over the past
year dealing with enabling legislation for a number of land
claim agreements. I have spoken in the House in those land
claim debates. I have worked in committee on those land claim
debates and I was glad to see some of them going through.
The land claims process also leads to the local control which
the member knows is necessary to deal with this problem.
Also in the red book we promised to increase support for
post-secondary education. Several months ago the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that $20
million would be added to the budget of his department's
post-secondary education program bringing the total spending
for 1994-95 to over $247 million.
Improved post-secondary education will lead to expertise at
the local level which is also necessary to deal with this problem.
I, like the member, have dealt with the Hiawartha First Nation
and the Curve Lake First Nation on matters of self-government
and education and treaty matters. I am very interested
personally in his suggestions.
We also promised to address health issues by giving
aboriginal communities the tools and resources necessary to
tackle these problems. Toward this end the minister of health
recently announced the building healthy communities strategy.
This strategy will provide almost almost a quarter billion dollars
in additional funding over the next five years to address priority
needs in the areas of solvent abuse, mental health, and home
care nursing.
The member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake knows that
these matters are related to the problems which he is raising in
the House today.
We also made a very clear commitment in the red book to
address the housing issue which the member has raised in the
House of Commons this evening. This again is something to
which we have been devoting a great deal of effort.
Hon. members here must recognize that this is an extremely
complex issue, one that requires a range of innovative solutions
and the co-operation of many parties. It is not an issue that will
be solved by money alone or, for that matter, by the federal
government alone.
The red book acknowledges that: ``Adequate shelter is a
fundamental need of any society and a basic prerequisite for
community prosperity''. That statement was made in direct
reference to the precarious housing situation in many aboriginal
communities.
In response to the shelter challenge the red book commits the
government to work with aboriginal people to develop an
approach to housing that emphasizes community control, which
the member has rightly stressed, local resources and flexibility
in design and labour requirements, the local approach which the
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is arguing for.
I am pleased to inform the House that the government has
been doing just that. Both the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have made it very
clear that the housing crisis is a personal priority. To fulfil the
government's commitment both ministers have directed their
officials to work together to develop a new aboriginal housing
policy.
Toward that end in the past several months federal officials
have been working with the Assembly of First Nations task force
on housing along with representatives of the Inuit Tapirisat of
Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, and others to
develop a new policy.
Many issues need to be addressed in devising a new aboriginal
housing policy, everything from ownership and financing to
aboriginal involvement in construction, maintenance and
management of the housing.
(1755)
While aboriginal groups such as the Assembly of First
Nations and the Inuit would like to see action taken quickly, they
too acknowledge the need to work co-operatively with
government and the private sector to develop viable solutions to
this serious housing problem. The aboriginal leadership have
shown determination and commitment in addressing this
difficult issue.
8201
In conclusion, while I commend the hon. member's concern
and acknowledge his call for a renewed commitment to
aboriginal housing, I think it is clear that the government's
commitment has never been stronger.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I,
also, would like to congratulate the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his excellent motion. As a
fellow member of the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I must
say that he is known for his social commitment. This motion is
entirely in keeping with the social positions he has taken at the
committee's hearings.
I will start by referring to the report of the Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs submitted in the previous Parliament and
entitled ``A Time for Action, Aboriginal and Northern
Housing''. A few years have passed and, although things had to
be done at the time, we realize that nothing has really changed
and that it is still time do something. On the government side
they consult, they show goodwill, but action is not forthcoming.
Meanwhile, we witness life conditions which are probably
among the worst in North America.
These conditions have to be seen. I belong to the category of
people who believe in seeing for themselves, and I have visited a
number of people from the First Nations. No later than today, I
called upon my colleagues on the finance committee to fly or
drive to some aboriginal communities to find out, first hand,
how these people live today. I do not think I would offend
anyone by saying that they live in a Third World economy.
As we can see in the Auditor General's report, tabled
yesterday, aboriginal people have very high rates of poverty. In
some communities, the unemployment rate is 80 per cent; the
suicide rate is sometimes five times higher than the Canadian
average. Despair permeates these communities; the education
level is much lower than the Canadian average. They are the
victims of a paternalistic attitude they have been subject to for a
long time. And yes, housing is unfortunately totally inadequate.
