CONTENTS
Monday, June 17, 1996
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3896
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 3901
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3918
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3919
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3920
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3920
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3921
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3921
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3922
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3922
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3922
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3923
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3923
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3924
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3928
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 3931
Bill C-314. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 3933
Bill C-315. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 3933
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 3933
Bill C-45. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 3935
Division on motion deferred 3935
Bill C-36. Report stage 3935
Motion for concurrence 3935
Motion for third reading 3935
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 3944
Division on motion deferred 3945
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 3947
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 3955
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 3963
Bill C-39. Motion for second reading 3963
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 3963
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa
committee.) 3971
Bill C-40. Motion for second reading 3971
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3971
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa
committee.) 3975
Bill C-37. Motion for second reading 3975
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3975
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred toa
committee.) 3979
Bill C-4. Report stage 3979
Motion for concurrence 3979
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3979
3893
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 17, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support all
measures leading to the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus in such a way
as to enhance prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute
regarding Cyprus that would benefit all the people of Cyprus and bring about an
end to more than two decades of division on the island.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a saddened heart to speak
about a tragedy that has endured for nearly 22 years, a tragedy
which highlights the failure of the international community to find
a just and viable solution to a grave injustice of this century. Just
because it does not make the headlines every week does not mean
the Cyprus problem is under control.
A recent shooting in the UN buffer zone of a Cypriot soldier is a
clear reminder to all of us that this situation could turn into a crisis
at any time.
[Translation]
For me, this motion represents my commitment to human rights
and to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. At a time
when respect for the great principles of international law and for
basic human rights is an essential requirement for a fair and stable
international order, Cyprus remains an unacceptable and tragic
exception.
(1105)
[English]
The Cyprus problem involves the illegal occupation of a small
country by a large and militarily much stronger neighbour. It
involves a violation of international treaties, a systemic destruction
of a cultural heritage of an ancient land with thousands of years of
history and civilization, and a displacement of more than a third of
Cyprus' population and the tragedy of 1,619 missing persons.
What makes the Cyprus issue a particular tragedy is that while
numerous conflicts rage on around the world without a solution in
sight, the Cyprus problem does have a solution that is within the
reach of the international community. This is the demilitarization
proposal I am introducing in the House of Commons today.
[Translation]
The United Nations has tried on several occasions to reconcile
the two communities, but without success. Let us note the role
played in the latest UN initiatives by the Right Hon. Joe Clark as
special representative of the Secretary General of the United
Nations from May 1993 to May 1996. Unfortunately, no agreement
was reached because the Turkish side was not flexible enough. We
are now at an impasse.
[English]
The continuing presence and overwhelming military strength of
the Turkish occupation troops on the island, currently standing near
30,000, is perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the
resolution of the Cyprus problem.
This is an alarming fact that led the United Nations secretary
general to describe the occupied area of Cyprus in his December
1995 report to the security council as ``one of the most highly
militarized areas in the world in terms of the ratio between
numbers of troops and civilian population''.
This has led to the creation of unstable conditions threatening
peace and security not only in Cyprus but in the wider region of the
south eastern Mediterranean. Security concerns and anxieties are of
crucial importance to both sides and serve to promote continued
mistrust which we all know is detrimental to any solution.
What the situation requires is a solution that will take into
account the security concerns of both sides, a solution that will help
to restore confidence and enhance prospects for a peaceful and
lasting solution to this grave problem.
The proposal by the president of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides,
for the complete demilitarization of the republic of Cyprus is such
a solution. Formally submitted to the United Nations in December
1993, this comprehensive plan, if implemented, provides among
other things for the disbanding of the Cypriot National Guard and
3894
the handing over of all its arms and military equipment to
substantially strengthen the UN peacekeeping force.
The money saved from defence spending would be used to fully
finance this force and the remainder of the savings would be
reserved for development projects to benefit both communities.
This offer is conditional on the parallel withdrawal of Turkish
troops and Turkish settlers from Cyprus, as also called for in the
UN resolutions-there are a number of them-and the disbanding
of Turkish Cypriot armed units.
If implemented, these measures leading to a reciprocal reduction
of defence spending and reduction in the number of troops on
Cyprus will help to restore confidence between the parties, will
meet the security concerns of all parties involved and will enhance
the prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute
regarding Cyprus. These would benefit all the people of Cyprus and
bring an end to more than two decades of division of the island.
Recent developments have made the resolution to the Cyprus
problem an issue once again for the international community.
[Translation]
In fact, the European Union was to start six months after the
1996 intergovernmental conference closes, that is to say, in about
two years.
(1110)
As a result, Europe is getting involved more seriously in the
resolution of the Cyprus problem. The European Union, the United
States and Great Britain have also appointed special
representatives. More than at any other time, a solution may be
within reach.
[English]
The final issue I wish to address is perhaps the most pertinent for
the House and its members. Why as members of Parliament should
we support this? That is a question everyone will be asking today.
The answer is self-evident for me: Canada's longstanding
commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and its regard
for human rights violations wherever they may occur. Canadians
are no strangers to the Cyprus problem, having been involved in the
United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus for nearly 30 years.
We have an opportunity today to lend our respected voice in the
international community to bring about the successful
implementation of this plan and to send a clear message that the
status quo is no longer an acceptable solution.
The proposal has already received considerable support. At a
meeting of the Commonwealth nations in November 1995, the
heads of government, including our Prime Minister, expressed full
support for the proposal by the president of the Cypriot government
for the demilitarization of Cyprus. Resolutions have been passed in
both the United States Senate and Congress. The European Union
has also passed a resolution welcoming the proposal. Most
recently, Australia and New Zealand respectively passed
resolutions in support of this proposal.
Canada contributed to the United Nations peacekeeping forces in
Cyprus for nearly three decades. We have not forgotten this issue
nor its importance to all Canadians, in particular Canadians of
Cypriot origin.
This motion will reiterate Canada's conviction that only peaceful
negotiations can bring disputes to a peaceful and just resolution.
Canada has shown leadership in the field of human rights and has
stood firm on its commitment to respect for international law. As
Canadians we can once again show leadership through the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister by supporting this
motion. I invite all members on both sides of the House to support
this motion. This will be our first step in finding a just and viable
solution to the Cyprus problem.
Why should Nicosia remain as the only divided capital city in
the world? We have seen the tumbling of the Berlin wall, the
commencement of a Middle East peace process. Why can we not
work together as responsible members of the international
community to bring an end to the Cyprus problem once and for all?
I intend to raise this matter tomorrow in the House in a question
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has said he will support this
motion and will work hard with other members of the
Canada-Cyprus friendship committee of the House in order to
find a viable and just solution to a problem, a tragedy, that has
existed for 22 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in support of Motion M-239 tabled on May 1 by the hon.
member for Saint-Denis. In her motion, the hon. member is asking
that the government ``support all measures leading to the
demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus in such a way as to
enhance prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the
dispute regarding Cyprus''.
I commend my colleague for this initiative. It was with her and
other parliamentarians that I travelled to that country in January
1995. This visit has been an unforgettable experience for me.
Unfortunately, we were able to visit only the southern part of the
island, that is the Greek part under the control of President Glafcos
Clerides, whose government has been recognized by the
international community. We could nevertheless see, in the
distance, the ghost city of Famagusta, a city now abandoned that
played a major role in the history of Cyprus.
3895
(1115)
Cyprus combines oriental and occidental values. A small island
240 kilometres long by 100 kilometres wide, with a total area of
9,251 square kilometres, lying in the eastern Mediterranean Basin,
Cyprus has a history that goes back more than 3,000 years.
Unfortunately, this country has sustained the effects of the
antagonism between the Greeks and the Turks dating back to the
fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Cyprus was also marked by 82 years of British occupation.
Indeed, Cyprus was a British colony from 1878 to August 1960,
when it achieved independence. At that time, 81 per cent of the
574,000 residents of the islands were Greek speaking and 18 per
cent were Turkish speaking. In Parliament in Nicosia, 35 seats were
allocated to Greek speaking Cypriots as compared to 15 to their
Turkish speaking fellow citizens, or a 70 to 30 ratio.
Within just a few years, an interethnic spark of violence
degenerated into a bloody conflict affecting the whole island. The
Turkish Cypriots decided to create a separate government they
called PTCA, which stands for Provisional Turkish Cypriot
Administration.
In 1964, UN peacekeepers, including a Canadian contingent,
took over from the British troops. That year, Greece dispatched
approximately 5,000 troops to Cyprus while Turkey built its
military strength up to 10,000 on the island. That is how the green
line, or neutral zone between the Turkish and Greek
neighbourhoods of Nicosia, came to be.
From 1964 to 1974, Cyprus experienced a relatively calm period
and had a great president in the person of Archbishop Makarios,
who governed well and was a leader of the group of non aligned
countries. I had the honour of meeting him in Chile, during a visit
in that country. In 1974, the dictatorship of the colonels in Greece
organized a coup in Cyprus. Ankara took advantage of the situation
and sent 7,000 troops, who occupied one third of the island.
We must look for a negotiated settlement in Cyprus. In his May
1994 report to the security council, the UN secretary general stated
that the security council was facing an already familiar scenario,
namely the absence of an agreement essentially because of a lack
of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side.
In my opinion, we must first end the occupation of the island by
about 40,000 Turkish troops. The UN secretary general also
identifies Cyprus as one of the most militarized zones in the world,
in terms of its soldiers and civilians. In November 1993, the
secretary general said that the security council found unacceptable
the status quo in Cyprus, which was established and maintained
through the use of force.
Part of the solution lies in the proposal made by the President of
Cyprus, Glafcos Clerides, to completely demilitarize the island.
The proposal was submitted to the UN in December 1993 and
reaffirmed on many occasions since. It involves the dismantling of
the Cypriot national guard and the surrender of all military
weapons and equipment to a UN peacekeeping force.
I support Motion M-239 to demilitarize Cyprus. I am very
touched by the support of Dr. Oscar Arias, the former President of
Costa Rica, who is leading an extraordinary campaign to end
armament. Costa Rica is already a demilitarized country, as is
Panama and, more recently, Haiti. I support the demilitarization of
these three countries. The money thus saved could be used to
promote the island's economic and social development.
(1120)
The UN peacekeeping force must continue to play a lead role in
this peace process. This demilitarization proposal has already been
supported by the U.S. House of Representatives and the European,
Australian and New Zealand parliaments, as well as the
Commonwealth heads of government at their 1995 meeting in New
Zealand. It is now the turn of this House of Commons to support
this initiative, which will, I believe, lead to peace and stability for
this island.
I thank the Cypriot community of Canada, particularly those in
Quebec, for constantly keeping the problem of Cyprus before us,
and for bringing legitimate pressure to bear so that a solution may
be found to this problem as soon as possible.
Being a member of the Commonwealth like Cyprus, Canada
ought to play a more significant role in peace keeping and in
finding a solution to the Cyprus problem. This problem has gone
unresolved for far too long. I urge the Canadian government to step
up its efforts in this area.
On the one hand, I find it deplorable that Canada pulled its
peacekeepers out of Cyprus in 1992, after 29 years of presence on
the island. The presence of the UN peacekeeping force is
indispensable as an aid to negotiation and political settlement of
the Cypriot question.
On the other hand, the mediation overtures begun by former
Prime Minister Joe Clark, representing Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, have unfortunately not led to the anticipated results.
I also find it deplorable that Canada is represented by only an
honourary consul in Cyprus. The situation there, and the size of the
Cypriot community here in Canada, justify the presence of a full
time career consul general.
I hope that the Republic of Cyprus, as my colleague has said,
will be able to join the European community in the near future.
This will help solve the problem.
Greek and Turkish Cypriots have lived peaceably together for
four centuries. The 1974 crisis left more than 3,500 dead, 3,000 of
3896
those Greek Cypriots. As well there are another 1,619 missing,
whose fate is as yet unknown.
During my visit, I was made aware of this tragedy of the
thousands of missing persons, when I spoke of having become
familiar with the same phenomenon of the disappeared in Chile,
Argentina and a number of other countries. The disappeared
represent a very serious problem today. I might mention as well
that, in Cyprus alone, there are also more than 200,000 displaced
persons.
Cyprus, a country I came to love very much during my visit, has
played a great role in the past. Since 1974, however, its people
remain separated, because no solution has been acceptable to both
the Greek community in the south and the Turkish community in
the north.
I also saw that the area we visited is experiencing a very strong
economic upturn, and the standard of living is very high.
Thousands of tourists every year visit the island. I would like to see
every part of Cyprus benefit from prosperity and a still higher
standard of living.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 239
put forth by the hon. member for Saint Denis reflects the intent
previously stated by the United Nations, the Australian Parliament,
the New Zealand Parliament, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of
Representatives. By supporting this motion, Canada will be joining
these world leaders in calling for a peaceful settlement of the
Cyprus issue and ensuring the future stability and well-being of the
people of Cyprus.
In joining the nations and global organizations that have
previously stated their support for the demilitarization of Cyprus,
Canada is declaring that demilitarization would meet the security
concerns of all parties involved. It would enhance prospects for a
peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute regarding Cyprus. It
would benefit all the people of Cyprus and hence merits
international support.
(1125)
Cyprus has been plagued with conflict since 1963 when violence
broke out over accumulated tension between the Greek and Turkish
communities. Cyprus became independent of British rule three
years earlier, with a constitution intended to balance the interests of
the island's Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities.
A treaty between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United
Kingdom guaranteed the basic provisions of the constitution and
the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Cyprus. Unfortunately,
the application of the provisions of the constitution were not easily
enforced and tensions between the two communities escalated with
time and eventually led to the outbreak of violence.
As early as 1964 the United Nations established a peacekeeping
force in Cyprus. Since then, the security council has periodically
extended the mandate of the peacekeeping mission. Most recently
the security council extended the mandate of the peace force until
June 30, 1996. While expressing concern that there has been no
progress toward a final political solution and while urging the
leaders of both communities to promote tolerance and
reconciliation, these forces will doubtless continue to patrol the
buffer zone between the 30,000 Turkish troops that remain in
Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot forces.
The presence of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus as well as the
Greek troops occupying the area hamper the search for a freely
negotiated solution to the dispute. These troops pose a potential
threat to the security and well-being of all Cypriots and hinder the
peace and stability of the region.
Until demilitarization occurs there is a strong danger that
negotiations will remain unprosperous and no settlement will be
reached. This conflict has lasted too long and we as members of an
influential nation must voice our concern for the Cypriot people
who continue to suffer from uncertainty about the future of their
country.
Cyprus has become a test case of the effectiveness of the United
Nations and of the application of the basic rules of international
law. Since this conflict began, the United Nations has proposed a
number of peace plans to create a federal independent and
non-aligned Cypriot state. The United Nations has also sponsored
numerous rounds of negotiations between the conflicting parties,
most of which have not been fruitful.
In 1992 Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali reported to the UN security
council on the results of the latest round of negotiations. He
regrettably announced that the lack of political will continued to
block the conclusion of an agreement.
In that same year the security council reaffirmed that a
settlement must be based on a state of Cyprus with a single
sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship,
with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded. In 1994
resolution No. 939 effectively conceded in the absence of
agreements on fundamental issues that confidence building
measures were not a realistic possibility to ending the conflict.
Unfortunately, the presence of foreign troops in Cyprus has
hindered the ability of negotiators to come up with agreements on
the fundamental issues mentioned in resolution No. 939.
The European Parliament in a joint resolution called upon the
European Union, its member states and Turkey to give their full
backing to a continuous and broad dialogue to promote respect for
human rights and freedoms. This is a resolution that we must echo
here in the Canadian House of Commons.
3897
Our concern in this issue must be first and foremost for the
Cypriot people. They are the ones suffering from this elongated
war and the lack of political negotiations between the warring
nations involved. It is only through negotiated settlements between
Greece and Turkey that peace can be restored. It is only through
the establishment of peace that a concern for human rights and
democracy will return to the region.
Canada is a strong believer in human rights and fundamental
freedom for all people. This cannot merely be a spoken promise.
We must also act on it. We can begin by approving this motion to
restore peace and stability to Cyprus through the removal of all
foreign troops in the area.
(1130)
Unfortunately, while the necessity and validity of this motion is
not in question, its ultimate effectiveness is. Canada's distance
from Cyprus hinders our ability to become an active participant in
this issue. It is up to the regional authorities involved to solve this
problem. They are the ones that must join together around the
bargaining table and negotiate a settlement that will end the
militarization in Cyprus and allow the Cypriot people to live in
peace. Our role of diplomacy is the one we should be emphasizing
and promoting in that area.
I ask the government to call on the European Union to take a
more active role in ending the conflict in Cyprus. The European
Union has an influence over this conflict that Canada does not
enjoy. First, member states of the union are at a much more
strategic spot to deal with the Cypriot conflict than Canada is. They
also play a unique role in the dispute in that in July 1990 Cyprus
formally applied for full membership to the European community.
In response to Cyprus's plea for membership, the leaders of the
European Union agreed at the Corfu summit that the next phase of
enlargement of the union will include Cyprus, subject to a solution
of the Cyprus problem. This gives the European Union a tool for
use in negotiations and ultimately a settlement of this problem.
To give this issue the utmost attention, it is important that the
conflict be ended now. We urge all parties involved in the Cyprus
question to demonstrate goodwill and a new resolve to work
actively toward a lasting and peaceful political settlement. This is
the most effective way for Canada to become involved.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this most
important motion, Motion No. 239, which promotes the
demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus. Let me say at the outset
that I fully support this motion. I want to congratulate the member
for Saint-Denis for bringing it forward.
In the last several years we have witnessed the creation of new
areas of tension and conflict through the unleashing of destructive
forces of chauvinism and ethnic strife. At the same time, in many
parts of the world we have witnessed the triumph of reason, the
entrenchment of democracy and the emergence of free market
economies.
In July 1994 a brutal armed force was unleashed by the Turkish
government. The result was the illegal invasion of a sovereign state
and member of the United Nations, the island of Cyprus. To this
day 37 per cent of the island's territory is illegally occupied.
Turkish and Greek Cypriots were forcibly evicted from their
homes and became refugees in their own country. Almost 50,000
Turkish Cypriots have been forced by Turkish troops to flee their
homes and lose their property. Thousands of Greek Cypriots have
been displaced, their properties stolen and their family members
murdered. Close to 2,000 Greek Cypriots simply vanished, and to
this very day are unaccounted for.
This constitutes a gross violation of basic human rights for both
the missing persons and their beleaguered families.
I met the father of one of the missing. His name is John Kasapis.
Mr. Kasapis is a United States citizen whose then 16-year-old son
was vacationing in Cyprus in 1974. To this very day this
heart-broken father has not heard of the whereabouts of his now
38-year-old son. Is he alive or is he dead? Can this father or the
families of the 1,619 other missing persons, of which I would like
to point out are also relatives of many Canadians, ever rest, find
peace and can their wounds ever heal?
On July 20 the people of Cyprus and the rest of the civilized
world will be commemorating the 22nd anniversary of this brutal
and illegal invasion. I am sad to say that there seems to be no end in
sight. It seems that no solution is the solution for the illegal Turkish
regime.
(1135 )
I recently attended a meeting of NATO and the North Atlantic
alliance group where one of the topics discussed was illegal
immigration. I was shocked to learn that just over 20,000 illegal
Turkish immigrants are seeking asylum in Germany.
Mr. Katlu Adali in the Turkish newspaper Yeniduzen describes
how the Turkish Cypriot population has decreased by 60,000 to
70,000. Turkish Cypriots living in the Turkish occupied north of
Cyprus flee to the southern part of the free island not just for jobs,
not just for a better life, but more significantly for political asylum.
It is also reported in the Ortam, another Turkish newspaper, that
the Republic of Cyprus recognizes Turkish Cypriots as equal
citizens of the republic as it also recognizes many other groups on
the island, namely the Maronites, the Latins, the Armenians, just to
3898
name a few. Reading this I wonder what type of regime the Turkish
authorities are running.
Thousands of new Turkish settlers have been brought from
mainland Turkey to the island and into the occupied areas. This is
altering drastically the demographic character of Cyprus at the
expense of Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
In January 1992 the Spanish parliamentarian, Mr. Cuco told the
Council of Europe's committee on migration, refugees and
demography that the colonization of areas of Cyprus under Turkish
occupation by Turkish settlers constitutes an additional obstacle to
peace and is Cyprus' most serious demographic problem since the
invasion of 1974. This was based on Mr. Cuco's on the spot
investigation.
Moreover, the Council of Europe has condemned the continuous
human rights violations by Turkey, and according to a 1983 report
released by the Council of Europe, the European commission of
human rights found that Turkey's continuing occupation of Cyprus
violates articles 5, 8, 14, 26 and article 1 of protocol 1 of the
European convention on human rights. The aforementioned clearly
condemns Turkey's violation of human rights relating to missing
persons, the family and their properties.
The more people who are aware of human rights violations, the
more likely they are to act on them. The more one learns, the more
compassionate one becomes and less likely to harm.
Through my presentation I want people to learn to work toward
an expedient, just solution for Cyprus and for the betterment of all
humanity. The confidence building measures have been a step in
the right direction, which is why this motion is most important and
why I ask my colleagues in the House to fully support it.
Just as our American counterparts, the European Parliament, the
New Zealand House of Representatives and the Australian House
of Commons are working vigorously toward helping to bring a
speedy and just solution to the Cyprus issue, I point out that we too
as Canadian parliamentarians, through the Canada-Cyprus
friendship association, are working just as vigorously for a just
solution.
It is also important to mention to this hon. House that
approximately two years ago the Canada-Cyprus friendship group
under the direction of its chairman, the hon. member for Kent,
endorsed a demilitarization proposal for Cyprus as was outlined by
the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali.
Therefore, I will not go into the details of the six-point
demilitarization plan, as it was already outlined by my colleague so
eloquently, but I would like to take this opportunity to commend
President Clerides for this bold initiative.
The Commonwealth heads of government which met in
Zimbabwe unanimously endorsed the resolution which reiterated
its support for the independent sovereignty, territorial integrity,
unity and non-aligned status of Cyprus and for securing
compliance with all the United Nations' resolutions on Cyprus.
Moreover, it expressed full support for the proposal of the president
for the demilitarization of Cyprus.
What is significant is that we as a Canadian government,
members of the Commonwealth in essence have already endorsed
this proposal. With the meeting in Zimbabwe there is even more
reason why the House should support this motion.
One wonders for how long the people of Cyprus will wait for the
invader to leave their home. For how long will the Cypriot people
stand by and witness ethic cleansing?
(1140 )
The Turkish occupying forces to this very day continue to
plunder systematically and destroy the Cypriot cultural heritage in
the occupied area of the island. Religious property is a particular
target. Churches continue to be converted into mosques, vandalized
and turned into entertainment centres and pubs. What is happening
in the occupied areas of Cyprus by the Turkish forces is a total
disgrace and against all principles of human rights and freedoms.
Twenty-two years have passed, and the security council's many
resolutions remain unimplemented and totally ignored by Turkey.
Unless the aggressor is faced with progressively more severe
consequences for its disregard of international legal order, there is
not going to be, I am sad to say, any solution or justice in Cyprus
and the United Nations will lose credibility in the future.
Cyprus is not looking for pity. Cyprus wants what we all want as
civilized human beings. Cyprus wants what all progressive
institutions are advocating and that is justice.
In conclusion, not only do I extend my support for this motion
for the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus, but I urge all
hon. members of the House to do the same so that we can all be part
of a process that will bring forth a just and peaceful solution to this
peace loving island. Let us all work together to right the wrong. Let
us mend the wound.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to speak today on Motion No. 239 calling for
demilitarization of Cyprus.
I would like to express my thanks and support for the motion of
my colleague from Saint-Denis. She has shown extraordinary
commitment and perseverance in bringing forward this very
impor-
3899
tant motion. Those of us who are familiar with private members'
business and its trials and tribulation think it is important that we
note her efforts.
All members of the House are well aware of the long
commitment Canada has made toward the peaceful resolution of
the disputes in Cyprus. Canada has been an active participant in the
resolution of those disputes for over 30 years, and we have
acquired a deep knowledge and appreciation of that situation on
that island.
Even though Canadian troops left the island in 1993, Canadians
maintain a deep interest because of our Commonwealth ties,
because of the experience of so many Canadians and because so
many Canadians are of Cypriot background.
Today we are very worried. In the words of Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Gahli: ``Cyprus is a dangerous island''. Its
northern part is ``one of the most densely militarized areas in the
world''. It is filled with arms and with soldiers and there are
dangers which we hear about in the daily press.
Last week the hon. member for Saint-Denis mentioned that a
Greek Cypriot was killed by a Turkish soldier. This summer we
have heard about the conflict in the Mediterranean and the entire
eastern Mediterranean is becoming a very dangerous place and a
genuine threat to peace on a much broader level.
From the outset, Canada has supported the efforts of the United
Nations and the international community toward the reunification
of the island. This was embodied in security council resolution 939
and we concur with the principles of that resolution that a peaceful
negotiated settlement, based on a federal structure that would take
into account legitimate concerns and aspirations of both
communities is the most promising solution.
Very recently the security council's five permanent members
reaffirmed their full support for the good offices mission of the
secretary-general and underlined the importance they attach to a
comprehensive approach to an overall settlement of the Cyprus
problem on the basis of the relevant security council resolutions
and the discussions of 1977 and 1979.
That is why we are here today for this very important debate.
Canada has an opportunity to take a lead in calling for
demilitarization of the island. As you know, Mr. Speaker, from
your own very important work in conflict resolution,
demilitarization is a fundamental first step in achieving conflict
resolution in situations similar to this situation in Cyprus.
In our own case we have played a dynamic and instrumental role
in maintaining world peace through peacekeeping efforts, but in the
case of Cyprus, Canadians peacekeepers were there for many
decades and peace was not achieved. Therefore we took strong
action through Mr. Clark who represented the secretary-general in
trying to work out a solution. This year was, in the words of the
United States ``to be the year of Cyprus''. It seemed that
resolutions have been found for other conflicts in that part of the
world in Bosnia and Israel. Perhaps they are not moving in the
direction we would like at this moment, but this was the year that
Cyprus would be approached. Mr. Holbrooke was to be President
Clinton's personal representative but, alas, that was not achieved.
(1145)
Today we are facing a situation in which demilitarization of
northern Cyprus is a serious problem and we do not have the
resolution we had hoped for a few months ago.
As the member for Saint-Denis pointed out, many other nations
have adopted the same motion we are debating today. The United
States, Australia, New Zealand, the European parliament and the
Canadian government through the Commonwealth heads of
government meeting have agreed to support the essence of this
resolution. Given our nation's distinguished history in the area of
peacekeeping, is it not a logical step to support the demilitarization
of Cyprus?
It is unfortunate and indeed tragic that we are debating this issue
today because it does indicate a failure on the part of the world
community and of the United Nations. Despite more than 20 years
of commitments, security council resolutions, high level
discussions, we are left without a solution. If we are to attribute the
super politics of the cold war to these difficulties, what is the
answer now? We must look at the intransigence of the Turkish
Cypriot government and of Turkey, as the previous speaker
indicated.
As Canadians we are convinced that peaceful negotiations are
the only solution. Since the failure of the 1993-1994 negotiating
sessions we as Canadians have made repeated calls on both parties
to redouble their efforts to resolve outstanding differences. Clearly
there is no single solution to this complex issue. However, as the
president of Cyprus pointed out in a letter to Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, the secretary general of the UN, demilitarization is
a major step in reducing the anxiety and mistrust on opposing
sides. Without it a continued arms build-up is inevitable and the
consequences can easily be predicted.
Many people, Greeks and Turks alike, are excited at the prospect
that for the first time there is a possibility of strong international
support for bringing peace to this beautiful but dangerous island.
What is important now is not finger pointing but rather
conciliation, a desire for peace and a resolution of this conflict. As
a nation Canada can help achieve this by supporting the motion and
sending a clear message to those two choose the status quo that
such intransigence will no longer be tolerated.
3900
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise
in support of the motion by my colleague from Saint-Denis.
I have a sense that I have been here before when I look at this
resolution. I wrote on the Cypriot constitution of 1960, three
decades ago, that it was an example of a perfect constitutional
document conceived by the dry light of reason, but one had great
doubts about its capacity to survive. Legalistic solutions are not
viable in isolation from the society in respect to which they
operate.
I knew the German scholar who was largely responsible for the
1960 constitution. The checks and balances were there, the perfect
equilibrium of forces, but it did not work. I think it is an example of
the optimism of the late 1950s and 1960s that solutions were
possible by legal means without necessarily understanding the
underlying social forces.
There are reasons why the motion by the member for
Saint-Denis is timely and helpful at this stage. It is true in relation
to conflict resolution that when the parties are at each other's
throats and the blood is there it is difficult to arrive at rational
solutions. There is a moment, however, when exhaustion and
attrition step in and it is almost a truism that it is the time in which
to move. One would have thought that after 20 more years of
conflict this would be a good time for third party initiatives,
particularly one as determinedly neutral in its application as the
suggestion for a United Nations demilitarization and the
replacement of the armed forces of the warring parties by a UN
force.
(1150 )
UN peacekeeping is a Canadian development, a Canadian idea.
Prime Minister Pearson suggested it first and he won his Nobel
prize for basically suggesting that at the moment when the parties
have everything to gain by solution it is right to offer a face saving
device, interposing oneself as a neutral force between them.
If we look at the possibilities for Cyprus, of the accession to the
European Union, which is conditional upon the peaceful process
being attained, this is good for Cyprus. It is good for the plural
communities in Cyprus. Therefore it is right to bring our efforts to
bear.
There is a role for Canadians in this. One obviously is to offer
our services as part of a United Nations force. The second, though,
is to offer our experience in a country that is a plural society our
solution in terms of constitution making. The thing that is very
clear is neither the Westminster model, the British made in
Westminster style federalism, which is too rigid in its a priori
categories, nor the German model, the Bonn model of 1949, which
was essentially used by German jurist Forsthoff as an inspiration
for the 1960 constitution. Neither of these has the outlook toward
pragmatic adjustments of conflict that our original Westminster
model constitution of 1867 has developed through time.
I can see a role for a Canadian parliamentary initiative with the
support of our Minister of Foreign Affairs in which we could say
federalism is more than rigid a priori forms. It is a process. It can
be achieved in stages, step by step, étapisme in the conventional
terminology. We are prepared to offer on an all-party basis the help
of Canadian parliamentarians in setting together the basis for
institutional co-operation between the different communities on a
basis of respect for the rule of law and due process in dealings
between citizens. This is an example of federalism as process,
federalism in motion, to which our Canadian experience is
peculiarly suited.
I ask hon. members to express, as they have in this debate, their
support for this excellent idea and its timing. It is right, the notion
that a UN force should replace the warring parties armed forces,
that we should offer help in federalizing the relations between the
parties, not necessarily in terms of an ideal blueprint constitution
they might find difficult to accept tomorrow but in terms of
concrete steps through institutional co-operation in which we can
provide our continuing effort and support.
The very good thing in this debate is that the speakers from all
three parties, all main parties, have spoken as one in looking for a
peaceful solution and in an approach with a very constructive
spirit. This is something that should encourage our foreign minister
in offering Canadian good offices and providing the bridge to the
types of arrangements that have been discussed widely in all parts
of the House.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to some of the debate today. I am pleased to
speak in support of this motion.
I read it into the record again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support all
measures leading to the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus in such a way
as to enhance prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute
regarding Cyprus that would benefit all the people of Cyprus and bring about an
end to more than two decades of division on the island.
I have heard from people in my constituency of the situation on
the island, of the heartbreak, of the conflict, of the number of years
of difficulty in that region.
(1155)
In the debate today we saw an example of the international
community on two accounts, first the international community in
the recommendations it put forward, security resolution 939, which
actually recommended a resolution process to the problem on
Cyprus. Unfortunately on the international scene we have also seen
an example of international complacency on an issue that has gone
on for 24 years on this island.
3901
Today we are debating something that hopefully will be a move
toward the solution in areas of security concerns of the people who
live on that island along with their friends and relatives around
the world, hopefully a solution that will be a lasting peaceful
solution.
There will be no simple solution, but perhaps to find the first
step is what we are about today. That first step, the bridge to peace,
may be and hopefully is the step of demilitarization on that island.
Canada today has an opportunity to be part of that solution as it
speaks up. As was just said, all three parties are in agreement for
that.
Our party certainly feels private members' motions need to be
taken seriously. We commend the private member who brought this
forward. However, we do not feel that one hour of debate is enough
for an issue like this or for anything a private member has worked
on.
I ask for unanimous consent to make Motion No. 239 votable. It
is an opportunity for all parties together to speak for peace in the
world.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make
Motion No. 239 votable?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The
debate will end at 12.03 p.m. There being no further members
wishing to speak, I will ask the hon. member who presented the
motion to resume the debate.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I thank all members on behalf of
Canadians, especially on behalf of Canadians of Cypriot origin, for
having supported this motion. It has been unanimously supported
by both sides of the House. The government is supporting the
motion. The minister, through the parliamentary secretary today,
said it would be moving on the motion and asking the international
community to support the motion.
Again, I thank all members for their support and for lending their
voice to say enough is enough. Let this be the year for Cyprus, as an
hon. member said. Let us work together to find a solution this year
for the tragedy that has existed in this century.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3901
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 14, 1996 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial
review of parole ineligibility), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government bill proposes to amend a single section of the Code-
section 745. This section has been in effect since 1976, but was not
first applied until 1987.
It allows a convicted murderer to present an application for
parole after serving 15 years in prison. This recourse will be used
increasingly as inmates likely to make use of it complete 15 years
of their sentence.
(1200)
At the moment, only 175 of the 2,085 persons convicted of
murder have completed the 15 years of prison requisite to the
presentation of the application. Of these, only 74 have actually
exercised the right, and 63 have had a hearing before a jury. In 13
cases, the jury rejected the application to reduce the number of
years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In 50 cases,
the jury reduced the number of years.
What happens when the jury allows an application and reduces
the number of years? The inmate may then apply to the National
Parole Board, which will hold a hearing, hear witnesses, including
the victim, and allow or deny parole. Of the 50 allowed to apply to
the board, only 17 were granted full parole, six were denied parole
altogether, eight were granted partial freedom and six are entitled
to temporary absences.
As we can see, section 745 simply gives inmates the opportunity
to seek a jury's approval to apply for parole earlier than scheduled.
The period is usually 25 years in the case of first degree murder and
10 years in the case of second degree murder, which may be
extended to 25 years by the trial judge on the recommendation of
the jury.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code is an exceptional measure.
However, the National Parole Board has final say. Therefore,
section 745 is not, as some would have us believe, a wide open
back door out. It is a glimmer of hope for those who redeem
themselves. This measure is an incentive to inmates to behave
responsibly during their incarceration.
In the opinion of the associate chief justice of the Ontario
Supreme Court, this review process establishes a happy medium
between the need to show clemency with respect to an offender
whose conduct while serving his sentence is good, which may be
conducive to rehabilitation, and the interests of the community,
which demands that the act that led to the inmate's incarceration be
condemned.
It is the only provision of the Criminal Code that gives citizens
responsibility for a decision as to the just and equitable nature of a
sentence. The Criminal Code as it now stands therefore provides
for a judicial review mechanism that seems appropriate.
In 1994, the Liberal member for York South-Weston presented
a bill aimed purely and simply at repealing this section. We in the
Bloc Quebecois argued to keep section 745, but his bill was passed
anyway at second reading by a vote of 136 to 103. However, the
session ended before it went to third reading. On March 12, 1996,
3902
the same bill was reintroduced in the House and is now before the
justice committee.
Today the Minister of Justice is at it again with a proposal to
keep this review procedure, but with a few changes. We are in
favour of the proposed amendments because they maintain this
recourse, with the addition of a few justifiable changes. It must be
remembered that this section has not been amended at all since it
was first introduced, in 1976.
First of all, the Minister of Justice is proposing that this recourse
be dropped in the case of those found guilty of more than one
murder. We support this measure, which creates a difference in
treatment between someone who has killed one person and a serial
killer. This is obviously entirely logical, at least in our view.
Section 745 is intended as an exceptional measure, and it is
understandable that a serial killer would be excluded from its
application, as would anyone still posing a threat to society.
This amendment will make it possible in future to exclude the
Fabrikants, Olsons and Bernardos. They will have to serve the
sentence handed down by the court before being able to apply for
parole. Furthermore, it is very difficult to see how a repeat offender
or a serial killer could be successful in a request for judicial review.
(1205)
It is appropriate to amend section 745 in this regard. This
amendment will make it possible, and rightly so, to exclude from
the application process those with very few chances of being
paroled in any case. This measure will increase public safety and
sends the message that murder is unacceptable.
The purpose of the second proposed amendment is to require that
decisions of juries to reduce parole ineligibility periods be
unanimous. At the present time, the application must be approved
by two thirds of the jury. This will increase public safety and
reduce the number of approved applications.
If there is unanimous agreement to reduce this period, a two
thirds majority is enough to substitute a lesser number of years or
to immediately terminate the ineligibility for parole. The two thirds
rule is maintained when it comes to setting the number of years by
which the ineligibility period is being reduced, which strikes a
certain balance.
We support this measure because section 745 is an exceptional
provision. The unanimity requirement highlights the fact that it is
exceptional. Furthermore, should the application be turned down,
the jury may, by a two thirds majority, set the time at or after which
another application may be made by the applicant.
This bill requires that the jury be unanimous, but still allows the
inmate to make another application after two years. Again, a
certain balance is struck between protecting society and
recognizing the inmate's efforts.
Finally, the last proposed amendment is that any review
application be subject to judicial screening. This provision is
obviously aimed at eliminating unfounded applications that have
no reasonable chance of being approved. To do so, the judge
reviews the application, the report from Correctional Services, and
any other document submitted by the attorney general or the
applicant.
The judge makes a decision based on the applicant's character
and behaviour and the nature of the offence of which he was
convicted. Although this additional step may initially appear to
make the procedure more cumbersome, its purpose is obviously to
avoid having to train a jury and to communicate with the victim to
ask for information.
Should the judge decide that the applicant has shown there is a
real possibility the application will be approved, the chief justice
designates a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction to
empanel a jury to hear the application.
If the judge rules that the applicant has not shown there is a real
possibility the application will be approved, he can set the period at
or after which another application may again be made or decide
that no new application may be made. The applicant or the attorney
general may appeal to the appeal court any ruling made by the
judge.
These three amendments will reduce the number of applications.
With the exclusion of multiple murderers and the introduction of
judicial screening, it is likely that only serious applications will be
referred to a jury. And, by requiring that applications be approved
by the whole jury, we can expect a more thoughtful decision. It will
be up to the National Parole Board to make the ultimate decision.
In short, this bill gets our support because it maintains an
appropriate recourse while trying to prevent any possible cases of
abuse. In our view, however, there was no reason to disrupt House
procedure to rush this bill through. This is pure improvisation. I
must also tell you in closing that, as an exception, the justice
committee will be sitting this evening to hear the justice minister,
senior justice officials and another witness. The committee will
also have to resume its hearings tomorrow, going into overdrive
because time is running out.
(1210)
I must say these hearings look like a travesty, the whole idea
being to pass Bill C-45 as quickly as possible. Let us say it is really
not standard procedure. That is the most appropriate term I can use
in this place.
3903
To say it as it is, the Minister of Justice left it to the last minute.
We could certainly have started discussing this bill a few months
back. The Standing Committee on Justice could have summoned
witnesses. But no, instead the Minister of Justice chose to wait
till the very last minute and to improvise.
Why? Could it be that he wanted to boost his image, an image
recently tarnished by certain matters currently before the courts, in
short, the Airbus affair? Perhaps. At any rate, we will let the public
be the judge of that. I just wanted to point out that this is not
standard practice. As far as I am concerned, a travesty of hearings
is not standard practice for a Minister of Justice.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to set
the record straight, the Reform members who will be speaking to
this bill will not be splitting their time henceforth.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-45, the legislation
which was introduced by the Minister of Justice. The effect of the
legislation will modify and not repeal section 745 of the Criminal
Code of Canada.
At the outset, it is important to inform the House that I will not
and cannot support the legislation. I can also say that my Reform
colleagues, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents, will
not be supporting the bill.
We Reformers were given clear instructions by our membership
in Vancouver last weekend at our national policy assembly.
Delegates to the assembly put forward a policy resolution to repeal
section 745 of the Criminal Code. The policy resolution to abolish
and not modify section 745 of the Criminal Code carried the
greatest support of any resolution passed. It was supported by 98.8
per cent of the Reform delegates. The resolution has now been
adopted as official Reform Party policy.
