CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 18, 1997
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 8234
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 8236
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8247
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8249
Division on motion deferred 8255
On the Order Government Orders 8255
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8258
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 8269
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 8269
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8272
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8272
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8273
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8273
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 8276
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 8278
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 8279
Bill C-79. Consideration resumed of motion 8280
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8284
Division on motion deferred 8286
Bill C-23. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 8286
Bill C-23. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 8287
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. 8289
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.19 p.m.) 8289
The House resumed at 4.35 p.m. 8289
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8289
Bill C-83. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 8299
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8299
Debate adjourned on motion. 8301
(On motion of Mr. Loubier, debate adjourned.) 8301
8233
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 18, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have
two petitions to present to the House.
The first is with regard to the Community Action Program for
Children. It is signed by people right across Prince Edward Island.
The petitioners ask the government to forgo the cuts that are being
proposed to the program. Possibly there is good news in today's
budget with regard to this petition. I look forward to this evening
verifying that it will be enhanced and not cut.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is with regard to the national highway system. The
petitioners are citing that 38 per cent of the national highway
system has fallen below accepted standards and they are looking
for a directed tax in order to build up our trans-Canada system.
These petitioners are from right across Prince Edward Island,
from the western end of Prince Edward Island to the riding of
Egmont.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing
Order 36 concerning our national highway system. I think this is
the fourth such petition I have presented from residents of my
constituency. The residents signing this petition come from the city
of North Battleford, the town of Cochin, Unity, Gallivan, Wilkie,
and Meota.
The undersigned petitioners note that 38 per cent of the national
highway system in Canada is substandard and that the national
highway policy study identified a number of matters including job
creation, economic development, national unity, saving lives and
avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs
and better international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed
national highway program.
The petitioners urge the federal government to join the
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from people in and around Edmonton, some of whom live
in my riding of St. Albert.
These petitioners draw to the attention of the House that 38 per
cent of the national highway system is substandard, that Mexico
and the United States are upgrading their national highway systems
and that the national highway policy study identified job creation,
economic development, national unity, saving lives, avoiding
injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle operating costs and better
international competitiveness as benefits of the proposed national
highway system.
They have petitioned Parliament to urge the federal government
to join with provincial governments to make the national highway
system upgrading possible.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from some scores of people in the Peterborough riding who
are concerned about literacy and the taxation of reading materials.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate their
support of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on
reading materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate books,
magazines and newspapers under GST.
As the provinces and Ottawa consider harmonizing their sales
taxes, reading materials must be zero rated under provincial sales
taxes as well as GST.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from people of the Peterborough area who are
concerned about people living in the Moosonee-Moose Factory
area of James Bay. They point out that there is no road going from
Cochrane to Moosonee, which of course is the route taken by the
8234
Ontario Northlands Polar Bear Express. There is no road and that
isolates the people in the Moosonee area.
(1010)
These petitioners call on Parliament to allocate funds for a
highway to be built from Cochrane to Moosonee to end the
isolation of the people of that region.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to present a petition from a number of people in
the national capital region.
The petition draws to Parliament's attention the economic
benefits of the national highway system as well as the improved
safety and contribution to national unity of a national highway
system in good shape. It also calls on Parliament to work with the
provinces to make the national highway system as good as it can
be.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition from people from
Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, Omemee and Lindsay asking
Parliament to enact legislation to ensure that Canada remains one
country, undivided from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition on
behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners
ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect
children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by over 3,000
residents of British Columbia concerning the mandate review of
Canada Post, co-ordinated by the Canadian Union of Postal
Workers, Pacific region.
The petitioners note that the Liberal government has ordered
Canada Post Corporation to withdraw from the delivery of
economy unaddressed ad mail, that this withdrawal reduces the
options of companies that wish to advertise their products and
services at an economical rate.