I saw with my own eyes four generations living under the
same roof. Imagine the promiscuity, the total lack of intimacy.
Imagine having to eat every day with twenty people,
representing four generations, around the table. These are things
you do not see in the Third World; even in Latin America people
are better off.
There is a lack of infrastructure and adequate housing. How
many communities do not even have sewers? How many
communities do not even have running water?
In a modern society, in a country like ours which boasts of a
very high standard of living, tolerating Third World living
conditions such as these is totally unacceptable.
On top of that, some houses are of a style totally foreign to
native culture. In some communities, all the houses are the
same, tiny little bungalows. There is no concern for native
culture, history or tradition. Across Canada, houses built the
same way and often-I will come back to that later-by people
who do not even live on the reserve. You can see that the
Department of Indian Affairs is not really concerned about
native culture and maintaining it but rather is driven by
economic factors. So, let us build the cheapest houses possible.
Financing on reserve is difficult. It is a real mess.
(1800)
There is the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
and then the Department of Indian Affairs. It is a mess. People
do not know who to turn to. For housing construction as well as
renovations, waiting lists are a mile long and, in many cases, the
agencies pass the buck back and forth.
Also of note is the limited involvement of native people in
policy development. My colleague opposite mentioned earlier
the significant contribution of native people. Again, as I said
earlier, I just left a finance committee meeting, and the First
Nations' leader was telling us that he deplored the lack of
consultation of First Nations on housing policy. This policy has
been in the making since 1984. And let me remind you that I
started my remarks by saying that it was time to act. My hon.
colleague says that it is time to act, time to consult but, for all
practical purposes, the First Nations' leader told us no later than
this afternoon that it was not happening.
The reserves derive very little in the way of economic benefits
from the various government programs. I do not want to embark
on a discussion on the whole thrust and the whole gamut of
government programs for native people, but the fact is that very
little benefit accrues to the reserves per se from housing-related
activities as well as other ones. Services are often provided by
outside contractors who, on leaving the reserve, keep Natives in
some degree of dependency.
I will translate almost word for word what my hon. colleague
said earlier, when he quoted the 1991 report of the Auditor
General. I will repeat what he said in French because we are
using the same reference. In his 1991 report, the Auditor
General said this: ``Inadequate and overcrowded housing,
among other things, can contribute to social and health
problems, such as sickness, marriage breakdown, alcoholism
and child abuse. The financial results can be measured in terms
of
8202
higher cost of health care, social assistance benefits, policing
and penitentiary services''.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General said
yesterday that all these problems are relevant to society. But
they are amplified and emphasized in these communities. It is
even worse. Solving the housing problems on reserves could
reduce the cost of health services and social assistance by
improving social and health standards. What the Auditor
General said yesterday about society in general is that the
problem is worse on reserves and must be solved soon.
I would also like to extract a few facts from the 1993 report of
the Department of Indian Affairs. I still remember the first
presentation made by officials from the Department of Indian
Affairs to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. They told us
candidly that the native population was growing by nearly 5 per
cent a year, double the Canadian growth rate. They also told us
that they knew that there were housing shortages, but
unfortunately, funds were lacking and, as I just said, people had
to live with three or four generations under one roof in some
cases.
In their presentation, they told us that the First Nations had
nearly 72,000 housing units, of which 42 per cent did not meet
Canadian housing standards and 16 per cent lacked plumbing
and sewage facilities. In our society today, not having a sewage
system is almost unacceptable. Twenty-nine per cent do not
have running water. Who here in this august chamber would
imagine that such things could happen? Certainly not in our
homes, where we have running water. But 29 per cent of homes
on reserves lack running water and 26 per cent have no sewer
service. I even meet band councils who tell me: ``Mr. Bachand,
can you intervene with the minister and try to make him aware of
our cause? We have no sewers on our reserve and no running
water.'' I have to do that quite regularly.