Reformers at the Vancouver assembly were unified in the vote to
repeal section 745 because we recognize, as do most Canadians,
that section 745 is a symbol of all that is wrong with the criminal
justice system in Canada. Section 745, a provision which allows
killers the right to apply for early parole after serving only 15 years
of a life sentence, symbolizes the decay of the criminal justice
system in Canada. Consequently, the majority of Canadians have
come to view the criminal justice system as one where justice is
granted to the criminal element of our society and contempt is
shown to victims. This is a sad reality.
Reflecting on the last couple of years, I note that since 1993 the
Reform Party has been asking the minister to repeal section 745. A
former member of the government, the member for York
South-Weston, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-226 on
March 17, 1994, which was reintroduced as Bill C-234.
The House of Commons voted at second reading to refer Bill
C-226 to the standing committee. At that time 74 Liberals,
including the transport minister, voted against the justice minister
and supported the repeal of section 745. It is not just on this side of
the House; those members who are reflecting the viewpoint of their
constituents on the government side of the House want to see this
section repealed.
Bill C-226 was buried in committee. Bill C-234 has not yet been
dealt with despite a memo by one government member on the
justice committee asking the committee to make this private
member's bill a priority. No such effort is about to happen. It is not
going to be a priority on the government side.
(1215)
The justice minister has had the opportunity to abolish section
745 and has had almost three years to do so. That does not count the
eight or nine years the Liberals sat in opposition. They clearly
heard the views of constituents and of their members at that time.
They have no excuse. Such action would be an important first step
in restoring in the eyes of Canadians credibility to the criminal
justice system. Obviously the justice minister does not have the
strength of character to take substantive action. He can be assured
that Canadians will remember this on election day.
The justice minister claims that the prospective legislation
before this House will decrease the opportunity for killers to seek
early release and parole. Let us examine this claim.
The truth about Bill C-45 is that if adopted by Parliament the
proposed amendment to section 745 would effectively categorize
murderers as good killers or bad killers. The effect of Bill C-45 is
to say to Canadians that killers who murder just one victim are
okay and are therefore entitled to another chance for freedom,
whereas killers who murder two or three times or more are bad and
should be punished differently.
When I think about this piece of legislation I turn to the province
of Quebec and reflect on what happened at École polytechnique.
How would mass murderer Marc Lépine be categorized by taking
that many lives? Should we not have anther section for him?
Should we not say that after five murders they are even worse than
bad or after 10 they are on another list downward? It is unsettling to
think of taking one life or 10 lives. One is too many and they should
all be categorized the same.
I hear a different perspective from Canadians. My Reform
justice colleagues and I have travelled the country speaking to rank
and file citizens. What we hear from Canadians is a unified
message that a killer who commits first degree premeditated
murder ought not ever to have the opportunity for early release.
Canadians tell us that at the very least, life should mean life. This is
obviously a sentiment to which the justice minister is either
3904
unaware, or more likely a sentiment which the justice minister has
a vested interest in not being aware of.
Many polls and studies have been done across this country over
time. The majority of Canadians, by far 75 per cent, would like to
see the death penalty back. This government has a difficult time
just dealing with early release of first degree murderers let alone
ever introducing legislation that would execute a murderer. I find
that unacceptable. If Canadians want to see the death penalty
reinstated in this country, then they should have the right to voice it
loud and clear and their government should follow through with
legislation.
The fact that there no longer exists truth in sentencing for killers
has outraged Canadians. Consequently a particular feeling is
finding its way into discussions in coffee shops and at dinner
tables. The feeling is that the return of capital punishment is
desirable and necessary in the case of first degree premeditated
murder and it should be swift.
The Reform Party has pledged to allow Canadians to express
their democratic will in a binding national referendum on the issue
of capital punishment. We believe that Canadians should have the
final say as to whether villains like Clifford Olson and Paul
Bernardo deserve to live comfortable lives in prison receiving the
amenities of colour TV, free education, three square meals a day
and much more.
(1220 )
When I think about it, our prison system is absolutely disastrous.
To cater in any way other than providing the bare necessities for
existence to any of these low life individuals who have taken
someone's life is reprehensible. Yet this minister and the solicitor
general along with their friends support it.
Canadians know the justice minister's perspective regarding
capital punishment. Indeed, the changes proposed to section 745
are a testimony to his belief that even 25 years behind bars for child
killer Clifford Olson is much too severe a sentence. I have heard
the minister say often in the House that to even send anyone to jail
is a waste of a life. That is shared by his colleague who also
introduced this bill some years back. I do not believe that is
acceptable to most Canadians.
We know this is the true feeling of the justice minister because
nothing contained in the legislation he proposes in Bill C-45 will
stop Olson from applying for early release under section 745 in
August, two months from now. I will return to this subject in a
moment.
I have served in Parliament for more than two and one-half years
now and I have observed how the justice minister conducts
business. It is obvious that instead of listening to victims groups,
rank and file Canadians, police officers or prison guards, the justice
minister bends his ear to special interests, legal aid defence
lawyers and other left wing, soft on crime special interest lobbies.
That is probably not a complete list when it comes to special
interests. Victims groups in this country are growing and those
groups that support them are growing.
I had an opportunity to listen to Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in
Hamilton on Friday. She will not give up the fight to see justice
done after her experience with the death of her daughter. I intend to
support her whenever and wherever I possibly can, as I know my
colleague from Crowfoot will. Mrs. Mahaffy has a message to
deliver which is worthwhile for all Canadians to hear and pay
attention to. I am going to support her and I trust my colleagues in
the House will also.
It is obvious that the justice minister has attempted to mislead
Canadians into believing that his government has the broad support
of victims with respect to Bill C-45. That is absolute nonsense. The
opposite is true.
On Friday I participated in the Hamilton East rally, the riding
vacated by the disgraced Sheila Copps. Mrs. Mahaffy spoke of her
daughter Leslie who was brutally raped, tortured and murdered by
Paul Bernardo. She told those in attendance that the justice minister
had telephoned her shortly before announcing the changes to Bill
C-45. Mrs. Mahaffy's response was to ask the justice minister how
he could sleep at night knowing that his proposal in C-45 would do
nothing to stop Clifford Olson and most other killers from applying
for early release under section 745. She wondered, as do most
Canadians, on what grounds the justice minister would argue that
most first degree murderers deserve to walk our streets again as
free men or women.
Many of my colleagues have spoken to the technical failures of
Bill C-45. I too would like to speak at great length to the failures of
the bill. However, due to the time for debate on this issue, I would
like to explore another line of argument. I will share with the House
two personal examples which illustrate why section 745 of the
Criminal Code must be abolished and not modified, and
consequently, why Bill C-45 is a half measure.
(1225 )
Prior to the election in 1993, I served for 22 years as a police
officer. I was on duty on May 24, 1977 when my colleague,
Constable William Shelever, was shot in the back of the head. His
assailant, Roy Glaremin, also shot and injured another constable
that night. Glaremin applied for judicial review under section 745
in 1993. He has initiated proceedings for another review later this
year. Lawyers tell me that he will likely be successful this time
around. Nothing contained in the proposals brought forward by the
justice minister will stop Glaremin from seeking early release.
The bare truth about section 745 of the Criminal Code is that
nearly 50 of the last 60 murderers who have applied for early parole
hearings using section 745 have had their eligibility period
reduced. That is an 80 per cent rate of parole success for killers
seeking release under section 745. At least 18 of these murderers
have had their parole eligibility reduced from 25 to 15 years. Most
of these killers were imprisoned as first time murderers and
therefore are all eligible for early release under section 745.
Nothing contained in Bill C-45 will change this reality.
3905
I would also note, on the point of application, that a first degree
murderer will not apply directly to a jury but now has another
hurdle to jump. Application has to be made to a superior court
judge, but at what cost? Bill C-45 contains a royal
recommendation, a nice sounding term which means additional
money will be expended. The appeal rights of section 745
applicants have been expanded through this bill. The applicant can
appeal to a court of appeal on any determination or decision made
by the superior court judge. Applicants have a right to apply for a
judicial review more than once. It has created another level of
bureaucracy within the judiciary, within this hearing process.
I sat as immigration critic for several months. It became obvious
that the layers and layers of appeals were benefiting only one
group. No insult to yourself, Mr. Speaker, or any other lawyer in
this country, but it only fed that particular group, the most
sophisticated of all lobbyists. Who has the ear of the justice
minister? Who has the ear of the immigration minister? Who has
the ear of the solicitor general? It is not the people of this country,
Canada. That has to change but it will not change under this
government. It is expanding that type of process, the judicial role
of the courts, in the whole justice industry. It will get more
burdensome as time goes on.
To claim that the justice minister's tinkering with section 745
will toughen up parole standards is false. It has been engineered to
mislead Canadians into believing that real action has been taken to
keep murderers in jail. The truth is that the justice minister has no
intention of getting tough with criminals. His section 745 proposal
is evidence of that fact.
I want to state for the record that the Reform Party will accept
nothing less than the full repeal of section 745 of the Criminal
Code. The proposals put forward by this Liberal government do not
properly address the concerns of the majority of Canadians.
Anything less than a true life sentence is completely unacceptable
where the killer has committed premeditated first degree murder.
Section 745 is anything but a faint hope clause. Rather, it is the
sure bet clause or the sure bet law for killers. It must be repealed
and scrapped, not modified and not tinkered with. We will accept
nothing less.
(1230 )
Another reason that illustrates why section 745 must be repealed
is the case of Clifford Olson. Last April this serial child killer sent
me a sneering personal note in which he boasted about his prospect
for early parole under section 745. In his letter Olson wrote: ``I'm
getting out, Art. Quick, get section 745 repealed. Smile, sucker''.
The note was signed in type: ``Yours truly, Clifford Olson, the beast
of British Columbia''.
Later this fall, Clifford Olson will have served 15 years of his
multiple life sentences for mass murder and rape, sentences which
are being served concurrently. He will make his application for
early release under section 745 on August 12.
The case of Clifford Olson clearly illustrates that anything less
than a true life sentence for killers, whether they are one-time
murderers or multiple murderers, is completely unacceptable. Life
should mean life.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the member for Calgary
Northeast discuss Bill C-45. He spent considerable time talking
about repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
He also mentioned a meeting in Hamilton where people had
gathered to discuss crime. I sense, as does he, that a lot of
Canadians are not happy with the slowness of the current
government to reform the criminal justice system.
It must be confusing for Canadians. Does the member think
Canadians understand the funny signals they are actually getting
from this House? When we voted on a private member's bill to
repeal that part of the Criminal Code several Liberal members
voted in favour of it. That legislation was moving along very
quickly.
Suddenly we have another piece of legislation, also from the
government side, this time from the minister, which would not
repeal that section of the Criminal Code, but would categorize
murderers into multiple murderers versus single murderers. It
almost says that some types of murder are not as reprehensible as
other types of murder.
I know the hon. member is out talking to the public about justice
issues. What kind of signals are Canadians getting? Do they
understand what is happening here in the House? Are they
confused? What are they saying about the legislation brought down
by the justice minister versus the private member's bill from the
government side which actually calls for the repeal of that section
of the Criminal Code?
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
The debate around section 745 has been intense for the last two
to three years, and definitely the last two years, since the member
for York South-Weston introduced his private member's bill to
repeal that section. That is the view which most people have. They
would like to see section 745 gone.
3906
Even beyond that, I will refer again to the studies and polls that
have been taken for several years. People in this country would like
to see the reinstatement of the death penalty for first degree,
premeditated murder. That is the feeling I am picking up, not only
in Hamilton, definitely in Toronto and in most large centres across
the country. Everywhere people want to see some teeth and
punishment put back into the system, and it is not happening.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke if he could
explain the reason why the members of the Reform Party will vote
against the amendments put forward by the Minister of
Justice-that is what we are led to believe, given that they are in
favour of repealing all section 745-while at the same time
wanting this House to pass this bill as quickly as possible.
I would like to know what the reasoning is behind the Reformers
opposing the bill, when at the same time being prepared to help the
Minister of Justice ram this bill through.
[English]
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, it would absolutely be beneficial to
have more opportunity to debate the bill.
Let us turn it around and put the blame on the shoulders of the
people who should have the blame placed on them. That is
government ministers introducing legislation 10 days before the
House rises for the summer. They are the ones who are responsible
for cutting short this debate. The minister, the solicitor general and
the Prime Minister know full well that no time was offered to have
a proper debate on this bill. They have rammed it through. They
have forced an inflexible situation.
(1235)
I know the member is in favour of this bill. Be that as it may, she
may not be reflecting the viewpoint of her constituents. I do not
know. The majority of people to whom I talk want to see this bill
scrapped. That is why we are voting against it as a party.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
those who are watching on C-span and the parliamentary channel I
would like to outline briefly what we are debating. This is a debate
on Bill C-45. Bill C-45 has been brought into place to make some
changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows for early
parole for convicted murderers under certain circumstances.
In 1976, about 20 years ago, Parliament abolished capital
punishment. When it did so it also said that there would be no
eligibility for parole for 25 years for individuals who were
convicted of first degree murder and 10 years for second degree
murder. This change in how murderers were treated in 1976 is
background to our debate today on Bill C-45.
Under section 745 of the Criminal Code, which was also brought
in in 1976, in addition to first degree murderers not being eligible
for parole for 25 years of a life sentence there were certain
provisions brought in which would allow a convicted murderer to
apply for early parole. The application would be heard by a
12-member jury from the community and this jury would look at
things like hope for rehabilitation, protection of prison guards and
the public interest in order to decide whether a convicted killer
should be eligible to apply to be let out early from a life sentence or
25-year sentence.
Bill C-45 is a change to this process whereby convicted
murderers can apply for early release from their sentences. This
amendment is designed, according to the justice minister, to focus
the operation of section 745 more narrowly. In other words, it
would apply less broadly and to less convicted offenders and also,
according to the justice minister, it would apply in ``only the most
deserving of cases''. The justice minister so far has not explained
what he means by a deserving murderer but perhaps the public can
get him to do that at some point.
Bill C-45 does three things. First, no longer will convicted
murderers have an automatic right to apply for early parole under
section 745. A first degree murderer will only be able to apply if he
or she has committed only one murder. If he or she has committed
multiple murders then application would first have to be made to a
superior court judge. That judge would have to decide if there is a
``reasonable chance'' of success for the application for early
release before the application could be heard by the 12-member
jury that I mentioned before.
The second change is that the 12-member jury, in order to
approve an early release, would have to reach a unanimous
decision instead of only two-thirds, as is now the case. That makes
it more difficult, it is a little higher bar for the offender to jump
over.
(1240)
Third, after Bill C-45 comes into effect, multiple murderers
would not have a right to apply under section 745 for early release.
In other words, they would serve their full sentence of 25 years.
Those are the three changes proposed in Bill C-45.
I would like to like to spend the bulk of my time talking about
what Bill C-45 does not do. I have talked about its history a little. I
have talked about the three things it does, but there are seven things
it does not do. I believe these seven things are very important to
Canadians.
The first thing Bill C-45 does not do is respond to a clear demand
of two things from Canadians. The first is a much tougher response
to people who violate the rights of others, particularly to the extent
3907
of committing premeditated murder, cold bloodedly, with malice
aforethought: the deliberately planned extinction of an innocent
person's life.
Canadians are fed up with the weak-kneed approach to this kind
of incredible violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens. In my
home town of Calgary, 35,000 readers of the Calgary Sun clipped a
coupon, signed it, demanding the repeal of section 745 of the
Criminal Code, and mailed it in. That is 35,000 people in one city
who responded to one opportunity to voice outrage and demand for
change.
At our Reform Party assembly two weekends ago, members
voted 98 per cent for the repeal of section 745. Even in this House,
as other speakers have mentioned, many members voted for the
repeal of section 745. Therefore, Bill C-45 has ignored the multiple
and clear direction of the citizens of this country.
Justice is really the reflection of society's response to the
violation of the rights of other people. Society is demanding a
response that its justice minister, its elected government, is
ignoring and flouting in this legislation.
The second thing this bill does not do is demonstrate society's
repugnance and repudiation of murder. As most know, polls and
surveys of Canadians have clearly and consistently shown that
there is a feeling in society that when one of its members violates
the ethics of society to the extent of deliberately taking an innocent
life, the offender's life should be forfeited.
They are asking for the return of capital punishment yet we have
not been able to have a debate on that important issue, although
there are strong feelings and arguments on both sides. It is
something Canadians are demanding in order to show their outrage
against this kind of activity, and it is something they have not been
given.
Society has also been awakened to the fact that since 1976 and
since these applications for early release have been put into place, a
life sentence does not mean a life sentence at all. Life does not
mean life. Life means, at best, 25 years no matter how vicious, cold
blooded and repugnant the crime might have been.
Sometimes it means only 15 years. Of the murderers who apply
for early release under this provision, 80 per cent are given a
reduced sentence. What we are saying, in that kind of response, is
that society views murder as an innocent life being worth 15 to 25
years maximum of a murderer's life. That does not demonstrate the
kind of repugnance that many Canadians are telling me about. They
want that message to be sent.
(1245)
The third thing the bill does not do is ensure truth in sentencing.
Paul Bernardo, for example, was given a life sentence with no
possibility of parole for 25 years, except that there is a possibility
of parole. It is not a life sentence, it is a maximum of 25 years. He
can apply to have that sentence shortened. There is no truth in
sentencing.
Families, friends and supporters of the victims said at least the
guy was put away. He will never walk the streets again. His
freedom and his ability to be accepted by society have been totally
cut off. They have woken up to realize that is not true. There is no
truth in sentencing. Life does not mean life. Twenty-five years does
not mean 25 years.
The fourth thing the legislation does not do is hold murderers
responsible for their murders. It suggests some murderers are less
responsible than others. It says that if there has been one murder
committed the murderer will receive some consideration. Only if
there are multiple cold blooded murders will the consideration be
reduced. There is no justification. There is outrage that this could
even be contemplated.
If Clifford Olson had killed only one young child from his
community, according to this legislation he would be deserving of
consideration. However, because he killed more than once, his
privileges and the consideration he will be given will be reduced. If
Paul Bernardo had tortured, confined and killed only one young
woman he would be thought to be more deserving.
What does this say about our society? A murder is a murder. A
life is valuable. The value is not predicated on the quantity. It is the
quality of one life we should be protecting.
Fifth, the legislation will still allow people such as Clifford
Olson and Paul Bernardo to apply to a superior court judge to have
their sentences reduced. These are individuals who have totally
outraged any laws of society. They have violated the very basis on
which we have government. Government is for the protection of
the life and property of citizens. Here are two individuals who have
totally violated the entire basis on which we organize ourselves as a
society and yet they will still have the right to make their pitch to
have their penalty reduced. They will be able to argue before a
superior court judge.
There are two points to be noted. The superior court judge, in
order to allow the application to proceed, must be satisfied that
there is a reasonable prospect of success. What does this reasonable
prospect of success mean in practice? It has not been defined. What
criteria will the judge use? There are no guidelines. Does this mean
the judge must examine the convicted killer's actions or attitudes in
prison? Does the judge look at the killer's childhood or schooling?
What role does the victim's family play in all of this, because these
considerations are to be made on written criteria? Do the victim's
family and friends count at all? Will they be heard? This legislation
provides no answers to these questions.
3908
Not only that, when the superior court judge makes his or her
finding of a reasonable chance of success, if that finding goes
against the convicted killer it can be appealed. There will be extra
money allocated to cover the cost of the appeal. Once again we
have a more convoluted process. More layers of judicial process
will be put into place. This is for the protection and the
consideration of people who have already been found to be cold
blooded killers of innocent people. Shame on us for allowing that
kind of thing in the House and for going along with it when there
is a decisive, clear step supported in the House which could have
put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
(1250)
Sixth, Bill C-45 has been introduced in such a way that it does
not allow for proper debate and examination of this measure and
the consideration surrounding it. The bill was introduced just last
week. The House is slated to adjourn this week. In that short space
of time the House must debate it at second reading, examine it in
committee, complete with witnesses, propose amendments and
improvements to the bill in committee and come back to the House
for final reading and debate and passage.
At the same time we have other pieces of legislation that need to
be cleared from the table during this session. Is the government
taking its responsibilities to Canadian citizens seriously when
legislation which is so fundamental to the interests of Canadians is
brought in at the 11th hour with other important legislation on the
table? Clearly the process is not able to deal with it adequately,
have it examined by experts, commentators, the pros and cons
thoroughly looked at, letting the public know why it was brought in
instead of the total repeal of section 745. No, it is done almost off
the cuff. That is no way for a responsible government to deal with
substantive legislation in Parliament.
Finally, the bill does not satisfy the demands of justice on behalf
of victims. There are people who have lost loved ones, sons,
daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, in the most
inhumane and horrible ways. The least these people expect from
their government, their justice system and from society which is to
protect them is justice, something they can point to and say this
terrible thing was done but it was met with a just response.
Instead we have a bill before us which states if you kill only one
person deliberately, you are entitled to quite a bit of consideration
and will probably only spend 15 years in jail.
I was at a candlelight vigil a couple of weeks ago in Calgary for
families of victims of violence. Many had loved ones who had been
murdered, including Darlene Boyd whose daughter was murdered,
and Bev Smith and others. I saw the pain, anguish and turmoil of
these people whose loved ones had been deliberately and brutally
taken away from them. I saw their anger and frustration with the
justice system and the weak response this terrible act has called
forth. It made me understand a little better why we in the House
need to be much more serious in our response and treatment of the
people who would violate the rights of law-abiding citizens.
It is our view that the law must be seen to be working for all
Canadians, including the victims of crime and their families. There
is simply no reason to maintain early release for the criminal,
because there is no release for the survivors of these victims.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard Liberal members say life is life and that all
we are discussing here is where the life sentence shall be served,
whether it is in custody or in the community under parole
supervision. Certainly if someone has been released on parole they
will still serve their life sentence. They will be on parole for the
balance of their life.
As a former parole officer I can talk about the limits and the
difficulties of trying to enforce a useful parole supervision,
especially on particularly manipulative offenders. People must
understand what parole supervision is. The average parole
interview is a half-hour interview in an office every month.
(1255 )
If we are to look at intensive supervision, perhaps a half-hour to
an hour interview once a week in a community office with the odd
check-up on someone's place of residence or where they are
employed, and when we are talking about sophisticated serial
killers out on parole, people have to understand what community
supervision means. It means checking up to ensure the person is
also going to their drug and alcohol program or seeing their
psychologist.
However, it is of great concern that those who get out on parole
have very intensive supervision and that they will serve their life
sentence on parole. The public has to understand the nature of that
supervision.
This bill proposes that the initial merits of the application to
change the parole eligibility date from 25 years down to something
lower will go before a judge. The judge will have to rule and give
reasons for judgment. Does that mean now, because we are in a
court process, the rule of law applies because it certainly brings in
the element of appeal? One side or the other can appeal and if there
are errors in law, we all know how lawyers can split hairs on those
issues. They can always find some error in a law that makes it
perhaps an avenue for appeal. Will we have nearly every one of
these being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Of course in those kinds of situations would not the taxpayer be
paying for all the court costs of the offenders?
3909
This whole element of appeal is undefined, as far as I am
concerned, and I want to know if the member has any further
explanation as to the possibility of that.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 contains what is called a
royal recommendation, an allocation of additional moneys toward
the implementation of the measures in the bill. The money will be
used to fund applications for appeal from the superior court judge
who in the first instance may have turned down the original
application. This can be appealed to a ruling by a higher court, and
those appeals have to be funded.
The costs and the process will be expanded under this provision.
It is difficult at this point to say how it will work in practice
because it is a matter of legislation at the present time. However,
these things do have a habit of having consequences that were
probably not intended, to be fair to the legislators, and certainly
that sometimes cannot be foreseen. The consequences definitely do
cause expanded costs and expanded court time.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know the proposals being put forward by hon. members opposite
are in the interest of the national good or in their view of the
national good.
My concern is whether there are any data available on extent that
section 745 is actually used on an incidental basis. How many
times it has been used, how many people have had their sentences
shortened and, if so, what has been the outcome of that shortened
sentenced?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, there are data on the use of section
745. I mentioned in my speech that 80 per cent of individuals who
apply under section 745 for a review of their sentence have been
granted some reduction in their sentence.
The question we have to ask ourselves as legislators is that in the
cases where someone has deliberately taken the life of an innocent,
law-abiding citizen, is it right, is it something we should
countenance and is it something we should allow and promote to
give these people an opportunity to have the penalty they have been
given for that kind of action reduced and have all of the
mechanisms in place to allow that. That is really the question
before us. I think the Canadian public says no. Many of our
members say no. The government is saying yes and that is what we
are objecting to.
(1300)
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-45 introduced by the
Minister of Justice on June 11. I have been looking forward to
speaking on this bill.
Bill C-45 is of grave concern to all Canadians and to members of
Parliament, considering we dealt with scrapping section 745 in the
private member's bill by the hon. member for York
South-Weston. The bill passed through second reading and spent
about 17 months in committee. We were wondering why the
Liberals did not bring that back.
The amazing thing about Bill C-45 is the sheer audacity of the
Minister of Justice to think that he can sucker the Canadian people
into thinking he and his government are actually doing something
about section 745 of the Criminal Code. There is nothing
happening and this bill was redundant even before it came before
the House.
The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, the
so-called faint hope clause. The only faint hope is that the Minister
of Justice and the Liberals will ever deal with the criminal justice
system, sentencing and parole in the way Canadians want. That is
the faint hope. The real hope is that one day the Reform Party will
replace the members over there and we will get some real changes
to the Criminal Code. That is the real hope.
Section 745 as it now stands permits lifers after serving 15 years
to have their parole ineligibility reviewed. These are people who
have been convicted of the heinous crime of first degree murder,
people who have savagely taken another human being's life, people
who without hesitation and with premeditation have wiped out a
human life. This section deals with lifers, those convicted to life.
Life of course to the Liberals means 25 years. I think Canadians
believe life should mean life. In other words, if you take a human
life in a savage crime you should spend the rest of your life behind
bars, get out of society because you do not belong there.
Section 745 gives an opportunity to those currently convicted of
first degree murder to have their parole ineligibility period reduced
after serving 15 years. In other words, they can apply for parole
after 15 years if they have received a life in prison sentence for a
savage crime like murder.
There is no question that something had to be done about this
section of the code. Like many other justice reforms that have been
undertaken by the Minister of Justice and this Liberal government,
this bill does not bring about the change in any way, shape or form
that Canadians have been asking for. It just does not do the job.
We have seen it time after time from this minister and the
Liberal Party where they tinker with sections of the criminal justice
system but nothing really ever gets done. They try to fool people in
the same way they are trying to fool Canadians with regard to Bill
C-45. This is a redundant piece of legislation before it even begins
and I will address that a little further in my presentation.
The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government continue to
ignore the cries, the demands, the pleas from the Canadian people
to get tough on people, in particular, savage murderers. Get tough
on the criminals through the justice system, through the Criminal
Code.
3910
The majority of Canadians want section 745 repealed. I really
believe that. The majority of Canadians also believe that life
should mean life. It is only soft-headed Liberals that can interpret
life as 25 years or 15 years or maybe even 10 years. Where does
it end? While Canadians believe life should mean life, and while
Canadians believe that savage murderers should be treated
appropriately in sentencing, the minister does not believe that, not
this Liberal minister, not those Liberals across the way, save for
a few of them.
(1305)
Bill C-45 demonstrates how the minister believes that life should
mean life for the bad murderers, those who would kill more than
one person, but not for the good murderers, those who would stop
at one. When we analyse the minister's thinking, one wonders
whether in fact the Prime Minister perhaps erred in his choice when
he picked him. We have seen nothing but weak-kneed bleeding
heart pieces of legislation by the justice minister which do not deal
at all with the concerns of Canadians.
Let us get to the redundancy. Bill C-45 would outlaw section 745
reviews for those who commit multiple murders. This provision is
absolutely redundant. Multiple murderers do not get out now.
Historically they never get out of jail. What on earth is the Minister
of Justice trying to pull here? Is he trying to tell Canadians that in
spite of the fact that multiple murderers never get out now, this
clause is going to ensure that they will never get out? Big deal.
They are either getting out early or they are not. The fact is that
they are not. What is the use of the bill?
The use of the bill, once again, is that the Minister of Justice is
trying sucker Canadians, is trying to mislead them into thinking
that the Liberal government cares about what Canadians are
feeling. That is the purpose of the bill. Unfortunately we have a
minister who is not being honest with the Canadian people.
To talk about multiple murderers again, I introduced a private
member's bill last year that would have looked after this. It called
for consecutive sentencing for those who are convicted of one or
more crimes. If the government had not been so afraid to deal with
that bill, the minister would not have had to bring in Bill C-45
because consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers would have
looked after this. It would have ensured that they never got out.
Those who kill only one person are entitled to a section 745
review. Now the minister is telling us that he has the ability, he has
the vision to pigeon hole murderers into good murderer or bad
murderer categories. That is an absolutely audacious way to think.
I have to ask: Is one life any less precious than three lives, than
two lives, than five lives? Is one life any less precious? Does the
destruction of one life have any less effect on the victim's family
and friends? It seems the minister believes it is okay to allow them
to go through the torture of a section 745 review: If a murderer kills
just one person, then let us allow them to go through the review; let
us bring in the victim's family and friends so they can relive this
thing over again, so they can see and hear about this savage beast
that has taken the life of one of their family members or friends.
The minister must think that is all right because that is the line he
is trying to peddle us today. However, it is not okay in the
minister's judgment, which is questionable at best, to allow the
family and friends of a victim of a multiple murderer to go through
a section 745 review. No, it is not okay to do that. If someone kills
five or six people, the victims' friends and families should not have
to go through the review, but according to the minister it is okay to
put the victim's family and friends through it if just one person has
been killed.
(1310)
That is the justice minister's logic. There is no rationale to it. Is
the family of one victim somehow better to handle the rigours of
reliving its worst nightmare during a section 745 review? Is that
what the minister thinks? Only the Minister of Justice can answer
these questions. Think about it. Only this minister would have the
audacity to create categories of murderers, some deserving of
leniency and some not. Only from this Liberal justice minister. If
defies all imagination.
This is only part of Bill C-45. There are two other amendments
to section 745. One of the other amendments would assure that
those entitled to a hearing would first have to be screened by a
superior court judge. The judge would look at all the facts and
determine if the applicant had a chance of success before allowing
the hearing to proceed.
Under the present system murderers are automatically entitled to
a section 745 review. Considering that over 72 per cent of section
745 applicants are successful in having their parole ineligibility
period reduced, it is highly unlikely that judges will be rejecting a
great deal of the applications. The history has been set for these
reviews.
Let us remember that judges are appointed in this country.
Generally speaking, but almost 100 per cent of the time, the judges
who are appointed tend to reflect the philosophy of the government
of the day. We can be sure the Liberal government has its own
judges out there reflecting its philosophy. We have seen the
sentencing.
Referring to Bill C-201, in this country people can drive and
people can drink. They can kill one, two or three people and receive
about three years for that crime, that 100 per cent preventable
crime. This is because the judges are reflective of this Liberal
government's philosophy. When I brought the bill before the
House, the Minister of Justice instructed his parliamentary
secretary not to allow any members of the Liberal Party to speak in
favour of it. Why? Because the Liberals do not want public
3911
awareness raised to the point that they will have to make some
meaningful changes. That is why.
That is why the Minister of Justice will not let his members
speak in favour of bills that reflect the thinking of the Canadian
people. That is why the Minister of Justice is hog tying his fellow
members who support stiffer sentencing and stiffer methods of
dealing with criminals. It is because it is not in their philosophy.
It goes back to the Pierre Trudeau days. When Mr. Trudeau and
his government came to power all of a sudden individuals were not
responsible for their actions; it was society that made them that
way. That philosophy is still embedded deeply in every one of
those Liberals who are sitting across the way, save for a few of
them who have their heads screwed on straight.
The minister constantly inserts cosmetic changes in an attempt
to make it appear as if he is toughening up the section. The
insertion of these new procedural hurdles is not the kind of change
Canadians are looking for. It simply does not and will not do the
job. They do not want a system where murderers simply have to
jump through a few more hoops to get out of prison, when just a
few cosmetic changes will make it okay for them to be released.
They do not want a system that deals appropriately with criminals.
The Liberals do not want a system that reflects the feelings of
Canadians toward criminals. Canadian want them put in jail
forever when they savagely take the life of someone. But not this
minister and most of the Liberals across the way.
(1315)
Canadians want killers incarcerated for a minimum of 25 years.
As a matter of fact, if the government had the guts to hold a
national referendum on the death penalty for first degree murder, it
would find that an overwhelming number of Canadian would vote
in favour of it. But not these Liberals and not this Liberal Minister
of Justice. They simply do not have the guts to deal with reality
because it conflicts with their Trudeau-like philosophy.
Canadians want section 745 abolished, killed, scrapped just like
they wanted done with the GST. They want section 745 taken out of
the Criminal Code. If someone is sentenced to prison for savagely
taking the life of another person, Canadians want them put in jail
forever. Liberals cannot deny that. They know it but they are afraid
to act on it because they have no backbone.
The last amendment offered in the bill ensures that juries hearing
a section 745 application would have to be unanimous in their
decision to reduce an applicant's parole ineligibility period. The
present system only requires agreement among two-thirds of the
jurors for an application to be successful.
We currently have an unbelievable condition which was
established in 1976 by, guess who? A bleeding heart Liberal
government. Many of those members from 1976 are still dictating
this bleeding heart philosophy about criminals.
The new requirement is an improvement over the current
system, but the fact remains that section 745 should not exist. It
should be out of there. At second reading of a private member's bill
the House voted overwhelmingly for the bill to go forward. The
Liberals voted for it. Where is it now? It is stuck in committee and
it will probably get buried there because the government has no
guts.
Mr. Hanger: No free votes either.
Mr. Harris: On December 13, 1994 the House voted in favour
of sending Bill C-226, sponsored by the member for York
South-Weston to the justice committee. That member had the
good sense to leave that party and sit on the other side of the House
recently. We commend him for his good judgment. He knew what
the government said about the GST in the last election. His
integrity would not allow him to sit with the Liberals while they
continued to mislead the Canadian people about the GST. What
they said before the election, what they said in the red book and
what they were saying verbally door to door did not always agree.
His bill called for the repeal of section 745. Some Liberals and
other members in the House voted for it. Where is it? It is buried in
committee because the justice minister does not have the guts to
deal with it.
Actions that the majority of Canadians support do not mean
much to this justice minister or the Liberals. What matters is the
personal agenda of the Minister of Justice and the Liberals who are
giving him advice.
CAVEAT wants the section repealed. Victims of Violence want
the section repealed. Canadians want the section repealed.
However, the justice minister, for some reason, does not want it
repealed. Why is that?
When is the government going to govern the way Canadians
want them to govern? When will they start listening to Canadians?
When will they come down from their ivory towers and listen to the
people? When will they repeal section 745? No one with half a
brain could support this half-baked piece of legislation, which is
redundant, before it even came to this House?
(1320)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have some follow-up for my colleague about the matter of multiple
murderers and others applying, in the first instance, to a superior
court judge for a reduction in their parole ineligibility.
As I understand it, a royal recommendation has been attached to
this bill to cover the additional administrative costs to be
occasioned by the provisions of the legislation. I also understand
that there will be avenues of appeal open to convicted murderers
that are not open presently.
3912
If a convicted murderer appears before a jury asking for a
reduction in their parole ineligibility and the jury finds against
them, there is no appeal from that. There now will be an appeal
from the superior court judge. The appeal could presumably be
carried all the way up to the Supreme Court. These avenues of
appeal must be publicly funded.
A royal recommendation has been attached to this bill. I wonder
if the member has given any consideration to the linkage between
this royal recommendation and the new avenues of appeal that were
not previously available to convicted killers. Can he give us some
idea of what the linkage might be?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the royal recommendation that the
member has just spoken about provides additional funding to
facilitate these appeals.
One of the things we have been saying throughout the debate is
that if the government had the sense of what the Canadian people
want, and had the backbone to deal with first degree murderers in a
way that is appropriate, it not only would satisfy the concerns, the
needs and the demands of the Canadian people but it could also
save the taxpayers a ton of money. There would be no appeals.
That is the point that Reformers have been trying to make. That
is the point that the member for York South-Weston tried to make
in Bill C-226. Get rid of section 745. That way there will be no
appeals. Life would mean 25 years. There would be no appeals.
Taxpayers would be saved millions and millions of dollars and
murderers would be kept off the streets for at least 25 years,
reducing the chance of someone getting out early and killing again.
We would satisfy the demand of the Canadian people that, when a
human life is taken with premeditation, justice would to be served
and the sentence would be appropriate.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the member about the timing of the introduction
of this bill.
Reflecting back to just prior to the rising of the House last
summer, the government presented legislation that dealt with
DNA. It gave police departments another tool to track and
determine the guilt or innocence of rapists and murderers. It
certainly was an advantage for law enforcement.
At the time the bill came forward, it was rushed through during
the dying days of the session before the summer. It fell short of
doing a complete job. Police departments could not bank any of the
evidence. To this day, they still cannot and it has been a year since
the legislation came in. The justice minister never consulted with
the solicitors general and justice ministers of the provinces. As a
result of that, the considerable costs were downloaded on to the
shoulders of municipal police departments as well as provincial
attorneys general and solicitors general.
(1325)
I would like to ask the member, given the process as it was last
year with the DNA bill, how he views this legislation which again
is being introduced in the dying days of Parliament. Was there
justice done in debate? What is the feeling he is getting from his
constituents? It is important that members of the House, and
members of the Liberal government, in particular, hear what is
going on out there. They seem to have their heads buried in the
sand so that these bills can be rushed through all their stages.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's
question is that it is just plain, old-fashioned political trickery.
The government knows that the DNA bill, which was introduced
at the end of the last session, was badly flawed. It did not want to
give the Reform Party an opportunity to point out all the
weaknesses and inequities of the bill. The government did not want
to hear our suggestions to make it better.
The Minister of Justice is doing exactly the same thing with this
bill. He knows that this is a weak bill. He knows that the bill is
totally redundant. He knows that multiple murderers do not get out
of prison anyway. He knows that he is just trying to fool the
Canadian people into thinking that he is actually doing something.
The reason he has introduced the bill now, with the House
probably rising on Friday, is that he does not want to give
Reformers any time to debate the issue appropriately. He does not
want the debate to stretch out to the point that, heaven forbid,
concerned Canadians might get some sort of an idea about what the
minister is trying to do. He is playing make-believe that the bill
will do some good.
By introducing it at the end of the session, as we are about to
rise, he has taken away the time for meaningful debate, which is
certainly warranted in this case.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member if he knows how many of those who
were released under section 745 went on to commit murder again.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been murders that
have taken place after someone was released. I would be happy to
send the member the figures.
The fact is that under section 745 if even one more murder is
committed by someone who has been let out after only 15 years,
that is too many. The Canadian people have been saying: ``Do not
let them out''. The Liberal member knows that. The justice
minister knows that one is too many. If a murderer savagely takes
the life of a person they should spend the rest of their life behind
3913
bars. If the Canadian people had their way they would be able to
vote in a referendum on capital punishment.
The member opposite knows the mood of the Canadian people,
but he is being told to sit and keep quiet by the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice is in charge and no one is going to upset his
personal agenda.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, no
murders have ever been committed by anyone released under
section 745.
(1330 )
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give the figures to
the hon. member across the way. I will also give him the figures of
murders that have been committed by criminals who have been let
out on parole for even lesser sentences the first time than murder.
These are people who have been in jail for assault, sexual assault,
rape and kidnapping and who have served part of their time, let out
on parole and then went on to kill.
I will provide those figures to the member and he had better read
them because the Canadian people have read them. The Canadian
people are asking the government when it will do something about
it. The Reform Party is standing up for Canadians all across the
country. We have established the victims rights bill which we will
bring into the House and which the Minister of Justice
half-heartedly agrees with.
Quite frankly, we do not care much about what the Minister of
Justice thinks about these things. It is the Canadian people we
listen to. We will continue to listen to them because they know
better than the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to be here to participate in second reading debate of
government Bill C-45, an act to amend section 745 of the Criminal
Code.
This is an important debate for Canadians. It is very close to the
heart of members of my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Like
perhaps every member in the House, I have received many letters,
phone calls and communications from people not only in my
constituency but from across the country talking about the justice
system. They have told me of their dissatisfaction, of the fear they
experience and of the difficulties the police forces are having not
simply in enforcing the law but in getting convictions in the justice
system after people who have committed offences are
apprehended.