Therefore the petitioners wish to have economy ad mail
delivered to their homes by Canada Post ad mail employees. They
believe that Canada Post Corporation has been providing an
excellent and reliable service through the delivery of economy ad
mail, which they wish to see continued.
They call on the government to reverse its decision with respect
to economy ad mail and allow Canada Post Corporation to continue
to provide this economical and reliable service to citizens of
Canada. I certainly concur with this petition.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with the question of the Canada's
decaying national infrastructure. It calls on Parliament to not
increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and to strongly consider
reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling
national highways.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the third and final petition deals with the issue of
Canada's proposed sale of CANDU nuclear power reactors to
China and notes that the export of CANDU reactors to China places
the Government of Canada in an indefensible economic, political
and environmental position.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to cancel the
planned sale of CANDU reactors to China and to immediately
withdraw from all arrangements concerning financial and technical
assistance to China for nuclear reactor technology.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8234
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders:
December 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-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved:
8235
That Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board 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 the debate on the motion referring Bill C-72 amendments to
the Canadian Wheat Board to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Once again we have decided on this route in order that members
who serve on the committee and interested groups may, if they
wish, make submissions and the opportunity to speak in advance of
the proposals that will improve the bill. Today I would like to
outline in general the thrust of the legislation before this House
which will modernize the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
While no set of proposals could possibly satisfy all the sides in
that it is all too often a sharply polarized debate among farmers
with respect to grain marketing, the government's approach is
aimed at meeting the responsible expectations of the majority of
western grain producers. Our policy objective is to build upon the
improved strengths of our existing marketing system while
modernizing the governance structure of the Canadian Wheat
Board, enhancing its accountability, improving its responsiveness
to changing producer needs and opportunities, providing more
flexibility and faster cashflows and minimizing future
complications in international trade.
(1015 )
Many of the changes we are proposing will empower farmers
with a bigger and more direct say in how their marketing system
works, consistent with the majority of recommendations put
forward by the western grain marketing panel. Overall, the changes
fall into three broad categories, governance and accountability
being the first.
The first relates to the governance and accountability of the
Canadian Wheat Board. The overall governance of the wheat board
will be placed in the hands of a board of directors consisting of
between 11 and 15 members, the majority of whom will be farmers.
To help make the transition to that new corporate structure a full set
of interim directors will be appointed by the Government of
Canada in 1997. Again the majority will be farmers. Then
beginning in 1998 the producer majority among the directors will
be replaced by directors elected by the farmers themselves.
Bill C-72 is written in such a way as to enable all this to happen.
This is consistent with the advice of the western grain marketing
panel, that is, to structure our amendments in the form of enabling
legislation.
A number of farm groups appear to want the new law to be more
precise in this area: specifying the date by which directors will be
elected; confirming that the number of directors so elected will
constitute a majority; and making this governance change
irreversible, except of course by future amendments to the act.
The minister of agriculture has no difficulty with these ideas.
They are completely consistent with the policy principles
announced last October. The existing draft of Bill C-72 will enable
them to be implemented. If the arguments presented to the standing
committee are clearly to the effect that farmers would be more
comfortable with the new law being more precise and less flexible
with respect to the election of producer directors, then the minister
would be happy to entertain the appropriate amendments to bring
that about.
On the matter of accountability, Bill C-72 provides for a big
change. For nearly 62 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been a
crown corporation accountable only and solely to the Parliament of
Canada. Under Bill C-72 it would evolve into a mixed enterprise.
For the first time in history it would also become accountable to
producers directly.
The essence of the Canadian Wheat Board's accountability to
farmers will lie in demonstrating its marketing success and
effectiveness. If the Canadian Wheat Board's performance is not
satisfactory, then its board of directors including a majority of
elected farmers can implement operational changes or ultimately
trigger a process to change its marketing jurisdiction.