Subsidies have not increased since 1984, while the native
population has increased 5 per cent a year, creating a big need
for housing. So you understand that we now have to tell native
people to continue to live with 10, 15 or 20 people under one
roof, because the funding is not there and unfortunately their
population is growing. So conditions continue to deteriorate and
we can come right out and say that living conditions on the
reserves are the worst in Canada; as I just said, it is Canada's
Third World.
There are solutions. Native lending institutions can be set up,
for example; things like that would help. But before that is done,
of course, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would
finally have to decide with the Department of Indian Affairs who
has jurisdiction, because CMHC comes under Public Works.
(1805)
As I was saying earlier, this was a mess. There should be
tighter management control and a single body or department
should be in charge.
Mr. Speaker, I will hurry because I realize that I only have one
minute left. I would have liked to say more, because these
people do not often have the opportunity to make themselves
heard through us and they are showing signs of distress.
We mentioned earlier, as did the leader of the First Nations,
that the red book has a lot of implications and that it includes a
number of commitments. However, no progress was made
regarding the housing issue. In fact, the housing policy is still at
the conceptual stage. There is not enough discussion with native
people.
I simply ask the government to implement as quickly as
possible the promises made in the red book. The time has come
to take action.
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to address the House on the motion
introduced by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake.
The hon. member has expressed some genuine concern about
housing conditions in many First Nations communities. I know
my hon. colleague's views are heartfelt and sincere. I commend
him for bringing them to the attention of the House. I believe all
Canadians share his concern that no group of people in our
society should live in substandard housing.
I can assure the hon. member the government is fully aware
that there is a serious lack of homes designed especially for
seniors on reserve; as well there is a lack of nursing homes for
those requiring special care. It is our belief that elders need an
integrated housing program that encourages and enables them to
stay in their own homes longer.
Health Canada's building healthy communities strategy
which was mentioned by the hon. member for Peterborough a
few minutes ago will support such a program. By supporting on
reserve home nursing care for persons discharged from hospital
and those with acute illnesses the strategy will help more First
Nations people to continue to live in their reserve homes. The
challenge now lies in ensuring that appropriate housing is
available.
While I appreciate this special concern for the elderly I think
the hon. member would agree that improvements must be made
in aboriginal housing for the benefit of all age groups from
newborn to seniors. We must keep in mind that the aboriginal
population is an overwhelmingly young population. If we do not
8203
focus as well on the needs of youth and young families we will
face increasing costs to our social security, health and justice
systems while failing to meet vital challenges for First Nations.
I know from conversations with the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and the minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that they are both
very concerned about the state of housing in certain aboriginal
communities. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development has witnessed these conditions firsthand in many
of his visits to these communities. This is an experience which
has strengthened his resolve to take action.
In a recent speech to the provincial treaty forum on housing in
Saskatchewan the minister acknowledged: ``Housing is one of
the most critical problems facing aboriginal communities
today''. He went on to say that the conditions he has observed
simply should not occur in our country.
I am therefore pleased to confirm that the government is
working very hard to finalize a new policy and action plan to
tackle the First Nations housing issue. We are doing so with the
support of First Nations leaders and with input from a wide
range of stakeholders. This action plan will provide a
multifaceted approach to addressing the housing needs of First
Nations, including the special needs of elders.
The housing crisis is not a new phenomenon. The situation has
been worsening year after year for the past decade as the
previous governments failed to take action. Make no mistake
about it. This government is committed to action on this issue.
The problems are evident enough but the difficulty lies in
finding solutions that will be effective, affordable and long
lasting. These solutions must also increase First Nations control
of the housing portfolio and contribute to the government's
objective of building new partnerships with aboriginal people.
As hon. members are aware there are serious concerns about
the quality and quantity of on reserve housing. A relatively high
percentage of reserve houses require some form of
rehabilitation and many must be replaced. This is largely a
reflection of the overall poor quality of reserve housing
constructed before 1983 when the national building code
standards were not enforced.
(1810)
There is also a serious shortage of on reserve housing. This
shortage is becoming more severe each year as more and more
First Nations families are formed. This shortage means that
houses are overcrowded. In turn this takes its toll on family and
community life and can affect the physical and mental health
and well-being of family members.