People tell me the justice system is broken and has to be fixed.
The Canadian people deserve, have a need and indeed a right to
certain securities and safety in their communities. They tell me this
system needs change and it needs to be reformed. That has been
one of the major planks of the Reform Party's platform since its
inception. The Canadian people deserve safety. They need the
security and certainty that they can walk down the street, any street
in any Canadian city, without being concerned whether they will be
mauled, threatened, injured or murdered.
Why do Canadians feel this way? The answer is a simple one.
Canadians do not feel safe in their homes or on the streets. They are
concerned about their children's safety in their own
neighbourhoods. In some cities like Vancouver, parents have to
clean up the mess on the streets before their children can go to
school because of the danger of coming into contact with harmful
substances, objects or people. They also see the justice system as
one protecting the rights of criminals over the needs, the suffering
and the loss of victims.
This bill merely perpetuates this reality. Bill C-45 does not do
anything to protect victims and their need to recover from horrible
suffering, pain and loss.
As my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley stated,
Bill C-45 is totally redundant. There are two major reasons why
this is case. Before I discuss these reasons, let me describe who the
victims of crime are. How does section 745 of the Criminal Code
ignore their legitimate needs?
(1335)
The victims of crime I am talking about are the friends and
families of those who have been callously murdered in our society.
Victims are sentenced by a killer. Their sentences are true life
sentences because they carry the pain and the loss of a loved one
forever.
This brings to mind the sentencing of first degree murderers
which we call a life sentence at 25 years. In my mind 25 years does
not represent the life of a person. The son or the friend or the
spouse who has been stolen from a victim with no regard for their
loss, let alone no compensation, is gone forever. There is no time
limit on that.
Many victims of crime view section 745 of the Criminal Code as
one way the justice system protects the rights of murderers over the
needs of victims. Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament
abolished capital punishment with the passing of then Bill C-84.
Included in Bill C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause
which gives anyone convicted of first degree murder a minimum
25 year sentence before parole eligibility. The mandatory
sentencing clause also included section 745, the so-called faint
hope clause, which more and more victims are calling the sure bet
clause. It gives every first and second degree murderer the right to
apply for a reduction in parole eligibility after they serve 15 years
of a 25 year so-called life sentence.
This is the absolute right of the convicted murderer, but 79 per
cent of those who have applied for a reduced sentence under
section 745 have received a reduced sentence. That means only 21
3914
per cent of murderers who apply under section 745 are denied and
must continue to serve their full 25 years life sentence.
Section 745 was included because the government of the day felt
that in some situations the interests of the criminals should come
before the interests of the public. This was expressed very clearly
by a minister of the day. Jean-Pierre Goyer, a former solicitor
general of Canada said in response to Prime Minister Trudeau's
attempt at reforms of the justice system in the 1970s: ``We have
decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the
protection of society''.
That is exactly the point where we differ. That is exactly where
we believe the government at that time made a wrong turn and
sacrificed the safety of our citizens for the rights and the
rehabilitation of convicted felons.
This is exactly what victims of crime are upset about. Section
745 violates the needs for fundamental justice. The victims are the
ones who have to go home every night to an empty house or sleep
in an empty bed. Then they live out every day with the grief, the
sorrow and the suffering of knowing the one they love is never
coming home again. The only solace they have is being sure the
one who murdered their loved one is behind bars, unable to inflict
such violence on anyone again.
(1340)
After 15 years of this kind of pain many victims discover for the
first time that section 745 even exists and that those who murdered
their loved ones have the automatic right to a section 745 hearing to
determine their suitability for early parole. The felon gets another
opportunity to state why he deserves freedom while the victims
continue to bear the life sentence inflicted on them by this same
applicant. Even though the murderer may not be granted early
release, victims must still relive the horror, anxiety and pain of
their loved ones' death.
Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was murdered 14 years
ago, says she did not think her family members could go through
another judicial hearing. It would be traumatic for them.
Victims also feel cheated by section 745. They often ask: ``Why
should the person who killed someone I loved and who has been
convicted of murder and given a 25 year life sentence be released
early or even be given the right to apply for early parole? I have no
parole or judicial review or faint hope clause to shorten my
sentence''.
Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said: ``Is
that all my son's life is worth, fifteen years? Why do I have to be
victimized again and again?'' Dorothy Mallet, a convicted
murderer who received early parole under section 745, wants to
visit her children. ``I have to go to the cemetery to visit my son'',
Mrs. Onofrey said.
The problem with section 745 is that it respects murderers'
rights over the rights and the needs of victims. The bill is a weak
attempt to correct this imbalance. Indeed it is not an attempt, it is
totally redundant. Bill C-45 does not go anywhere near protecting
victims and their needs.
There are two major reasons why this is so. Bill C-45 removes
the right of only multiple and serial murderers to apply under
section 745. If this legislation is passed before the House adjourns,
and it is expected that it will, serial killers like Clifford Olson can
still request to apply for early parole because the restrictions
against serial killers are not retroactive.
It is true that killers like Olson would be unlikely to win an
appeal to apply for early parole in any case, but this is not the point.
The point is Clifford Olson and people like him should not be
allowed to even make the request. Allowing a criminal like Olson
any right to ask for a hearing to determine his suitability for early
parole degrades and undervalues the rights of Olson's victims.
Gary Rosenfeldt, the father of one of Olson's 11 victims, said
last week this entire section is an insult to victims. I agree. Mr.
Rosenfeldt is correct. The families Olson has hurt and traumatized
have suffered for years with the memories of his heinous crimes.
Bill C-45 still gives him the right to request a hearing for early
parole. It is insulting. Victims deserve more respect than that and
the public deserves a greater degree of certain safety.
The second reason Bill C-45 does not go far enough is that those
who have killed one person still have the right to appeal their
parole ineligibility. Multiple or serial killers are denied this right.
This creates categories of killers in society, first degree killers that
is.
Those who killed one victim will have access to the process for
early release but those who killed more than one victim will not
have the access to the early release process. Canadians believe that
murder is murder and that one murder is as bad as the next. Why
then does the justice minister consider the killing of one person less
serious than the killing of two or more people?
(1345)
I can hardly believe he would do that. I can hardly believe he
would tell the friends and family of Lisa Clausen of British
Columbia who was murdered by Paul Kocurek in 1980 that Mr.
Kocurek can enter into the early release process on August 2, 1996
because Lisa was the only person he killed.
How about the family of Kenneth Kaplinski? Kenneth was
abducted in 1977, taken into the woods and executed by Edward
Sales and Allan Kinsella. Kinsella obtained an early parole hearing
and was turned down, while Sales has applied and awaits a
response. How can the justice minister tell Ken's family that Sales
and Kinsella will be allowed to request a hearing for early release
because they have only committed one murder?
3915
I can hardly believe that the justice minister would tell Janet
Shelever of Calgary that her husband's killer can still request early
parole because her husband was his only victim. That is exactly
what the justice minister is saying to these victims and many
others if Bill C-45 passes.
Victims of single murderers grieve, mourn and suffer as much as
the victims of multiple and serial killers. If Bill C-45 passes, they
will continue to suffer and the person who killed their loved one
will be eligible to apply for early parole and could obtain an early
release.
Does Bill C-45 respect and place a high value on the suffering of
victims? I say no and so do many Canadians. All that is valued in
this bill is the status quo.
There have been a couple of questions about how many people
have been killed by people let out of jail on section 745. In fact,
section 745 which was passed in 1976, has only allowed convicted
killers the opportunity to appeal for the last five years. That is a
very small window by which to test anything. In the past five years
one killer has been out under section 745 and has killed again.
More important, of all those who have been let out on parole, there
have been 15 murders committed by them. That is the true story.
That is what we need to look at.
I challenge the justice minister to do two things. First, treat
first degree murderers equally. Second, have some regard for the
survivors of victims and their everlasting loss and the pain they
suffer.
The only way to achieve these objectives is by repealing section
745 of the Criminal Code, not by amending it. Those who commit
any murder, single or multiple, would have no right to apply for or
receive early parole. Their parole privileges would be the same and
survivors of victims would not have to relive the horror, the anxiety
and the pain of their loved one's death. Nor would they feel cheated
because the one who killed their son, brother, sister or mother is
only serving a fraction of the life sentence they deserve for causing
so much harm and such irreplaceable loss.
This brings me to another point. Why does the Liberal
government almost always deal with serious issues by bringing
forward bills which at best are only half measures? Bill C-45 is
redundant. It is not going to change anything. There is a pattern to
this and it goes beyond Bill C-45.
(1350)
Think of the pain, the anguish and the horror caused to many
Canadians with the way Bill C-33 was rushed through the House.
After saying this was going to be a more open government, the
Liberals gave no opportunity to Canadians to have input on the
human rights bill. It was dealt with in 10 days.
Consider also the GST. What a way to deal with the promise that
was made in the red book. Because the Liberals could not reach an
agreement with the provinces, they singled out some of the smaller
ones and gave them a better or different deal and left the others to
haggle and bargain with the government.
What about the unemployment insurance bill, a bill that affects
millions of Canadians? Without input, without even knowing
where they are going, there is a proposal to change the whole
policy, to ram it through, to let the sufferers fall where they may.
This is not an appropriate way to bring legislation before the
House. Legislation should reflect the consensus of the values, the
will and the desires of the Canadian people. That is not what the
government is doing with Bill C-45 in amending section 745.
This bill will do nothing to change the facts about how unsafe it
is for Canadians to walk on their streets and sleep in their beds
knowing they are absolutely secure. This bill does nothing to give
the police forces the tools and the measures they need to bring
criminals to conviction.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the debate this morning on Bill C-45. Of course, my attention was
drawn to the report by Willie Gibbs who appeared before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He informed us
that last year 15 people were murdered in this country after their
murderers had been released on either early release or parole. That
is a horrible statistic.
Fifteen people have been murdered as a result of a mistake made
by our officials which has to do with the early release or parole of
people who have committed offences, lesser offences than first
degree murder. Nevertheless the officials released them. My
concern is that is the very parole board that will have to make a
decision on the first degree murderers if they jump through the
hoops the justice minister is allowing them to jump through and
end up before the parole board. It is the same parole board that
allowed the release of those people which resulted at least in part in
15 innocent people being murdered. Does the member have any
comments on that?
Not only were 15 people murdered, which is more than one per
month, but there were 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual assaults, 21
major assaults, 71 armed robberies, in all 165 serious crimes. Since
1987 criminals out on some form of early release killed 206 people
and tried to kill another 162 people. In all, 2,097 very serious
crimes were committed by them in that period of time.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, it is entirely typical of my
colleague, a former policeman, to have dug into the facts, to have
brought the issues to light and to have demonstrated them to the
House in such a manner.
3916
(1355 )
The member raises the whole issue of public safety that I was
attempting to get at. The whole issue of public safety revolves
around the need for people to be certain about who is in the
community and can cause them harm. How can we know who and
where these people? If we do not know these dangerous people are
locked up, then we still live under the threat of their reoffending.
This relates to the whole attitude of government. I suppose it is
based upon the philosophy that a person is not really responsible
for what he does: if a person's mother is a prostitute and their father
an alcoholic, how can anyone blame them for anything? However,
we all have known since we have been conscious that there is a
difference between right and wrong. We all know what a bad
conscience is. We all know the inner voice that speaks to us. Yet
there has been a deliberate attempt to move the inner conscience
away, to tell people that they are not responsible: ``Poor little you.
How could you possibly be responsible when you have had such a
miserable past?''
I am not suggesting that people who had a difficult childhood
should not be given consideration. It is our intention that all
Canadians should have the opportunity to come to their full
potential and do what they truly choose to do. However, when
someone chooses to commit murder, there must be some means of
saying that it is not acceptable and we will not allow them to
continue to do that. They must realize that they are responsible for
their actions no matter what happened to them as a child or what
circumstances brought them to that point.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member commented on the lack of due process given to important
legislation that comes before this House. He talked about the
persistent use of time allocation, closure and the fact that
legislation like this comes up at the end of the session when very
little time is allowed for debate. The hon. member is absolutely
accurate in presenting this information. Why does he think this
happens? Why does the government use time allocation so often
and prevents important issues from being discussed and properly
debated, not only in this House but right across the country?
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, without being cynical, that is a
serious question. It relates very much to the political aspirations
and the desire of the government to be re-elected. Liberals will
doing anything they can to put before them anything they think the
public might accept to re-elect them. It is no secret that we are
going into the last year of the government's mandate and it will be
going before the public in an election.
It is no secret that Bill C-45 will do nothing. How else can one
explain its coming before the House and before the Canadian
people at this time unless one looks at it through the political lens.
The Liberals see this as being a way for them to talk about
amending the justice system without really doing anything. They
have not thought it through. They do not know where they are
going. They have no plan. This is the result of a do nothing attitude
that simply caters to public opinion with no real goal in mind.
The Speaker: My colleague, I do not know if it was your
intention to continue, but I imagine you will have a few minutes to
go after question period. It being two o'clock, we will now proceed
to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
3916
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.) Mr. Speaker,
there are three forms of wealth in society: material, cultural and
biological.
Unfortunately, we often take our biological wealth for granted.
Through perverse practices, we degrade our natural riches. We
consume at faster rates than biological material can be restored. We
dump waste back into natural systems faster than it can be
assimilated.
(1400)
Climate change is real. Its negative effects have been clearly
documented. Ozone depletion will allow harmful UV rays to
destroy the foundation of our food chain. Our biological wealth is
the basis for all other wealth. This relationship is very clear, direct
and simple. We ignore it at our peril.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, between
5,000 and 10,000 women and men came here to ask the Liberal
government to fulfil its election promises regarding the poor. The
Liberal Party had promised it would not cut into social programs,
but it did.
It had promised to create over 150,000 day care spaces, but it
also reneged on this commitment. The Bloc Quebecois will lead a
fierce campaign to find out what this government did with the
money earmarked for day care services.
This morning, the Bloc Quebecois pledged to work in close
co-operation with the new president of the National Action
Committee on the Status of Women, Joan Grant-Cummings, to
make sure this government targets poverty, not the poor.
The Bloc will see that the message conveyed by the protesters
this past weekend is heard, since this government tends to turn a
deaf ear to the needy.
3917
The outgoing NAC president, Sunera Thobani, said that women
are not asking for charity but equality. The Liberal Party must get
the message.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the parliamentary summer recess it
would seem an appropriate time to evaluate the Liberal
government's record over the past three years.
Broken promises permeate the pages of the red book and can be
proven false by the actions of ministers and their departments.
The minister of agriculture is among the worst. He said he would
keep article XI of the GATT. He signed it into oblivion. He said he
would keep the Crow benefit. He scrapped it three months later. He
said the Crow payment cheques would be out in January. It is the
middle of June and thousands are not yet processed. He said he
would implement a whole farm income stabilization plan. He could
not get provincial agreement. He said he would support a plebiscite
on continental barley marketing. He did not do it and he will not
even respect a plebiscite on barley and wheat marketing recently
held in Alberta. The minister typifies the cynical irony: ``I am from
the government and I am here to help you''.
For years farmers have said: ``Do the opposite to what the
government tells you to do''. It seems that this, too, is the motto of
the minister of agriculture who has not done anything he said he
would do.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday will mark the 11th
anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history, the
bombing of Air-India flight 182. The innocent victims of this mass
murder included 278 Canadians of East Indian descent.
Families of these innocent victims have been patiently waiting
for justice but the RCMP, after launching the largest probe in
history, has failed to lay a single charge. It even offered a $1
million reward for information leading to the arrest of the
individuals responsible. That was a year ago and still the victims'
families are waiting.
On behalf of the families of the victims I urge the government to
immediately establish a royal commission to investigate the
biggest act of terrorism ever committed on Canadian soil. These
families deserve to know the facts surrounding this tragedy. They
deserve no less than honesty and truth from the government.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
tragic murder of the Romanian stowaways aboard the
Maersk
Dubai should be a spur for urgent action on the problem of
stowaways.
The $7,000 fine on ships found to be carrying stowaways was
intended to encourage ship captains to take all possible measures to
prevent stowaways. However, not only does the fine encourage
captains to do away with stowaways, in practice it is poorly paid
crew members who are often held responsible by captains and who
are in turn forced to pay the fine. Thus the fine becomes an
incentive to throw stowaways overboard. As a result, far from
being an isolated incident, the longshoremen's union reports that
the tragedy on the Maersk Dubai is an all too common occurrence.
The current regime also offers inadequate guarantees that those
accused of murdering stowaways on the high seas will be
prosecuted. In the most recent incident there were authorities in a
position to prosecute those accused. However, what would have
happened if the victims had been from Liberia or some other
jurisdiction without an effective authority?
The NDP calls on the government to review its current policy on
stowaways and urges it to work in the United Nations for a
convention for the protection of stowaways.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from June 21 to July 1 Canadians will be able to celebrate the
diversity and richness of our nation. June 21 is the first ever
national aboriginal day. It is a day for Canadians to celebrate
Canada's first peoples, to recognize their many different cultures
and to reflect on their contributions to Canada.
(1405)
[Translation]
On June 24, French Canadians all over the continent will
celebrate their culture and their language, as they have been doing
since the 19th century. Let all Canadians take part in the activities
and celebrate Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.
[English]
This celebration of our nation culminates on July 1, Canada Day,
a day which allows us to take pride in our heritage, history,
diversity and richness as a nation.
3918
[Translation]
The celebrations going on from June 21 to July 1 will be an
opportunity to rediscover and share our treasures, to appreciate
more who we were, who we are and what the future holds for us.
Let us celebrate together.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I want to congratulate Ian Moorhouse and Marcel Crete for
completing the 100th Boston marathon.
Both runners come from Haliburton, Ontario. The two men
joined 38,000 other runners attempting to finish the 26-mile race.
Their goal was simple, to finish the race, and they accomplished
that.
There were competitors from 100 countries. Their goal was even
tougher when they had to train indoors throughout the winter and
then for the first time race outside at the event.
Where these men or any Canadian finishes does not matter. The
simple fact is they finished the race, a race in which others did not
and would not attempt. Congratulations on a truly remarkable
performance.
* * *
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly
the Keep Mining in Canada campaign made an excellent selection
in choosing Mr. Brad Simser of Noranda Mining and Exploration's
New Brunswick division as one of its new faces of mining.
[Translation]
I am pleased to mention Mr. Simser's contribution.
[English]
In many ways Brad can be seen as a pioneer for his work in
implementing the integrated seismic system for the first time in
North America. This sophisticated computer based technology
allows Brad to track and monitor how rock formations are
adjusting to mining activities. The ultimate result is that Noranda
can improve safety while mining deeper.
Often there are significant misconceptions about mining. As a
new face, Brad represents the future of mining as a high
technological industry essential not only to the Canadian economy
but for many products and services all Canadians use in their daily
lives.
[Translation]
I congratulate Brad Simser for making such progress during his
career.
[English]
I wish him continued success in his work.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when Robert Thirsk was a student at Glenmore Elementary and Dr.
Knox in Okanagan Centre he had a dream. He wanted to become an
astronaut. On June 20 that dream becomes reality. The official
payload on mission 78 will be microgravity and the effects of space
on the human body.
Dr. Thirsk will also conduct a number of experiments designed
by young Canadians while talking directly to them from space by
two-way radio.
The enthusiasm of our young scientists must be encouraged for
Canada's economic future depends on our excellence in science
and engineering. As Dr. Thirsk said to me, we have succeeded in
developing our natural resources, but we have not fared as well
developing our intellectual resources.
Bobby Orr's hockey jersey will also be on mission 78, a tribute
to Canadian excellence.
I have no doubt that if Canada can produce the best hockey
players in the world, then we can produce the best scientists and
engineers too. All young people have dreams. We must encourage
them and give them a place to go.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to Claude Coulombe, a 19-year old
student from the Rimouski-Neigette training centre who
accumulates prizes in auto mechanics. He was second in the contest
run by the La Neigette school board, first in the regional olympics
held in Carleton, and second at the provincial selection. On May 4,
Mr. Coulombe won the gold medal at the Canadian olympiad for
professional and technical training.
Students from Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec participated in the event, which was essentially a series of
practical tests to evaluate the technical knowledge of the
candidates and their ability to accurately diagnose problems.
In the fall of 1997, Mr. Coulombe will travel to Saint-Gall, in
Switzerland, to take part in the world trades olympiad. I extend my
warm congratulations to him and I wish him the best of success.
3919
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations has proclaimed June 17 world day to combat
desertification.
Desertification results from changes in climate, the deterioration
of vegetation due to over exploitation, over grazing, deforestation
and burning, through wind and water erosion due to poor
cultivation practices.
(1410 )
Desertification is more serious in Africa and Asia, but is also
impacting our prairies. In 1995, Canada ratified the UN
Convention to Combat Desertification. The convention commits
supporters to provide resources for programs and projects designed
to halt and, hopefully, reverse the expansion of deserts. These
efforts are urgently needed if we are to ensure the productivity of
lands and forests for future generations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
race for the Canadian Formula One Grand Prix took place at Circuit
Gilles-Villeneuve on Montreal's Île Notre-Dame before over
100,000 spectators, who crowded the full length of the track to
cheer their hero.
[English]
At only 25 and in his first year of Formula One racing, Jacques
Villeneuve won second place and was by far the crowd favourite. It
was an emotional time for Montrealers who saw the son of their
legend, Gilles Villeneuve, racing on the track named after his
father, on Father's Day.
[Translation]
Jacques Villeneuve has truly earned the affection of Canadians
and Quebecers, and we hope that he will continue to race with the
same intensity and enthusiasm that have characterized his career
from the beginning. He is a model for Quebecers and Canadians of
our generation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May
14, two women's marches against poverty began, one in the west
and one in the east. They converged Saturday on Parliament Hill.
This march was about freedom, freedom from violence, freedom
from poverty, freedom from joblessness. These are not partisan
issues, nor are they strictly gender issues. Women's issues affect
men and families no matter what the political persuasion.
I applaud the organizers for the very successful march and for
working on issues that are important to all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some 100
countries, 80 of them developing, are facing the consequences of
desertification, which results from non-sustainable soil use
practices. As a result, 900 million people may be affected by this
ecological disaster, which leads to famine and population shifts.
The United Nations has declared June 17 World Desertification
Day. This decision is one of the follow-ups to the Rio Conference
held in June 1992. Subsequent international negotiations resulted
in the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. To
date, it has been ratified by 29 of 115 signatory countries, including
Canada. But this convention must be ratified by 50 countries before
it can come into force.
On this World Desertification Day, I urge the Government of
Canada to assume a leadership role vis-à-vis other countries so that
this convention can come into force as quickly as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians in northern and isolated communities have had
it.
While people in southern cities can walk a few blocks to talk to a
human resources officer in person, people in rural communities
spend literally hours trying to get through on understaffed 1-800
lines that are supposed to give them superior service.
Five CECs were just closed in my riding. Under the new UI
rules, people will have to work longer to qualify for fewer benefits,
but their questions go unanswered because the phones ring busy.
Desperate pensioners who cannot pay their rent because of lost
cheques call my office because all they get is a busy signal on the
OAS line. Single mothers struggling to make ends meet cannot get
their questions answered because the child tax benefit line is
clogged.
In its downsizing wisdom, this government kept upper
management and cut the front line workers. Rural Canadians are
willing to sacrifice to get us out of debt, but at least hire enough
workers to
3920
man the 1-800 lines. Northerners are tired of being left out in the
cold.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this weekend women from across Canada completed a
journey that brought them to Ottawa with a message of jobs, justice
and equality. Today the National Action Committee on the Status
of Women brought their voices to parliamentarians.
The message these grassroots women's organizations bring to
government is essential in the development of legislation that will
strengthen gender equality and alleviate the poverty in which many
women now live.
(1415 )
At the Beijing women's conference last year, it was agreed that
there is a role for non-governmental organizations and women's
groups to work with their governments to bring gender related
issues to the fore. The government is working diligently to address
the issues of poverty, unemployment, inequality and is working
hard to integrate the needs of women into all future policy and
legislation.
Having just returned from the UN Habitat II Conference, I
consider this commitment of NGOs and governments to work
together is our greatest strength. I praise the commitment of all
women here today as we continue to work together in partnership
to achieve greater gender equality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, thousands of women and men came together on
Parliament Hill to celebrate the incredible undertaking of several
dozen women who crossed this country to deliver an important
message to our government.
The march started in Vancouver on May 14 to raise the
awareness of all governments in this country about the importance
of taking concrete action to put an end to the social and economic
problems which affect women in particular.
A number of measures taken by us since our election are
focussed on that objective. We are determined to do everything
necessary to raise the awareness of provincial governments and to
invite them to work along with us in meeting the legitimate
expectations these Canadian women have made known to us during
this great march.
Bravo to all the participants!
3920
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at the first ministers' conference, the federal government
will be proposing its so-called new philosophy to renew Canadian
federalism, that is step by step, bit by bit.
My question is, of course, for the Prime Minister. Is it the
intention of the federal government to offer full, total and
unconditional financial compensation with respect to all areas of
provincial jurisdiction from which it intends to withdraw soon?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction
and, when we spend money for certain programs in certain
circumstances, we will offer money as is the case for manpower
and active measures.
The discussion will be at the ministerial level, but I am very
happy to see that the opposition realizes we are going to improve
the federation and that we will withdraw from fields we were in
previously. I hope all the provinces will be very happy with this.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, any pleasure the Prime Minister may take at the
opposition's acknowledging his improvement of the federation is
pure presumption on his part. Given his past record, we have no
illusions as to his intentions. I am sorry to have to hurt him, but I
must speak the truth.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the only acceptable
way to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction is to
accompany the withdrawal with a transfer of tax points so that the
provinces may carry out their own responsibilities fully,
completely and autonomously as provided in the agreements
signed by the Lesage and Pearson governments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we withdraw from the programs mentioned in my
letter to the premiers, the Leader of the Opposition will have to
acknowledge that, despite his predictions, I will be obliged to make
him retract what he has just said. I will do it very gently; I would
not want to cause the Leader of the Opposition any problem.
As to the forms of compensation, take unemployment insurance
as an example. It cannot be by tax points in this case, because it is
the employers and employees throughout Canada that contribute to
the fund. This money is then redirected to those in Canada who are
not working. This must be a direct transfer and not tax points,
because the amounts will necessarily vary with the level of
unemployment in different parts of Canada. We never know the
exact amount from one year to the next. A situation may be
3921
disastrous in one province today and then quickly improve, or
deteriorate in another part of Canada.
(1420)
This is why we have this means of redistributing wealth across
the country to those who need it. It has to be a direct transfer and
not tax points to ensure the flexibility needed.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking the position of defender of
Canadian taxpayers, and yet he is taking $5 billion out of the
unemployment insurance fund provided by workers and employers
and he is applying this money to his deficit and wants us to
consider this the standard in defending people's interests? Oh,
come on.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is preparing to
negotiate at the conference a partial and conditional withdrawal of
his government from areas of jurisdiction that already belong to the
provinces as he jumps with both feet into other areas of provincial
jurisdiction, such as securities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, under the Constitution, unemployment is the
responsibility of the Canadian government. There is no doubt of
this. There was a constitutional amendment on this point in 1947 or
1949. It is our jurisdiction, and we share revenues with the
provinces.
The unemployment insurance deficit, when we took over the
government, was over $6 billion. We have reduced the deficit and
now it makes good sense to build up a surplus for those days when
we will need one to pay employment insurance to people who need
it. This is simply good management.
As to providing a Canadian securities commission at the request
of the provinces, I think, at least I hope that most of the provinces
will want to participate in it, because it will mean investors will
have far fewer forms than 10 or 12 to complete in order to obtain
approval to sell bonds. With the broad flexibility I represent, any
province not wishing to participate may do so.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how nice to see the Prime Minister concerned about
respect for his own areas of jurisdiction when he does not respect
those of the provinces.
In fact, when the Prime Minister says he wants to withdraw from
provincial areas of jurisdiction, he knows full well that any federal
withdrawal without an unconditional transfer of the appropriate
financial resources is nothing but a smoke screen.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, whatever the administrative
agreements he can negotiate with the provinces, as long as the
federal government can set national standards and keep its hands
on the money, it will impose its conditions in areas that are not
under its jurisdiction?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the provinces' financial weight compared to that of
the federal government has not stopped growing since the 1960s.
Does the book Option Québec by René Lévesque mean
something to the official opposition? This book refers to a
conference given by Jacques Parizeau in the late sixties, in which
Mr. Parizeau said about the decentralization process then starting
in Canada: ``This goes too far. This decentralization will go too far,
and this country will become unmanageable. Quebec must get out
of it''.
This is how the problem should be put: ``Are we too
decentralized?'' I do not think so. Can the decentralization process
be improved? I think so. But this so-called centralized federation is
a chimera that only today's independentist leaders are trying to sell
people; that term is inaccurate.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that this gradual
decentralization relegating the provinces to the role of onlookers
amounts to bringing in through the back door the Charlottetown
accord, which called for the federal government to withdraw from
some areas of provincial jurisdiction, but only on certain
conditions?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we already answered, in relation to job training, that
there must be an effective partnership between the federal
government and the provinces in an area that concerns both the
provinces, through job training, and the federal government,
through unemployment insurance and the economic union.
(1425)
As for the other areas, what is the hon. member talking about?
Where are the conditions attached to social housing? The federal
government is withdrawing from this area. In tourism, there is a
partnership that works very well but that could possibly be
improved. What area could we mention, in fact? Forestry?
Recreation? Mining? The federal government is withdrawing from
all these areas without any conditions. What is the hon. member
talking about?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice and concerns the Airbus
affair.
3922
On Thursday past, in response to a question from the member
for Fraser Valley East, the minister stated categorically: ``I take
responsibility for the Department of Justice. From the outset the
Department of Justice has acted in an appropriate manner''.
Since the minister maintains that justice officials, including
Kimberley Prost, acted in an entirely appropriate fashion, will he
instruct his lawyers not to make an out of court deal with Brian
Mulroney and not to spend millions of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are defending the litigation
brought against the Government of Canada. We intend to continue
in that defence. We will put forward all the defences we have
pleaded and we will do our best to establish them in the courtroom.
That is our intention and that is the course we are on.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand from that answer that the government is not interested
in an out of court settlement but will go to court.
Will the minister concede that he has said all along, as has the
Prime Minister, that this is a police investigation, that the police
initiated it and that the police must not be interfered with in their
work? Will he concede that he should instruct his lawyers not to
make an out of court deal with Brian Mulroney so the police may
continue their investigation without interference from the minister
or his lawyers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the police of course must continue
whatever work they want to do unaffected by politicians.
The police investigation is separate from the civil litigation
commenced by Mr. Mulroney in which he alleges defamation, and
the hon. member will know that.
I have made it clear we have filed defences in the civil litigation
and we are defending that action.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows the suit is also against the RCMP.
The Minister of Justice said Friday, quoting from Hansard: ``I
shall report significant developments to the House when they
occur''. We are obviously very concerned that the government is
planning to make a settlement and pay Brian Mulroney millions,
because of its incompetence, during the summer while the House is
not sitting.
Will the government fulfil its commitment and make a
commitment that when there are any significant developments,
including an out of court settlement, it will recall the House to
make sure the House can examine the deal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought never to
doubt that I am accountable to the House as a member of the
government and that the government is accountable to the House.
The hon. member should also know, as I have made clear, we are
defending the litigation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In his letter informing his provincial counterparts of the agenda
for the first ministers' conference, the Prime Minister wrote: ``The
afternoon session will focus on the social aspects of our policies
and programs, and in particular on preserving a viable and
sustainable social security system for Canadians''. But we are far
from having a social security system in Canada as it is.
Are we to understand from what he wrote that, far from
withdrawing from provincial areas of jurisdiction, the Prime
Minister is set to step right into the whole social programs area and
take it over, even though transfer payments to the provinces have
been cut drastically?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): On that
topic, Mr. Speaker, we will review together the report prepared by
the provincial governments themselves. They have prepared and
submitted to the federal government a report that we have
considered.
(1430)
My feeling is that we agree on many aspects of this study
prepared by the provincial governments themselves. This means
we will be able to compare notes on these points and, if possible,
improve the Canadian social security system. Our positions are
well known. Take the five principles of medicare; they are
respected by everyone. And just recently, the Government of
Alberta, which had resisted complying, signed with the Minister of
Health an agreement whereby the five conditions set out in the
Canada Health Act will now be applied in Alberta as in every other
province.
I would say we are making considerable headway in this area.
Our Friday afternoon meeting on this subject will go along the
same lines of ensuring that Canada's social security system
provides all Canadians with a minimum level of protection, as
everyone or almost everyone in this House hopes for.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
the Prime Minister is referring to reflects the opinion of the
majority of provinces. Quebec has always insisted on having
control over social policies and their integration and making its
own decisions in that regard.
3923
By trying to take over-that is what this is-all social programs
in Canada and trying to impose national standards as it did in the
areas of manpower, forestry and mining, to name but a few, is the
Prime Minister not using a sleight of hand to in fact centralize
behind our backs by keeping all real decision making powers in
his hands?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand, when we are
proposing to get out of some fields, that I suddenly become a
centralisateur. It is a bit difficult for me to understand but I will
reflect on it. They want the government to stay in manpower. Fine.
If they wanted the government to stay in forestry, mining and many
other sectors, it would. However, the government is not interested.
We want to ameliorate the federation and clarify the
responsibilities so the citizens of Canada will have a better system
of government at the provincial and federal level. This is the goal
we are trying to achieve. I am convinced that by Friday most of the
provinces will be very happy to accept new responsibilities and
accept that the government is getting out of some responsibilities.
If the hon. member wants to tell the Quebec government that I
should keep or increase the same responsibilities, that is fine with
me.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice has now admitted his lawyers are discussing a
possible out of court settlement with Brian Mulroney over the
Airbus affair. He has even said that such a settlement ``would be
very desirable''.
I will tell the House what a settlement with Brian Mulroney
would be. It would be an admission that the justice department has
botched its investigation. It would be an admission that it had no
evidence in the first place and tried to hide this fact from the
Canadian people from the outset.
If the justice minister says his department is acting responsibly
every step of the way, will he promise here and now not to do a
closed door deal with Brian Mulroney?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member errs in two
respects in putting her question. First, she referred to a justice
department investigation.
The police are the people who investigate, and it was the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police that conducted and is conducting an
investigation into this case. The role of the Department of Justice,
as the hon. member knows or perhaps should know, is that the
international assistance group was asked to communicate to a
foreign government a request for assistance in the course of that
investigation.
The second error into which the hon. member fell was to assert
there may have been no evidence from the outset. That too is a
matter that relates to the police investigation. If the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police chooses to start or conduct or conclude
an investigation based on what it finds or does not find, that is for it
to decide. The police in this country conduct investigations based
on their own judgments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly the point. If the RCMP is investigating, let it investigate.
Let us not talk about backroom deals and out of court settlements.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
I will tell the House what else an out of court settlement would
be. It would be a slap in the face to millions of Canadians who
would be forking out millions of dollars to pay this off because of
the minister's incompetence.
(1435 )
I want the minister to promise to me and to Canadians right here
and right now that as soon as he signs this out of court settlement
with Brian Mulroney the next thing he will do is sign his own
resignation. Will he or will he not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only person talking about
backroom deals is the hon. member for Beaver River. The only
person talking about the payment of millions of dollars today is the
hon. member for Beaver River.
I am busy defending a lawsuit on behalf of the Government of
Canada and the people of this country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On Saturday, between 5,000 and
10,000 women and men came to Parliament Hill to demand that the
government fulfil the commitments it made during the last election
campaign, including the provision of day care services and the
creation of jobs. The Bloc Quebecois met with women's groups
this morning, and it shares their concerns.
Given that the federal budget for day care services went, without
any explanation, from $630 million down to $250 million, will the
Prime Minister tell us what he did with the money that is missing
and when he will give back to the children, through the provinces
of course, all the money owed to them?
3924
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite
obvious what happened to the money. The agreement that was
suggested, put forward to the provinces, was not accepted by the
provinces. The federal government then of course came back to the
drawing board and is interested in having a discussion with the
provinces.
If the provinces want to make a proposal to the federal
government we would be very interested in seeing the proposal.
When that happens we will make comments on it, when we know
what the provinces would like to see in the field of child care.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
what happens when the government sets conditions.
On Friday, the Prime Minister said that, to eliminate child
poverty, work had to be available for the parents. Since he intends
to discuss the establishment of a job creation program during the
first ministers' conference, will he make sure that, this time, unlike
the last infrastructure program, there will be jobs for women?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where members of the opposition have been. We of course in
this Parliament have talked about jobs and the economy over and
over again.
Quite frankly, if they look at the results of the government they
will know we have created over 600,000 jobs by the improvements
we have made to the economy and by making sure we keep our eye
on the ball.
If the member is not aware of the information and the
improvements we have made to the economy and the
improvements we will continue to make, all she has to do is ask for
a briefing and we will give her the information that shows the
government has done a good job and will continue to improve on
that. We will show the results with other programs we have already
put in place in the past.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in December the Minister of Justice told reporters he had
passed on information to the RCMP about the Airbus affair. He
said: ``I have never had an instance occur where I passed
information on and heard back from the RCMP in any way
whatsoever''.
Last Thursday, however, the minister told the House that the
RCMP did indeed write back to him. I ask the Minister of Justice if
he could simply explain this contradiction.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, but first let me
correct another error I am afraid.
The research department for the hon. member's party consists of
a clipping service from the Sun chain of newspapers, so it is very
difficult for it to carry on.
Let me correct an error. The hon. member referred to a statement
I made last December that I had communicated information about
the Airbus matter, and that is wrong.
What I said, which is a matter of public record, is that in
discharging my responsibilities as I saw them, when I was fixed
with knowledge of alleged wrongdoing by the previous
government, after consulting with my deputy and with the solicitor
general, I passed that on to the police to do with as they might.
They looked into the matter and responded by saying they were
going to take no steps as there was no basis for doing so.
(1440)
In terms of the most recent clipping from which the hon.
member is working, I can also say that last December when I was
interviewed by Mr. Koring of the Globe and Mail who put that
question to me, I did say I had not heard back. I was reminded
within a few days and then I pointed out to the Globe and Mail
within a few days that indeed I had heard back. That is the fact.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all last week and this week the Minister of Justice has
been skilfully trying to get himself stepped back from this whole
thing. We almost have to congratulate him for his sleight of hand.
While he may think he is fooling people, he certainly is not.
I would like to allow the minister one chance to clarify the
situation. The minister has related to us the way he remembers the
event, but just to make it clear, in the interests of transparency and
clarity, I ask the minister if he would please table the letter from the
RCMP in the House. Will he do that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.
Let me say this in response to the hon. member's question. He
speaks about my skilfully trying to distance myself from events.
That is not the case. What I have been trying to do last week and
today is to explain and emphasize for the hon. member and his
colleagues that we are dealing with two different matters. It is
neither accurate nor appropriate to mix them.
On the first hand we have a Minister of Justice who receives
information about an alleged wrongdoing in the past government
who, in discharge of a responsibility, after consulting with the
3925
deputy minister and the solicitor general, communicates that to the
police. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest last week
conceded that that indeed is the proper course.
A second and separate matter is the decision by the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police for its own reasons to commence its own
investigation at a later time on the Airbus matter. It is separate. It is
different. It is a matter for the police to decide.
If the hon. member can understand that those two matters are
separate, he will be a long way down the road to understanding
these matters.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is using lofty principles to hide his
improvisation in the Airbus affair. The minister must move beyond
discourse and explain the facts.
Does the Minister of Justice confirm that he looked into the
Airbus affair, in a personal and partisan manner, when he was a
Liberal candidate in the 1993 general election?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what
the hon. member refers to. I have told the House what is in issue in
this matter. What is in issue in this matter is a police investigation.
The role of the Department of Justice in that investigation has been
made clear. Those are the facts.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the justice minister rise in his place and tell us on his honour that in
no way-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, there is no question of giving
one's word of honour; this is always understood in the House of
Commons. We therefore have no need to speak about it.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the justice minister if
he will rise in his place and tell us that he in no way made personal
inquiries with anybody at all concerning the Airbus affair when he
was a Liberal candidate in 1993?
(1445 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the hon.
member is asking or referring to. The facts of this matter are before
the House, as are the responses I have given to the questions that
have been put.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade and concerns the
Helms-Burton legislation. What is the minister doing to confront
this attempt by the U.S. Congress to deny Canadians the legitimate
right to do business with Cuba?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I
announced today on behalf of the government our response to the
Helms-Burton legislation.