The essence of the Canadian Wheat Board's accountability to
Parliament will lie in demonstrating its financial competence. This
flows from the unique guarantee which Bill C-72 provides in
relation to all of the Canadian Wheat Board's borrowing, not just
initial payments, not just credit grain sales, but also all of its day to
day financial transactions on the world's money markets. This
amounts to billions of dollars annually backstopped by Canadian
taxpayers if and when necessary.
As an agent of Her Majesty accountable only to Parliament, the
Canadian Wheat Board automatically had this type of broad
guarantee. For this mixed enterprise it is not automatic. It has to be
written into law as Bill C-72.
The track record of the existing Canadian Wheat Board in
relationship to its global financial transactions as a crown
corporation is superlative. It enjoys a strong international credit
rating. It has managed its day to day finances in a profitable
manner gaining the benefit of the best possible interest rates and
thus augmenting its pool returns to producers.
(1020 )
Will these exceptionally high standards be maintained as it
becomes a mixed enterprise under a different governance system
and will the different accountability expectations be reached? We
8236
fully expect so, but since Bill C-72 will provide the new Canadian
Wheat Board with a unique legislated guarantee backed by
taxpayers, it is not unreasonable for the new law also to include
some safeguards to protect the taxpayers' position.
That is what Bill C-72 seeks to accomplish: getting the balance
right between accountability to producers and accountability to
Parliament. It will be important to weigh the pros and cons of
having fewer safeguards for the taxpayer against having a less
comprehensive guarantee.
It should also be noted that the Canadian Wheat Board has now
and will continue to have decision making authority over matters
which affect producers elsewhere in Canada outside its designated
area, the authority to issue export permits for example. This is
another reason why accountability to Parliament will continue to be
important.
The second group of changes relates to more flexible operations
and improved cashflow. Under these changes the wheat board will
be able to make cash purchases of wheat and barley; manage
adjustment payments during any crop year on an expedited basis;
terminate pool accounts at any time and pay out farmers' returns as
rapidly as possible thereafter; issue negotiable producer
certificates; fully utilize modern risk management tools in dealing
both with farmers and with consumers; defray farmers' grain
storage and/or carrying costs; allow open farm deliveries to condo
grain storage facilities; and procure grain using new technology,
such as on farm mobile elevators.
These new flexibilities will help put more money from wheat
board operations into the hands of farmers more quickly. To
backstop cash purchases and to help the Canadian Wheat Board
manage adjustment payments more quickly, the board will be
allowed to establish contingency funds as a financial cushion.
The third category of changes relates to the Canadian Wheat
Board's mandate. The legislation does not alter the Canadian
Wheat Board's existing mandate but we are putting more decision
making authority into the hands of the farmers themselves. In
future the wheat board's mandate may be adjusted conditionally
upon three things: first, a clear recommendation to that effect by
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board; second, if the quality
control issue is improved, the concurrence of the Canadian Grain
Commission that a change can be made safely without damaging
Canada's reputation or quality and consistency; and third, if the
proposed change is significant or fundamental, then an affirmative
vote among farmers would need to be a prerequisite.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a very effective marketer of
Canadian grain. It has the support of the majority of western grain
farmers. They want realistic and sensible Canadian Wheat Board
changes but they do not want a scenario that would lead inevitably
to the board's destruction.
Now just how valuable in the overall scenario and scheme of
things is the Canadian Wheat Board? It sells some $5 billion worth
of grain per year at a marketing cost of a few pennies per bushel. It
retains no profit margin; all the rest goes to the farmers.
The board is one of Canada's most significant business
enterprises. Doing business in more than 70 countries around the
world, it is the fifth largest exporter and our biggest net earner of
foreign exchange. It has earned for itself and for Canada a positive
reputation in the eyes of the global customers, not so much on
pricing issues-the board targets to extract price premiums-but
on intrinsic quality, cleanliness, consistency, technological
support, long term dependability, customer service and contract
execution. The Canadian Wheat Board has been rated by its
customers as number one in the world.