The housing shortage and the poor condition of existing
houses are the two key issues that must be addressed. They call
for a range of innovative and resourceful approaches.
As the hon. member for Peterborough has informed the
House, officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation are working closely with the Assembly of First
Nations task force on housing and others to develop concrete
proposals for a new aboriginal housing policy.
Among the concepts now being explored are a number of
creative options that have come directly from First Nations.
These proposals will be considered by the government in
deliberations on a new aboriginal housing policy. A
memorandum to cabinet is being prepared to seek support for
such a new policy. Both ministers have instructed their officials
that any new housing policy must encompass three key
elements.
First, it must improve housing conditions while moving
greater control and accountability for housing to First Nations.
The Government of Canada believes that community control is
critical to the success of future aboriginal housing initiatives.
This position is shared by First Nations.
Second, the policy must provide greater employment and
business opportunities for aboriginal people. First Nations
people must have enhanced opportunities to build better houses
for less money with more local supplies. We must also explore
new avenues for financing First Nations housing by encouraging
private sector investment in the housing portfolio. In the current
environment of fiscal restraint and deficit reduction,
government alone cannot foot the enormous bill for aboriginal
housing.
Third, the policy must promote the development of skills that
will facilitate First Nations control of housing and enable
aboriginal people to pursue jobs in the housing industry.
A housing policy that achieves all those goals will also lead to
improved health and social conditions in aboriginal
communities. This in turn will reduce costs to government and
will provide for a more equitable society. In other words all
Canadians have a stake in improved aboriginal housing.
As hon. members well know, the challenges in developing a
new aboriginal housing policy are significant but they are not
insurmountable. I am confident, as are the Minister for Indian
Affairs and Northern Development and the minister responsible
for CMHC, that the co-operative approach now under way
offers the best chance for success. By working together with
aboriginal people and making decisions that affect them we will
arrive at solutions and approaches that can be supported by all
Canadians.
8204
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before the House today speaks to the need for more aboriginal
housing. It is a real problem. Anyone who has ventured on to an
Indian reserve, travelled by one, or has had the occasion to come
into contact with aboriginal people knows there is a real
problem as far as aboriginal housing is concerned.
As Canadians I am sure all of us would like to see the situation
improved. We are not callous and uncaring. We would like to see
everybody in our society living in decent housing with the
opportunity to maintain what we have come to accept as the
Canadian lifestyle.
These are some of the facts surrounding current government
spending on aboriginal affairs. The Government of Canada is
currently spending some $5.8 billion a year to try and deal with
the problems we are talking about this afternoon. Out of that
amount, some $300 million is directed toward aboriginal
housing. According to the latest reports some 3,500 new units
are built and 4,500 units are renovated every year.
(1815 )
The Auditor General says that the spending on DIAND's
budget is rising faster than the rate of inflation and the increase
in aboriginal population combined. This tells me that the
positive results of this funding are dismal to say the least. It is
my contention that the results will always be a failure because
there will never be enough money available in this budget to
address the needs of these people.
In my view the only way these people are going to be able to
exist in housing that is acceptable to them and engage in a
lifestyle that is acceptable to them and to us as Canadians is for
them to become economically independent and be in a position
to provide their own housing on the same basis as the rest of us.
While I appreciate that the Indian people find that these
existing programs provide some relief, they are surely no
happier with the situation than we are, the non-aboriginal
people and the taxpayers of Canada.
I ask the question: How can someone feel a sense of
self-worth and self-respect when he or she has to go begging to
the federal government for money to subsidize housing or a
standard of living?
Reserves, in many cases, are located in areas where there is
little if any economic opportunity. That is the reality of reserves
in Canada today. The people who live on those reserves are
relegated to a lifestyle which perpetually looks to the federal
government to be subsidized. In many instances these reserves
are located in remote areas that are very difficult to access and
where there is really no economic activity taking place other
than government funding. There is virtually no meaningful
employment.
The aboriginal people who have fared the best are the ones
who have made the difficult but courageous choice to venture
off reserves and become part of the Canadian mainstream.