We are attempting to protect Canadian sovereign interests,
foreign policy, trade policy and the legal operations of Canadian
businesses in Cuba. We have proposed amendments to the foreign
extraterritorial measures act that would block any attempt by a
company in a foreign country to carry out a court order within
Canada on an objectionable piece of legislation like Helms-Burton.
We have provided for a clawback provision that they can recover
within Canada moneys and assets lost in the United States on such
an action. Finally, the penalties have been increased for companies
that follow the law of a foreign country as opposed to the law of
this country.
We hope that this will act as an effective deterrent to prevent the
kind of operations, the kind of court action which is envisioned by
the Helms-Burton bill in the United States, a unilateral action
which we believe is wrong in principle, wrong in purpose and
wrong in practice.
In addition, we will be continuing with an action under the North
American Free Trade Agreement. We will continue with the
NAFTA commission meeting.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems these days the Liberals are out to cut deals to try
to get themselves out of messes that a more competent government
would not have gotten itself into. The Mulroney Airbus fiasco is
only one example.
With this in mind, can the Minister of Justice tell the House
whether he plans to try to reach an out of court settlement with the
Pearson Development Corporation, or does he intend to try to pass
legislation that overturns the rule of law and interferes with a court
case in progress?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rule of law includes the
democratic right of Parliament to enact legislation. That is exactly
what has been done in this case.
3926
We have worked toward the enactment of Bill C-28 which
expresses and carries forward the policy of this government on
which we were elected. That is to say we took a critical look at
that transaction and we came to the conclusion that it was not in
the public's interest to take steps to set it aside.
If the hon. member is concerned about law, legality or matters
involving the Constitution, then he should be much influenced by
the fact that an expert witness testified before the Senate committee
of legal and constitutional affairs in relation to Bill C-28. The very
constitutional expert from Osgoode Hall law school whom the
Tories had relied upon in criticizing the bill testified last week that
with the amendments we have proposed, the bill is indeed now
lawful and constitutional.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if rhetoric were dollars, the Liberals would not have a
deficit.
For two years the government has said that it cancelled the
Pearson contract because, in the words of the former Liberal
Minister of Transport, it was the biggest rip-off in Canadian
history. Now the justice department is trying to defend the
government in one of its several lawsuits by claiming the contract
was so bad for developers that they would have lost millions.
Will the minister please tell this House which of these two
claims he wishes to retract: the one used to cancel the contract, or
the one now being used to defend the government? It is impossible
for both positions to be true.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the concern my friend has is not
for constitutionality but for consistency, then perhaps he can begin
by explaining how it is that his colleague at this end of the bench
asked me 10 minutes ago how could I dare countenance the
payment of money to a claimant in an action against the crown and
now he seems to be suggesting that instead of passing Bill C-28 we
should be paying out money to the claimants in relation to
constitutionality.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice did not really answer the question
put by my colleague, the member for Saint-Hubert, a few moments
ago.
I ask him today whether he made inquiries of any sort into the
Airbus affair when he was a Liberal candidate in 1993, and I am not
necessarily referring only to inquiries made of the RCMP or other
police forces, but also inquiries made of other people such as
lobbyists or journalists?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question makes as little sense
coming from the hon. member as it did from his colleague. I have
responded to the questions put in the House when they have been
on factual matters and the facts speak for themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister again. If I understand correctly, I must
conclude that never, and in no way during the 1993 election
campaign did he make inquiries of journalists concerning the
Airbus affair and the role former Prime Minister Mulroney is
alleged to have played. I am therefore speaking about discussions
or inquiries made of journalists before being appointed Minister of
Justice.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can put whatever
he wants in his question. I will confine myself to facts in my
response.
The facts of the matter are clear. They are on the record. I was
approached by a journalist who fixed me with knowledge of
allegations of what constituted serious wrongdoing if they were
true. I then sought the advice of my deputy minister and of the
solicitor general. I think I did what every member of the House
would expect the Minister of Justice to do.
It is a matter of simple principle. If you are fixed with that kind
of allegation of wrongdoing and take the advice of your deputy and
the solicitor general, you communicate the information to the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and let them do with it what they
want. If I had not done that, I can just imagine the yowls of protest
from the parties opposite. In this matter, I did the right thing.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the questions that are being posed
should go to the administrative responsibility of the ministers or
the government at the time that they were in government.
I would ask you and caution you please in your questions to deal
with those matters rather than things that happened before someone
came into a particular position of responsibility.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Monday
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans told the House that the aboriginal only commercial fishery
3927
then under way in the Alberni Inlet on Vancouver Island was based
on section 35 of the Constitution.
Does the minister accept the position put forward by his
parliamentary secretary that native only commercial fisheries are
indeed mandated by the Constitution?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member what I have told him and
other members of his party time and time again. I will say one more
time that the first priority for salmon fishing is conservation or
escapement. Second is the aboriginal fishery. Third is recreational
and commercial fishing. This is constitutional and in accordance
with government policy, It is in accordance with the aboriginal
fishery strategy and every law the country has ever made. I cannot
put it any more clearly.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I could not
agree more with the minister.
The fact is that after section 35, the minister and his government
have inserted another fishery, an aboriginal only commercial
fishery. That fishery has no basis in the Constitution. In the
Sparrow decision it was rejected or the idea of a commercial
fishery was not addressed. In the most recent decision by the
Supreme Court of Canada, the court declared that natives had a
right to fish for food, ceremonial and religious purposes. There was
no mention whatsoever of a commercial fishery.
Will the minister accept full responsibility and accountability for
the native only commercial fishery which is operating in the
Alberni Inlet?
(1455 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that the policies are set
forth. They are clear and are understood by everybody.
I wonder if the hon. member would try to get on board and
understand the policies so that he could back them along with the
government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
announced that, this fall, the federal government will be
introducing a bill to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures
Act, with a view to counteracting the effects of the American
Helms-Burton bill with its extraterritorial effects.
Faced with this unacceptable legislation that has been objected
to on many occasions by Canada and a large part of the
international community, how can the Minister for International
Trade turn his back on the urgency of the situation and defer until
fall the planned amendments to the Canadian Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Helms-Burton bill in terms of the claims
that can be filed is not in effect until August 1. The President of the
United States can defer that. We hope he will because we hope we
are sending a strong signal by our action today and other countries
in support of it as well.
Even at that, even if it goes into effect on August 1, it means that
claims cannot be filed in the U.S. courts until November 1. By that
point in time the details of this legislation will be in front of this
House.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
fought long and hard to get the World Trade Organization
established, but by caving in on the lumber issue, we have allowed
the United States to get away with another bilateral bullying tactic.
By doing so, we have hurt not only our lumber industry but the very
organization we should be turning to to settle disputes of this
nature.
Now that the minister has seen the results of his badly thought
out softwood lumber agreement, will he not admit that he should
have taken this dispute to the World Trade Organization for
settlement once and for all?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. We assessed our chances of success under
NAFTA and under the WTO. The companies did as well, the
companies that create the jobs which are important for the survival
of that industry.
The industry quite clearly said that it wanted us to bring about
the security of access for the market in the United States. We were
able to do that. We were able to get a five year secure access,
something we have never had before, and it was with the very
strong support of this country's lumber industry.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has to do
with the issue of trade and the environment. It comes in the wake of
an assessment made by environment groups relative to this
government's record on this matter. They described it as probably
being the worst administration in the 25 years of Environment
Canada.
In its negotiations with Chile, is the government insisting on the
Government of Chile signing into a side agreement on the
environment as a condition of entering into a trade agreement?
Does it intend to respect that commitment?
3928
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the side agreements on both labour and
the environment are unprecedented, except for the case of NAFTA.
They were worked out in our provisions that NAFTA has put in
place. We want Chile, if it is going to become a part of NAFTA,
to also abide by the same agreements. Therefore, we are
negotiating an improvement in terms of an environmental
agreement in our negotiations with Chile.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, often
individuals who are evading the GST do so to evade income tax.
Can the minister of revenue explain which issues have been
undertaken to reduce and capture the real underground economy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my sense that Canadians more and more understand
that participating in the underground economy is not a victimless
crime. When a Canadian decides not to pay taxes, another one has
to pick up the slack.
In Revenue Canada we take this very seriously. Our seven point
program targeting the underground economy has returned over a
billion dollars to the Canadian coffers.
(1500 )
More recently, in partnership with the construction industry, we
have implemented a voluntary reporting system that will provide
Revenue Canada with the information it needs to limit even further
the underground activity in that important sector.
If I may, I would like to recognize the Canadian Construction
Association, the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the
Canadian Construction Union for their participation in this
program and say that together we will ensure there is a level
playing field for this important sector of the Canadian economy.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the members the
presence in the gallery of His Royal Highness, Crown Prince
El-Hassan Bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Colleagues, before going to the daily routine of
business, in the past few days we lost one of the longest serving
Canadian parliamentarians in our history. I refer of course to the
Hon. George Hees.
We will pay tribute to the Hon. George Hees at this time.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, only a
few days ago we lost one of the longest serving members of this
place. Mr. Hees served with great distinction as a member of
Parliament for 37 years.
Mr. Hees had a very distinguished career. He also had a full life,
full of brightness and joy. He was kind enough to share his
unlimited talents with Canadians.
Mr. Hees studied and graduated from the University of Toronto.
He also studied at Cambridge in England. He was an athlete who
played for the Toronto Argonauts and had the privilege of being on
a Grey Cup winning team.
He served in the Canadian Armed Forces in the second world
war as a brigade major in the Fifth Infantry Brigade. He was
wounded and returned home in 1945. One of his good friends at the
service in his honour mentioned a typical Hees story regarding his
return to Canada. He came home, the dashing war hero with his
arm in a sling, and enjoyed the attention he received everywhere he
went, at receptions and elsewhere. The friend told the story of one
evening Mr. Hees returned home after one those receptions with the
wrong arm in the sling.
Mr. Hees then went on to take an interest in public life. He ran
unsuccessfully for the House of Commons in 1945, but was elected
in 1950. He subsequently became president of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada in the years that preceded the
election of the Diefenbaker minority government in 1957, and the
majority government in 1958.
(1505 )
In the Diefenbaker government he was appointed minister of
transport and served with great distinction in that portfolio. He
went on to the department of trade and commerce and is
remembered with a great deal of fondness by those who worked
with him at that time.
Mr. Hees was an unabashed cheerleader of Canada. He was a
supporter of his officials and his department and could be a
fantastic person for whom to work. Those people who worked with
him in the department at the time remember the presence of this
minister who demonstrated that, yes, a minister can make a
substantial difference within a single department.
Under his leadership in trade and commerce, the department
went on to promote trade with other countries and it did this with an
unprecedented level of success.
Mr. Hees left politics in 1963. This was a difficult time, as some
members will remember, for the government of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Hees, at the time, chose to retire from active politics. He went
3929
on to become president of the Montreal Stock Exchange. He, who
had been from Toronto, was now living in Montreal. He also did
very well in that responsibility.
He returned to active politics in 1965 and was re-elected. He
then went on to serve until he was again named to cabinet in 1984
in the government of Brian Mulroney. This time he was appointed
minister of veterans affairs. Of all the accomplishments of his life,
at no point did Mr. Hees distinguish himself more than in that
portfolio. To this day people who work in that department, who I
know and see from time to time, and veterans, remember him very
fondly.
Mr. Speaker, you may remember the VIP program that he
extended to 10,000 veterans at the time. Mr. Hees, at every
opportunity, used to say to people when he was minister of veterans
affairs, how every Canadian was a special person. He would pause
and remind us that those who had served in those extraordinary
circumstances were, in his mind, exceptionally important to the
country. He is still very fondly remembered for what he did for
each and every one of them.
Mr. Hees served until 1988 when he decided not to run again and
was named an ambassador. He is also remembered fondly for some
of the work he did in that capacity.
I have a personal story to tell from the first cabinet meeting that I
ever attended. I do not think I am sharing any great secret here. As
we sat around the table on that very first day, the prime minister
reminded us that two people there, who because of their ages could
not get into the Senate. Of course I was under 30 years old and Mr.
Hees was over 75. Mr. Hees' reply was: ``At least in Charest's case
it can be fixed''.
Mr. Hees also had a great deal of enthusiasm for his country and
his fellow citizens. What impressed me the most about him was
how at ease he was with himself. Here was a man who had a good
sense of who he was and of the experiences of his life. He was
extremely generous and shared a great deal. His wife, Mabel, also
shared his political life. Mibs was her nickname. She was an
extraordinary person. I want to extend to his three daughters and, as
well, to all those Canadians who remember Mr. Hees our sincere
condolences.
[Translation]
Mr. Hees was an alumnus of the Royal Military College
and-something I would mention in passing as being of interest to
the people of Quebec-did battle with George Drew here in this
House to get the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean created.
I recall that we found, in researching the history of the creation
of that military college, a House of Commons discussion between
George Hees and Léon Balcer-the former MP for Trois-Rivières,
I might point out-in which Mr. Hees defended the idea of creating
a royal military college in Quebec. He felt, based on his
experience, that this was extremely important. This was a man with
a profound sense of what Canada was, and we will miss him.
[English]
To his family, all his friends and those who have had the pleasure
of working with Mr. Hees, our sincere condolences.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great
sadness that I learned of the death of my good friend George Hees.
(1510 )
He was a man with whom I had the honour to serve in Parliament
for 10 years. He represented Toronto Broadview which is the first
constituency in which I lived when I came to this country and was
very active in local politics in the east end of Toronto.
He had a long and distinguished career. He had great affection
for Parliament as an institution. He was in the best sense of the
word a House of Commons man. He was first elected in 1950 and
saw some very interesting times in Canadian history, as has been
pointed out by the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Throughout all of the political wars, George Hees was
unflappable. He was a man of great humour, one who always had a
spark in his eyes and always had a very benign quip at any
situation.
In fact I remember the regular sparring that went on between
George Hees and Pierre Trudeau on the floor of the House of
Commons. These became rituals to which everyone paid attention
and the Speakers at the time, Speaker Jerome and Speaker Sauvé,
never had to gavel down members because everyone hushed to see
who would get the better of the argument. While I have tremendous
respect for Pierre Trudeau, my former leader, I have to admit that
George got the better of Pierre Trudeau many, many times because
he was quick on his feet, he had a great sense of wit and a great
sense of history and was able to duel verbally with the prime
minister of the time.
As has been pointed out, he spent his career in three different
fields. He was a parliamentarian, he was a soldier and he was a
sportsman. The young George Hees was a great athletic specimen.
He played in the Grey Cup and won with the Toronto Argonauts in
1938. We could certainly use George Hees today. We could have
used him the last 20 or 30 years, given the problems we have had
with our football team. George was there in the days when the Grey
Cup was very much a passion within Canada and certainly within
Toronto and contributed much to sports excellence, not only as a
professional football player but in other fields.
3930
As a soldier he was one who was prepared to make the ultimate
sacrifice. He was wounded at the battle of the Schelde and he
carried those wounds with him until his death.
He was a man who I think could be best remembered for his
service as a minister of veterans affairs because he had great
empathy with those people. He believed that the veterans from the
first and second world wars were the greatest of Canadians of our
generation because these were people who fought for democracy,
fought for liberty but also had to fight for economic survival in the
depression. These were people who knew that what hard times
were but these were people who knew after the war that we had to
build a new society. He felt that they understood the true meaning
in the Canadian experience, the kind of just society that we had to
fight to preserve and the just society that we had to build for the
newer generation, like myself and others who are younger.
As I said, he was a man of great humour. He was a man who I
understand at the opening of the Ottawa airport terminal in 1962,
when he was minister, was waiting to speak and the Royal
Canadian Air Force did a fly past and they flew pretty close to the
terminal and all the windows broke. That did not put George Hees
off. He just went along with his speech in the unflappable,
dedicated way that we knew of him.
His wife, Mabel, was one who garnered great affection in
Parliament. She was always with him. She was always supportive.
Like George she was a genuinely nice person.
If those of us who serve in the House today could only have a
small percentage of the qualities of George Hees, then I think that
we could say that we were good parliamentarians.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and the government I wish to
extend our sincere condolences to his daughters and to the rest of
his family. We have truly witnessed the passing of a great
parliamentarian, a great soldier and a great man.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add my voice to those of the representatives of the other
parties, expressing my most sincere condolences, and those of my
colleagues, to Mrs. Hees and their three daughters. I would like to
take a few moments for some memories of Mr. Hees.
(1515)
Mr. Hees was a great sportsman, an exceptional parliamentarian
and a career soldier, as well as a minister known for his great
efficiency. He was also known in Quebec, more than any other
anglophone minister of his day, for having been one of the directors
of the Montreal International Expo, during the brief hiatus he took
in 1963 in his political career, as well as president of the Montreal
stock exchange. We also know how involved he was in working for
the creation of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. In all, a
politician acknowledged by Quebec as having been a good
spokesperson for its interests.
As well, he was one of the few politicians to have been a minister
in two governments, 20 years apart. He was a minister under
Diefenbaker and again in the last Mulroney government.
His work on behalf of war veterans is acknowledged in every
Canadian Legion, as well as throughout the world. He has been
held up often as an example of support, not only moral support but
also concrete action, on behalf of veterans, and for gaining
recognition of their true value to society.
I had the honour of getting to know him personally, particularly
from 1984 on. At the Conservative candidates' school prior to the
September 1984 election, when I spent three days in Ottawa in the
month of August, one of the lecturers was Mr. Hees himself. He
spoke glowingly of his methods for getting elected every time, of
how he did his door to door campaigning. I was very much struck
by his way of reaching out to people and his contagious good
humour.
This man was an exceptional communicator, as well as a great
perfectionist in everything he did. He was characterized by his
extreme respect for his colleagues and a most exceptional sense of
team work.
We have lost a great democrat. We would like to express our
most sincere condolences to his widow and their three daughters,
and our sincere appreciation for all that he has contributed to
democracy in Canada and Quebec.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a few comments on behalf of the Reform Party of
Canada. I extend our sincere condolences to George Hees'
daughters, his grandchildren, his great grandchild and to the many
friends I am sure he has built up over the generations.
George's service to his country was automatic, whether it was
serving the country during World War II or whether it was serving
in the House as he did for nearly four decades.
George Hees was first elected in a 1950 byelection and won
every election from then on until his retirement in 1988 with the
exception of the 1963 election. Imagine running and winning every
single time. That is an amazing legacy in itself.
He served in the cabinets of John Diefenbaker and Brian
Mulroney. He proved to be a very capable and effective minister
and administrator.
In 1988, after his retirement, he was named Prime Minister
Mulroney's personal advisor and ambassador at large, overseeing
3931
the transportation, storage and distribution of Canada's food aid
programs in the third world.
Although he was offered a Senate appointment several times, he
always declined. That is something which is very remarkable. Even
though he was offered a no-cut contract, he always declined
because he thought there were other things he could be doing.
Mr. Hees was popular and respected by members of all political
parties. When he retired from the House he said that serving in the
House of Commons is the finest profession any Canadian could
have because of the association with MPs from all parties and that
everyone is here because they are trying to do a job for the people
of Canada. That is really noble. It is certainly the reason we are all
here.
I am very fortunate in that one of my staff members worked for
George Hees for some time. When he retired in 1988 I was able to
hire her when I first came here in 1989. I spoke with her on the
phone this morning for a short while: ``Jenny, what do you
remember about George Hees?'' She said: ``He was sure good to
work for''. A personal testimonial like that is worth a million
dollars. She said he was charming and that everybody knew him as
George. If he was on the street in Northumberland in his home area
people would walk up to him and say: ``Hi, George. How are you?''
He was theirs. They did not address him very formally because he
was just one of them. They appreciated him as George.
(1520)
He retired in 1988 but left an amazing legacy, serving as a senior
minister. One thing I was really impressed with was that he was
very frugal. He did not think it was appropriate to just ring up
taxpayer dollars for all kinds of things.
One example is that when he moved into one office the carpet
was fairly well worn. He said: ``We do not have the money right
now to replace this carpet''. So there it stayed. It got older and
more and more frayed. Finally when the day came to replace the
carpet and the workers came to clear the old carpet out, they
thought it should go to the museum because it looked that old and
would be a great piece for the museum.
That philosophy of serving people was the essence of George
Hees. He never forgot why he was here and what he was fighting
for. Although he is no longer with us, I am sure his legacy will live
on in the House and in minds and hearts of the Canadian people.
On behalf of the Reform Party, we send our condolences to his
family and say a personal thank you, George, for all you did for us.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to express a
tribute in the House on the sad passing of George Hees without
bringing words of condolence and respect from my constituents in
Northumberland.
To this day Northumberland thinks of George Hees with great
pride for the 23 years he so ably served the constituents of the
riding of Northumberland. The tenacity and hard work of George
Hees and his inherent sense of politics earned him the support of
his Northumberland constituents for a period of 23 years.
As we have heard, throughout his military and political careers
George Hees served Canada and his constituents beyond the call of
duty. He was a devoted parliamentarian and a person who believed
in the great potential of Canada and Canadians.
As Mr. Hees' successor in the riding of Northumberland, I can
attest to the fact that he was well loved throughout the riding. He
was respected and admired on a non-partisan basis. He was a true
gentleman. His legacy in the region is alive and well. Around
Northumberland there still abound everyone's favourite George
Hees stories.
One of mine remains his comment to me the night before my
first election. He said he felt I had run a very good campaign. I do
not know if at that time he imagined I would win that election
campaign by a resounding 27 votes, but I can say that my success
on that campaign of 1988 in large part was due to the fact that as a
campaigner one did not forget to speak of George Hees with great
respect and admiration.
In Northumberland we are very proud of George Hees and the
way he represented us. My heartfelt condolences and sympathy go
out to his family and all the many friends of George Hees.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the New Democrats in the House today I join with my
colleagues to pay tribute to George Hees, honouring his long record
of public service, military service and parliamentary service.
I had the opportunity to sit in the House of Commons with Mr.
Hees for nine years. I echo the comments of the Minister of
National Defence that George Hees was a House of Commons man
and someone who gave to this place and to those who came here as
new members an appropriate sense of the responsibility and also
the joy and collegiality of being a member of Parliament.
I say with some regret that I do not always feel the House is as
collegial as it was in previous Parliaments or as George Hees would
have liked it to continue to be.
I was here for some of the exchanges between George Hees and
former Prime Minister Trudeau. I remember very well the day
when he stepped out and raised his dukes, so to speak, and
challenged the Prime Minister in a kidding sort of way that perhaps
they could settle the matter outside.
3932
(1525)
I remember very well his daily walks. I used to run into him near
the flame and elsewhere because I have the habit of going for a
walk myself. Many times I had the opportunity to have informal
conversations with Mr. Hees and I came to like him very much.
I swam at the Chateau Laurier and I used to talk to him there. He
was just that kind of person you could get to know. He was as very
interested in younger people who had been elected to Parliament.
He would give you a bit of the history of this place and get you to
have the right feel for your job.
An article in the Globe and Mail this morning entitled ``Lives
Lived'' was about George Hees. For the record, because I know he
would not want the memory of another happy warrior in this place
to be misreported, when he beat Pauline Jewett in 1965 she was not
a Socialist, she was a Liberal. She became a Socialist later when
she became more successful.
When George Hees became the Minister of Veterans Affairs in
1985 my case work with respect to veterans affairs dropped just
like that. As Minister of Veterans Affairs he must have told the
bureaucrats in the civil service: ``Clean up your act. I want you to
give the benefit of the doubt to veterans. I do not want anymore of
this stalling and delaying''. It made a real difference. Anybody who
was a member of Parliament could see it at that time. Your case
load with respect to veterans affairs literally disappeared overnight
when George Hees became the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I want
to pay tribute to that particular element of his career.
On behalf of the NDP I extend our condolences to his family. I
am very sorry on a personal level that he is no longer with us.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, George Hees was married on June 30, 1934 to
Mabel Dunlop of Pembroke, Ontario. Mabs Dunlop, as she was
known, was the daughter of A.E. Dunlop, the provincial treasurer
in the Conservative government in Ontario for many years. George
was very proud to have married into that family. The Hon. A.E.
Dunlop, the former treasurer of Ontario, died earlier that year just
before George and Mabs were married.
As Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. George Hees invited
me and others in the House at the time to the 45th anniversary of
the Dieppe raid. I can recall how emotional he was at times during
that visit. He did a great job for Canada as a spokesperson, as one to
represent the veterans, and we had many cenotaph ceremonies
remembering those who died at the battle of Dieppe.
As veterans affairs minister George Hees was very personal,
very in depth and had a great empathy for his job. All veterans got
the benefit of the doubt when they asked George Hees to look into a
case.
One of the reasons George Hees lived from 1910 until 1996 was
that he was a great believer in physical exercise, as mentioned by a
previous speaker. He was always out doing his thing early in the
morning and even in the evenings. Besides being a great person in
phys-ed, he was never at a loss for words either.
He was first elected in 1950 and then re-elected in 1953, 1957,
1958 and 1962. He did not run in 1963. He came back into the
House in 1965, when I was first elected. He was in the House for
the next 23 years after that.
(1530 )
Of interest, I believe nearly all of the ministers from the Ontario
cabinet came to Pembroke for his father-in-law's funeral in 1934.
George was a hail fellow well met. When we came back from the
the 45th anniversary of the Dieppe raid, I delivered a statement in
the House praising George Hees and thanking him for doing such a
fine job in leading that delegation to that very important memorial.
I recall at the time Mary Collins from Vancouver sent me a kind
note across the House thanking me for saying something nice about
George Hees because in those days not very many people said nice
things about anybody. Nevertheless he was a tremendous fellow.
I have one last comment with respect to George's in-laws. It is of
interest to note that Paul Martin Senior first ran in the old Renfrew
North provincial riding against A.E. Dunlop who was George's
father-in-law. The most interesting part of that story is that Paul
Martin Senior's father worked in the lumber yard for A.E. Dunlop
and his son was running against A.E. Dunlop in the provincial
election. That created a little interest. George was always one to tell
a lot of stories of his background.
Today we are really celebrating the life of a person who spent 35
years of elected service in this House of Commons. As the
representative for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I extend to
George's family and all his relatives and friends sincere
condolences from Lois and me today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In conclusion I thank all the
members who participated during the past half hour in the tribute to
the late George Hees.
_____________________________________________
3932
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I
3933
have the honour to table in both official languages the
government's responses to 15 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 108(2), I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on
the Environment and Sustainable Development relating to the
second Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held
on March 13 and 14, 1996 in Yellowknife, and to the third
ministerial meeting on the Arctic environment protection strategy,
held on March 19 and 21, 1996 in Inuvik.
[English]
The committee is recommending that the government take the
necessary measures to implement the recommendations contained
in the statement of the second conference of parliamentarians, that
the standing committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic have a
permanent and substantive role in the Arctic council, and finally
that the Parliament of Canada formally recognize the standing
committee of parliamentarians of the Arctic.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a response to this report.
[English]
I would like to thank officials from Environment Canada for
their excellent work in co-ordinating the conference of
parliamentarians.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health has the honour to
present its first report in accordance with its order of reference of
Thursday, March 7, 1996.
Your committee has considered votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
under health in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1997 and reports the same.
* * *
(1535 )
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-314, an act respecting the provision of
compensation to public safety officers who lost their lives while on
duty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased together with
the hon. member for Mississauga East to introduce this bill to the
House today, to establish a registered charitable trust fund for the
benefit of families of police and firefighters killed in the line of
duty.
The fund will be administered by an independent board and will
be set up to receive such money as appropriated to it by Parliament,
or a legislature of a province, or as received by gift or bequest.
Canadians are aware of the daily risks that face our police and
firefighters as they serve our emergent needs. When one of them
loses their life in the line of duty, all of us mourn that loss. This
fund would be a tangible way for Canadians to honour their
courageous service and to assist their loved ones in their time of
need.
I therefore hope my bill will have the strong support of all hon.
members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-315, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of witnesses).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend
the Criminal Code. The purpose of this bill is to protect witnesses
and complainants in proceedings in which the accused is charged
with a sexual offence, sexual assault or where violence has been
used, threatened or attempted.
This bill is designed to prevent the accused who represent
themselves from cross-examining the victims in such proceedings.
Victims and witnesses under the age of 14 will also be covered by
the provisions allowing them to testify in camera. This bill is part
of a larger strategy to eliminate violence against women. I hope it
will meet with the approval of this House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have one petition requesting that there be a full public
inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the
judiciary and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of
judges with ties to credit granting institutions.
3934
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first two petitions, containing 43 signatures each, request
that the House adopt the private members' bill to provide in
Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition contains the signatures of 48 constituents of Simcoe
North. They request that Parliament regulate the longstanding
Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and
colour similar to that of their brand name equivalents.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present two petitions, duly certified by the clerk of
petitions, on behalf of 139 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure
that the present provisions of the human rights act and the charter
of rights and freedoms prohibiting amendments to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships, homosexuality and the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation remain in force.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions with
signatures totalling approximately 150 from residents in my riding
from Port au Port east and Port au Port west, Aguathuna,
Stephenville, Kippens and St. George's.
(1540 )
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and
refer the problem of educational reform back to the Government of
Newfoundland for resolution by non-constitutional means.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition which states that there is an unequal division of
federal subsidies between non-renewable and renewable energy
generating sectors.
The petitioners state that an immediate shift of a major portion
of funds from AECL to the renewable energy sector would
stimulate this industry thereby making it able to meet a huge pent
up demand from consumers for domestically produced
photovoltaic and wind turbine components. Coupled with tax
incentives, this would help create uncounted thousands of new long
term jobs.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to realize the
immediate benefit of clean energy generation and job creation in
light of Canada's commitment to agenda 21 and to act in this regard
without further delay.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I put forward a
petition, which has been duly certified by the clerk as to proper
form and content, from residents of Pickering, Etobicoke,
Mississauga and other communities. The petitioners pray that
Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for
Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in
Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, both of which have
been circulating across Canada.
The first petition comes from Gloucester, Ontario. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against the traditional family who make the choice to
provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Kingston, Ontario. The petitioners
would like to bring to the attention of the House that consumption
of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's
ability and specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and other
alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by
avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
3935
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, my Question No. 9 to which I
requested a reply within 45 days has been sitting on the Order
Paper since September 1994.
I spoke with the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader who indicated a few days ago that there were only
four government departments remaining that have not come forth
with a reply. I wonder if the government might indicate which four
departments are so slow in responding with an answer to my
question.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that matter up
with the appropriate members on this side and determine what the
delay has been.
_____________________________________________
3935
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole
ineligibility) and another act, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
(1545 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The government whip has
instructed that the vote will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, June 18
at 5.30 p.m.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old
Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. David Anderson (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act,
the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): When shall the bill be read a
third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Anderson (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the
bill be read a third time and passed.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on third
reading of Bill C-36, the 1995 budget tax measures bill.
As hon. members will recall, that budget focused not only on
cutting program spending, it also focused on tax fairness which
remains a priority of the government.
On the spending reduction side, for the three year period on
which last year's budget focused, 1995-96 to 1997-98, there were
almost $7 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. Spending
reductions for this three year period totalled $25.3 billion with the
burden being shared.
On the tax fairness side, in the 1995 budget we introduced
several tax measures which are all based on the principle of
fairness and equity in the tax system. These measures accomplish a
tightening of the administration of the tax system, a removal or
reduction in a number of tax preferences, and an increase in
fairness in the system.
Since the time of the 1995 budget announcement the government
has responded to the concerns of Canadians and members of the
House about the impact of some of these measures, and changes
have been made. The government believes in consulting with
Canadians and taking action in response where it is warranted. I
want to briefly highlight now some of the main measures of this
bill reflecting that input.
3936
The government believes tax assistance should be provided to
Canadians to encourage them to save for retirement and that the
fiscal cost of this tax assistance should be shared fairly. Changes
in Bill C-36 help to achieve this. Under this bill the contribution
limits for registered retirement savings plans and money purchase
registered pension plans are being reduced to $13,500 this year.
They will rise incrementally to $15,500 in 1999 and 1998
respectively. The 1996 budget subsequently froze these limits at
$13,500 for another six years. These additional limits will be dealt
with in legislation to be introduced at a later time.
Bill C-36 also reduces the over contribution allowance to RRSPs
from $8,000 to $2,000. Originally intended to help taxpayers who
inadvertently make an over contribution error, this measure will
now restrict those taxpayers who took advantage and made
deliberate over contributions. However, over contributions made
before budget day are excluded from this penalty.
In addition, Bill C-36 gradually eliminates the tax free transfer
of retiring allowances to RRSPs. Given other changes in the
retirement savings system, this measure has outlived its usefulness.
Another area affected by the bill is family trusts. As hon.
members know, this has been an area of concern to many
Canadians. In the 1994 budget the Minister of Finance referred the
taxation of family trusts to the finance committee to review, among
other things, the election to defer the 21 year deemed disposition
rule allowed by the previous government. To ensure that capital
property cannot be held for the benefit of successive generations of
trust beneficiaries without tax consequences arising on death, there
is a deemed disposition of a trust's capital property every 21 years.
The previous government had changed this to allow for the first 21
year deemed disposition date to be deferred until the death of
beneficiaries who are no more than one generation away from the
settlor.
(1550)
Bill C-36 contains two measures that affect the tax regimes of
these family trusts. One deals with the undue deferral of capital
gains. The other affects the splitting of trust income because of the
preferred beneficiary election.
The preferred beneficiary election allows trust income for
income tax purposes to be allocated to preferred beneficiaries
without any requirement that the beneficiaries actually receive the
amount allocated. Bill C-36 limits the preferred beneficiary
election to disabled beneficiaries. This will ensure trust income
cannot be arbitrarily allocated to a beneficiary instead of being
taxed at the trust level just because the beneficiary is at a low
marginal tax rate.
Bill C-36 also eliminates the election to defer the 21 year rule.
This measure removes the possibility of this election causing the
undue deferral of capital gains. It also addresses the perception that
family trusts are some sort of tax shelter.
Trusts for which an election to defer the 21 year rule has already
been made will be subject to a deemed disposition of trust assets at
fair market value on January 1, 1999.
The 1995 budget increased the corporate surtax from 3 per cent
to 4 per cent of basic federal income tax. As a result, additional
corporate revenues of $115 million to $120 million annually should
be generated.
In addition, the large corporations tax, which applies to all
corporations with over $10 million in capital, is being raised from
0.2 per cent to 0.225 per cent. An extra $150 million a year in
corporate revenues is anticipated from this measure.
Further, this bill includes a temporary surcharge of 12 per cent,
levied under part VI of the Income Tax Act, on the capital tax paid
by banks and other large deposit taking institutions between
February 26, 1995 and October 31, 1996. These measures ensure
these institutions contribute to deficit reduction.
As hon. members will know, the surcharge was extended for
another year in the 1996 budget. Again, this will be dealt with in
legislation to be discussed in the House at some time in the future.
Finally, an additional six and two-thirds per cent tax on the
investment income of Canadian controlled private corporations
will reduce their tax deferral opportunity.
[Translation]
In that regard, allow me to stress that Bill C-36 ends the tax
deferral on business income.
While businesses could previously choose the date on which
their fiscal year ended, December 31 will now be the date set as the
end of the fiscal year for all businesses.
However, the government received a number of comments on
this provision, and some amendments were made in order to
address the concerns expressed by some businesses regarding,
among other things, seasonal activities.
A special ``alternative'' method of calculating income will now
be available to some businesses that prefer an off-calendar fiscal
period.
These taxpayers will have to review their income to consider the
money earned between the end of their fiscal period and the end of
the calendar year.
Bill C-36 also introduces the Canadian film and video tax credit,
which will directly benefit Canadian film production companies. It
replaces the outdated capital cost allowance tax shelter, which
concerned producers of Canadian certified films.
3937
The film producer will now receive all the benefits from the
new Canadian film and video tax credit. In addition, the credit will
be available only to businesses whose main activity is the
production of Canadian films or videos in Canada. This very
specific clause should restrict credit applications aimed at
avoiding taxes on income from other sources.
(1555)
[English]
Let me move on now to some of the other highlights of the bill.
Bill C-36 provides special enhanced tax assistance for donations of
ecologically sensitive land. When certified ecologically sensitive
land is donated to a charity or municipal body, there will be no
annual income restrictions on the donor. Currently the limit is 20
per cent of donor's income.
Bill C-36 eliminates the inflation of certain scientific research
and experimental development measures, SR and ED tax credits,
and improves that administration of these tax incentives.
There will be restrictions on the expenditures on which SR and
ED investment tax credits can be earned, and non-profit SR and ED
corporations exempt from tax will now have to report their SR and
ED work and expenditures.
Another measure in the bill protects the collection of source
deductions by making secured creditors who interfere with the
remittance of source deductions liable for remittance along with
any interest and penalty charges, just as the taxpayer is liable.
As a result of Bill C-36, seniors with incomes over $53,215 who
have to pay back some of their old age security benefits at tax filing
time will now have tax withheld when benefits are being paid out.
Finally, Revenue Canada will be extending the use of the
business number, that is the one registration number for business
dealings with government, to other departments and levels of
government that have a legal right to this information. This will
reduce overlap and duplication and increase efficiency for both
business and government.
I have summarized the highlights of Bill C-36. It contains
straightforward tax measures that exemplify the government's
commitment to fairness and equity in the tax system. I am also
pleased the bill as it has now emerged reflects the input of
Canadians and hon. members to which we have responded.
I thank hon. members for their assistance through all stages of
the bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass Bill C-36.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at third reading of
Bill C-36, which primarily seeks to implement measures proposed
in the 1995 budget, along with some from the 1996 budget.
As is its habit with the majority of bills, the government included
a series of scattered and ill-assorted measures in the same bill. Of
course, there are some positive things in Bill C-36, including the
provisions on tax deferral, gifts of ecologically sensitive land,
business number and, in particular, the film tax credit, which we
strongly supported during the proceedings of the finance
committee, since it will benefit the whole industry.
The problem with Bill C-36 is that, in spite of these positive
measures, the government, true to form, introduces a few measures
that are particularly harmful or not very meaningful, but all tied up
in pink ribbon.
Remember when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget
speech and told us that, yes, the government had heard the plea
made by the official opposition and that it would reform family
trusts. The official opposition went through three different states of
mind. First, we were pleased because, at last, the government was
listening to us and would reform a totally unfair program. Second,
we were disappointed, because the reform would only be
implemented as of 1999.
So, although some positive action was to be taken to correct the
unfairness resulting from family trusts, the government was giving
until 1999 to those who benefit from this program to transfer their
assets into other tax planning vehicles which will be just as
effective in terms of avoiding the payment of taxes.
(1600)
I would like to take a look at two measures in the bill, the one
involving family trusts, of course, with a recent example to
illustrate my point, the one brought up by the auditor general, and I
will conclude with the positive measure in Bill C-36 regarding film
tax credits.
First, I will look at family trusts. As I mentioned, we had been
waiting a long time for this measure and the government
disappointed us. Why were we disappointed? As early as the 1993
election campaign, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois,
pointed out the problem with the family trust system. We had two
goals in mind: the first was to show, using this example, that there
was a problem with the Canadian tax system, that it was in need of
reform, not tinkering, but heavy duty reform.
Our second goal was to show that there were people in Canada
who were not paying their share, and that these people were not the
poorest, nor are they today, but the richest. The people who have
been able to use this family trust provision are not in the average
income bracket, they are not people earning under $200,000 a year,
or people earning $35,000. For the most part, those using family
trusts as a tax planning tool are the rich and the ultra rich.
3938
What was the government's response? First it said: ``We will
reinstate the 21 year rule''. What is the 21 year rule? The answer
is very simple. The Conservatives, preceding the present
government, had changed this rule, which had existed previously
and which provided that, at the end of the 21st year of a family
trust, the trustees had to realize their assets, in other words,
estimate their assets and pay the capital gains accumulated over
the 21 years.
The Conservatives changed this rule so that the capital gains tax
payable could be carried forward until the death of the last
beneficiary. Therefore, if the trust beneficiary lived to age 80, no
capital gains tax was paid for 80 years.
This was really unfair, unfair to everyone. What we wanted was
not just a return to the 21 year rule, as Bill C-36 proposes, but a
review of all family trusts and not just the 21 year rule, because,
with spreading tax over 21 years, let me tell you a tax dollar in the
first year will not be worth the same as a tax dollar in the 21st year.
We are already questioning the rule underlying this 21 year rule,
never mind the 80 year rule.