(1025 )
These characteristics coupled with the size of the board, its
global reach and its marketing clout result in Canada having
roughly a 20 per cent share of the world market and realizing the
best possible returns from those markets. The Government of
Canada believes that it is worth preserving.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is much committed
to the principles that have been announced and which are embodied
in the legislation presented before the House. Nevertheless there
are a number of mechanical ways by which these principles to
which I have referred can be accomplished. The minister is open to
input from members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food as to how the legislation could be improved.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak today at second reading of Bill C-72, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts.
Bill C-72, which is under debate this morning, is of little concern
to the agricultural community in Quebec. While there are some
wheat and barley growers there, their numbers are far fewer than in
western Canada. However, because of the mission and role that
have been given the Bloc Quebecois, it is our duty to express our
opinion on the matter and more importantly to try to ground the
current government's aspirations to control just about every field of
activity in this immense country.
Our intervention in the issue is all the more important because it
permits an objective analysis of the situation that will lead to a
better understanding between the government and the 130,000
wheat producers and because, first and foremost, it allows us to
fulfill the role we were given of protecting Quebec's interests.
8237
So long as Quebec continues to pay billions of dollars in taxes
to the federal government, we will continue to demand equal
services and, more importantly, equitable financial benefits for
Quebec.
This morning, the headlines in most of the francophone dailies
read: ``The Minister of Finance in Ottawa again denies Quebec's
claim for justice in the collection of the federal GST within
Quebec''. Quebec will have a shortfall of nearly $2 billion. The
Minister of Finance, a man of intelligence, said yesterday that
Quebec is not losing any money in harmonizing the GST with its
sales tax, whereas the maritimes would lose five tax percentage
points.
However, he must be aware nothing is created and nothing is lost
in nature. The maritime provinces preferred to have a higher sales
tax rather than personal income tax, which was not the case in
Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, for example.
However, this five per cent means we are paying the equivalent
of $250 million to enable three maritime provinces to harmonize. A
fine example of inequity. So, as long as Quebec continues to pay its
$30 billion in income tax to the federal government, we will be
around to demand justice.
(1030)
You know as well as I do how difficult it is for the Liberal
government to grasp this rather simple concept of equality. This
prompts me to add that the government should devote as much
energy to developing a long term dairy strategy promoting the
growth of the dairy industry, particularly in Quebec, since more
than 47 per cent of all industrial milk in Canada is produced in
Quebec.
In this context, I must warn the government that we will not be
satisfied with a policy statement based on little more than empty
promises, as the Liberal government has a habit of doing. In our
view, while representing a laudable effort to modernize the
Canadian Wheat Board, the blueprint for changes to the
commission is clearly insufficient in the present situation.
Several wheat and barley producers called for a more flexible
operational framework for the board, especially at the higher
management level, and mainly for increased input from the
producers themselves in the development of long term marketing
strategies.
Whether the hon. parliamentary secretary agrees or not, Bill
C-72 addresses to some extent these long-standing demands of the
producers, while at the same time not giving them the freedom and
flexibility they want and need to achieve their production
objectives.
I was listening a moment ago to the parliamentary secretary who
said over and over that a majority of western grain producers were
happy with this bill. It is not normal for groups of western farm
producers to hold referendum after referendum calling for changes
to the Canadian Wheat Board. Granted, the Canadian Wheat Board
has played and continue to play a major role in the sale and
marketing of wheat and barley in western Canada. I am speaking
honestly when I say that no one in this House can tell what would
have happened to the economy and the farming industry in the
three western provinces had it not been for the Canadian Wheat
Board.
However, after 62 years, time has come to update this institution
which, unfortunately, has strayed slightly from its goal. And when
the government keeps making partisan appointments without-and
that is a shame-looking at the primary qualifications of the
commissioners, this goal is lost.
I am saying it and I will say it again. The secretary of state might
get annoyed and say: ``Sure, but the member for Frontenac sits in
the opposition and knows full well he will never have to appoint a
director to the Canadian Wheat Board''. This is true. However, in
my riding, for example, one can see that, over the last three years, a
number of appointments were made strictly because of services
rendered to that party, because of the funding provided to that
party, with little consideration being given to qualifications.