It is the view of our socialist friends, and we see the evidence
of that in such motions as the one before the House today, that
the government either has or should have the answers to all of
our woes. ``If we only had a better program. If we only delivered
it more efficiently. If we only earmarked more tax dollars for the
program we would achieve our objectives and everybody would
be happy. We would achieve a state of nirvana''.
After nearly three decades of massive government spending,
massive redistribution of wealth from productive people in our
society to the have nots, we find that not only has the
government not achieved its goals but in every instance has
exacerbated the very problem that its programs were designed to
correct.
Mr. Milliken: That is complete rubbish.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Those are the facts.
It is interesting to note that the Auditor General has in his
latest report started to echo the sentiments of many brilliant
economists, such as my colleague from Capilano-Howe
Sound, who have been saying for years that government
programs designated to fix problems such as unemployment and
welfare by their very nature increase the demand.
I will quote the Auditor General. He says: ``There are
indications of possible negative effects associated with social
programs''. He goes on to say: ``We note that most if not all
social programs have the potential to produce such effects''.
Many effects that have been associated with existing
programs include rising social program use and high repeated
use, suggest that social programs may be creating a long term
dependence among some users. Disincentives to work when
benefits from social programs are compared to earnings from
jobs and interactions among social programs may result in the
programs working at cross purposes.
It is therefore obvious that the solution to native housing, the
real permanent solution, does not lie with more government
spending or more programs, policies or initiatives from
government, but rather must come from the aboriginal people
themselves through participation in the economy like all other
Canadians.
I might add that there are hundreds of thousands of
non-aboriginal Canadians who live in poor and sometimes
inadequate housing and who desire to move from their basement
rental suites and their apartments and live in nicer housing. The
reality for these people, a reality they accept, is that they will
have to pursue their own dreams and aspirations using their own
re-
8205
sources. That is the way it works and that is the way it should
work.
(1820 )
In conclusion, I want to return to the thrust of the motion
which is to require the government to spend more resources and
increase the aboriginal housing program. My response to that
motion is that there will never be enough money. If these people
are to rely on government programs, there will never be enough
programs, there will never be enough general resources and
there will never be general satisfaction among the recipients.
The solution is to find ways to encourage and give incentive to
aboriginal people to become self-sufficient and part of the
Canadian mainstream. I recognize that this is not either an easy
thing to say or to accomplish but in the long run, it is the only
real hope for aboriginal people living in our country today.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair should apologize to the
Reform Party for not recognizing members of its party earlier in
the debate.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the motion put
forward by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake.
This is an important issue. The motion concerns on reserve
housing. Having grown up in the central part of British
Columbia, I have seen the evidence and I have heard the stories
of the deplorable living conditions on some of the reserves.
These conditions can justifiably be called shameful in our
society, certainly in the times we live in. Canada enjoys a very
high standard of living, yet we have people, whether natives or
not, living in abject poverty and deplorable housing situations.
This is not something of which we can be proud.
The member suggests in his motion that the government
should put more money into an improved housing program. The
fact is that present fiscal realities simply do not permit the
spending of more money to alleviate the problem.
In my opinion the money that the government is spending on
native programs, particularly the housing programs and
programs to help the social situation of the natives is already
there. If only past governments and the present government
spent a little more effectively and a little more efficiently, some
of these problems could be looked after with the funds that are
presently available.
Unfortunately the popular opinion by the Auditor General is
that the Department of Indian Affairs is out of control in its
spending. The Auditor General said that the government is
throwing ever increasing amounts of money at the native people
but the programs are ineffective and inefficient.
The report paints a picture of a disorganized Department of
Indian Affairs lacking any direction, lacking any clear goals,
lacking any monitoring of its existing spending, lacking any
accountability of its existing spending. In fact the Auditor
General gives the department a complete failing mark for the
way it handles the funds that it has allocated to its department. It
is totally out of control.
The funds are there within the department. The Department of
Indian Affairs has a $5.8 billion budget. The funds are there.
They are just not being utilized effectively.
When members of the Reform Party start questioning some of
the things that the government does or some of the things that
past governments did, members opposite immediately say that
the Reform Party does not care about the plight of the Indians.
We do. We feel very strongly about the plight of the Indians.