Second, not only during the 1993 election campaign, but at every
opportunity in the deliberations of the Standing Committee on
Finance, the official opposition called for an in-depth review of the
Canadian tax system so that family trusts, in combination with
other provisions of the Income Tax Act, foreign tax conventions
and so on, could not provide an excuse for rich Canadian families
to avoid paying their due to Revenue Canada.
(1605)
The government did not listen to us. Instead, it introduced Bill
C-36, which sets out slightly better realization of assets rules for
family trusts by reducing the time period from about 80 years to 21
years. But what we need is a comprehensive review, not only of
family trusts, but also of the Income Tax Act, of some general tax
provisions and of international conventions.
We must ensure that each of these scattered provisions no longer
allow the wealthiest Canadian families to avoid paying taxes to the
federal government.
To illustrate what the official opposition has been contending for
almost two and a half years about family trusts and the need for a
comprehensive review of the tax system, in his recent report, tabled
on May 7, the Auditor General of Canada brought to light
something we had been suspecting for a long time, a problem we
had been raising almost every day in this House, at the Standing
Committee on Finance and at the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts presided by my hon. colleague from
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.
In his report, the auditor general reveals that, in December 1991,
a family trust holder had transferred to the United States $2 billion
in assets without paying a cent in taxes. This transaction took place
in 1991, the whole process, all the regulations and the analysis that
made it possible to transfer billions of dollars to the U.S. tax free
only came to light in March and in May of this year, when the
auditor general blew the whistle on this.
How could the transfer of $2 billion be pulled off? Exactly the
way we said it could be done every time we stood in this House to
question the Minister of Finance on family trusts. By using the
family trust provisions. By using the capital gains provisions of the
Income Tax Act. By using the lack of clarity of the non-resident
provisions of the Income Tax Act. And fifth, by using the tax
convention between Canada and the United States.
It was a mix of all that and, to be able to afford mixing all that,
you have to be a millionaire. Do you know why? Because you
would have to hire the top tax experts in Canada to know how to
use all these tax rules, how to use the family trust scheme, and to be
on top of the latest decisions or the latest analyses made by
Revenue Canada. What the auditor general tells us clearly
illustrates what we have been saying ever since we were elected to
this House. A Canadian resident was able to transfer $2 billion in
assets to the U.S. without having to pay a penny in taxes now or in
the future.
This case did so much to illustrate the shortcomings of the tax
system, as well as the relationship between the system and the great
tax experts representing the families of Canadian millionaires and
billionaires, that, after the auditor general published his report, the
federal government felt it had to try to suppress this affair.
This shows two things. First, that there is no political will on the
other side to really correct the deficiencies of the tax system, in
particular the links between family trusts, tax agreements and the
tax system in general; and second, that the government has things
to hide.
Why do I say this? Because, if they wanted to correct the
situation, I feel they should go beyond the little provision on family
trusts in Bill C-36, which provides for two minor measures, by first
getting to the bottom of these family trusts that were transferred to
the U.S. A $2 billion trust means that someone got to keep a lot of
money without paying any taxes on it. They should first get to the
bottom of this and then quickly review the whole tax system openly
and publicly, instead of behind closed doors.
(1610)
There has been a slight improvement compared to what the
Minister of Finance announced in his last budget. Although the
group still consists of eight experts behind closed doors, it has to
report to the Standing Committee on Finance at every step in the
review of business taxes in particular. This is already a slight
improvement but, as I will show you a little later, we must be
vigilant, as there is no political will to review any part of a system
that benefits those close to power, not to mention those in power.
3939
Why do I deplore the government's record in this regard? Let
me explain. In the days that followed the release, on May 7, of
the auditor general's report on family trusts, the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts received, as usual, that report. I
should point out that the committee is chaired by the hon. member
for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and that another eminent
member is the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. Normally, the
committee analyses the report from A to Z.
When the time came to look at chapter I, in which was
mentioned the $2 billion scandal involving family trusts to which I
just referred, the Liberal member for Brome-Missisquoi, the
brother of the other one, said: ``We must analyze this case urgently.
This is one of the worst scandals''. The member even conducted
two major communication operations. He came out and made a
statement before radio and television reporters, saying there was a
scandal and that we had to shed light on the issue, because the
whole thing was very mysterious.
The member even wrote a press release from his office that said
exactly the same thing. There was scandal behind this. Family
trusts and the whole tax policy had to be reviewed and, in
particular, we had to shed light on the tax free transfer of $2 billion
in trust to the United States, thanks to existing loopholes.
The member's determination to go to the bottom of things did
not last two days. As soon as we heard a rumour to the effect that a
very rich Canadian family might be involved and that, if we went
back to before the 1991 decision made by the Conservatives, we
might discover some Liberal involvement, there was a complete
change of attitude. We did not see the member Brome-Missisquoi
for over a week. He was very busy with the committee, we were
told.
During this time, the government launched into a rather
impressive cover-up. The mandate, which would normally lie with
the public accounts committee, which can act as a true commission
of inquiry, was transferred. This committee has all the powers to
act as a commission of inquiry, and it has the mandate to do so
based on the auditor general's report. Only chapter I was
transferred, not the entire report of the auditor general in which he
puts his finger on the scandal of the billions of dollars that are
being moved tax free out of the country to the United States.
The mandate of the finance committee can pretty much be
summed up as analysing fiscal policy in a general manner, with a
particular emphasis on policy with respect to residents and
non-residents, so that things which took place in the past will not
happen again in the future. That is the mandate of the finance
committee.
If we listen to the government, we will never get to the bottom of
the 1991 scandal. And the reason is because the system in
place-we saw it last week-is being perpetuated by eminent tax
experts-because only experts can understand the ins and outs of
the tax system-who work hand in hand with Revenue Canada, and
its senior officials, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and
senior analysts, in order to benefit a handful of privileged people, a
handful of insiders.
In the United States, it is a serious crime to be an insider; almost
as serious as first degree murder. Today, as we are seeing, the
auditor general is casting light on some things.
(1615)
He speaks of a process in which most of the deck is missing,
nearly 95 per cent of the information is lacking. He tells us that,
from one week to the next, there has been a total change of
direction in the interpretation of taxation laws, which resulted in
the transfer of two billion dollars to the US tax free. It started as a
refusal by Revenue Canada, followed by pressures on the
Department of Finance from who knows what quarter, and moved
on to a final decision allowing this transfer of a trust to the U.S.
without paying any tax.
A situation like this is worrisome, and the reason why a bill like
C-36, which does contain some good measures, but clouds the issue
of family trusts, as they are attempting to do with chapter 1 of the
auditor general's report, is no longer workable.
Despite my tender years, I have followed the debates in the
House, particularly on public finances, the auditor general, public
accounts, even the business of the House. I must admit that I have
never seen a situation like the one that has existed for the past
month or so, in which government members, members of the
finance committee, are attempting to run down the auditor general,
to attack his attitude.
The auditor general is the most respected and respectable man in
the senior public service. Why is that? Because he is answerable to
Parliament. He comes and reports to Parliament on behalf of the
departments on the good or poor management of public funds. He
also forces public servants to be accountable. Now, we have just
been told-I heard it from the very mouth of the Chair of the
finance committee-that the auditor general may have erred
slightly. The Liberal members of the finance committee questioned
the auditor general very closely, not to cast some light on the
situation or on certain particularly complex points of taxation law
relating to family trusts, but to trip up the auditor general.
For those who are still interested in this matter, and I believe
growing numbers are, because people have had enough of this
business of golfing buddies going off to Florida together-last
week, the committee heard six taxation specialists on the matter of
family trusts, which ought to be our primary concern in Bill C-36.
Of the six, one expert was invited by the official opposition, and
another by the second opposition party.
3940
Believe it or not, the four tax experts invited by the government
went round the table sometime in the middle of the evening to
explain their analysis of the case criticized by the auditor general
and of the whole system known as the advance rulings system at
Revenue Canada, which provides analyses of certain tax
provisions for taxpayers. The game continued. The tax experts had
questions about the auditor general's analysis, tax experts who
revolve around power, the department of revenue, the deputy
minister of the department of revenue, his principal advisers and
the advance rulings division, which, in December 1991, made a
ruling on the transfer of a $2 billion family trust to the United
States tax free. These are people who also revolve around the
deputy minister of finance, Mr. Dodge, and Mr. Farber, a special
adviser, who does more policy making than his minister.
Last week we had laid out for us what we have always suspected
as ordinary taxpayers. There are people who benefit roundly and
they are not the low, middle or high income folks, but the richest
Canadians, the millionaires and billionaires represented by these
tax experts. We saw that the power lies here. The four tax experts
criticized the man most respected by the federal public service and
Parliament. These experts, who normally look at us with a certain
haughtiness and say: ``Look, we understand a very complex tax
system that you know nothing about. So, please do not ask any
questions'', were itching to take on the auditor general, so much so
that we are obliged to provide a clarification.
(1620)
We asked tax experts whether we were right in our analysis of
the tax provisions that made it possible to transfer $2 billion abroad
tax free. We did not ask them to express a political opinion and to
say: ``You should not ask questions about this. The auditor general
should not have said this''.
Mr. Goodman, a renowned tax expert, told us during committee
proceedings, which were televised: ``These things are too complex.
The auditor general should never have condemned this. He brought
discredit on the process leading to Revenue Canada's advance
rulings, which allows billionaires to transfer their money to the
U.S. without paying taxes. You are generating-these are his
words-a siege mentality against Revenue Canada, whose senior
officials will no longer be willing to make such decisions''.
That may turn out to be a good thing, because the $2 billion that
was transferred to the U.S. represents hundreds of millions of
dollars in taxes that were not collected here and that the people of
Quebec and Canada will have to pay for.
As I was saying, we have a case that was condemned by Martin
Leclerc, a well-known journalist with the Journal de Montréal. On
June 10, Mr. Leclerc wrote: ``They want the auditor general's head
because he condemned the family trust scandal''. He even said: ``A
Liberal member-I will not mention him by name, but he chairs
the finance committee-is trying to discredit him''.
He is trying to discredit the auditor general. It was obvious to
everyone. At the same time, the sub-heading read something like:
``Gravelle, Dodge and Farber, three Revenue Canada mandarins
who are not accountable to anyone, let a billionaire transfer $2
billion to the U.S. tax free''. We are no longer the only ones to
notice that tax inequity has been raised to the status of a system and
may have been for decades.
As I said earlier, some of the tax experts who testified before the
committee last week on the subject of family trusts and who were
supposed to give us tips on how to plug the loopholes in the tax
system limited their remarks to putting down the work done by the
auditor general and criticizing the poor parliamentarians that we
are for trying to get to the bottom of the process which led to the
decision made in 1991 to transfer $2 billion, possibly setting a
precedent allowing hundreds of millions more to be transferred to
the U.S since. They basically told us: ``Do not ask us any
questions''.
There is a big problem there. Just to give you an idea of how big
the problem is, when we asked the tax experts before us: ``Were
you in any way involved with officials or former senior officials
who may have worked at Revenue Canada or at the Department of
Finance at one time or another, who may have taken part in the
analysis that led to the 1991 decision to transfer $2 billion to the
U.S. tax free or may have known about the ruling made by Revenue
Canada at the time but not made public until March 1996, this year,
and could therefore have acted as insiders, making other persons
benefit from a precedent set in 1991 but that only a handful of
people knew about?'', these witnesses had nothing to say. And this
was just one case that was uncovered.
There was a tax expert representing Stikeman Elliott, a well
known firm of tax consultants which provides advice to
millionaires, billionaires and other very rich people. A Mr. Tilack
worked until very recently for Revenue Canada's advance income
tax ruling division, and may have been aware of the decision made
in 1991 and may have made Stikeman Elliott benefit from it. When
we asked Mr. Wilkie, who was Stikeman Elliott's representative, if
he had had contacts with these people, he jokingly said yes, a
former minister.
However, when we mentioned Mr. Tilack's name, Mr. Wilkie
was no longer laughing. The same thing happened to their financial
special advisor, Mr. Farber, who was sitting behind and whose face
looked quite drawn when he left the room.
(1625)
As we figure out the existing links between some well known tax
firms and senior public officials, including deputy ministers,
3941
assistant deputy ministers and others from Revenue Canada and the
finance department, we hurt them a little bit.
If we succeeded in breaking this system of privileged contacts
and anticipated decisions for millionaires and billionaires, these
firms might make less money than they do now by providing
precious advice to help rich people avoid paying taxes.
They might make less money than they do by giving complex
advice, such as that which lead to the tax free transfer of $2 billion,
based on five provisions in the tax conventions signed by Canada
and the United States. These firms would make less money than
they currently do if these provisions were understood. They would
make less money if, as recommended by the auditor general in his
1992 report, all advance rulings were made public.
It is not right that, in the case of the 1991 family trusts, about
five tax provisions were used; that Parliament was not informed of
this possibility of transferring funds; that, according to the deputy
ministers and the assistant deputy ministers, neither Revenue
Canada nor the Department of Finance deemed worthwhile to
inform in any way the elected representatives of the day of the tax
loopholes that allowed for the tax free transfer of $2 billion. There
is something wrong. We are in trouble if we allow this state of
affairs to continue.
When attention focusses on the system that has been in place for
several years now between Revenue Canada and tax experts, things
start to heat up and the government begins to panic. They do not
know what to do next, so they gag the public accounts committee,
which should normally have looked at this case, and transfer
responsibility to the finance committee with as broad a mandate as
possible, so that nothing will ever come to light.
I have never seen such a case, nor have I ever seen the
government so intent on hiding the truth, on keeping from
Quebecers and Canadians all the inside information on this affair,
which has been described by the auditor general, and by many
others, since he brought it to light, as nebulous.
I would say to you that this does not augur very well for the
general review of taxation recently announced by the minister. You
may recall that in the 1996 budget the Minister of Finance
announced that he was forming a group of eight experts to review
taxation, behind closed doors, and that this group would submit its
report in the fall.
When the family trust scandal hit, the finance minister had a
slight change of heart and put us in the picture, as they say. The
members of the Standing Committee on Finance will be able to
follow the work being done by the eight experts and to have
progress reports on all their discussions until the publication of the
final report.
Judging by the government's attitude in the family trust affair
condemned by the auditor general, I wonder to what extent there
will be a will to ensure that taxation in Canada is equitable for
everyone and not just for a handful of people who can benefit from
the same information, the same monetary support when dealing
with tax experts who understand full well the complexity of
taxation and who know how to turn it not just to the great advantage
of wealthy families but also to their own advantage.
That is what I wanted to say about family trusts. The provisions
in Bill C-36 will not change in any way the scandal condemned by
the auditor general, or the other scandals that are not known to us,
but which probably followed in the wake of the precedent set by
this case of $2 billion in assets transferred tax free.
I will, if I may, conclude with a provision of Bill C-36, the
wording of which we accept and support. I am referring to the film
tax credit. I have the honour of informing you that the official
opposition worked very hard to have this provision included.
(1630)
I am thinking in particular of my colleague from
Richmond-Wolfe, who is the opposition critic on heritage and
who insisted that this provision, amended during consideration by
the finance committee, be passed before the summer recess.
We insisted because this provision will be of considerable
benefit to the film industry and to others representing the world of
culture, such as ADISQ or Mr. Rozon's Spectra. We are proud to
have contributed to having the debate on this particular clause
move forward.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, the government has the bad habit
of bundling everything together-good and very positive measures
with measures I consider particularly twisted like those involving
the family trusts-and asking Parliament to vote on them. As I
have been saying, there are good measures such as tax credits for
film productions, but because of the bad measures, I must ask my
colleagues to vote against the bill.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am here
today to speak on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security
Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
First I will talk about the Liberal government and what it
proposes in budgetary measures which this bill will enact. Second I
will talk about what Reform has proposed in the area of taxation
and what its members will do when they become the government.
Three months ago I remember the finance minister saying to
loud applause in his budget speech: ``We are not raising personal
taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising excise
taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes''. I do not think many
3942
Canadians really believed what they were being told in that speech.
A little later today I will go through a list of tax increases.
The Minister of Finance seems to expect Canadians to thank him
for appearing to hold the line on tax increases. I find it appalling
that he should think it is good enough to be able to say what he said
in the House, even if it were accurate, which it is not. It is appalling
that he would think it would appease and please Canadians just to
say, even if it were accurate, that there would be no tax increases.
Canadians are looking for more than no tax increases. They are
looking for fewer taxes. Canadians have been faced with tax
increase after tax increase for the past 30 years. There has been an
over 1,000 per cent increase in taxes in the past 30 years of Liberal
and Conservative governments. Now Canadians are looking for
fewer taxes. Their personal income tax rate is the second highest of
any country in the G-7, second only to Germany. That is appalling.
Between 1985 and 1993, the federal income tax bill of the
average Canadian family has increased dramatically. Canadians
simply did not have the stomach before this budget for tax
increases.
The finance minister chose to have no explicit increases but
instead to try to sneak them in through the back door. In just a
minute, I will go through the list of tax increases that occurred in
spite of the finance minister saying that there were none.
First I would like to summarize the list I have before me. This is
a list of tax increases for the 1994-95 tax year through to the
1998-99 tax year. These are lists, year by year, of tax increases that
have been presented by the government and the finance minister.
(1635)
In 1994-95 the list adds up to $575 million. In 1995-96 it gets
worse. The total tax increase was $2.3 billion. The finance minister
boasted that year that there were really no substantial tax increases
and how many times more the cuts were than the tax increases.
In 1996-97 the tax increases add up to $3.1 billion. In 1997-98,
just through the budgets that this finance minister has put in place,
the tax increases will be $3.2 billion. This will be more taken out of
the pockets of Canadians. That is unacceptable.
The budgets of the finance minister even go as far ahead as
1998-99 and beyond. Already in 1998-99, just from past budgets,
the finance minister has announced over $400 million in new taxes.
We have a couple of budgets to go until we actually get to 1998-99.
The finance minister preaches that he is against tax increases and
yet the list of tax increases is too lengthy for me to go through in
the time I have to present my speech today. It is unacceptable.
I will go through the tax increases that have been put in place by
this year's budget, a budget which was kicked off by the finance
minister saying to loud applause: ``We are not raising personal
taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising the
excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes''.
I am going to talk about how the finance minister did not raise
taxes in this year's budget. First, since the Liberals came to power
they have squeezed an extra $9 billion to $11 billion or more out of
the pockets of taxpayers. In the 1996 budget no explicit taxes were
put in place, at least none that Canadians could see easily. There are
none certainly along the line of the gas tax increase that we all saw
at the pump last year. As far as that goes, the finance minister was
accurate. However, I believe that Canadians expect more openness
and accuracy from a finance minister than that.
With the tax increases that have been put in place, the
government will raise $145 million in the next three years by
reducing the credit given for investment in labour sponsored,
venture capital corporations by reducing the contribution limit to
$3,500. This was in a year when the finance minister said no tax
increases.
A number of changes to the RRSP rules took place that will also
yield revenue for the treasury by reducing the age of mandatory
withdrawal to 69 from 71. The government will raise close to $100
million by the year 2000. No tax increases? Figure that one out.
Further, the government announced it would henceforth deny
deductibility of the RRSP fees which would save another $10
million. It also froze the RRSP contribution limit at $13,500 per
year until 2003. The government is sending conflicting messages.
On the one hand, it expects Canadians to take more responsibility
for their retirement, but the government and the finance minister
have said again and again that the Canada pension plan is not on
sound footing.
The finance minister in the budget this year ended universality of
old age security, something that he criticized Reform for proposing
during the last election campaign by saying his government would
never do that. However, this government has ended universality.
And it ended universality at a much lower income level than
Reform ever proposed.
(1640)
Holding the line on the limit of RRSP contributions makes it
very difficult for Canadians who are trying to look after their
retirement because they know they really cannot count on old age
security and the Canada pension plan the way this government has
been operating. They know that the government does not have the
resolve to hold the line on spending, eliminate the deficit and then
start reducing taxes.
3943
The government will begin taxing non-residents on the income
they receive from outside the country. This will yield $30 million
in taxes in a year where there are no tax increases.
The government plans to spend $50 million to step up the battle
against the underground economy. Ottawa expects to gain $185
million over the next three years by this move. Perhaps the
government should take a good look at what causes the
underground economy, the ever growing tax grab of the
government, the ever increasing amount of money the government
takes from the pay cheques of Canadians.
I was in Hamilton East on Thursday and Friday of last week. The
biggest complaint of the people of that constituency is that while in
many cases they earn quite an attractive salary, their take home
salary is quite another matter. There are simply too many
deductions from their pay cheques for taxes and other payroll
deductions which are getting larger and larger. There is really no
end in sight as long as this government is in power.
The Minister of Finance also announced the striking of a
technical committee designed to study the business income
taxation act and suggests measures that could be used to encourage
job creation and investment. It is expected that this is simply
window dressing, designed to offer the appearance that the
government is actually doing something on the job creation front.
How much will this committee cost? Looking at what has
happened in the past, the committee will cost between $500,000
and $5 million. That is a lot of money for a committee that is a
sham. The record of the government of heeding the advice of
committees that have travelled across the country is very poor.
Often the government announces the changes that are going to take
place even before the committee has reported. Then why is it
wasting the time and spending this kind of money on the
committee?
The tax grabs in the area of business taxation are fairly
innocuous when we look at the past history but they are still
substantial. As was expected, the government extended the
profitability tax on banks yielding about $65 million over the next
two years. Although banks already pay about $4 billion annually in
taxes, looking at 1993, the profit tax is another measure to force the
most profitable in society to pay more and more.
Most Canadians will not be too upset by the banks having to pay
more tax. They are not going to be upset by a tax on high profits in
the banking industry. But the precedent has been set. Will this tax
next show up on convenience stores that earn a high profit? The
precedents for an extra tax on high profits has been set. Where will
it come down next? Will the corner store owner be next? This is a
question Canadians must ask. The government is determined to
grab money any way it can.
I will continue through the list of grabs that have come about as a
result of the last budget. The GST was essentially a non-issue in the
budget. But the government has still not kept its promise to scrap
the GST, although most Canadians would be happy if it simply did
what was promised in the red book, to replace it with something
else.
(1645)
Sheila Copps, the member who resigned her seat because the
government had not kept its promise to get rid of the GST, is now
fighting for her political career in a byelection. Canadians have not
forgotten that the GST was not replaced, was not scrapped and will
not be scrapped. I am not sure they will be satisfied with having it
replaced. We will wait to see whether Canadians are willing to
tolerate that.
Something I heard in Hamilton during the byelection campaign
was that Canadians expect politicians to keep the promises they
make. The GST promise could well come back to haunt the
government in the next election and beyond.
The government has nothing to brag about on the tax front in the
budget. Not only did it not offer tax relief. It raised taxes even
though Canadians made it known they were sick and tired of tax
increases.
The budget affects taxation in an indirect way as well. By
backing off from fiscal restraint the government has signed a death
warrant for tax relief over at least the next three years. The finance
minister and the government did not show the strength it would
take to balance the budget very quickly. The finance minister still
has no plan to balance the budget. Canadians can say with certainty
that there will not be any meaningful tax decrease for some time
down the road.
I will talk in a while about what would have happened had
Reform been elected in 1993 and had our zero in three plan been
put in place at that time.
To conclude my remarks with respect to what the government
has done in the budget, in short the government has offered no tax
relief. It has buried the hope of any tax relief in the foreseeable
future. It has slapped Canadian taxpayers in the face by expecting
gratitude for not openly raising taxation, even though it is clear that
it has increased taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars in the
budget. That is what the Liberals have done.
What would the Reform Party have done had it gained power in
1993? Reform campaigned on a zero in three plan. It was a detailed
and sound plan to balance the budget in three years. What would
that have meant? We would have been in the third year of the plan
right now. Not only would Canadians have known the budget
would be balanced by the end of this fiscal year. We would have put
in place at least a token tax decrease, which Canadians are so
desperately asking for.
3944
Canadians need to have more take home pay. They are tired of
an ever increasing rate of deduction on their paycheques. They
are tired of salaries which sound good ending up being too little
for their families to live on comfortably. If our zero in three plan
had been put in place by the finance minister they would have been
happy. They could have been offered tax relief this year,
something which Canadians desperately want.
What have Reformers done recently in terms of tax decreases? I
will explain four resolutions which were passed at our assembly in
Vancouver by Reform members from across Canada. The finance
minister should be listening to these resolutions because they
reflect not only what Reform delegates at the assembly want but
what Canadians across the country want.
The first resolution states:
Resolved that the Reform Party reaffirm its commitment for the introduction
of a simple, visible and flat rate of taxation.
(1650 )
Canadians want not only a lower tax rate but a simpler tax
system. This resolution was ratified by 92 per cent of the delegates.
The second one states:
Resolved that the Reform Party remove the GST when a simple, visible and
flat rate system of taxation is introduced.
We made the pledge that at the time our flat tax system was in
place the GST would be removed.
The third one states:
Resolved that the Reform Party supports a reduction of the total burden of
taxation, while recognizing that tax cuts must be done within our existing deficit
reduction plan.
We are saying we can offer tax relief but we have to do it
knowing we still have to balance the budget very quickly, now,
within two years. This resolution was passed by 95 per cent of the
delegates.
The fourth resolution talks directly about taxation and states:
Resolved that the Reform Party supports tax relief for families and married
couples with one income earner.
This is a matter of making the system fairer. The finance
minister talked quite a bit in this year's budget about making the
system fairer. Yet in important areas like that one he did not do the
job. Canadians really expect fairness, particularly when it comes to
families being treated fairly in the system, and they are not being
treated so now. That is what Reform has proposed for some time
and that is what Reform will do.
I will end with those comments although I would like to propose
an amendment. I move:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-36, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the
Canadian Shipping Act, since it does not seek to address the issue known as
flying flags of convenience which allows Canadian ship owners to avoid paying
Canadian taxes.
After the question and answer session I would like to rise on a
point of order to explain why I believe the amendment is in order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Vegreville has moved an amendment. I seek the counsel of the
Table for a moment. I begin by apprising the member for Vegreville
that at this stage of debate the first three interventions have
40-minute maximums. The hon. member on behalf of the Reform
Party was entitled to the maximum, and there is no question or
comment period.
(1655)
I will ask for debate. There being no further debate I will take a
moment to make ruling on the amendment and then put question.
Mr. Benoit: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you
make your decision on the amendment. If there is any doubt on the
acceptability of the amendment I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 568, which states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question
on which the amendment is proposed.
This omnibus bill deals with various tax acts including the
Income Tax Act and the Canada Shipping Act. The registration of
ships under foreign flag is in the shipping act which the bill
amends. It is a matter of the Income Tax Act which the bill also
amends. The bill deals with the closing of a tax loophole. I refer to
the section of the bill that addresses the family trust issue. Flying
flags of convenience is but another loophole of the rich that needs
to be addressed.
The government should not go ahead with this bill but come
forward with a bill that addresses all loopholes and the flags of
convenience issue in particular.
I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 733:
There are limitations on the types of amendments that can be moved on third
reading. They must be relevant to the bill which they seek to amend.
My amendment is relevant to the Income Tax Act and the
Canada Shipping Act which the bill seeks to amend. The citation
goes further and says that the amendment:
-should not contradict the principle of the bill as adopted on second reading.
The bill addresses a major controversial loophole of the rich, that
of the family trust. My amendment addresses a loophole of the rich
as well. As I mentioned earlier my amendment addresses acts that
are covered in the bill.
3945
Citation 670 of Beauchesne's outlines some criteria for a
reasoned amendment. Section 2 of the citation states:
It may not propose an alternative scheme.
My amendment does not do this. In fact I want to expand on the
closing of tax loopholes for the rich. Citation 670(5) of
Beauchesne's states:
It may express opinions as to any circumstance connected with the
introduction or prosecution of the bill-
While we are looking at the Canada Shipping Act and the
Income Tax, we should be looking at the issue of flying flags of
convenience and close that loophole for the rich and powerful.
The amendment is in order because it relates to the bill. Yet it
will open the debate on the issue of legally avoiding paying taxes.
It may be legal but it certainly is not pro-Canadian. It is a loophole
that must be looked at in the same light as the family trust issue.
It is shameful that some people in the country are willing to reap
the benefits that are-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The comments that
have been made are debate. Beyond the submissions from the hon.
member for Vegreville with regard to citations 568, 733 and 670, I
would only ask him if there are any others and to refer to them very
succinctly and briefly. There are none.
(1700 )
In consultation with our table officers, the Chair rules that the
amendment is not in order.
I draw the House's attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition,
article 568:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question
on which the amendment is proposed.
In my consideration the issue of flying flags is a new issue which
goes beyond the scope of this bill.
I equally draw to the attention of the House Beauchesne's sixth
edition, article 671:
The following rules govern the contents of reasoned amendments. (1) The
principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The
amendment must ``strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has
resolved upon considering''-
(1705)
Therefore respectfully I thank the hon. member for Vegreville
who obviously took a great deal of time and effort in preparing his
argument. In this instance the Chair is not in agreement and has
ruled this amendment is not in order.
Resuming debate on Bill C-36. Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote will take place
tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for Lévis, railway safety.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
May 3, 1996-The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food-Second reading
and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of Bill
C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to
repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products
Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): I move:
That Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural
products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural
Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and
the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
begin debate on the motion to refer Bill C-34, the agricultural
marketing programs act, to committee before second reading.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has asked the House
to approve this procedure because he wants the committee to
ensure that all members with any interest in this legislation have
opportunity to be heard.
3946
During the 1993 election campaign we made commitments to
give MPs greater influence in the legislative process. By moving
to proceed directly to committee on this bill, we are following
through on those commitments.
Even though we consulted extensively across the country with
this bill, we are following this procedure to make sure no thoughts
or concepts are overlooked.
The objective of Bill C-34 is to provide a common legislative
base for financial marketing programs in agriculture and to
reinstate provisions for interest free cash advances.
Currently, the efficient and orderly marketing of agricultural
commodities is supported and encouraged through four acts, one of
which is the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, developed to
assist producers marketing Canadian Wheat Board crops, wheat
and barley by providing them with cash flow soon after harvest
when marketing bottlenecks often occur.
Second is the Advance Payments for Crops Act, which is to
assist producers who market all storable crops other than Canadian
Wheat Board wheat and barley. Third is the Agriculture Products
Co-operative Marketing Act, designed to encourage producers to
process their products co-operatively. Fourth is the Agricultural
Products Board Act, used to facilitate intergovernment sales and to
purchase products from domestic markets to be sold at a later date
when the market is not under pressure.
(1710 )
These acts were all developed at different times. They reflect the
domestic, North American and world markets and marketing
systems which were in existence when they were created. Although
these different acts have served farmers well, many farmers and
farm groups have found it confusing to have four different pieces of
legislation.
They have also expressed concern that the present legislation
does not treat all producers equally. For these reasons the
government is proposing to replace the four acts by one new piece
of legislation called the agricultural marketing programs act.
This legislation is the end result of extensive consultations
throughout the sectors. The federal government consulted more
than 80 producer groups directly for their input on Agriculture and
Agri-food Canada's financial programs. We also asked over 160
producer groups and other organizations including provincial
governments to review a summary report from the consultation
process and give us their comments.
The proposed act takes into account as many of the suggestions
expressed by producers as possible. It has received widespread
support among the producer groups.
The new legislation responds to the needs of producers. It will
treat all commodity groups and all regions of the country alike. At
the same time, the new act is flexible enough to meet the needs of
producers who operate under different and diverse marketing
systems throughout the country.
Another important point is that the new act will tighten
administrative controls, thereby reducing administrative costs. It
will also eliminate inconsistencies and inequities between the two
previous advance payment programs. This new act is thus in line
with the government's commitment to increase budgetary
efficiency and get the structure of government right.
This new act also fulfils the promise we made in the last federal
election campaign and repeated in the February 1995 budget to
introduce a statutory interest free advance program to replace the
current cash flow enhancement program which expires next year.
I emphasize that the program will be statutory. It will eliminate
the uncertainty that cash strapped producers faced in the past while
waiting for government to announce whether interest free cash
advances would be temporarily granted.
Like any other industry that operates in a competitive
environment, farmers need to sell their products in order to pay
their bills. Cash flow problems sometimes force them to sell their
crops and products right after harvest when prices are not generally
favourable.
The new act will provide cash advances to farmers, allowing
them to sell their products not necessarily at harvest but at a later
time. This allows producers to sell their output when prices are
better instead of dumping the products on the market at the same
time, a practices which depresses the prices.
The agriculture marketing programs act will avail cash advances
up to $250,000 to qualified producers. With the first $50,000
interest free, the balance will be lent a preferential rate, generally
less than the prime rate.
The new legislation will also benefit co-operatives. The pooling
provisions will be maintained in the new act but will be streamlined
to encourage more producers to market co-operatively and to get
into the value added processing so they can increase their revenues.
The pooling provisions establish an anticipated selling price for
the pooled product and offer a price guarantee of up to 80 per cent
of that price. This will help co-operatives avoid serious losses in
the event of a significant, unexpected downturn in prices. The price
guarantee will also allow co-operatives to negotiate larger loans
with lower interest rates from financial institutions.
The new act will also deal effectively with compliance problems
experienced under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act.
3947
(1715 )
In recent years, the act has experienced a significant rate of
defaults. Although an effective inspection campaign has greatly
reduced the default rate, producers have asked the federal
government to find a permanent solution to this problem so that
they can have confidence that all other producers are complying
with the law.
The new act will reduce the number of defaults and thus restore
producer confidence. The bill stipulates that producers who default
will have to pay all reasonable costs of collecting that default. In
addition, producers will pay interest on the default advance from
the date the advance was issued until it is completely paid. Finally,
they will not be able to get another advance under any other permit
book or any other business organization until previous advances
and any other defaults are fully repaid.
It is only fair to the majority of producers who fulfil their
commitments that these procedures be tightened up. In fact, many
of these measures have already been implemented administratively
and have produced positive results. Defaults have dropped from
$64 million in the 1993-94 crop year to under $10 million in the
1994-95 crop year.
With the implementation of this bill, defaults will be kept at
acceptable levels through legislative rather than administrative
means. This will result in significant savings to the taxpayer.
Since the majority of these changes in the Agricultural
Marketing Programs Act are directed at the reduction of defaults,
processors who participate in the program will probably not notice
any changes compared to the Advance Payments for Crop Act or
the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, programs of the last few
years.
In conclusion, I believe this new legislation represents real
progress for our farmers who get a more stable operating
environment and progress for our taxpayers who get a more
effective use of their tax dollars.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-34, tabled in
this House on May 3 by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
This bill to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural
products was a measure long awaited by both the producers
themselves and the many agricultural product marketing boards.
I would, therefore, like to provide some clarifications on the
nature of my speech itself, with respect to the considerable impact
of this bill. On the one hand, I wish to voice my support of this
legislative measure, with its substantial favourable impact on the
fate of producers as they make their way through the bureaucratic
complexities which characterize the agricultural sector of this
country.
On the other hand, I seriously question whether the government
is truly concerned about agriculture and agri-food. The minister
himself could testify as to just how many legislative rectifications
need to be made to the Canadian agricultural sector to bring it in
step with the autonomist trends of this modern era.
In this connection, Bill C-34 represents a praiseworthy effort by
the minister to facilitate access by producers to simple and
effective means of marketing their produce with a view to
maximizing profits.
An in-depth examination of the bill, however, has pointed out
certain shortcomings in the very spirit of this draft of the bill.
I want to point out one thing which strikes me as an out and out
paradox, relating to a lack of analytical rigour on the part of the
government. I will spare you the detailed explanation of the
implementation of this bill in order to give you a brief indication of
what the government will have to justify in order to have this
legislation unanimously approved.
(1720)
With regard to the budgetary aspect of Bill C-34, it should be
noted that $120 million will be allotted to the advance payments
program over three years. Needless to say, this element of the bill is
the basis for a cash payment to all farmers in this country.
However, there is a rather obvious inconsistency in the way the
government markets these same crops. Let me explain. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada will use huge sums of money to facilitate
the marketing of annual crops. But this money comes from the
income protection programs envelope. You will agree with me that
this is a rather huge inconsistency. The government is simply
hiding the cuts it is forcing on a category of taxpayers, who are
already in a precarious financial position.
In this context, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's income
protection programs envelope for the 1997-98 crop year will be 30
per cent less than estimated, easily some $250 million, or a quarter
of a billion dollars. I agree that the government should keep on
putting its financial house in order, but not at any cost. In my
opinion, this way of hiding cuts is shameful.
Farmers from Quebec and western Canada are no fools. They
have already been subjected to the deceitful actions of the
department since 1992, but always in exchange for false hopes. If
we really calculate the amounts that are to be allocated to the
various programs in this bill, we get two results. First, we see there
is a shortfall to really fund the government's initiatives.
In the second case, we get the financial provisions that are
outlined in Bill C-34, a bunch of details that are only meant to
complicate the administrative framework and thus make its passing
easier, because of the urgency of the situation.
3948
However, I want to salute the government's initiative for
wanting to update the programs for the marketing of agricultural
products. I agree with the general thrust of this bill and I admit
that, if it had not been for the deficient budgetary aspect that I
have outlined earlier, I would support this piece of legislation
without any hesitation.
In that context, I hope the government will take into
consideration the factual aspects I have mentioned. It is in the
interest of its credibility toward a major segment of the population
in this country, and particularly, in the interest of its honour and
integrity. Recently, some farmers in my riding asked me with a
totally disenchanted attitude: ``When the Minister of Finance tables
his budget, does he do so with the intention of deceiving Canada
and Quebec taxpayers? We often hear this question from farmers''.
(1725)
Beyond all partisan considerations, it is important to legislate in
the real interests of the people. Farmers must deal with a situation
that varies with weather conditions. So, it is important to make sure
they have a minimum of stability and, particularly, to ensure the
numbers that are presented to them accurately reflect their
circumstances.
That is in essence the position we will defend here with my
colleague, the member for Québec-Est. So, on the whole, we will
give our support to the government for the quick passage of Bill
C-34, since while there are some deficiencies, of course, by and
large, the bill is acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Reform caucus
on the motion to refer Bill C-34 to committee prior to second
reading. Bill C-34 is the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act. It is
the replacement for several advance payment for crops acts that are
currently on the books.
This process is new to this Parliament. We have had good
experiences and bad experiences when we have referred bills to
committee prior to second reading. I would hope this would be a
good experience. I have the assurance of the chair of the agriculture
committee that we will be allowed to hear witnesses on this bill
prior to going through clause by clause. I would like to presume
that the committee will give us adequate time to hear witnesses and
debate the bill clause by clause.
Some chairmen have been rather autocratic and undemocratic
but I have confidence that the chair of the agriculture committee
will allow adequate input in this bill and if amendments are needed
they will be given the due consideration they should have and
perhaps receive the support of the committee to come back in an
improved format.
It is obvious this is not the most controversial piece of legislation
facing the House. The fact that the introductory speech by the
government side was made by the parliamentary secretary to the
minister rather than by the minister indicates this is not an earth
shattering change in legislation that will impact on agriculture.
Rather than being controversial a better word for this bill may be
that it is diversionary. It is trying to divert attention from some
shortcomings of the minister of agriculture and his government on
to ground that it is less controversial and may find broader support
from the industry.
It reminds me a little of the scene where some person is going to
eat a cookie on his plate and the shyster sitting beside him points to
something either real or imaginary out the window and says: ``Did
you see that over there?'' Of course, when the potential consumer
of the cookie looks out the window, the shyster grabs the cookie
and quickly eats it.
I believe the minister of agriculture is trying to divert some
attention away from some problems he has by bringing forward
legislation that is not of primary importance to the industry.
Some might ask what are some of the issues that are being
avoided? In a debate like this it would be appropriate to bring those
forward at this time. Perhaps the bill we should be debating, rather
than referring this to committee, is a bill to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. There is far more interest, certainly on the
prairies, in reforming the Canadian Wheat Board Act than in
reforming an Advance Payments for Crops Act such as what Bill
C-34 is doing.
One just has to look at what is happening in the prairies where
normally law-abiding farmers are taking wheat and barley across
the U.S. border without the permits they are asked to have by the
Canadians Wheat Board. One may ask: ``Why is this happening?''
It is not because the Advance Payments for Crops Act is not
adequately working under the Canadian Wheat Board. There have
been some changes to the act depending on which administration
has been in power over the past few years.
Year in and year out there have been advance payments for crops
on the books, yet farmers are still trying to move their products
south into the United States without using a Canadian Wheat Board
permit. We might want to ask: Why is that? Perhaps we need to
make amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which would
alleviate some of this tension and alleviate the seizure of property
by customs officials and the RCMP.