What we care about as well is the taxpayers' money that the
past and present governments have spent trying to solve the
problems which the Indians have, trying to come up with
solutions to improve their social standards, the plight of how
they live, the houses that they live in and the deplorable
conditions on the reserves.
(1825 )
We do care about that. That is the reason we questioned the
way that the department of Indian affairs of this government
spends its money. It is out of control and it is not going to
improve until this government gets a handle on how the
bureaucracy is spending its money, until it starts making
demands for accountability, monitoring, evaluation, and results.
One of the popular opinions in this country concerning the
department of Indian affairs is that there is no bureaucrat in that
department who ever wants to get the problem solved because if
they ever solve a problem they will work themselves out of a
job. We have a huge department that is overstaffed, overfunded
and underproductive.
There is a considerable amount of problems among the
governments with respect to the delivery of the housing
services. One of the problems is that the federal, provincial and
territory governments are all involved in providing housing. A
recent committee report by the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs found there was a lack of focus because of
these three levels of government that were involved. It was
resulting in a patchwork of housing initiatives that really were
not solving problems for anyone.
The committee said that there was little or no co-ordination
between the three levels of government. The lack of
co-ordination is not constrained to governments. It has also
been found to be rampant within various departmental
programs. For instance, DIAND is not directly involved in
housing in the territories. Both Yukon and Northwest Territories
have a cost-sharing agreement with CMHC. However, it must be
noticed that 50 per
8206
cent of the bands had to make use of CMHC because the funding
provided by DIAND was not sufficient.
In order to increase the efficiency of services to bands, some
suggested to the committee that the housing programs between
DIAND and CMHC be amalgamated. Here we have two
government departments asking to be put together to become
more efficient. That is not the way the bureaucracy has worked
in this country, unfortunately.
In fact, DIAND has no clear statement of federal
responsibility with respect to housing for natives living on
reserve. Because of this and because of the patchwork of
programs among governments, the committee found that the
natives living on reserves, which were side by side, could in fact
have completely different levels of housing and services.
A very clear message was being delivered to the committee.
There are serious problems in the administration of the housing
service between various governments and between various
government departments.
I conclude by restating what we in the Reform Party believe is
the root problem of the deplorable housing conditions that exist
on some of the reserves. It is not the fact that they need more
money spent. It is not the fact that there is money to be spent
because there is not. We have to borrow it on a daily basis to stay
alive in this country. The fact is that the money they have, which
is adequate, is simply not being used in an effective and efficient
manner.
I repeat again, their programs are out of control. Their
spending is our of control. There is no monitoring within that
department. There is no accountability and quite frankly under
this government, we see also there can be no hope for that
department to ever get its act together.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since no one wishes to take the floor,
can we call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
8206
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Crow debate has been with us for some time. It
is an important debate that has a great deal of meaning for
thousands of prairie farmers. It is a debate that these thousands
of farmers want to be a part of. In fact, these farmers have
already demonstrated that when asked they are more than
prepared to participate in the debate.
For example, when the previous government talked about
changing the Crow benefit they hosted hundreds of regional and
community meetings across the prairies. These meetings were
promoted as transportation talks. They attracted hundreds of
participants. In almost every case across Saskatchewan the
response of those participants was to ask the federal government
to maintain the Crow benefit.
Farmers across the prairies time and time again have
impressed upon the federal government that the Crow represents
economic fairness in the transportation of grain destined for
export. Saskatchewan farmers in particular are producing grain
on land that is further from port than any other grain farmers in
the world. Since the price of the product is based on its port side
distribution, obviously the farther one is from port the more
uncompetitive the product is for sale to the rest of the world.
The Crow benefit simply recognizes that with the benefit all
Canadians receive from the sale of Canadian grain into overseas
markets, all Canadians will assist in the cost of getting that grain
to its port of sale. Without the national subsidy, and I would
argue it is an internal not an external subsidy, the revenue that
would return to the prairies from the sale of grains would be
much reduced. The cost of the loss of this transportation support
to the prairies is therefore likely to be greater than the savings
the Department of Transport and the federal government would
accrue from the dismantling of the Crow benefit.