(1730)
Why is this happening? Why is this not the priority of the Liberal
government? Why is this not the issue we are debating rather than
Bill C-34? Why are homes being invaded by customs agents and
the RCMP? Maybe this is a serious situation and we should be
3949
looking at it but of course, the minister is in no hurry to look at the
situation.
The Canadian Wheat Board sponsored a conference in Saskatoon
to try to stimulate diversification and the value added concept. It
came up with a wonderful scheme of putting $10 million forward to
help farmers diversify by implementing new business plans. Again
it was a diversionary tactic, like Bill C-34, to get away from the
real issue which is the fact that the government does not have a
business plan. In the meantime, markets are being missed and
producers are being miffed.
Instead of debating Bill C-34 perhaps we should have been
looking at the reform of supply management. That might be an
issue which is front and centre with a lot more producers than the
issues which are dealt with under Bill C-34.
The Liberal government opposed NAFTA prior to the election. It
actually goes all the way back to the 1988 election. Liberals said
that NAFTA was a terrible deal and should not be signed. The
Liberals said that if they ever got into power they would certainly
fix NAFTA in a big hurry. That was their number one priority, a
priority far greater than tinkering around with the advance
payments act.
The Liberals finally got into power in 1993, but they totally
forgot their promise to change NAFTA. They did not even go back
to the table to renegotiate NAFTA like they said they would.
Instead they went to the GATT table and broke another promise.
They did away with article XI of GATT. They indicated to the
supply managed industry that they would not do that but they did it
anyway. The supply managed industries are wondering whether
Bill C-34 might be a diversionary tactic to get producers' eyes off
some of the problems and uncertainties facing the supply managed
industry.
The Liberals even failed when they signed the GATT agreement
to table an addendum to GATT indicating what their position was
on the tariffs which had been agreed to as they regarded NAFTA. It
certainly looks like a bit of a slip-up to me.
Now we have a U.S. challenge to our tariffs under NAFTA which
is going before a dispute settlement panel. We expect the results to
be tabled sometime in August. That is a far more important issue to
producers. They would like to see the government acting on that
rather than on this issue.
The Crow buy-out and some of its problems are far more of a
concern to the industry than is Bill C-34.
If Bill C-34 is passed in its current form, it will be another
Liberal broken promise. I have in my hand a letter from the Prime
Minister. It was written when he was Leader of the Opposition and
is dated September 8, 1993. The letter is to the Ontario corn
producers. He talks about the advance payments for crops act and
the changes which his government, if elected, would bring forward.
The letter reads: ``In May we announced that we would bring
back the interest free cash advance program by statute and we
would make it a working capital program by providing half of the
maximum $50,000 available to producers after seeding in the
spring and the remainder in the fall''. That is not in the bill. I have
looked through the bill and it is not there. It is all after harvest, after
the crops are in the bin. There is no provision for half of the
advance payment to be made after seeding.
If the bill is passed in its current form, it will be yet another
Liberal broken promise. Perhaps the Liberals will bring forward an
amendment because of this oversight or perhaps they had no
intention of keeping that promise. However, I suggest they look at
it. I also suggest they should get their priorities straight as far as the
industry is concerned.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to Bill C-34 and the
motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food prior to second reading.
(1735 )
Bill C-34 represents a commitment made in the red book and
reiterated in the February 1995 budget to reinstate federal statutory
authority to make interest free cash advances to farmers across
Canada.
The new law, which is long overdue, will be known as the
agricultural marketing programs act or AMPA. It will among other
things replace by statute the previous government's ad hoc
cashflow enhancement program which is due to expire next year. It
is very important to have this act in place by statute. In doing so we
will be providing security for our farmers.
Bill C-34 is an amalgamation of four existing acts: the Advance
Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act,
the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the
Agricultural Products Board Act and one ad hoc program which I
have already mentioned, the cashflow enhancement program.
Besides being confusing, producers were not being treated
equally under the four acts. In order to overcome this confusion and
unfairness, the new agricultural marketing programs act will treat
all commodities groups alike. In this way, inequities and
irregularities of the previous programs have all been eliminated.
Simply put, cash advances give farmers the flexibility to meet their
expenses after harvest and before crops are sold, despite what may
be untimely market limitations or unfavourable prevailing prices
when cashflow is desperately needed.
3950
In Canada these cash advances have traditionally been interest
free until 1989 when the previous government removed that
feature from the law and left interest charges to be decided on an
ad hoc basis from year to year through the cashflow enhancement
program. The results have been far from satisfactory, creating
confusion, instability, anxiety and unfairness. In order to make this
new legislation more effective, it has been divided into three
particular programs: the advance payments program, the price
pooling program and the government purchases program.
Under the advance payments program, which is covered by
clauses 4 through 25 of the bill, the maximum allowable advance
payment to producers will be $250,000, the first $50,000 of which
would be interest free. If there should be a crop disaster due to
abnormal weather conditions or disease, an emergency advance
payment of $25,000 could be paid but in such a case the minister
would not be liable for the interest.
This part of the bill is fairly similar to the Advance Payments for
Crops Act but it would also make adjustments in order to take into
account the specific situation of grain producers under Canadian
Wheat Board jurisdiction. Under the bill and unlike the situation
under conditions now in force, advance payments would be paid
directly to producers, not the Canadian Wheat Board permit book
holders. As well, clause 14 would allow the use of cash purchase
tickets as advance payments to producers under CWB jurisdiction.
This particular example illustrates just how flexible the new act
will be to meet the needs of producers who operate under a wide
range of diverse marketing systems throughout Canada.
In cases where a producer who defaults on his obligations with a
partner, a member or a shareholder of another association, the
association would not be eligible for advance payments and vice
versa. For greater clarity, the rule applicable to associations
between spouses, parents or children would be the same rule which
is applicable to Revenue Canada income tax returns.
One important objective of Bill C-34 is to reduce defaults on
repayments which have unfortunately cost taxpayers heavily over
the years. Defaults on repayments under the Prairie Grain Advance
Payments Act have reached several million dollars. The bill would
provide that producers who defaulted on repayments would have to
pay all recovered costs and interest on outstanding advance
payments. As well of course they could not obtain other advance
payments nor avoid repayment by setting up another company or
business. Obtaining a new Canadian Wheat Board permit book
would not allow a grain producer to avoid the obligation to repay
advance payments which were obtained by using another permit
book.
Although eligible crops are listed in clause 2 of the bill, the
following criteria would also apply: the crop would have to be
harvested and stored; it would have to be possible to store the crop
in its unprocessed form; the producer would have to retain
ownership of the crop; and the producer would have to be
responsible for marketing the crop. In some sectors of agriculture,
particularly horticulture, these criteria have been perceived as
being overly restrictive since many products are difficult to store in
their unprocessed form or are acquired immediately after being
harvested.
The Ontario corn producers were one of the three farm groups
that had requested that advance payments be made at seeding time
and that advance payments be set at 70 per cent rather than 50 per
cent of the value of the crop.
(1740 )
I must reiterate that this act is primarily based on equity among
crops, regions and producers right across Canada.
As for spring advances not being included in the act, it is
important to remember that consultations for this bill involved over
160 producer groups across Canada. Most of these groups were
either neutral on the issue or opposed the concept of spring
advances.
The great majority of producer groups felt that spring advances
would change the focus of the advance payments program in such a
way that the current focus of marketing would be changed to one of
simply supplying operating credit. The producers felt that this
would ultimately reduce the benefits and increase the costs of the
program to unacceptable limits.
The act will establish a new risk sharing program where the
delivery agent's liability for defaults will be based on the history of
defaults. It will range from 1 per cent and 15 per cent instead of the
current 2 per cent for the Advance Payments for Crops Act and no
liability for the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The act will
also define more clearly the crops and eliminate potential overlap
with the price pooling program.
The new legislation will permit producers to continue to use
price pooling mechanisms while the approval process for these
provisions will be greatly streamlined. Since the bill in clauses 26
through 30 would delegate authority to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food subject to the annual concurrence on general terms
and conditions by the Minister of Finance, it would thus remove the
requirement for the appointment of auditors and professional
accountants for each agreement.
Having removed these layers of red tape, the federal government
could much more easily establish a minimum guaranteed price for
all products sold out of a pool by grade, variety and type of product.
This guaranteed price would cover the initial price to producers and
the operating costs of the pool.
3951
As for the government purchases program contained in Bill
C-34, the act will incorporate the provisions of the Agriculture
Products Board Act. The act will maintain the ability of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to buy and sell agricultural
products when unusual marketing conditions exist while removing
another layer of bureaucracy, that is, the requirement for the
agricultural products board.
In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the benefits that
would come about once the agricultural marketing programs act is
scheduled to come into force January 1, 1997. There will be one act
instead of four to deal with the financial agricultural marketing
programs in Canada, thus reducing current crop and regional
inequities, inconsistencies in program administration, and overall
program costs. Financial marketing programs will be easier for
producers to accept. All producers will be able to obtain cash
advances under the same administrative requirement. Defaults will
be reduced by better screening before issuing advances, by
improved controls, improved collection methods and stronger
penalties for defaulted advances.
The act will be consistent with current government policy to
recover administrative costs, increase risk sharing with
participants, combine legislation which shares a common base and
reduce program costs through less bureaucracy.
An overwhelming majority of farm producers and their
organizations across Canada have shown widespread support for
the direction the government is proposing to take on these issues. I
encourage members in the House to do likewise by supporting the
motion to refer Bill C-34 to committee prior to second reading so
that my colleagues and I can give this bill our undivided attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam Speaker,
it is with great interest and a strong sense of duty that I rise today to
speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.
I am happy to see that the purpose of this bill is to combine four
existing acts to make it easier to market agricultural products.
These acts are: the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie
Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products
Cooperative Marketing Act, and the Agricultural Products Board
Act.
Bill C-34 also includes the cash flow enhancement program. If
my party, the Bloc Quebecois, generally supports the objectives of
Bill C-34, it is because this bill is essentially consistent with
farmers' demands and seems more in keeping with Quebec's
values and agricultural development model.
(1745)
There is, however, a major inconsistency in how payments are
charged to the budget. Clauses 25 and 30 are financial in nature.
Through these two clauses, the government hopes to pay farmers
under the advance payments program and the price pooling
program.
We learned that, under the advance payments program, farmers
would receive $40 million a year over three years, for a total of
$120 million. What hurts the most is that Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada will take the money to be spent on the
marketing program out of the budget earmarked for income
protection.
This transfer, this misappropriation of funds from the budget
will reduce the amounts available to protect farmers' income.
Unfortunately, by taking this action, the federal government will
once again reduce Quebec's share even further.
Whether you like it or not, Quebec's share of the funds allocated
to income protection programs for farmers is already lower to what
that province is in a position to demand and obtain, given the
relative weight of agriculture in the ``belle province''.
History seems to be repeating itself: Quebec is always more
heavily penalized at the end of the day.
The resource envelope for income protection programs at
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for fiscal year 1997-98 is $600
million, that is $250 million or 30 per cent less than the $850
million allocated before the budget came down. If the federal
government goes ahead with this misappropriation of public funds,
by dipping into funds allocated to income protection programs, in
three years, the shortfall in this envelope will be $120 million.
To put it clearly and briefly, it is indecent to use part of the funds
allocated to farming income protection to finance the advance
payments program, which, must I remind the hon. members, is
essentially an agricultural marketing program.
What link, if any, could there be between the advance payments
program and the income protection program? None.
Let us be clear about something. When the Minister of Finance,
the hon. Paul Martin, tables his budget, does he do so with the
intention of deceiving the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada? Should
the budget not reflect what was planned? That is what
logic-others would say common sense-dictates anyway.
Instead, following this government's reasoning, are we to
understand that the figures provided mean nothing, since they no
longer apply to what they were originally supposed to apply? This
is terrible. I am dismayed.
If the federal government, through the appropriate department,
uses funds intended for the income protection program to finance
the advance payments program, which is an agricultural marketing
program, why should amendments not be made now to change this?
3952
First, a real political will is required to change the situation and
make sure that the funds taken for the advance payments program
come directly from the budget earmarked for agricultural products
marketing programs.
The government should allocate more money for marketing
programs and it should stop cutting and diverting funds from one
envelope to the other. This is a simple but vital solution.
It would ensure that, in the future, Quebec farmers would enjoy
better income protection. An amount of $120 million could also be
subtracted from the budget for income protection. However, this
would recreate the current situation, in that less money would be
available to concerned Quebec farmers, in a proportion more unfair
than for the other nine Canadian provinces. Others will also suggest
the government should allocate new money for agricultural
products marketing programs, along with a transfer of money from
the budget for the income protection programs.
(1750)
This would be a partially acceptable solution. These are the
reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government
to make the necessary changes. It must correct the situation and
ensure a fair treatment to Quebec farmers.
Simply put, the government is being asked to take the money for
the advanced payments program from the budget allocated for the
income protection programs. As you know, this is a major irritant
for Quebec farmers.
Moreover, given the new eligibility rules, Bill C-34 would
exclude any form of collective Indeed, one of the eligibility
requirements for producers must be rejected, especially the one
that lets producers decide when they will sell their products,
because the products subject to a pooling system would then be
excluded. VEGCO Inc., from the province of Quebec, is among
those that would be hard hit by such a measure.
Finally, I agree with the federal government using the taxpayers'
money to efficiently streamline its programs, provided that all
farmers get the same benefits and meet the same requirements.
However, there is something very wrong with the way the money is
allocated and if the government of the current Prime Minister can
get away with it, it will further reduce Quebec's share of the
income protection programs.
I think it is important to stand up for Quebec farmers and to point
out that the government is trying to stifle the people and not only in
agriculture. Quebec is losing money because the federal
government is withdrawing its support from several programs and
we wonder what is going on not only in agriculture, but in other
areas as well, like shipping, the Tokamak project and other
initiatives in Quebec from which the government is withdrawing its
financial assistance and support.
We have the feeling the federal government is withdrawing more
and more money from its projects and facilities in the province of
Quebec. Why? I wonder if the government does not have a plan B
for the economy, where it would put pressure on all economic
sectors.
However, I feel better knowing that farmers, at least in the
beautiful province of Quebec, are very well organized with UPA
and are increasingly better able to develop and defend their
marketing system, not only in North America, but also in Europe
and throughout the world.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs
Act.
As members before me have explained, the bill takes four acts
and puts them together into one. We would think this would result
in cost savings in administration. The departmental briefing
claimed that putting the four programs together would result in
administrative savings of somewhat over $1 million. We will have
to wait to see whether those savings actually come about, but I do
not have a lot of faith that there will be savings in administration.
I have a concern with the administration of the bill. If the record
of the government in administering its programs does not improve,
the administration of the program will be a disaster. We could look,
for example, to the Crow payout program that was put in place by
last year's budget. Under that program 75 per cent of the money to
be paid out should have been paid out by the end of January. We are
still not up to the 75 per cent expected payout level. If the record on
the administration of the programs does not improve, the program
will be of little use to farmers.
(1755)
When it comes to advance payments it is absolutely necessary
for the administration to be simple and done very quickly, or it
really defeats the purpose of getting cash into the hands of farmers
in the fall before they can actually sell the crops. It is often a
problem to sell crops in the fall to get cash to pay bills. The purpose
of the program is to get the money into the hands of farmers more
quickly. If the administration is slowed, as I suspect it might be just
looking at the record of the government, it is a step backward. We
will just have to wait to see what happens in that regard.
The bill touches on changing the Canadian Wheat Board. The
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is currently administered by
the Canadian Wheat Board. With this change the program would
become one of the four programs under the Agricultural Marketing
Programs Act.
3953
We need an awful lot more than just tinkering with the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. I remember back to the time when I was a very
little tyke in around 1960. After harvest started my father, finally
having grain to sell and desperately needing some money for
school supplies and other things, lamented the fact that the
Canadian Wheat Board did not provide a quick enough avenue for
marketing his grain. Even back then, 35 or 36 years ago, he wanted
a choice either to ship through the wheat board or on his own
somewhere else so he could get the cash when he wanted it and
when he needed it. That was denied him then. Here it is 35 years
later and still western Canadian farmers are being denied what
obviously should be theirs: the right to market their grain in any
way they see fit whether it be through the Canadian Wheat Board
or on their own in some other fashion.
It seems to be absurd. It is so absurd I cannot understand it. Last
Thursday and Friday I was campaigning in the Hamilton East
byelection. I went to a door where someone asked about the
Canadian Wheat Board and why farmers were not given the ability
to market on their own. Even the people in the heart of Canadian
cities are finally understanding how ridiculous the situation is
when farmers cannot market their own grain, their own product. It
is time some serious action was taken and not only tinkering.
I remember when I left university in 1974 that there was talk
in the agricultural faculty about changing the Canadian Wheat
Board Act and the Canadian Wheat Board so that farmers would
have more control. The wheat board was causing problems even
then. The students at the university could see a need for change.
Starting back then, 30-plus years ago, I actively started
campaigning for changing the Canadian Wheat Board. I was not
for getting rid of it and I am still not for getting rid of it. I want to
change it so that it is accountable to farmers and farmers have
the option to ship around it.
Over all these years many of my friends and people I got to know
have been very actively campaigning for change to the Canadian
Wheat Board, and there has been no significant change whatsoever.
(1800 )
Finally, this past year the Government of Alberta took the
initiative to stand with farmers against the Canadian Wheat Board
monopoly. A fair plebiscite was held and a very high percentage of
commercial farmers turned out. The result was overwhelming.
Two-thirds of farmers voted to support the removing of the
monopoly on barley marketing and 62 per cent voted to support the
ending of the monopoly on wheat.
The farmers in Alberta have decided. They have made up their
minds and the case is closed. It is now just a matter of the
agriculture minister carrying out what these farmers want. They
know it is their right. They voted for the ability to market either
through the board or on their own.
Still the agriculture minister fights by throwing out these minor
changes to the Canadian Wheat Board which do not solve the
problem. He keeps saying: ``Wait for the results of the marketing
panel''. I can tell the House what the results are going to be. They
will be just as I said they were going to be before the panel began.
The panel will not lead to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board
that farmers want. There will be tinkering and there will be talk of
substantial change. Still the wheat board monopoly on wheat will
not be ended as a result of this grain marketing panel.
It is a sad thing. Why should Canadian farmers be denied the
right to market their product? They raise it. Nobody else pays the
cost of putting the crop in, the sweat and the work it takes to seed
and carry the crop through until harvest and then harvest that crop.
Nobody else takes the incredible risks that farmers take to produce
a crop.
The government does not take risks for farmers, so why on earth
are they being denied the right, and it is a right, to market their
crops the way they see fit. It is time we got beyond the tinkering.
There will come a time when farmers will be so upset and
frustrated by the lack of action that they will say: ``Get rid of board.
We do not want any part of it anymore''.
Why will the minister not act before that happens and head off
the complete elimination of the board? I do not believe that is what
the majority of farmers want. They want the right to either market
through the board or on their own. They want a choice. What other
industry does not have that choice? I cannot think of one. What is
the hold up? Why the resistance? Does it have something to do with
what is going on inside the Canadian Wheat Board? Is there
something going on inside the board which is not open to access to
information? I have applied through access to information many
times to get information about the Canadian Wheat Board. I cannot
get it. Is that why? I cannot answer that.
The agriculture minister had better act on this quickly or the
Canadian Wheat Board will cease to exist. I think that would be too
bad.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Carried on
division.
(Motion agreed to.)
3954
(1805 )
On the Order: Government Orders:
June 17, 1996-The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food-Second
reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
of Bill C-38, an act to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their
creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary
Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act.
Hon. David Anderson (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-38, an act to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and
their creditors, to amend the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative
Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act be referred
forthwith to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to begin debate on the motion to refer Bill C-38, the farm debt
mediation act, to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food prior to second reading.
The government promised to give MPs and parliamentary
committees more influence. By sending bills to committee before
second reading, something that was done very rarely in the past, we
are delivering on that promise. This procedure gives committees a
chance to make major amendments to bills. It also allows us to
make doubly sure that no concern has been overlooked.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has chosen to follow
that route with this bill because he wants to ensure that
stakeholders have every opportunity to be heard on this important
piece of legislation.
As a former chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food I share with him the confidence that committee
members will be able to make positive contributions to the farm
debt mediation process through their deliberations and hearings.
The issue of farm debt is not a new one. It has been with us for a
long time. Farmers must make significant investments in seed or
stock, fertilizer or feed, machinery or buildings, long before they
see a return on those investments. They are subject to the whims of
nature and markets. When these turn bad farm debt can reach crisis
proportions.
That is essentially what happened in the 1980s. High interest
rates at the beginning of the decade diverted large amounts of cash
for debt servicing while low returns on sales reduced inflows of
cash. In addition, market values of many assets, especially land
values, depreciated over the same period.
By the mid-1980s many farmers were in arrears on payments to
their creditors. In response, the Farm Debt Review Act was
proclaimed in 1986. That act established farm debt review boards
in every province to provide impartial third party mediation
between farmers and creditors.
In our 1993 agriculture platform we promised to strengthen the
farm debt review process. This legislation will do just that. It will
create a new farm debt mediation service to replace the farm debt
review boards as they are phased out.
This new service will help farmers position themselves to better
adapt to new income opportunities as well as helping those who are
experiencing financial difficulties.
It has been designed around three major considerations. It should
build on the existing services and not duplicate them. It should be
administratively efficient. It should cost less than the existing farm
debt review board process.
Funding for the new service will come from the $240 million
Canadian adaptation and rural development fund announced in the
1995 budget to help the sector make a transition to a more efficient
and competitive market economy.
(1810 )
This proposal was not drafted in an ivory tower by isolated
bureaucrats. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada consulted with
representatives from major farm organizations, provincial
departments of agriculture and lenders last summer. The
department also held seven regional focus groups with farmers and
farm management advisers.
The purpose of these consultations was to identify the elements
of a new farm income review service and possible ways to deliver
it. The department then drafted a program design reflecting what
emerged from the consultations as the most important elements of
the new service.
A national consultative review committee was set up with
representatives from farm organizations, lenders and two
provincial governments. The committee met last December to
discuss the proposed program design and identify concerns and
suggestions.
In January, the Farm Debt Review Boards and all provincial
governments were invited to comment on the proposal. Based on
the input received, the government is proposing the farm debt
mediation service. The new farm debt mediation service will
provide insolvent farmers the same benefits as the current Farm
Debt Review Boards, that is a stay of proceedings, a review and
mediation.
Essentially it will continue to allow them to undergo mediation
and work out, with their creditors, a way to resolve their debts. One
3955
change from the current procedure is that farmers and creditors
would be able to appeal decisions on stays of proceedings to an
appeal board.
The current Farm Debt Review Board members could be
appointed to the new appeal board while qualified mediators would
be selected through the regular government contracting process.
Farm Debt Review Board members, who are currently mediators
under the Farm Debt Review Board Act, could be put on the list of
mediators under this new program. Mediators would act alone
rather than in three-member panels as they do under the current act.
These changes and the limiting of the new proposed act to
insolvent farmers could reduce the program costs by more than $1
million per year from an estimated $3.5 million in 1995-96 to $2.2
million per year.
The consultations also showed that farmers and farm
organizations, provincial representatives and industry could
support a consultation service that is not tied to a debt crisis. Such a
farm consultation service would concentrate on financial
assessments to help farmers who have cash flow problems and to
identify income opportunities and reduce costs to develop more
viable operations.
Depending on their particular situation, farmers could also be
referred to provincial extension staff, other federal or provincial
programs or the private sector as appropriate for other types of
services.
Because referral to other services and programs will be a key
component of the farm consultation service, it is important that
delivery of this service be developed through further consultations
with farm organizations and others such as lenders, Canadian farm
business management program members and the provinces.
It would also be important to have an up to date inventory of
services in every province. Delivery costs for the farm consultation
service would be kept to a minimum. This service could be
delivered by the farm debt mediation offices or it could be
developed and delivered in co-operation with the provinces or
other existing programs where appropriate. The service would
provide assistance to help farmers look at other income
opportunities for diversifying, expanding and creating value added
enterprises and to develop farm plans.
I have just explained how the new farm debt mediation act would
work. I would ask members of the House to approve the motion to
refer this proposed legislation to committee now, prior to second
reading.
(1815)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
remarks in this debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-38 are
essentially based on ethical and philosophical considerations as a
result of my parliamentary obligations as agriculture and agri-food
critic for the official opposition.
This statement may seem a bit obscure, but you will soon
understand my point of view in light of the information I will give
you.
Bill C-38 to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers
and their creditors will provide an important legal base for
resolving conflicts of a financial nature. This new act will repeal
and replace the Farm Debt Review Act, making administrative
procedures easier for farmers and providing for a more equitable
settlement for creditors.
At first glance, we have to salute this initiative by the department
which seems to show greater concern for all agricultural producers.
Several agricultural groups, through their executive committees,
have supported this piece of legislation. The Bloc Quebecois will
probably do the same when Bill C-38 is sent to committee for
clause by clause study.
There are, however, some apprehensions on the part of producers
who will inevitably find themselves in financial difficulty some
day. Bill C-38 will replace the Farm Debt Review Act, which gave
producers having financial problems the opportunity to benefit
from the economic expertise of the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food in order to avoid even more serious problems. In other
words, the department offered an indebtedness prevention service,
as well as the technical tools and the support needed to recover
from these difficult situations.
In this perspective, it looks like producers will benefit from a
more complete support from the department, but only in cases
where the producer will no longer be able to call the shots. In other
words, the farmer using the provisions of Bill C-38 will be at the
mercy of his creditors.
To put it another way, in order for a farmer to benefit from this
new bill, he will, to all intents and purposes, have to have his neck
in a noose. At that point, he will be at the end of the road, whereas
before he could start to look at the possibilities before being in debt
up to his ears.
This, then, is the ethical and philosophical dimension I was
mentioning at the beginning of my speech. How can the
government refuse, or at least limit, the recourse open to an
individual faced with a potential crisis? It would perhaps be an idea
to look more closely at this aspect of the bill, which on the whole is
innovative and in line with the modern current that has
characterized the agricultural sector in this country for a number of
years now.
We know for a fact that the government's initiatives to reform
this sector of agricultural legislation are part of a move to put its
fiscal house in order.
3956
(1820)
In fact, this amendment will permit savings of a million dollars.
This is a huge amount, given that in 1995-96 the government
invested $3.2 million in this regard. One million over three million,
or 33 per cent, represents a huge amount percentage- wise. For the
size of the country, one million is not such a large amount, but still
it is a beginning. It is a step in the right direction.
However, it is vital to ensure that this savings is not achieved at
the expense of citizens in dire financial straits. For if that were the
case, this measure would no longer be laudable or profitable. In
fact, one may wonder if the social costs of this measure would not
be greater than the resulting savings.
On another point, Bill C-38 calls for abolition of the offices
responsible for mediating between the producer and his debtors,
replacing them by a similar body of another organization. Looking
at this in the precise terms of the bill, the mediator's responsibility
would in future fall to a single individual appointed by a regional
administrator, himself appointed by the department and responsible
for implementation of the act at the regional level.
Needless to say, this alternative opens up the possibility of
another ethical problem of considerable scope, relating to the
appointment of a public servant responsible for default mediation,
and leaves the door wide open to a sort of latent patronage. It is
logical to assume that certain hiring criteria might be formulated so
as to work around the requirements of the Public Service
Employment Act.
In this connection, it is vital for there to be a public debate on the
appointment of these administrators, so as to ensure that no
advantage may be taken of the appointment. There must also be
assurance that there will be a pool of mediators, to avoid the same
people being used every time.
The same logic applies to the designation of the appeal
committees, also to be set up by the minister. Without becoming
totally paranoid, the official opposition is entitled to call for more
details on these specific aspects of the bill. We support the
principle according to which Bill C-38 will give more
responsibility to producers in managing their own affairs,
particularly since this legislative measure will have the effect of
generating a million dollars worth of savings.
In closing, I would like to draw your attention to the way the
mediator is appointed. Care would have to be taken to avoid
repetition-and with this I shall close-of the often disgraceful
actions taken in the Canada Employment Centres, particularly
when it comes to appointing the chair and the members of an
arbitration committee. Often people are appointed merely on the
basis of their political opinions, people who have never been near a
real live unemployed person.
I trust that the mediator will have a better idea of what a
producer is, what indebtedness is.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I will speak for 10 minutes to Bill C-38, the farm
debt mediation act. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food indicated in his remarks, which were
similar to remarks he made to Bill C-34, my remarks could be
similar as well.
(1825 )
I expect we will have ample time to review the bill in committee
since it is being referred to committee prior to second reading and
amendments could be considered. Like Bill C-34, we believe Bill
C-38 could be approved after hearing witnesses and after having a
longer look at the bill. We might be able to put the bill in an
acceptable form should the government agree to the amendments.
This bill replaces the old Farm Debt Review Board Act with a
mediation act. It is not an earth shattering measure. It will not
change the farmscape a whole lot and is not terribly controversial.
Similar to my comments regarding Bill C-34 which I suggested
was a diversionary tactic, this bill could fall into the same category.
Maybe we should call it a stalling tactic in this case.
These are desperate times for the Liberals in rural Canada. They
have snubbed the concerns and values of the rural areas with their
lack of legislation since taking office in October 1993. One has
only to mention Bill C-68 to know very quickly that Liberals are
not very popular in rural Canada. Bill C-68, the gun control bill,
was an insult to rural Canada. The minister in effect said: ``I do not
trust you, rural Canada. I do not like your lifestyle and I think I
should interfere with it''. The Minister of Justice proved that he did
not understand rural Canada and the members of the rural Liberal
caucus are desperate for some legislation they can put forward in
order to say that they are concerned about rural Canada.
Bill C-68 to rural Canada was like telling urbanites they could
only buy a certain brand of car. It was like telling people they had
to wear a certain style of clothes. This is middle ages stuff which
certainly does not go over very well in rural Canada. Rural Canada
is not very happy with this Liberal government. The Liberals are
grasping at straws to appease some of the bad feelings they have
created among the voters in the rural ridings right across the
country.
Another piece of legislation this Liberal government thought
was a tremendous priority and rushed it through a few weeks ago
was Bill C-33. That also did not go over very well in rural Canada.
That was the bill the Liberals claimed would prevent
discrimination against gays and lesbians but which Reformers said
was actually a stepping stone to special benefits for a group in
society. We are justified in our criticism of that bill. Just the other
day the human rights tribunal indicated that as a result of Bill C-33
spousal benefits were required by employers.
3957
The Liberals say: ``We have to counteract this criticism
somehow. Let us bring in Bill C-38, a bill to bring in a mediation
act to replace the Farm Debt Review Board Act''.
There seems to be some unhappy Liberal members when I talk
about Bill C-33 so maybe I should mention a couple of statistics.
Recently an Angus Reid survey showed what is happening in rural
Canada as far as the issue of spousal benefits is concerned. I was
going to move on but they seem to want me to talk about this issue
some more.
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 54 per cent of the people on the
prairies, urban and rural-and I am sure it is even stronger in the
rural parts of the provinces-are opposed to spousal benefits, and
another 4 per cent are undecided. It is strong opposition. In Alberta
it is even higher at 55 per cent opposed and 7 per cent undecided. It
is a smaller minority that supported the actions of the Liberal
government in Bill C-33.
In trying to heal the wounds, the Liberals have brought forward
Bill C-34 and Bill C-38. They can talk about the wonderful things
they will accomplish with these two pieces of legislation as they
simmer on the back burner over the summer. Then we will get into
studying them in the fall when we come back.
Why is farm debt a problem? And it is a problem. Farm debt has
been a problem for quite some time. Let us look back to what the
Farm Credit Corporation did a decade or two ago. It became the
lender of last resort.
(1830 )
It made some very foolish loans, loans it should not have made.
It actually was the leader that got a lot of banks and credit unions
pushed in that direction as well. It was making loans based on
unreasonably high expectations in the farm sector.
Then the farm sector was hit with high interest rates of 19, 20, 21
up to 25 per cent interest rates plus falling farm commodity values
which occurred during the 1980s. Suddenly a lot of farmers had
lost their equity, had a high debt load and were not able to carry that
load in their operation.
The Farm Credit Corporation took ownership of the land. The
banks took title to the land. The Farm Debt Review Board was put
in place to facilitate agreements between the lenders and the land
owners to ease the pain that a lot of farm producers were going
through when they were not able to make their payments to the
Farm Credit Corporation and the other lenders.
The Farm Credit Corporation seems to be back in this business
again of offering loans that perhaps it should not be offering. The
minister has talked about expanding the role of the Farm Credit
Corporation. Again we see land values escalating. We have to
wonder if we will retrace the steps we took during the 1980s. This
farm mediation act may have more impact in the future than we
might wish to believe at the current time.
It is fine and good to look at bills like the farm mediation act as a
way to facilitate some of the problems farmers find themselves in
when they become cash strapped and unable to make their
payments on loans they have taken out.
Let us look at the industry in broader terms and determine why
farmers and other businesses get themselves into problems in
Canada and we have bankruptcies, foreclosures and land going into
receivership. It is because the cost of doing business in Canada is
very high.
If the Liberal government would address that concern first
before it replaces the Farm Debt Review Board Act with the farm
mediation act it would be of far more benefit to producers who are
feeling the cost-price squeeze than this piece of legislation which it
is using to divert attention away from its lack of action.
Canadian farmers pay high taxes. The Liberal government has
increased taxes and seems bent on maintaining a high cost of doing
business in Canada. Farm inputs are high. The committee looked at
farm inputs. It realized that some of the input costs are high
because of the regulatory burden placed on farmers.
We recently had an ag-biotechnological conference in
Saskatchewan where the premier of Saskatchewan said one of the
high costs placed on that industry is that of high regulation. The
pesticide registration act needs to be changed because of the
regulatory burden passed on to consumers.
While Bill C-38 may be well and good to debate in the House,
and I am sure we will when we come back in the fall, it is not the
key critical area that will prevent farm debt from being a problem.
It is the high cost of doing business in this country. It is high taxes
and high regulations that are the problem.
The other concern we have with the bill is that we do not allow
patronage as we saw in the form of patronage appointments to the
Farm Debt Review Board. We want to make sure these mediators
are appointed or chosen or based on their merit and their credibility
rather than on the fact that they happen to hold a Liberal
membership. I think that is extremely important.
We look forward to making improvements to the bill when it
comes back in the fall.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am more than
pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on a very important
piece of legislation for farm families, Bill C-38, the farm debt
mediation act.
3958
This new legislation will replace the current Farm Debt Review
Act with a new farm debt and mediation process. This is another
example of how the Liberal government is putting the needs of
rural Canada, of farm families and farmers first. It is one of a long
list of initiatives we are undertaking to improve the system to
better serve the agricultural sector.
This new act addresses the problems that farmers have identified
over the years with the Farm Debt Review Board system. It goes a
long way to improving the farmer's position in insolvency
proceedings.
(1835)
The Farm Debt Review Act first came into being 10 years ago in
response to debt problems in the farm sector at that time. It
established farm debt review boards in every province to provide
third party mediation between farmers and their creditors.
With the passage of this new act, the Farm Debt Review Board
would be replaced by a new broader based farm income review
service. This new service will help farmers position themselves to
better adapt to new income opportunities to help those farmers who
may experience financial difficulties related to either income or
debt servicing ability.
This is a proactive approach. We are setting up a system to help
farmers before difficulties become debt load problems with
creditors. We are giving farmers more options and better
opportunities to make their operations viable and stay on to do
what they do best, to farm, to produce high quality food and to feed
the world.
The government developed the concept for this new service to
compliment the other positive initiatives we have taken in the areas
of agriculture and agri-food.
This legislation is the result of cross-Canada consultations with
farmers and their creditors as well as provincial governments. It is
therefore not surprising that there is widespread support for the
initiatives of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In keeping with the Liberal government's strong record of
consulting with Canadians, we are proposing to refer the act to the
standing committee before second reading to give farmers every
opportunity to add their input.
The best solutions are found through consultation and
co-operation. That is exactly what the government is doing with
farmers for farmers. This new service is designed to be an integral
part of an overall package of adaptation initiatives aimed at helping
the sector adapt and take advantage of opportunities to build a
strong rural Canada.
The service will be funded out of the Canadian adaptation and
rural development fund which was announced in the 1995 budget to
help the sector make the transition to a more efficient and
competitive market economy.
The new legislation retains the stay of proceedings, review and
mediation but now puts the mediation aspect into legislation. By
placing mediation within the act, farmers are assured of an
impartial mediation process and that the mediator is not advising
the farmer or negotiating on behalf of the farmer or the creditor.
Further, farmers will not have the opportunity to appeal
decisions regarding the granting, extension and termination of
stays of proceedings which do not exist under the existing act.
By setting up an appeal process and a formal appeal board, the
Liberal government is giving farmers a further recourse. In keeping
with the government's commitment to reduce cost of government
and to save taxpayer dollars, this new service would be less costly
to administer with the current Farm Debt Review Board.
Since it is less administratively cumbersome, there would be
better opportunities to reduce duplication and to work within
provincial mediation services. There would be two components of
the new farm income review service, a debt mediation service and a
farm consultation service not tied to a debt crisis.
The new debt mediation service would also be based on a single
mediator model rather than the current three-person panel. There
would no longer be farm debt review boards and mediators would
not be appointed by the minister.
We are depoliticizing the process to the benefit of farmers. These
changes would reduce the program cost by more than $1 million
per year.
The other component of the new farm income review service, the
farm consultation service, would provide financial consultation to
farmers facing emerging problems or when farm families are
looking for opportunities.
The service would be preventive in nature and would provide
advice on cash flow problems as well as helping farmers look at
options for diversification, expansion, downsizing and
restructuring their operations.
The bill will help farmers better manage their economic future
and will help increase the overall prosperity of our agricultural
sector and of our rural communities.
There is more optimism in the agriculture sector than I have ever
seen. That optimism is the result of the positive policies the
government is putting place like new legislation to help farmers.
(1840)
I saw this optimism this past weekend when I had the pleasure of
attending a centennial farm celebration for the Dalgeish family in
Grandview. Four generations of the Dalgeish family have toiled
3959
for long hours in very difficult conditions through the dirty thirties,
through searing heat and bitter cold, through droughts and floods,
through strong markets and world price wars. They have
persevered and worked the same farm for 100 years, and that is
certainly something worth celebrating. I am a third generation
farmer and I know how important it is to ensure the farming
tradition continues.
I am pleased to be part of a government that is putting in
proactive farmer initiative policies for long term survival and
prosperity of family farms, policies to ensure we have many more
centennial farms to celebrate.
I have always been and I continue to be an ambassador for rural
Canada, an ambassador for rural economic development. Never in
Canadian history has the future of rural Canada looked so bright,
and this is at least in part due to the very positive action the
government has taken to enhance the agricultural sector. The
government is putting in place the foundations needed to take rural
Canada, farmers, into the 21st century. For this reason I
wholeheartedly support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like right off to say hello to a friend of in North Bay,
Ontario, named Jean Tanguay. He is perhaps watching, and I
wanted not only to indicate his presence, but also to tell him that I
cannot right now talk about francophone issues or the problems
faced by francophones in Ontario, but am rising to speak to an
agricultural issue, Bill C-38.
It is in fact the Farm Debt Mediation Act. I am delighted to see
that the Farm Debt Review Act is being spruced up. As you will
recall, this act was passed in 1986, ten years ago, when an
exceptionally high number of farm families were forced to give up
farming, because they could not meet their debt obligations.
Debt review offices were set up in each province at the time. The
aim of Bill C-38 is to facilitate mediation between insolvent
farmers and their creditors. It is also to amend the Agriculture and
Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Bill C-38
repeals and replaces the Farm Debt Review Act and provides
initially for a review of the financial situation of an insolvent
farmer and subsequently for financial arrangements with creditors,
hence the importance of mediation, and, as appropriate, the
suspension of the creditors' right to take proceedings against a
farmer in serious difficulties.
Bill C-38 also provides for the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act to apply in the case of
contravention.
My party, the Bloc Quebecois, supports the objectives of Bill
C-38 in general terms. It is not a controversial bill. It appears to
respond satisfactorily to the concerns of farmers, with the
exception of financial institutions.
This bill is the result of extensive consultations involving all
stakeholders, which showed that despite the need to maintain the
stay of proceedings clause and to keep on helping through
mediation, changes could be made to improve efficiency and lower
costs.
When we look closely at the proposed bill, we find that farmers
in financial trouble will no longer qualify. They used to under
section 20 of the Farm Debt Review Act.
(1845)
Now, the way I see it, there will be only two categories of
farmers who will qualify. First, commercial farmers, second,
insolvent farmers, that is farmers who can no longer meet their
obligations when they come due or those whose property, if sold, is
not sufficient to pay off all their debts.
Bill C-38, as it now stands, tightens up eligibility criteria. Under
those conditions, we must wonder what would happen to farmers in
financial trouble. Would they have to wait to be insolvent to qualify
for help? I will point out that this is a rather strange kind of
medicine. Personally I would choose to help farmers put their
financial house in order before they become insolvent. Even though
it might be a little late to act, better late than never. We must act
while there is still time. This is the reason why I am asking the
government to do something so that farmers in trouble might also
get some respect from the government.
We are told that the new service will be less costly and
cumbersome. However, this is one of the particular aspects of Bill
C-38 which bother me. Another one is the entrenchment of
mediation in the legislation. Under the Farm Debt Review Act,
there was a certain amount of mediation, of course. However, with
Bill C-38, mediation will be an integral part of the legislation and
will ensure a fair process since the mediator will be the mediator. In
other words, the mediator will not be in a position to give advice
either to the farmer or to his creditors. His title says so. He must
remain a mediator.
Another aspect of this bill which bothers me is the power of the
minister to designate administrators, as it is stated in clause 4(a).
Let me explain. Bill C-38 abolishes regional offices created by
order in council since services will now be rendered by regional
administrators responsible for the enforcement of the Farm Debt
Mediation Act. These administrators will be appointed according
to the Public Service Employment Act.
What bothers me is that the minister will have the power to
designate individuals who are not public servants under the terms
of the Public Service Employment Act if these persons meet the
requirements set by the minister. Are we to understand that some of
these regional administrators will be appointed in accordance with
criteria determined by the minister? If such is the case, I believe we
should debate that point. If the minister can designate administra-
3960
tors in accordance with criteria different from those set out in the
Public Service Employment Act, how can we be sure the present
minister, or an eventual successor, will not use that clause for
partisan purposes?
As far as the choice of mediators is concerned, we just learned
that they will be chosen through a bidding process and that a large
pool of mediators will be established. There again, we can
legitimately question the process for the choice of one or all
mediators. Given the actions of this government in several
instances, we have every reason to ask if there will be patronage
involved. This government is clearly too prone to patronage. At
one point, there even was a Tory member and minister, the member
for Joliette, the Hon. Roch LaSalle, who said that patronage was a
normal part of politics.
This has been shown to be true in many instances. It is not only
the case with Pearson airport, but also with Expressvu and others.
This government indulges in a lot of patronage, particularly in the
contracting out of public works. There is a lot of patronage there,
and I daresay I would not want it to extend to agriculture, which is
such an important sector for the future of many people. I believe
the government, through its minister, must convince and reassure
us that this will not happen.
(1850)
Furthermore, we should pay attention to the standards to be
applied to the salary of both regional administrators and mediators.
On another level, the program administrator will be able to
designate an expert to do the financial assessment or an expert to
develop options to be considered in the course of the mediation.
Once again, what are the criteria for the selection of these
experts? We are told the government could leave it up to the farmer,
by giving him the resources necessary, to hire of the expert or the
financial counsellor of his choice. What are the criteria or the
requirements? You know, when we say ``could'', this does not
necessarily mean it is an inalienable right.
Moreover, there are the twenty or so members who will at some
point sit on the appeal committee. Once again, they would be
appointed by the minister. We are told they would come from the
farming community as much as possible. Again, this is perhaps
only lip service, without any serious guarantee, I believe.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments on Bill C-38, the
debt mediation act.
When I think back, only twice in history have farmers had to use
this type of vehicle to stay solvent. The one vehicle I can barely
remember as a child was called the debt adjustment board,
something the government implemented shortly after the great
depression.
The debt adjustment board was designed to keep farmers on the
land. It gave them a chance to restructure. It took the clout of
creditors away. They could not foreclose for a certain amount of
time. It gave farmers a chance to get back on their feet.
Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act, is probably a quick end to
ending the misery of a farmer already in financial problems. The
120-day period of grace for a farmer with serious financial
problems is not even a glimpse of hope.
When we look at the Canadian Wheat Board taking at least a
year and six months to sell grain and to pay out final payments,
how is a farmer supposed to reorganize his financial house in 120
days or a third of the crop year?
We have to look back at what created this big problem. I have
heard many kind comments about the present Liberal government.
I wish the past Liberal governments of the seventies and early
eighties had been just as kind. They were the governments that
allowed inflation to creep up to 15 per cent and 18 per cent, and
interest rates up to 24 per cent. Bankers, accountants and financial
planners told farmers they had to specialize and to redesign their
farming operations so that they milked 100 cows instead of 25
cows and raised 10 pigs and some chickens. They had all the
answers for farmers. They were supposed to have a better
livelihood.
All of a sudden in 1981-82 when the crunch really hit interest
rates rose to 24 per cent and it was only people like Mr. Gordon
Sinclair who said there was no crisis or debt problem. Those people
raked in huge profits and farmers suffered. They could not dig
themselves out of their debt load.
If it had not been for the Conservatives coming through in 1986
with a number of huge payments to farmers, there probably would
not be a farmer left in western Canada today. If it were not for
FSAM I and FSAM II which doled out billions of dollars, not
millions, farmers would not have survived to this point.
Because the Conservatives organized the debt review board
which helped a lot of farmers to restructure, the kind Liberal
government is now trying to say that it will get the few guys still
left in misery out in a hurry; in 120 days it will be over for them. I
do not see the kindness from the government I have been hearing
about tonight.
(1855)
Why should a farmer who has suffered for 10 years have the final
bell rung? Why should he be told in another 120 days the game will
be over? Is that the nice, compassionate government we see in the
House? Or, is it just another way of more or less getting into the
type of farming system we see in communist countries?
3961
It bothers me when I have heard financial advisers and planners
tell us for 10 years what we have to do and suddenly in the middle
of the course they pull the plug and say we have to do something
else.
I wonder why farmers are put in jail or are fined thousands of
dollars for trying to market their grain at a better price. I cannot see
the kindness of the Liberal government.
I will read a couple of words of a writer in the Glenboro Gazette
in the centre of my riding: ``I don't care if you think the wheat
board is a gift from God. If they are not held accountable they are
going to go on filling their own pockets with the hard earned
dollars of the farmer. And no government official deserves to live a
better life than the people that elected him or her''.
If that is the case, why not give farmers in financial problems a
million dollar pension plan like the one members in the House are
getting? That is the way to solve their problems. It would be a lot
easier to farm from there on. The people who were elected to the
House are now telling them the game will be over in 120 days. That
does not seem to be a kind and rational solution.
I will read a few lines from another article: ``Illegal grain exports
earned farmers $302,000''. Two farmers who sold their own grain
earned an $302,000. The Liberals are trying to tell me that the
marketing system they think is more or less a godsend or a gift is
keeping these farmers on the land. It is throwing them off. The
$302,000 would pay a lot of debt.
Mr. Brooks says the loss could have been bigger because some of
the barley graded as feed sold as malt barley. What is happening?
Do we have a Canadian Grain Commission that does not know how
to grade grain? Why do the Liberals not restructure the Canadian
Grain Commission so we can at least have grain graded properly?
It seems strange where the kindness I have heard about this
evening is coming from and going. It further amazes me when I
read: ``Rebel farmers' plight against wheat board may not yet be
over''. Mr. Sawatzky won his case. The judge said that there was no
breaking of the law and that the Customs Act had not been violated.
The kind Liberal government will take him for another ride.
A wheat board counsellor said: ``An appeal is necessary because
the order in council wouldn't apply to anyone charged before the
loophole was closed. There are a significant number of charges still
out there''. Why not fix those farmers, those poor farmers the
Liberal government is going to give another 120 days to end it all?
It seems to me the kindness I have heard about this afternoon is
probably the kindness of putting them out of misery. The quicker
the better. It is selective Liberal justice.
When I look at a number of bills in the House they remind me of
a flock of sheep. When a flock of sheep becomes discontented it
runs around in the pasture looking for a better spot to graze. The
sheep are not quite sure whether they should stop to graze or
whether they should break out of the pasture and maybe get into an
alfalfa field and kill themselves. This is what these bills seem to do.
The Liberals are not really sure how they should handle it, but
they are running around in the pasture trying to divert attention so
that if they find a hole in the fence to get through nobody will
notice. Eventually they will probably overeat, bloat and die. That is
how I see the last two bills the Liberals have introduced.
(1900 )
Every year it astounds me when I see the statistics and there are
fewer farmers, not more. It is said that if government helps the
farmer once, he can survive; if it helps him the second time, he is in
big trouble; but if it helps him the third time, he is finished for sure.
I wonder what the third bill will be. We have seen two here
today. Probably the other one is that whenever a farmer grows a
bushel of wheat, he should not have any control over it at all. He
should not even be able to market it to the cattle producers or the
hog producers. Maybe the government should take that away too,
like it used to be.
We have to start realizing that farmers are some of the best
managers in the world, but the government still insists that it knows
better and that it can help them. The only thing it can help them
with is emptying their pocketbooks. After that has happened,
usually then there are problems and the government gives them
another kick in the butt and says: ``Here it is, 120 days and the
game is over''.
Maybe we should have another bill or something to complement
these bills. Then we could do it all in one swipe. Bills C-34 and
C-38 are doing a good job. The kindness of the Liberals will be
well remembered into the future, as was the kindness of the
Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s. Those days will be remembered as
long as history stands: 24 per cent interest and inflation at 18 to 20
per cent.
I appreciated the opportunity to speak on this bill. It has been a
pleasure. I can see the Liberals were listening from the expressions
on their faces. They paid attention.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before
speaking on Bill C-38 I have to respond to a couple of remarks
made by the last speaker.
The Reform Party continues to use every opportunity it can to
attack the Canadian Wheat Board. It does so using selective facts. I
want to underline those selective facts.
3962
Let me say that if one stacks up the record of the Canadian
Wheat Board, the orderly marketing system versus the open
marketing system, the Canadian Wheat Board over the past 20
years has shone every year. When one takes all the facts and looks
over the years, it will be found that the Canadian Wheat Board
has maximized returns back to producers like no other agency
anywhere in the world.
I want the member to recognize that. I know it is hard for him to
admit he is wrong on that point, but eventually he will have to. We
will debate the issue at committee and I hope we can clear up his
mind on that matter.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-38 which
will repeal the Farm Debt Review Act and introduce a new act to
facilitate financial arrangements between insolvent farmers and
their creditors.
Let me suggest up front, and I agree with my colleague from
Lisgar-Marquette on this point, it is a sad commentary that we
need such acts as the farm debt mediation act that will help
insolvent farmers gain a settlement with their creditors. It implies
that there are financial difficulties on the farms at times, and there
certainly are.
Some are caused by management difficulties and many others
are caused by problems unrelated to the primary producer's ability
to manage. It may be international monetary flows. It may be
global prices in terms of commodities. It may be rapidly changing
interest rates. Many of us, myself included, who are in the farm
community have faced those kinds of times in the past.
In debating this bill this evening thus far, very little has been said
about the extreme trauma farm families go through when they face
insolvency. I raise this point because the reason, in part, to change
the act is that there are far fewer hard financial cases coming
forward to the Farm Debt Review Board today than there were 10
or 12 years ago, which is a good thing. When we deal with this
issue, because times are a little better now, we in this House tend to
deal with things in the abstract. Being in farm financial difficulty is
very hard to explain. It is something people cannot understand
unless they have experienced it.
(1905)
For each farm family that is involved in a serious farm financial
crisis, it is very troublesome and difficult for them, for the man, his
wife and their children, in terms of the loss of pride and in many
cases in terms of losing their heritage, in terms of loss of faith in
oneself, even though it may not have been a management problem.
It might have been an international marketing problem or some
such thing that has put these people into financial difficulty. It is
extremely painful and troublesome. There have been many suicides
in the past in the farm community as a result of the farm crisis.
Whatever we do with this bill, we have to ensure that the bottom
line is that we protect those farmers, those families and those rural
communities that find themselves in financial distress. We have to
ensure there are ways and means within this bill to protect the
human aspect beyond the dollars and cents from the difficulties
caused by the financial problems.
Eleven years ago, as president of the National Farmers Union, I
led a farm finance lobby to lobby on this very issue on this very
Hill. Yes, we asked for more power. We asked for an appeal
process. We went far beyond where this bill takes us. But this bill
does move us a step in a positive direction by putting in legislation
some of the powers and by establishing an appeal process where
formal appeals can be made.
I said earlier that we must strive to ensure that farm returns
continue to surpass farm expenses. In all the other legislative
matters we pursue in this House we must ensure that marketing
agencies, supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board remain
strong to ensure that the government through its agencies is
working the best it can to maximize prices and returns to producers
from the marketplace.
I mentioned that the government cannot knuckle under to a few
law breakers who are trying to violate the laws of the land in terms
of surpassing the Canadian Wheat Board. We cannot knuckle under
to the few Reformers who are speaking out against the good
marketing institutions we have in this land.
Allow me to move to Bill C-38 itself. I agree with the general
thrust of the bill. I certainly am in favour of this bill moving to
committee to be debated further. Many of the points in the bill were
outlined in the Liberal Party document ``Food Security for
Canadians and a Fair Return for Canadian Farmers'' in which we
talked about the commitments we would make with respect to farm
debt review boards.
The original and current role of the Farm Debt Review Board
was outlined in the most recent Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
estimates on page 99. It said: ``Farm debt review boards were
established in 1986 in each province to ensure that farmers in
financial difficulty or actually facing a farm foreclosure are
afforded an impartial third party review of individual farm
circumstances''. That is important.
As my colleague from Dauphin-Swan River said earlier, this
bill moves us toward focusing on farmers in insolvent situations. It
applies through legislation an impartial administrator and opens up
an appeal process.
(1910 )
On initial examination of the bill, the provisions would appear to
limit rather than to expand access to the farm debt review process. I
have concerns about that and I will be talking about this at
committee.
3963
One question which should be addressed is that according to
the estimates for the department on page 99, since 1986 there have
been 24,000 applications to the Farm Debt Review Board. The two
sections applied under were section 16, farmers in financial
difficulty, and section 20, insolvent farmers.
How many of these would have been excluded from the process
had the insolvency rule applied since the inception of the Farm
Debt Review Board? According to Agriculture Canada officials,
approximately one-half of the applications under the former act
were made for insolvency and the other half under the provisions of
financial difficulty.
However, some of those in financial difficulty were found to be
insolvent. The point is that perhaps one-third of the applications to
the Farm Debt Review Board would never have qualified given that
they were not insolvent. I maintain that the fact they were able to
go before the Farm Debt Review Board and get mediation services
and assistance is why many of them were able to keep their farms
and are on the land today.
The bottom line as we debate Bill C-38 is it is important to
remember that other things have to come into play as well. I
believe we have to re-examine-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-39, an act
respecting the York Factory First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address the House on Bill C-39, the York Factory First Nation
flooded land act.
Hon. colleagues will remember back in June 1994 when this
House gave second reading to Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First
Nation Flooded Land Act. The flooded lands acts are part of my
constituency in the riding of Churchill. The bill before us, the York
Factory First Nation flooded land act, is very similar to Bill C-36,
the Split Lake Cree Flooded Land Act which we passed in 1994.
(1915 )
The objective is to enact certain elements of the implementation
agreement that has been negotiated with the York Factory First
Nation to fulfil obligations under the Northern Flood Agreement.
In order to put this bill into perspective I would like to quickly
remind hon. members about the circumstances that have led us to
this proposed legislation.
In December 1997 the Northern Flood Agreement was signed by
Canada, the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the
Northern Flood Committee who was acting on behalf of the five
Manitoba First Nations: the Split Lake Cree, Nelson House, York
Factory, Norway House and Cross Lake First Nations.
The purpose of this agreement was to address the adverse impact
of hydro-related projects on the Churchill and Nelson Rivers that
resulted in the flooding of almost 12,000 acres of reserve land in
northern Manitoba.
This project also flooded more than 525,000 acres of non-reserve
land, much of which was traditionally used by the five First
Nations for hunting and trapping. The affected waterways were
also used as a source of drinking water, for recreational pursuits,
for food and commercial fishing, and for transportation.
The flooding had an enormous impact on these communities. It
has robbed many families of their traditional livelihoods and
caused many people to leave their communities in search of work
and a better way of life elsewhere. It resulted in the loss of homes
and personal property. In total, about 9,000 First Nations people
were directly affected by the flooding.
The Northern Flood Agreement was intended to address the
problems caused by the flooding, to compensate the five First
Nations for loss of land and the negative impact on their
livelihoods. The agreement identified financial compensation,
community infrastructure programs, land and other benefits that
will be provided to the affected parties.
Hon. members will recall from the debate on Bill C-36 that the
Northern Flood Agreement did not live up to its promises. The
agreement is vaguely worded and did not anticipate all issues that
have since arisen. It did not set out the roles and responsibilities of
the parties as clearly as we would have liked. As a result, little or
no progress was made in implementing many elements of the
agreement.
As the implementation process broke down, the affected
Manitoba First Nations turned to the dispute resolution mechanism
set out in the Northern Flood Agreement. Over time, more than 170
claims
3964
were submitted for arbitration. Like many other elements of the
agreement, this process turned out to be both inefficient and costly
for all parties.
An important breakthrough was achieved in July 1990, when the
four parties to the Northern Flood Agreement negotiated the
proposed basis of settlement as a means of addressing outstanding
claims and obligations. This proposed basis of settlement is now
finding a foundation for negotiating implementation agreements
with the individual First Nations.
One such agreement was signed with the Split Lake Cree First
Nations in 1992, and is now being implemented. The settlement
agreement provides for financial compensation, increases
socioeconomic opportunities for the Split Lake Cree and releases
Canada for all matters being dealt with under this agreement.
Implementation agreements have now been completed with two
additional communities. After ratification by the community late
last year the York Factory First Nation implementation agreement
was signed in January. I am pleased to report that these
negotiations are proceeding with the two remaining First Nations
affected by flooding, Norway House and Cross Lake.
Bill C-39 will not enact an implementation agreement with York
Factory. The agreement has its own legal force and the parties have
already begun to implement them. However, as was the case with
Split Lake, legislation is needed to execute certain provisions of the
agreement. This is the purpose of Bill C-39.
(1920 )
This bill is virtually identical to Bill C-40. Nevertheless it is
important that separate legislation be passed to demonstrate
positive closure of this heated issue in each community. Because of
difficulties in implementing the Northern Flood Agreement, the
passing of band specific legislation will be viewed as a significant
achievement by members of each community.
As I indicated a moment ago, Bill C-39 and Bill C-40 will enact
certain elements of the Nelson House and York Factory
implementation agreements. Specifically these bills will achieve
four objectives. First, they will ensure that any lands provided to
these First Nations in fee simple title will not become special
reserves under section 36 of the Indian Act.
The removal of section 36 application means that the York
Factory First Nation-as is the case with the Split Lake Cree First
Nation-will be able to sell their fee simple lands, develop them,
take out mortgages, and address property taxes pursuant to the
arrangements with the province. In effect, they can use and control
these lands as they see fit within the parameters of the provincial
land regime.
Fee simple ownership will also protect the interests of the
province by placing the land under the provincial land regime. It
will reduce the administrative burden on the Department of Indian
Affairs because it will not be responsible for managing these lands
as it is for reserve lands.
Second, this bill will provide that moneys owed under the York
Factory implementation agreement are not payable to the crown
and therefore will not be administered as Indian moneys under the
Indian Act. Instead the moneys will be paid to and administered by
First Nations trusts at the discretion of the York Factory First
Nation.
This is a very important provision. It will give the affected bands
much greater control over these moneys than they would have
under the Indian Act. This in turn removes a potential source of
friction between the bands and the Department of Indian Affairs
over how the money should be managed.
From the government's perspective this provision will further
reduce the department's administrative burden. The First Nation
will have more immediate access to these funds to address their
own priorities. Nevertheless there will be important controls in the
form of trust provisions set out in provincial law.
Third, this bill will provide that certain types of claims can
continue to be made under the Northern Flood Agreement.
However, if the applicable implementation agreement also
provides for the matter to be settled or adjudicated, the provisions
of the band specific implementation agreement will take
precedence over the Northern Flood Agreement process which I
noted earlier is costly and inefficient.
This proposed bill will enable Canada to use the Manitoba
arbitration act when dealing with any dispute between the parties
submitted to arbitration under the terms of the Northern Flood
Agreement. Currently Canada is the only party to the agreement
that does not have access to these arbitration mechanisms.
I want to assure hon. members that the proposed act will not
establish a new program or provide new benefits to First Nations
people. It does not include any commitments by the Government of
Canada that do not already exist under the implementation
agreements themselves. We are simply fulfilling commitments
made by government to aboriginal people which is something we
said we would do in the red book and which we have been
progressively doing for the past two and a half years.
I am pleased that this agreement, and particularly the elements
we are proposing to execute through legislation, will take us further
down the path toward self-government. Bill C-39 will empower
First Nations' leaders and the compensation provisions of the
3965
implementation agreements will provide the means by which
community conditions can be improved.
The provisions for fee simple ownership of land and to place
compensation moneys under First Nations control are both
important steps to ward increased self-reliance and
self-government.
(1925 )
Under this approach, the First Nations' leaders will be
accountable to their own members for spending, investment and
land management decisions. This is a significant move away from
the Indian Act and toward self-government, one that I
wholeheartedly support.
In terms of improving community conditions, we need only look
at the Split Lake Cree First Nation, which has been implementing
its settlement agreement since 1992, to see examples of positive
progress.
First and foremost, the agreement has put to rest a divisive issue
in the community. As well, Split Lake now has the ability to
manage water flows, which means that community members are
better equipped and able to pursue their traditional lifestyles.
Through the Tataskweyak Trust, the Split Lake Cree First Nation
is using its compensation money wisely and for the benefit of its
members. This money is being used for socioeconomic
development, to support resource harvesting, to compensate
members for certain types of losses as a result of the flooding, to
build remedial works and much more.
Chief Norman Flett, who negotiated the Split Lake settlement
agreement, appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development during the committee's review
of Bill C-36. At that time, he told the committee that the
implementation agreement had given his First Nation a huge lift in
trying to improve community conditions.
His comments were echoed by John Peter Mayham, another
witness from split Lake, who told the standing committee:
The money and the benefits we receive from our settlement are mainly used
to build the community. We are reinvesting the dollars in the community.
Before, 60 per cent of the income on a reserve went off reserve. That's why
we're trying to capture our own money from the reserve and invest it inside the
community-we're encouraging individual band members to go into their own
economic development, their own businesses.
The benefits of the settlement agreement are visible throughout
the Split Lake Cree community. Settlement moneys have already
been used to build an arena, housing units and a mini-mall.
Programs have been established related to business development,
trapping, culture and recreation.
In the case of the business development program, any band
member, whether living on reserve or off reserve, can apply for
funding.
When Mr. Mayhem appeared before the standing committee, he
reported that the band was exploring major joint ventures with
outside construction companies. For example, a $2.7 million
Manitoba Hydro contract was entered into as a joint venture
between Split Lake Construction Company and Comstock Canada
Company Ltd. Another $640,000 Manitoba Hydro contract was
awarded to Split Lake Construction Company.
The Split Lake First Nation has also become one of the major
shareholders of a company that manages capital projects for First
Nations in several provinces. I am particularly impressed by an
initiative of the Tataskweyak Environmental Agency, which has
also been established by the Split Lake Cree First Nation. The
agency's water quality monitoring program is so successful that the
individuals responsible for the program have been invited to many
other communities to provide information and guidance on water
monitoring.
As parties to the implementation agreements, the province of
Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro support Bill C-39. In fact, the
provincial government is now in the process of drafting companion
legislation to this bill, as required by the implementation
agreements. The provincial legislation will further protect the
interests of the bands.
This bill was developed in close consultation with the affected
First Nations. Meetings were held only last month involving
Canada, the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the York
Factory First Nations to discuss the proposed act.
(1930 )
Minor revisions have been made to address First Nation's
concerns. I want to assure hon. members these acts will in no way
affect the other three Northern Flood Agreement bands, including
the two that have not yet signed settlement agreements, Cross Lake
and Norway House.
I want to make it perfectly clear that the proposed act is not
necessary to execute the implementation agreement with the York
Factory First Nation. However, the act is necessary if we are to
move away from the expensive and frustrating process of the
Northern Flood Agreement.
It is necessary if we are to give the First Nation control over their
compensation money and fee simple lands. It is necessary if we are
to continue to move away from the paternalistic Indian Act and
toward increased self-sufficiency, self-reliance and
self-government.
By giving its approval to Bill C-36 several months ago, the
House has already endorsed the government's approach to
resolving outstanding issues related to the Northern Flood
Agreement. I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation which will achieve the same positive
objectives in other
3966
affected communities. I support the bill and thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for letting me comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-39. We are, in fact, treading
familiar grounds, as a bill concerning Split Lake, which was passed
by this House over a year ago, contained more or less the same
provisions.
York Factory is one of five Cree communities covered by the
agreement under consideration today. We are therefore in familiar
territory.
As is my habit, I did a little research this afternoon because I like
looking at things in context, rather than jumping straight into
something that is very arid. I read about the customs and the people
in that location, how long they have been there, and so on. I
discovered that some 200 years ago, when the first Europeans
arrived, they referred to the Cree as the ``Cristinos''. I do not know
whether my hon. colleague from Churchill already knows any of
this, but that was what they were called in those days. It appears
that, over time, the ``Cristinos'' became the Cree.
Let us say that these people have claimed an extremely large
territory that I will be happy to describe for you. It could even be
argued-as they do, probably with good reason-that the First
Nations have occupied this territory for the past 15,000 years. They
have been there for a very long time indeed. As I said, this territory
is huge, extending from the east side of James Bay to all the rivers
in the north leading to James Bay, to the northernmost point of
Lake Winnipeg.
Interesting discoveries were made there. Anthropologists and
archaeologists have found, among other things, pottery at least
1,000 years old, created by these people's ancestors. I mentioned
earlier that the Cree claim to have been living on this land for
nearly 15,000 years now. At the time of European contact 200 years
ago, there were more than 15,000 Cree Indians here, who spoke
Cree; today there are still 11,000 Cree in five communities who
still use the Cree language.
As for their culture and their art, which are still alive today,
several pieces of embroidery were found, especially pieces made
with moose and reindeer hair. Artefacts from that time were found
and today still, the mark of their art is recognizable. Just by looking
at Cree art and clothing, you can see how important embroidery
was and still is in their culture.
(1935)
I have also found how Europeans described the Cree at the time.
Two hundred years ago, the Cree were said to be a dashing people,
with elegance, great people skills and a way with words. These
features were easy to recognize in Mr. Coon-Come and other Cree
leaders from Manitoba, with whom I have regular contact. It is
clear that these people are born diplomats who proudly speak up for
their culture and the people they represent. They are indeed very
eloquent.
All you have to do to convince yourself is to listen to Mr.
Coon-Come speak Cree, because that is the tradition at these kinds
of meetings: they speak together in their mother tongue at first. I
am always dazzled by how rich the Cree language is. We will be
listening to what they are saying through the voice of an interpreter
and, now and them, we will take off our earpiece, just for the
pleasure of hearing this rich language. It is always very nice to see
these people speak their own language at first.
After these few words of introduction, allow me to move on. I do
not wish to get into the bill per se right away, because this is not a
very complicated bill, with its seven or eight clauses. I am more
interested in what drives this bill.
In the case of this bill, as with the one on Split Lake, we had to
look at what is called the Northern Flood Agreement. This
agreement was reached in 1977. It was signed a bit hurriedly,
because Hydro Manitoba had started the project seven years earlier.
At some point, someone thought: ``Maybe we should reach an
agreement with the aboriginals who are claiming these reserves and
who live close to the huge project going on''.
So, the Northern Flood Agreement was signed in 1977 by a few
parties, namely the Department of Indian Affairs, the Province of
Manitoba and the Northern Flood Committee. At the time, the five
aboriginal communities had appointed a group to represent them
and to speak on their behalf. These communities were Split Lake,
which has already reached the agreement regarding which a bill
was passed here. Now, it is the turn of York Factory, to be followed
a little later on this evening by Nelson House. I imagine the other
two communities, Norway House and Cross Lake, are negotiating
and have not yet reached an agreement.
So, after signing the agreement in 1977, Hydro Manitoba
quickly flooded 11,861 acres of land, or almost 10 per cent of the
claimed Cree territory. Environmental studies showed that this
measure had a rather disastrous impact on the traditional aboriginal
land, including the land used for trapping and hunting.
Let us not forget that we are dealing here with a mentality
different from ours, particularly mine. Indeed, I come from an
urban setting and, while I enjoy canoeing on the Richelieu River, I
am not interested in hunting and fishing as a way of life. The
federal government stopped the funding in May, an action that
undermined the solidarity that existed between natives and the five
communities against the federal government. Obviously, with the
demise of the committee, things started to fall apart, and
communities began negotiating on an individual basis. But on the
aborigi-
3967
nals' side, it must be understood that this is a way of life and an
important tradition for them. I have often said that what probably
matters most now in our society is a happy marriage between
modern life and aboriginal tradition.
So a major portion of their traditional hunting, trapping and
fishing activities was destroyed. All along, there were attempts to
remedy that with all kinds of committees, but in the end what I will
describe to you is not very pretty picture either because you have to
see how the government proceeded.
The government proceeded by looking at the main harmful
impacts. It looked for a means of arbitration to do it. What was
provided for initially in the convention was a form of consensus; it
is traditional, among aboriginal people, to try to attain one's goals
by consensus. By setting up an arbitration mechanism to decide on
all the harmful impacts-which were not even defined as I will
explain later on-we ended up with conflict instead of consensus.
That was a very bad move.
(1940)
It must be realized that once a convention is concluded, there
should be some current implementation. The aboriginals were
relying on the Northern Flood Committee which was looked on as a
precursor to bring aboriginal nations together to face up to giants
like Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba government and the
Department of Indian Affairs.
So the Northern Flood Committee, in a sense, had an
enforcement role for all aspects of the convention. Since there was
now someone to ensure the day to day enforcement of the
convention, it was quickly realized how important funding was.
That is where things started to go wrong. I inform you that the
Northern Flood Committee was disbanded in May.
The government managed a breakthrough by slowly isolating the
communities. Split Lake was the first to sign, not without a few
skirmishes with other communities around these megaprojects.
The Indian affairs committee summoned communities who told us
they did not like the Split Lake agreement, and that the
megaprojects would have an impact on them as well as on the Split
Lake community, and that signing the agreement had broken up the
five communities' coalition.
The funding ended on April 1st, and the solidarity was
undermined. I am not the only one making these allegations.
Someone was asked to make a program review as part of the task
force on program review. That individual said:
[English]
``Internal DIAND reports indicate that from 1977 to 1983 NFA
bands received $10,000 per capita in benefits while other Manitoba
bands received $26,000 per capita''.
[Translation]
The second quotation is much more important.
[English]
``If one wanted to emasculate the terms of the agreement and deny
the benefits of it to those entitled, all one would have to do is see
that the NFC, the Northern Flood Committee, does not function by
denying it operating funding or expertise''.
[Translation]
By and large, that is what happened. The funding was simply
stopped, solidarity disappeared and the communities were trapped
into negotiating on an individual basis, with the result we know
today.
Let me turn now to the scope and impact of the hydro
development project. It is a major project. James Bay, in Quebec, is
often talked about because it supposedly devastated the landscape,
and disturbed the Cree traditional way of life. I do not deny those
problems, but there is always something subjective in such an
assessment.
One thing is certain, the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement
project has had major environmental impacts. Concerning river
diversions, Hydro Manitoba has diverted up to 90 per cent of the
Churchill River into the Nelson. Why? Because the power stations
along the Nelson River needed a higher water rate. So the Churchill
River was diverted into the Nelson River and that had an impact on
Lake Winnipeg.
Extensive work was done in that area. It is understandable that
this caused a disruption for the native peoples. The department
itself recognizes the adverse effects of this project. As I said earlier,
2,134 square kilometres of land where 10,000 Treaty Crees lived
were flooded and some commercial and recreational zones
deteriorated.
(1945)
I talked a little while ago about the hunting and trapping
territories. Thanks to their hunting and trapping activities, these
people had developed commercial zones that were disrupted by the
diversion I have just told you about.
There was a decrease in the quality and quantity of fish,
including higher mercury contamination. Of course, when rivers
like these are diverted, huge surfaces have to be flooded, bringing
out the mercury. And then the food chain becomes more and more
contaminated.
Drinking water is contaminated. I will come back to this a little
later on. You will see that an extensive infrastructure was needed to
stop this drinking water contamination.
There was less and less wildlife to hunt and trap. I think I was
very clear on that.
It became more risky to travel by boat because of the lower water
level.
3968
It became more risky to travel in wintertime, since it was now
impossible to predict how safe the ice was because of the
abnormal water levels.
You see, natives who have been living there for 15,000 years
know these rivers. They know exactly how to travel in the
summertime and the wintertime, by canoe or on foot, on these
waterways.
In the wintertime, there is a danger that the ice will melt or that
their usual ice bridges will no longer be safe. This was even
recognized by the department. These were the department's words,
not just mine.
Therefore, through the Northern Flood Agreement, Canada
recognized its responsibilities. In fact, you know that section 35
recognizes a certain number of rights, and also authorizes a
provincial body to take or to use Indian lands with the consent of
the governor in council and under the conditions he sets down.
Therefore, with the bill before us and the Split Lake bill, it was
the responsibility of the federal government to act in this manner.
In addition, the Government of Canada undertook to play an
active role in implementing measures to ensure the viability of the
communities affected. In this regard, I will describe to you a bit
later the basis on which the government proceeded. I think that
there were certain problems of application on the part of the
government as far as any benefit to these communities was
concerned.
There was also a great deal of ambiguity in the provisions of the
Northern Flood Agreement. What happened was totally bizarre. An
agreement was signed, and then, some six years later, given the
difficulty of application, it was decided to ask for a legal analysis.
A legal analysis six years after the signing of an agreement is
almost inexplicable. Furthermore, they hired legal experts to
explain the different percentages of responsibility of each of the
levels involved. The agreement itself contains close to a hundred
pages, and is backed up by interpretation documents of close to two
hundred pages which were more or less applied.
Among other things, what is said about the water supply is far
from accurate. Reference is made to Canada's obligation to provide
a continuous supply of drinking water, and Manitoba Hydro's
obligation to bear 50 per cent of the costs.
There is nothing whatsoever about payment schedules, finishing
projects, or routing the water. As we speak, Canada has footed the
entire bill and Manitoba Hydro has not yet coughed up a single
cent. So there are certain problems of application.
The Canadian taxpayers are paying for Manitoba's
infrastructures. I must tell you, moreover, that Quebec did not do it
this way. Hydro-Québec's commitments concerning James Bay
were respected to the letter. Representations were even made to the
federal government for it to pay its fair share in Quebec, because
there have been several points of dispute recently, including the
education of James Bay Cree children. In that case it was the
Government of Canada which was defaulting on payments to the
Government of Quebec, whereas this time it is the Government of
Manitoba which is defaulting on payments to Canada.
(1950)
So Manitoba Hydro gave nothing and we are even told further
down that there was no expiry date to the agreement as such. It is
therefore taken for granted that the agreement will come to an end
once the five communities have signed. It is nevertheless strange
that almost 20 years later, since the agreement was signed in 1977,
the relevant legislation is still not completed and there is still no
deadline for the Northern Flood Agreement.
Furthermore, there has been many flaws in the implementation
of the agreement as such. I raised earlier the issue of consensus
versus conflict. It is easy to be full of good intentions at the outset
and say that a consensus will be reached. The five communities
agree with Manitoba Hydro. They speed things up a bit for the
signature of the agreement because they know that work started
seven years earlier. They say a consensus will be reached, they sign
and there is consensus. Later, they find themselves in arbitration
with 150 complaints. We can see, as I have said earlier, that
consensus has been replaced by conflict. I believe this was not the
intent at the outset but unfortunately the agreement was signed
rather haphazardly and many problems ensued.
You cannot even say that problems are resolved today as I will
show later when dealing with environmental impacts. People still
have to deal with the environmental impacts. There has been
numerous allegations of non compliance with the agreement. The
issue of damages due to mercury contamination was not specific
enough so they decided to quarrel about costs, who should pay, who
is responsible and who should do the environmental follow-up.
There are also no environmental monitoring mechanisms and
reports. There are shortcomings as regards the provision of
drinking water and a lack of commitment to corrective measures.
Therefore, even with the contribution of legal experts and legal
studies, we are still wondering who is responsible for it, and the
problems remain. Furthermore, Canada issued five complaints
against Manitoba and Manitoba hydro. Earlier I mentioned the
figure of $88 million, which was invested in a system to provide
drinking water. The total bill in 1984-and I return to 1984-was
$160 million. So the Canadian government has $160 million in
claims against Manitoba. I mentioned the figure of $80 million
earlier, but the Government of Canada has put a lot more money in
this project. In the end, the taxpayers of Canada paid for the people
of Manitoba.
3969
Naturally, the auditor general also criticized a number of things
I think I ought to raise here. A number of problems arise from
the fact that there was no acceptable implementation plan. Among
other things, the agreement should have concerned slightly more
strategic issues, that is, the priorities and time frames for its
implementation. There is nothing like this in the Northern Flood
Agreement. Agreements were therefore signed without time
frames or priorities. So people began in one place, did not finish
and carried on somewhere else. Since there was no time frame,
there was no rush. There were certain problems in implementing
the agreement. With no implementation plan, problems started to
surface.
As for the sources of funding for the various commitments, of
course, in the terms of the agreement there were commitments by
Canada, by Hydro Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, the
aboriginal people, but there was not enough put down in writing.
As a result, there is now a free-for-all involving the various parties
to the agreement, and people are coming up against difficulties
because no one wants to pay the bills.
The parties did not put in place an appropriate monitoring
mechanism, or implementation evaluation criteria or procedure for
that matter. So, we ended up with relatively serious problems, that
the auditor general condemned on several occasions. He also
indicated that there were deficiencies in terms of monitoring as
well. There were environmental monitoring groups, among others,
checking and looking at the impacts on the environment.
(1955)
This impact could be seen but, as you know, this type of
megaproject requires a rigorously monitored environmental
process so we can detect problems that are not necessarily apparent
at first sight. There have been many problems in that regard. We
realized that a federal interdepartmental committee had been put in
place and that various federal departments could consult one
another, but that no specific follow-up was provided for.
As for the burden of proof, the parties recognize that the lands,
activities and lifestyles of the people living on these reserves may
continue to be adversely affected. Manitoba Hydro was responsible
for this jurisdiction. Manitoba Hydro has since refused to assume
any responsibility, arguing that, because there is no definition of
``harmful effects'', it did not have to pay for the effects that could
be considered harmful.
But these harmful effects can be seen. I made a few comments
about this earlier. There is the effect of mercury contaminating the
food chain. All this led to enormous problems.
I must keep a few arguments in reserve as Bill C-40 will be
before us in a few minutes. Bill C-40 is very similar to the bill now
under consideration. These two bills deal with two neighbouring
communities. Tonight's bill applies to York Factory, and Bill C-40
to Nelson House.
I do not want to go on and on about the agreement as such, but I
would like to refer back to it during debate on Bill C-40. There are
questions relating to the Northern Flood Agreement that must be
raised. It is very easy to draft a bill with eight clauses. However, as
the official opposition, we must say that certain things continue to
be questionable. The fact that agreements are being reached with
the five communities does not mean our homework is done. There
are still many things that need to be corrected.
The York Factory bill provides that land currently in fee must not
become reserves under section 35 of the Indian Act. I will tell you
about it in other speeches, but for each acre used, four are given
back. Based on my information, the process is not yet completed,
but we must make sure this land is not turned into Indian reserves.
The bill also provides that the amounts paid will not be paid to
the crown as stated in the Indian Act, but to an aboriginal trust. We
fully agree with that. I remember making a speech on Split Lake
and saying that the aboriginals were not people living on some
southern islands. This was in response to what a Reform Party
member had said. Personally, I believe aboriginal people are quite
capable of being responsible for a trust.
When these people gain financial independence, they develop
their own businesses and they certainly do not need the
authorization of the Department of Indian Affairs to build a house
or a school. It is incredible to see what happens on a reserve when
aboriginal people become financially independent.