The Minister of Transport has toyed with prairie farmers
about this issue for months. Last week be betrayed a long held
Liberal commitment to prairie farmers and the communities that
they support when he announced that it is no longer a question of
whether the federal government plans to change the method of
payment, it is only a question of how it will be changed.
8207
In making the announcement the minister argues that new
GATT rules and the pending world trade organization requires
that Canada make the change. This is shocking. At the same time
as the Canadian Minister of Agriculture is abdicating Canada's
role in making economic decisions for Canadians, the
newspapers are running articles quoting American politicians
saying that the GATT cannot be accepted there because (a) the
treaty is a threat to its economic sovereignty and (b) the new
trade organization will have the power to change its national law
or regulation and impose fines and sanctions if it wants to.
Here we are in Canada blindly accepting the international
treaty without challenge while one of our trading partners, one I
might add which is hurting us in the marketplace, is openly
resisting the imposition of the terms and the agreement on them.
Canada should be challenging the interpretation of the GATT
deal affecting the Crow benefit and we should be resisting
making unilateral changes until all the partners to the agreement
have taken steps to ensure that a fair marketplace for all exists.
It is obvious to all of us involved in the grain trade that
without the Crow benefit and without specific changes to the
U.S. export enhancement program, Canadian farmers are left at
a significant disadvantage in the international marketplace. I
argue that it is an artificial marketplace.
The federal government should stop using the GATT deal as
an excuse to cut the Crow benefit. As my friend Mr. Art Macklin
the president of the National Farmer's Union has said: ``It is
apparent that the federal government's agenda is to cut the
deficit and they view the Crow benefit as a large budget item''.
Mr. Macklin has also said: ``If the federal government really
wanted to level with the people of the prairies, it would
acknowledge that there does exist ways within the framework of
the GATT agreement to retain the Crow benefit as a
transportation subsidy''.
In conclusion, late last week I asked the Minister of
Agriculture if he has failed to understand the importance of the
Crow benefit to the economic viability of the prairies or has he
just decided to ignore the views of thousands of farmers who
have made their views known at various times during the past 10
years? For the record, I ask again.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
government is now examining how changes can be made to the
Western Grain Transportation Act, which enable Canada to meet
its international obligation and which result in the greatest
possible benefits to prairie farmers and the prairie economy.
There are two compelling reasons we are talking about
change. The new world trade agreement under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade calls upon countries to reduce
export subsidies. Those reductions must occur both in
expenditures and volumes exported. The western grain
transportation subsidy on shipments to west coast ports and
Churchill is considered an export subsidy under the terms of the
agreement.
Legislation which will enable Canada to implement the terms
of the GATT was tabled in the House recently. The uncertainty
that would result in the grain industry were we not to reform the
WGTA in response to the new world trade agreement would be
untenable. The WGTA must be reformed before there is any
threat of the volume limits on export subsidies being exceeded.
The second compelling reason for change is exactly the
concern expressed in the member's question. That is the
viability of the prairie economy. It has long been argued that the
current method of payment discourages high value production
and processing in western Canada. The world is changing. The
new world trade deal has opened new opportunities for Canadian
products and specifically for higher valued consumer oriented
products. We must ensure that our industry is equipped to
compete and gain its share of these rapidly expanding world
markets.
As the government considers the best means for reforming the
WGTA the fiscal circumstances of the government cannot be
ignored. Agriculture will, along with other departments of
government, have to bear its fair share of the effort to put our
fiscal house in order.
As we consider reform the views of farmers across Canada are
being taken into account. Far from ignoring the views of farmers
we are asking them very specific questions on how a new
payment method for the WGTA might be designed.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had meetings
with representatives of the major farm organizations and
commodity groups from eastern and western Canada. They are
being asked for their views on the two specific options that have
recently come forward from the producer payment panel and
from the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta. At the
same time consultations have been undertaken by the Minister
of Transport on efficiency issues.
The end result will be reform for the grain transportation
system that will meet our fiscal responsibilities and our
international trading obligations. We also want to ensure that
our Canadian farmers come out on the winning end of the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)