Last summer, I visited a reserve called Les Escoumins, in
Quebec. Its people developed a beautiful hotel complex on the
shores of the St. Lawrence River. During the summer, it is packed
with tourists. There are also several outfitting operations. In my
opinion, with this money, they are developing one of the most
beautiful reserves in Quebec. They are even ready to expand and to
purchase private land.
Once financially self-sufficient and no longer subject to the
Indian Act, natives can manage on their own with remarkable
results.
(2000)
Under this bill, Canada can also use the Manitoba Arbitration
Act to settle all disputes. I was unable to study the issue further. I
imagine the Manitoba Arbitration Act must be a model for
arbitration. If York Factory and the government agree to ask
Manitoba to act as a mediator, under the Manitoba Arbitration Act,
the situation must be appropriate and the work done by this agency
properly evaluated.
3970
I conclude on this, because I will have to come back later-as
will my hon. colleague, I guess-on Bill C-40. The Bloc
Quebecois members will vote in favour, even if they know that
the agreement was ratified by the York Factory representatives last
December, I think. It was ratified recently. We must pass the
enacting law. Since everything has been concluded to the
satisfaction of both parties, York Factory and the federal
government, the Bloc Quebecois will vote for Bill C-39.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be presenting the Reform position on Bill C-39, the York Factory
flooded land act and Bill C-40, the Nelson House flooded land act,
on behalf of my colleague, the member for North Island-Powell
River.
We are here today to debate the second and third in a series of
five bills dealing with reserve land that belongs to five First
Nations in northern Manitoba which were flooded in the 1970s.
In June 1994 we debated the first bill in this series, Bill C-36, the
Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act. Bill C-36 was an
enlightened agreement dealing with outstanding native grievances
and it received support from the Reform Party. Bills C-39 and
C-40, while dealing with similar subject matter, are unique to the
York Factory and Nelson House First Nations and require some
comment.
In the 1970s hydro related projects on the Nelson and Churchill
rivers, along with the Lake Winnipeg regulations project, flooded
almost 4,800 hectares of reserve land belonging to the five First
Nations in northern Manitoba. In addition, more than 208,000
hectares of non-reserve land traditionally used by First Nations
members for hunting and trapping were also flooded.
To address the impact of flooding, the Manitoba Northern Flood
Agreement was signed by Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and
the northern flood committee made up of the five Manitoba First
Nations: the Split Lake Cree, Nelson House, York Factory, Norway
House and Cross Lake First Nations. The agreement included
financial compensation, community infrastructure programs and
new land acquisition.
Over the intervening years, implementation of the northern flood
agreement broke down because the roles and responsibilities of the
parties were not clearly defined and the agreement did not
anticipate the complexities of concluding such agreements. In 1990
the parties to the northern flood agreement negotiated a proposed
basis of settlement. This provided the foundation for negotiating
implementation agreements with the five individual native bands.
Allow me to deal with the objectives of Bills C-39 and C-40
which are before us. They are identical in scope and focus but not
in compensation. The bills contain four basic elements which my
colleagues have touched on.
The first element is to provide that fee simple lands are not
subject to becoming special reserves under sections 35 and 36 of
the Indian Act.
The second element is to provide that moneys allowed under the
York Factory implementation act and the Nelson House
implementation act are now payable to the crown as Indian moneys
as defined in section 35(4) of the Indian Act, but are administered
by a First Nations trust.
The third element is to provide that the claims which may be
made under either the northern flood agreement, the York Factory
implementation agreement or the Nelson House implementation
agreement be administered according to the terms of the applicable
implementation agreement.
The fourth element is to enable Canada to utilize the Manitoba
Arbitration Act when dealing with any dispute between the parties
submitted to arbitration under the terms of the York Factory
implementation agreement or the Nelson House implementation
agreement.
(2005 )
Both bills are comprehensive and limit federal liability to their
normal fiduciary responsibility. Ongoing or unanticipated future
liability is placed upon the project proponent, Manitoba Hydro.
Essentially the Government of Canada should never have signed
such a loose agreement back in 1977 to cover these flooded lands
and then foisted it on to the five affected bands.
However, we now have enlightened legislation before us and it is
time to move on as we did on Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First
Nation, and as we will probably do in a year or two with the two
remaining flooded land bills dealing with the Cross Lake and
Norway House First Nations.
One very comprehensive element of these bills is that settlement
moneys will be administered by a trust company to guarantee
accountability. To compensate these two First Nations for loss of
reserve land, the federal government will contribute approximately
six and one-quarter million dollars to the York Factory First Nation
and about fifteen and one-quarter million dollars to the Nelson
House First Nation.
Both the Government of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro will
make additional contributions of land and money. The province of
Manitoba is particularly satisfied with the agreements. In
conversations with the ministers and officials, my colleague from
North Island-Powell River is satisfied that the deals are fair and
just and that the five First Nations have been patient and realistic in
their negotiations.
3971
Bill C-39 and Bill C-40 will allow fee simple lands to be held
by the respective native corporations outside the normal
encumbrances of the Indian Act. The fee simple lands are subject
to property taxation and any business originating from these lands
is also taxable. Allowing these lands to be used for economic
development purposes is both enlightening and allows for new
independence of these First Nations.
Bill C-39 and Bill C-40 enable the individual band members to
appeal under the Manitoba Arbitration Act if unsatisfied with their
own band decisions which affect them. Naturally these agreements
have received band ratification. The province of Manitoba is
comfortable with these agreements and is promoting them.
As my colleague from North Island-Powell River said in his
concluding remarks in second reading debate on Bill C-36, we are
dealing with legitimate outstanding grievances. Bill C-39 and Bill
C-40 are mirror images of Bill C-36, which passed a year ago, in
scope and intent. Consequently, the Reform Party supports them.
There are some finer points which may be clarified and elaborated
on. However, this will best be done in committee.
[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
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (for Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development) moved that Bill C-40, an act respecting
the Nelson House First Nation and the settlement of matters arising
from an agreement relating to the flooding of land, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-40, the
Nelson House First Nation flooded land act which is almost
identical to Bill C-39 and to which my colleague from Churchill
spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.
By voting in favour of Bill C-40 we can address the longstanding
and contentious issue of implementing the northern flood
agreements for the Nelson House First Nation. In turn, the
community can begin to build for the future instead of constantly
working to have past wrongs corrected.
(2010)
The hydroelectric plants on the Churchill and Nelson rivers are
important projects that have brought many economic benefits to
the province. Unfortunately they have also had a significant and
lasting impact on the lifestyle and livelihood of thousands of First
Nations people in northern Manitoba.
The flooding caused by the diversion projects deprived many
aboriginal communities of their traditional fishing, gathering,
hunting and trapping areas. The flooding also disrupted or
destroyed traditional water transportation routes and shoreline
access points.
In many cases personal property and community infrastructure
were damaged or destroyed. At the same time the bands received
few jobs or other benefits from the hydro projects. The northern
flood agreement was a well intentioned undertaking to resolve the
many problems and grievances of people living in the affected First
Nations communities. It contained provisions for cash
compensation, land management, resource development,
community infrastructure, navigation and so on.
Unfortunately, for various reasons the northern flood agreement
did not meet expectations. That is why the parties undertook to
negotiate band specific implementation agreements. That is why
we have these two bills before us today. It is time to address these
matters on behalf of the Nelson House First Nation which is asking
only that Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro live up to their
northern flood agreement commitments.
The Government of Canada has a clear obligation, as do the
other parties to the northern flood agreement, to help the
communities to cope with the impact of the flooding. We are
endeavouring through the implementation agreement and this
legislation to ensure that those obligations will be dealt with once
and for all in a manner that respects the letter and spirit of the
agreement.
It is clear the purpose of the proposed act is not to enforce the
Nelson House implementation agreement. The purpose is to
exempt certain aspects of the agreements from provisions of the
Indian Act relating to land and Indian moneys, provisions that have
the potential to impede implementation of the agreements as
intended. We are all well aware the Indian Act is an outdated piece
of legislation. This act will give the Nelson House First Nation the
opportunity to escape some of its burdensome provisions.
3972
The proposed act will also allow Canada to use the Manitoba
Arbitration Act in relation to the northern flood agreement.
Finally, it will ensure that certain types of claims can still be made
against Manitoba Hydro and that the adjudication process set out
in the implementation agreements will take precedence over the
process set out in the northern flood agreement.
Great care has been taken to ensure that the proposed act is not
prejudicial to the other northern flood agreement First Nations. In
fact Bill C-40 has been drafted in such a way as to preclude it from
affecting any First Nations except the one named in this bill. We
are not, and I must emphasize this point, undermining the northern
flood agreement. We are simply establishing implementation
processes that will better achieve the intended results of this
agreement.
I also want to stress that the negotiation of band specific
implementation agreements has been completely optional. All
three First Nations that have implementation agreements, as well
as the two that are currently involved in negotiations, have the
option of continuing to implement the northern flood agreement
without these agreements.
These First Nations are satisfied, as is the government, that this
new approach offers the best chance for success. Although there
will always be some opposition to change, the prevailing mood in
the affected communities appears to be in favour of moving
forward quickly and effectively. These commitments have waited
long enough. Hon. members should be aware that community
consultation meetings were held in both the Nelson House and
York Factory First Nations throughout the respective negotiations.
The consultation process was an integral part of the
implementation agreements. The leaders of these two First Nations
were also consulted on the content of these bills. They support the
bills and are eager to see the House proceed as quickly as possible.
(2015)
It is worth noting that virtually all of Canada's obligations under
the Northern Flood Agreements have been fulfilled. The
implementation agreement signed with Nelson House earlier this
year provides for a final release regarding Canada's obligations.
A good part of Canada's responsibility under the agreement was
to ensure that the five reserve communities have a continuous
supply of potable water. This has required an investment of more
than $88 million by the government. Today I am pleased to report
that all houses in both the York Factory and Nelson House
communities are served with potable water.
Canada has also met its obligation under the Northern Flood
Agreement, supporting the development of comprehensive
community development plans contributing to the Nevanun
Economic Development Corporation and sponsoring the five-year
federal ecological monitoring program.
The outstanding obligations under the Northern Flood
Agreement are primarily shared by Manitoba in terms of providing
land to the affected First Nations and Manitoba Hydro with respect
to restitution for the adverse effects of the hydroelectric project.
Further action by these parties is provided for under the band's
specific implementation agreements.
For example, Manitoba Hydro will continue to be liable for
personal injury and death caused by or attributable to the project.
As well, the utility will be responsible for safe operation of the
water regime in the Nelson House and York Factory communities.
In regard to the latter obligation, Manitoba Hydro is required to
provide written forecasts of the anticipated static water level for the
current and succeeding month, complete with details on anticipated
changes and the estimated amount of change. These monthly
forecasts must also be broadcast by Manitoba Hydro over a radio
station that provides service to these communities.
For its part, the province of Manitoba is required to provide
provincial crown land to the First Nations to replace their flooded
lands.
Approximately 53,000 acres will be set aside for the use and
benefit of the Nelson House First Nation under the terms of its
implementation agreement. Much of this land will be added to the
First Nation's existing reserves. In fact, the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development has already initiated the
additions to reserve process to effect the transfer of these lands.
However, as has been mentioned, some lands will also be held in
fee simple title.
The First Nation will establish a corporation to hold its fee
simple lands on behalf of the band. The corporation will issue one
common share which will be held by the chief of the band in trust
for all members. The chief is required to sign the declaration and
acceptance of trust.
Under the terms of the implementation agreement, fee simple
lands can be sold by the band subject to certain requirements. For
example, a public meeting must be held to explain any transaction
and to make decisions about the disposition of proceeds. The fee
simple lands will be subject to property taxes at the discretion of
the province of Manitoba.
The implementation agreement will also provide the Nelson
House First Nation with fair and reasonable financial
compensation. Nelson House will receive a federal contribution of
$15.25 million. The province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro,
through a combination of cash, bonds and forgivable loans, will
contribute the remainder of the package which will total over $65
million for Nelson House. These funds will be paid out over several
years. They are to be used for a wide range of purposes, including
3973
socioeconomic development, resource harvesting, compensation
and remedial works. They will in no way affect the First Nations
normal programming.
(2020)
When past expenditures are taken into account, it might appear
that Canada is providing the largest share in implementing the
Northern Flood Agreement. However, other obligations in the
implementation agreements, such as an enhanced land package by
Manitoba, the continued responsibilities of Manitoba Hydro for
personal injury and death, and an obligation to provide additional
compensation if the established water regime is exceeded, are
significant and have not been costed.
Each First Nation will establish a trust fund to hold and manage
the compensation moneys. I want to assure hon. members that
these trusts will be administered according to generally accepted
accounting principles and provincial trust laws.
The trust provisions of the implementation agreements have
been carefully drafted to satisfy the immediate compensation
concerns of people who have suffered as a result of the
hydroelectric project while ensuring that moneys will be available
to meet the needs of future generations.
Hon. members should also be aware that the implementation
agreements give off-reserve members access to compensation
through these trust funds.
The Nelson House and the York Factory First Nations will
continue to provide the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development with audited financial statements on an annual basis.
As well, the trust indenture, which is a companion document to
each implementation agreement, requires that an annual report of
the respective trust's business be provided to all parties.
I would like to take a moment to update hon. members on the
status of negotiations with the two remaining Northern Flood
Agreement First Nations: Cross Lake and Norway House.
In the case of Cross Lake, a memorandum of understanding was
signed in December 1993, followed by the signing of an interim
implementation agreement in June of 1994. Formal negotiations
between the First Nation, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and Canada
were in abeyance during much of 1995 pending development of a
realistic work plan and budget consistent with the federal mandate.
I am pleased to report that preliminary discussions resumed on a
four-party basis earlier this year.
A memorandum of understanding and an agreement in principle
have also been signed with the Norway House First Nation. In
December 1995 a group of Norway House members sought and
received an injunction to suspend negotiations. However, this
injunction was vacated in early 1996 and discussions have since
resumed with Norway House.
Returning to the business at hand, this bill is clearly in the best
interests of the Nelson House First Nation. It is also in the best
interests of Canada and Canadian taxpayers.
The proposed act will not impose additional obligations on
Canada, but rather will ensure that the government lives up to
commitments which have been made to the First Nations.
I urge my hon. colleagues to recognize the many benefits of this
short and simple act and to support it at second reading so that it
can proceed quickly through the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I said
earlier that I would talk some more about the dissension created by
the Northern Flood Agreement.
(2025)
My hon. colleague just explained in English all the positive
aspects of this agreement, but as the official opposition, we often
have to point out some facts that are more or less accepted by the
people involved.
I had begun by making some cautionary remarks and I have to
continue, even if we are, in fact, supporting Bills C-39 and C-40.
There are still some inexplicable steps in this process. I was
addressing the environmental issues earlier on and I could have
gone on and on, because they apply to York Factory as well as to
Nelson House. So, I will focus on Nelson House, but everyone
should understand that my comments apply to all five nations
concerned here.
Throughout the flooding, various committees had their hands
full with what I call crisis management. Every time a specific
environmental problem was noted, either by the government or the
first nations, joint, tripartite or bilateral committees were set up,
but these people never got adequate financial support. They did
their work only to realize that there was no follow-up. That was
decried by the auditor general and led directly to an arbitration
procedure, because no consensus could be reached. So, the
problems kept resurfacing and always led to arbitration, which was
a time-consuming, very slow and frustrating process.
Some of the studies even referred to the submission of annual
reports to each band. And on that specific issue, the auditor general
indicated that no annual reports were ever submitted. Even worse,
for the Nelson-Churchill diversion project I mentioned, there was
no global environmental impact assessment. Thus, crisis after
crisis had to be managed. They decided to divert first and then see
what the impact on the environment would be. Since then, commit-
3974
tees have been created and abolished at the end of their mandate,
resulting in arbitration and the resulting red tape.
My colleague also talked of the water supply system. Indeed, the
whole thing disrupted the water consumption habits, and there was
almost no drinking water any more. Thus, the government had to
help these communities, at a cost of $88 million, as the hon.
member also mentioned. He may not have said that the bill that was
supposed to be paid by the province of Manitoba was not and that
there may be still discussions or even court proceedings to get
Manitoba to pay its dues to Canada.
It must be understood that the system is composed of a drinking
water system and a water distribution system. Approximately
1,500 dwelling units are served. Then it is not surprising that the
whole project cost around $90 million for the five communities,
which are rather far from each other. So the water distribution
system that was built to compensate the loss of drinking water
resulting from this project was extremely costly.
I have also briefly talked of the land exchange and I want to
come back to this issue. It had been agreed that for each acre of
damaged or flooded land, governments shall make compensation
of four acres of land. So far, and maybe my colleague did not point
it out strongly enough, only 10 per cent of the land has been given.
Therefore, there are problems here also.
The initial agreement provided for a 1:4 compensation, and not
even 10 per cent have been given yet. Even though an agreement
still has to be negotiated with two more bands, I do not think we
will reach this famous 1:4 compensation and it is a pity for
aboriginal people because-and I do not want to talk about it again
as I explained it when I spoke about York Factory-the land
submerged was extremely well-stocked in game and were
important for the traditional way of life of the aboriginal people. I
do not think they will get equivalent land.
(2030)
The initial agreement also contained community development
plans, since people probably had to move because of the flooding
of their land, which somewhat disrupted their way of life. Some
community development plans must have been devised to help the
people restructure their life and their traditional way of life. The
environment in which they had lived for centuries was completely
shattered. Therefore, a certain amount of support was needed.
Community development plans were drawn up. Unfortunately,
there was no follow-up to these plans. Even the auditor general
condemned it in no uncertain terms in the documents that I have
here. The auditor general said that the governments did not respect
all of their commitments, since they were to draw up community
development plans and ensure a continuous follow-up to make sure
that the dislocation could be controlled by the community as a
whole.
Nobody mentioned the price to pay, but I estimated the costs of
the measure, not the costs already incurred, but the total cost of the
agreement. I added up the costs of the Nelson House agreement and
the York Factory agreement. They are not negligible. The federal
government will contribute to help clean up this ecological disaster
and compensate for the displacement of native communities. Its
share of the compensation package will amount to $21 million.
Manitoba's share will be about $19 million and Manitoba Hydro
will pay $2.5 million, but will also give $54 million worth of
Manitoba Hydro bonds, payable according to a schedule the details
of which I will spare you. It seemed important to mention the costs
of the operation.
I am talking here about the costs from implementation date,
from the day of the signature. The meter is already ticking. But the
whole cost to the environment must also be added, including the
$88 million water supply system I mentioned earlier. This
adventure is costing a lot to the governments of Canada and
Manitoba, but probably even more to the native communities
whose life has been disturbed.
I think it was appropriate for the opposition to set the record
straight. Government members always insist on the positive
aspects of a situation and say that everybody is very happy. But
when we start looking into it, we see that this not the case. I did not
hear anything to this effect from my friends from Churchill and
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. I did not hear my colleagues mention
the criticism and the complaints expressed by the native people.
We did hear criticism and complaints from people who came
before the Indian affairs committee, but my colleagues made no
mention of that in their speeches. The legislation before us is not
entirely positive; there are a lot of negative aspects that I had to
point out.
However, as I said earlier, in York Factory as in Nelson House,
Split Lake, Norway House and Cross Lake, from the moment these
bands were separated from one another and the solidarity that
united them was broken, they were forced to negotiate one by one
with the government. It was David against Goliath and, in this case,
Goliath won.
We cannot object to the fact that agreements were reached and
ratified, often through a referendum, by these native communities.
So, we feel we really do not have much of a choice but to agree,
because we cannot vote against it, and have the negotiation process
start all over again. But I do think the communities have been made
vulnerable and did not have a choice. Any resistance on their part
would have involved years, decades of legal wrangling they could
really not afford. They had to sign these agreements, with all the
inherent dissatisfaction and bickering.
3975
The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting both Bill C-39 and Bill
C-40.
(2035)
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be very brief. Bill C-39, which we debated about an hour ago, and
Bill C-40, which we are debating at the moment, are mirror images
of each other. The only differences are that they deal with two
separate bands and the amounts of compensation are different.
As with Bill C-39, the Reform Party will be supporting Bill
C-40.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-37, an act to implement an agreement between Canada
and the Russian Federation, a convention between Canada and the
Republic of South Africa, an agreement between Canada and the
United Republic of Tanzania, an agreement between Canada and
the Republic of India and a convention between Canada and
Ukraine, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and urge
the House to give speedy approval to this legislation.
The bill I am presenting today culminates some ongoing work of
the last many months. It is legislation which does not generally
command great public attention. However, it is legislation that does
promote fair taxation and good international and trade relations.
The purpose of Bill C-37 is to implement reciprocal tax treaties
between Canada and Russia, Canada and Ukraine, Canada and
South Africa, Canada and Tanzania, Canada and India. These five
tax treaties, each of which is based on the OECD model tax
convention, have two main objectives, to eliminate double taxation
on income tax and to prevent income tax evasion.
While this bill may not spur great public attention, let us not
diminish the importance of tax treaties and their benefits. It is
treaties such as the ones I am presenting today that are incorporated
in this legislation which encourage certainty and stability between
international tax regimes and which enable the expansion of trade
and investment.
It is worth making special note of the treaties with Russia and
Ukraine. Given the political shifts in that area of the world in the
late eighties and nineties, it is more than timely that we abandon
the 1985 Canada-U.S.S.R. tax treaty and adjust tax relations with
these countries to ensure renewed and important economic
relationships.
The tax treaties I speak of today eliminate or alleviate double
taxation in instances where international transactions are involved
that may give rise to the same income being taxable in the hands of
the same person in more than one nation. They also enact measures
that counter income tax evasion in international transactions. This
ensures those nations rightfully entitled to much needed income tax
revenues will receive full compensation.
I also wish to remind the House the treaties enacted by the bill
are the latest in a longstanding process of renewing or evolving our
tax conventions with newly emerging nations. The major reform of
Canada's income tax legislation in 1971 required Canada to expand
its network of double taxation conventions with other countries.
Before I review the main elements of these new tax treaties, I
wish to put to rest any revenue concerns that may arise as a result of
these treaties. Simply put, the concessions contained in the five
conventions should not result in any revenue loss for the
Government of Canada. On the contrary, Canada should benefit
from the reductions in various withholding tax rates and other
concessions which have been ceded by the five countries concerned
and from increased trade and investment resulting from the
successful conclusion of these treaties.
(2040)
There are some in the House who would at the very mention of
tax treaties suggest that what we are talking about is an opportunity
for tax evasion. What we are talking about is an opportunity to
foster investment and the free movement of capital and people.
Allow me to outline the key features of Bill C-37 which provide
equitable solutions to the various problems of taxation between
Canada and certain international partners.
The treaties provide generally that dividends may be taxed in the
source country at varying maximum rates. In Russia, Ukraine and
South Africa this maximum rate will be 15 per cent. In the United
Republic of Tanzania the maximum rate will be 25 per cent. For
India the 1985 agreement with Canada set maximum rates of 15 per
cent on direct dividends on interest and 25 per cent on other
dividends. These rates will remain unchanged.
3976
In the case of inter-company dividends the rate is often reduced
if the company receiving the dividends holds a certain equity
interest in the company paying the dividends. Such a reduced rate
has been set at 5 per cent in South Africa and Ukraine, 10 per
cent in Russia and 20 per cent in Tanzania.
Part of the main thrust behind the treaties is to ensure companies
are unable to lower taxes by merely establishing branches in
Canada or other countries. To accomplish this, branch tax rates
have been set parallel to the rates for inter-company dividends.
Regarding interest paid by a resident of one country to that of
another, the rate set out in the bill is 10 per cent in the case of
Russia, Ukraine and South Africa and 15 per cent in the case of
Tanzania. There are, however, some exceptions.
Maximum rates on interest paid on a bond or similar obligation
by the national government will be reduced to zero in all
participating countries. As well, these treaties contain a provision
that will extend a zero rate of taxation on interest paid on loans or
credits extended, guaranteed or insured by certain state entities in
the source country. In Canada that would include the Export
Development Corporation.
These treaties also address the taxation of royalty payments.
They provide for a general rate of source taxation of 10 per cent in
Russia, Ukraine and South Africa and 20 per cent in Tanzania. The
rate in India will be reduced within five years to 10 per cent or 15
per cent depending on the types of royalties.
The treaties with Russia, Ukraine and South Africa have gone
further to recognize the world's borders are very much impacted by
the information highway. South Africa has reduced the withholding
tax on royalties for computer software to 6 per cent. Russia and
Ukraine have eliminated these completely.
Pensions are also dealt with in these treaties. For example, in the
case of Russia, Ukraine and India pensions and other similar
payments will be taxable only in the source country. South Africa
will deviate slightly by stipulating that pensions will be taxable in
the source country with no limitations. In this instance the country
in which the recipient resides will provide a credit for the taxes
paid in the source country.
In Tanzania pensions and similar payments arising in one
country and paid to a resident in another may be taxed by both
countries. However, the tax rate of the country of source will
generally be reduced to 15 per cent.
In summary, the five tax conventions contained in the bill
provide mutually beneficial solutions to many of the taxation
stumbling blocks that exist between Canada and our international
partners. The countries I have mentioned are preparing to
implement the bilateral convention as soon as possible.
I remind hon. members of the important role tax conventions
play in fostering investment into Canada and out of Canada into
other countries, such as the ones which are the subject of this bill,
and also in fostering and promoting the fair treatment of taxpayers
and ensuring taxes are collected. I commend the bill to the House
and urge its speedy passage.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am always pleased, even at so late an hour as this, to
speak on a bill as important as Bill C-37, an act to implement tax
treaties signed between Canada and Russia, South Africa,
Tanzania, India and the Ukraine.
(2045)
Contrary to what my colleague said earlier, it is inaccurate to say
that most opposition members are opposed to the signing of tax
treaties. On the contrary, we encourage the signing of tax treaties
between Canada and the United States. Why? Because it is in our
interest to see Quebec and Canadian businesses pay tax only once,
and not twice. This is how double taxation is avoided, by signing
tax treaties setting out rules for the treatment of the income of
businesses, and even of individuals and of Canadian diplomats
versus foreign diplomats. It is to Canada's credit that it signs these
treaties.
Where it does not work, and we have always been clear on this,
is when tax treaties are signed or when there is an attempt to avoid
adopting rules with countries with much lower rates of taxation
than Canada's. This no longer works, because by various
subterfuges, by various ruses, companies with branch plants in
so-called tax havens can apply the lower rates of taxation in these
countries to the detriment of the taxes they would normally pay to
the federal government.
As it happens, in the case of the treaties in this bill, none of the
five countries has tax rates appreciably different from Canada's
with respect to business profits.
Let us take the example of Russia. The Russian Federation taxes
profits at around the 13 per cent level, while the federated states
have rates ranging from 9 to 25 per cent. In other words, the
combined rates of the federated states and the federation total
between 22 and 35 per cent, which is more or less comparable to
the Canadian range of 32 to 40 per cent.
Looking at South Africa, we have no recent information for
business taxes, that is to say for 1996, but in 1995-as of March 31
1995, to be more precise-the corporate tax rate was 35 per cent in
South Africa.
The same thing goes for India. The Indian corporate tax rate is
40 per cent, with a 15 per cent surtax if the taxable income exceeds
75,000 rupees, or $3,200. Not only is the Indian taxation rate not
lower than Canada's, it is in fact higher.
3977
Looking at Tanzania, the standard level of taxation on profits
is around 30 or 35 per cent.
Finally, with respect to the tax convention signed between
Canada and the Ukraine, until 1992, the last year for which figures
were available, the tax on business profits in the Ukraine was 35
per cent. There has been a recent revision downward to between 20
and 28 per cent, a bit less than in Canada, but still far from the
differences that sometimes occur between countries that are
considered tax havens-with a rate between 2 and 3 per cent-and
Canada, with a theoretical level of 40 per cent.
There is no problem in this area, then, but there is in some
others. I take the opportunity provided by this analysis of Bill C-37
to remind the government that it signed in the past tax treaties with
countries that are considered real tax havens and that each year
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars go through these
countries and are lost to Revenue Canada because of the
ridiculously low tax rates in effect there. Furthermore, since these
businesses are taxed only once on their incomes under these tax
treaties, they obviously use various means to have their profits
taxed at a ridiculously low rate.
They bring these profits back to Canada tax free and in so doing,
save between 35 and 38 per cent on their taxes every year. Despite
all the efforts made by the federal government in previous years,
there are still eleven countries having signed tax treaties with
Canada that are considered tax havens. The main ones are
Barbados, Cyprus, Malta and even Switzerland.
(2050)
Eleven other countries provide exemptions that considerably
reduce their level of taxation in order to achieve certain economic
and commercial objectives. With these countries, which include
Barbados, Ireland, Malta and the Netherlands, Canada has to bang
its fist and make it clear that, where conventions exist, they must be
honoured. For conventions to be honoured, rates of taxation must
continue to be comparable and not variable according to the whim
of the countries signing these conventions.
The difference is considerable, and it seems to me that being in a
country like ours, which is facing financial difficulties, we cannot
turn our nose up at the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional
tax revenues that might be created if the federal government
corrected the discrepancies in the tax conventions and other
agreements it has with other countries which have extremely low
rates of taxation.
Let us look at three countries. First, Barbados. It taxes business
profits at the rate of 2.5 per cent. This is some 36 percentage points
less than the rate in Canada.
The rate in Switzerland is less than 10 per cent. We have tax
conventions with both these countries. Their rate of taxation is not
comparable to ours, and that is where the rub lies in tax
conventions. This is not the principle of tax conventions, which is a
good one. Tax treaties are both desirable and necessary.
However, they must be concluded with countries whose tax rates
are comparable, otherwise a correction factor is necessary when
profits are brought back after being taxed in those countries at
reduced rates.
In a third country, the Bahamas, the ideal tax haven, the cream of
the cream, tax rate on profits is 0 per cent. In other words, a
Canadian business with subsidiaries in the Bahamas could make
profits, not be taxed whatsoever there, and bring those profits back
to Canada totally free of taxes.
I am still referring to a Canadian business, a business controlled
by Canadian residents who normally should pay what is owing to
Revenue Canada. But instead we are losing money because of the
difference in tax rates between Canada and countries considered as
tax havens. We are losing money and the fault is ours, in other
words. For two years and a half, we have been asking the
government to do something. Why did they not do it? One
wonders.
Tax havens are becoming so popular that some very well known
companies in Canada are taking advantage of these loopholes. Take
the six major Canadian banks, for instance. Do you know that the
subsidiaries of the six major Canadian banks-half the 119
subsidiaries they have outside Canada-are located in the
Caribbean? Fifty-seven subsidiaries of the six major Canadian
banks are located in the Caribbean, which is not known for its high
population density.
It is strange that Canadian charter banks have half their
subsidiaries in the Caribbean. There must be a reason. It happens
that the countries considered to be the most generous tax havens in
the world are in the Caribbean.
The same thing applies in the Cayman Islands, a famous tax
haven: there are 28,000 businesses there, 28,000 corporations,
most of them branches of Canadian, American or Japanese
firms-28,000 firms for 30,000 inhabitants. It is permitted to
imagine reasons for that. The 30,000 people in the Islands certainly
do not hold all the shares of these 28,000 firms.
The 16,000 corporations established in Turk and Caicos Islands
are also said to be held by Canadian interests.
(2055)
There is a reason for that and it is the fact that Canada is signing
tax conventions with various countries. It does not care about
taxation levels and, when there is no convention as such, there is
nothing else. Consequently, when Canadian corporations make
profits in these countries, they make up for the difference between
3978
their absurdly low taxation level and the level in Canada which is
about 40 per cent.
This is quite something. People think only little amounts are
involved and that this is why the government does not bother to
remedy the situation, but the government knows perfectly well that
these are huge amounts, tremendous amounts. But the government
keeps on turning a deaf ear to our cries.
In 1990 alone, investments outside Canada amounted to $92
billion. I do mean $92 billion. These corporations, which are
investing abroad, received $4.2 billion in dividends from foreign
subsidiaries.
Some of this $92 billion found its way into countries considered
as real tax havens. For instance, according to the auditor general,
$5.2 billion was invested in Barbados at a maximum tax rate of 2.5
per cent, as I mentioned before. Barbados corporations paid
Canadian corporations $400 million in dividends, probably tax
exempt. We are not talking about peanuts here.
Moreover, the Auditor General points out another case, where
$10.9 billion was invested in Cyprus, Ireland, Liberia, the
Netherlands and Switzerland, countries which are all considered to
be tax havens. Over $200 million in dividends was paid out to
Canadian corporations by corporations in those countries, probably
without paying anywhere close to the taxes they should have if we
had had proper tax conventions with those countries.
When we brought this to the government's attention, about two
and a half years ago, they said that we had to be careful because if
we were too strict, too restrictive, we would be less competitive
internationally. With the globalization of markets, the opening of
borders, the disappearance of barriers, our planet has become a
great big village and soon we will be conquering the universe.
Every time we raised this issue, the government said that we had to
be cautious because if we were too strict, these assets would leave
Canada. If our tax conventions were too rigid or if we came to other
arrangements with countries considered to be tax havens, it would
be detrimental to the international competitiveness of Canada, its
capacity to attract foreign investments, to keep them and to ensure
there would always be direct foreign investment in plant
construction and job creation in Canada. In other words, our
millionaires would go elsewhere.
The United States is our main competitor in North America. The
Americans implemented a tax measure a long time ago. Since they
could not control inflows and outflows, as is the case in Canada,
they decided to impose an American tax rate on all profits made by
American corporations abroad. They chose to literally tax these
profits. But they looked at the taxes these same American
corporations were paying to other countries, for profits made
abroad, and granted a tax exemption for these taxes.
In other words, the Americans make sure that U.S. corporations
pay taxes on their profits, they check on a case-by-case basis what
amount each corporation has already paid to another country and
then subtract one from the other. It all seems very logical to me. As
we say, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand these
principles. You pay 2 per cent somewhere when the rate here is 40
per cent. When you bring back your profits, you will have to pay
the difference, that is to say 38 per cent, because you will be
allowed a 2 per cent deduction for what you paid in the other place.
Therefore, you will end up paying the same as every national
business.
(2100)
It seems to me that it makes sense. And that is what the United
States is doing. We cannot say that Americans are socialists. You
cannot say that Americans treat their businesses and corporations
casually. You cannot say that the United States is not a paradise for
private business. We have high officials here who can influence
decision makers because, on the Liberal side, they are easily
influenced, by telling them that they have to watch out not to
mistreat businesses because if they do, they are going to move
away. Well, let us be serious. When we are in a situation like the
one we are experiencing in Canada now, it seems to me that we
should take advantage of every opportunity to close loopholes, and
these are big loopholes.
The other way to collect what we should normally collect is to
revise the tax conventions with the countries I was mentioning
earlier. We know these conventions. We know that they are signed
with countries which have a much lower tax rate than ours. We
have to revise these conventions. It is easy. You just pick up the
phone, call the representative in that country, redefine the
provisions and tell him that it is not because we do not like his
country, but because it is not normal, that otherwise we would have
a capital drain due to the ridiculous taxation level in countries like
his. Either you revise by tearing up the tax convention or you revise
through a compensation mechanism which would make profits go
from that country to Canada where they would be suitably assessed
and where tax money would come into the government coffers.
As I was mentioning, Bill C-37 deals with income tax
conventions that have been signed between Canada, Russia, South
Africa, Tanzania, India and Ukraine. This is finally an example of
what should be used as criteria of comparison. These are income
tax conventions that have already been signed between Canada and
certain countries that are considered as tax havens. Taxation rates
are fairly similar or, at least there is not a major difference, as in
countries such as the Bahamas, for example. The conventions, or
the tax treatment given by Canada and by these countries, seem
fair, unless we did not do our work well.
Finally, the offical opposition will support Bill C-37, but in
hoping, as I was mentioning to you earlier, that the federal
3979
government will review, as we have been asking it to do for two
and a half years, the eleven income tax conventions that have been
signed with countries that are considered as tax havens. Second, the
government should think about our proposal to establish a
mechanism like the one that exists in the U.S., which would allow
us to compensate for future losses, like the current tax losses,
because the differences among the countries that do business with
Canada are too great.
As I was saying, the U.S. has done a great job on this. It taxes at
the American rate and manages to give deductions to the
businesses that have already paid 2 or 3 per cent in the Bahamas,
Cyprus, Malta or elsewhere in the world.
This is one option we could seriously consider because, as I say
on a regular basis, Canada trails behind several industrialized
countries in this respect. Canada also lags behind other countries'
innovative, original business tax practices. I think the time has
come for the government to wake up.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is
designed to implement income tax conventions that have already
been signed with Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, India and
Ukraine.
Tax treaties such as these have two main objectives: first, the
avoidance of double taxation; and second, the prevention of tax
evasion or avoidance. Since they contain taxation rules that are
different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act they only
become effective if an act giving them precedence over domestic
legislation is passed by Parliament.
(2105)
The conventions and protocols in the act are patterned on the
model double taxation convention prepared by the OECD. This act
sets out a system of taxation protocols and conventions with
nations that previously had no such conventions with Canada.
The act is designed to eliminate double taxation whereby an
individual is taxed on income in his home country as well as in
another country, and to restrict the ability to evade taxes by shifting
income into other localities. The act reproduces tax conventions
already signed with Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, India and
Ukraine.
Reform supports horizontal and vertical equity, and removing
the ability to evade or avoid taxes is in keeping with this
philosophy. The act basically simplifies the system of taxation as it
applies to resident individuals and corporations in Canada as well
as owners of income producing assets in Canada or one of the
signatory states. Therefore, I am pleased on behalf of the Reform
Party to support this bill.
[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: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
* * *
The House resumed from June 5, 1996, consideration of Bill
C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act, as
reported without amendment from the committee.
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Industry, Minister for
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of
Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for
the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec) moved
that Bill C-4 be concurred in at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to call it 9.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3979
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on June 12, I
asked a question to the Minister of Transport regarding railway
safety, following CN's decision to close the Joffre shop, in Charny.
I am concerned because before this decision, there were three shops
that repaired and maintained railroad tracks in Canada.
3980
(2110)
It was suddenly decided to concentrate these operations in
Winnipeg. Since CN was privatized last year, I was concerned
about the issue of safety and I told the Minister of Transport that it
was asking a lot from a single shop located in Winnipeg to look
after all the tracks in Canada, as far as Halifax. The minister said
that he had reviewed the situation, that there would be no problem
and that it would be safe.
On March 28, 1995, the daily Le Soleil published the findings of
a study on the state of railroad tracks in Quebec. In our province
there are three to ten times more problems than in other regions of
the country.
For example, and I quote from the story published in the daily Le
Soleil, ``For trains starting in the Quebec area, including Ottawa,
but stopping before the Gaspé Peninsula, railroad inspectors
counted 51 defects per 100 miles or 160 kilometres of main
railroads owned by CN. They counted 31 per 100 miles of main
railroads owned by Canadian Pacific. CN owns more than 80 per
cent of the tracks''.
As I was saying, elsewhere it is up to 10 times less. In spite of
this, CN decided to set up the only repair shop in Winnipeg.
I take advantage of the fact the minister is here. Now that he has
been informed of the situation since last Thursday, I ask him if he
can table reports that the railroads had improved over the last year,
on which to base his claim that there is no threat to safety in
Quebec. I would like the minister to tell us about these reports or,
better still, to table within the few next days the reports on which he
is basing his claim that railroads in Quebec are in top condition.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer a question from the hon.
member for Levis. I thank him for this opportunity to make a few
comments on railway safety.
First, I can assure him that there are figures to prove there is no
significant difference between the number of accidents and
problems in the railway system of Quebec and in other provinces. I
could give him the exact figures but unfortunately I do not have
them with me at this moment.
It is most unfortunate that people are losing their jobs in Charny
but the House may rest assured that there is no problem linked to
safety. The CN decided to centralize the main operations for repairs
to track maintenance equipment, but routine maintenance will be
done in the field. Finally, CN will step up routine equipment
maintenance. Track maintenance, which is essential to ensure
safety, will continue to be ensured using equipment in good repair.
Transport Canada works together with railway companies to
provide Canadians with the highest standard of rail safety.
Railways are required to comply with the Railway Safety Act and it
is up to Transport Canada to ensure that safety standards are
complied with in accordance with the law.
Transport Canada railway safety officers will oversee railway
operations as well as the maintenance of tracks, equipment and
railway crossings to ensure railway safety.
The act enables them to limit railway operations when and if
they discover unsafe conditions and to impose penalties on the
companies in the event of a violation.
The decision made by CN to centralize equipment maintenance
is merely a business decision that does not affect safety.
The Deputy Speaker: My collegues, the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 9.15 p.m.)