This pattern is becoming the trademark of the Liberal Party and
therefore of this Liberal government.
(1035)
It is well known that the Liberals give with one hand and take
away with the other. Instead of acceding to the producers' requests,
the government is trying, through devious and illusory means, to
maintain control over the CWB. The bill provides that the board's
social structure and the directors' status will be changed by
electing a board of directors that will include a number of people
from the industry.
However, given that this body will no longer be an agent of Her
Majesty in right of Canada, producers should have priority as
members of the board. Unfortunately, the government refuses to
make a greater commitment to this issue. It refuses or at least fails
to specify the number of farmers who will sit on a rather flexible
new board of directors that will have anywhere from 11 to 15
members.
I am concerned about the Liberal Party's attitude, a party which
has managed to appoint a fair number of its supporters to various
government bodies since it came to office. Given its new structure,
the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to leave the door wide
open to this kind of partisan appointments, rather than give
producers the place that is rightfully theirs in managing their
interests.
I will conclude by pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board
accounts for close to 23 per cent of world exports of wheat and
barley, which reflects the importance of its role. This is very
8238
significant. These exports are estimated at close to $5 billion, in
current dollars.
Since we will support the bill at second reading, we will make a
few suggestions to improve Bill C-72 and if you accept them-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is
up. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the motion to refer Bill C-72 to
committee. This is something that we have pressed the government
to do, not because the legislation is good but simply because the
public, particularly the farm community, needs to be exposed to
this legislation so they realize how bad it really is.
The minister has made absolutely no progress on reforming
grain marketing under the Canadian Wheat Board, just like he has
made no permanent progress to reduce transportation inefficiencies
in the movement of prairie grain, and just like he has made no
progress in correcting the wrong-headed approach to cost recovery.
This is not because the minister is unaware of the issue. He is a
Saskatchewan boy. He wandered around in the political wilderness
of Saskatchewan for what seemed like 40 years as the leader of the
provincial Liberal Party, after he was elected for a very short period
to the House of Commons. The people of Saskatchewan very
seldom vote for the Liberals but when they do, they boot them out
sooner rather than later.
There is a real possibility, if the Liberals call a spring election,
that this bill will not receive final approval from Parliament. It is
unforgivable that the government has delayed bringing forward
reforms to the Canadian Wheat Board.
We are now in the second half of February and this bill is just
being referred to committee. It needs to be dealt with by the
committee, come back for third reading, go to the Senate and
receive royal assent. On top of that, it is a very flawed bill and
needs a lot of work.
The probability of this bill passing at this point seems rather
remote unless the government has a change of heart and is prepared
to make significant changes to the bill.
Bill C-72 is a clear message to the prairie grain industry that the
minister wants to fail at market reform. If he does not want it to
fail, then he thinks he can pull a fast one on the industry by trying
to mask minimal changes to the board, particularly its governance,
leaving himself securely as the commandant of the board.
(1040 )
Bill C-72 is badly drafted legislation that needs a series of major
changes, and I stress major changes, to make it acceptable to the
prairie industry and, more importantly, to individual farmers who
are going to find out that this board is not the more accountable,
more flexible Canadian Wheat Board that they were promised by
the Liberal government.
The purpose of the bill is to change the governance, to make the
board of directors an elected one rather than appointed
commissioners. It is supposed to make it a more responsive, more
communicative and more open marketing institution but it does not
accomplish this.
We believe the government's proposed amendments to the board
are weak, ineffective and a slap in the face to prairie producers. The
government is telling them that they cannot manage their own
marketing affairs, that in some way they are inferior to the
producers of Ontario, Quebec and other commodities within
Canada where producers are able to very effectively and capably
manage their marketing affairs.
It is a matter to be seen whether or not the Liberal government
will allow the wholesale changes to Bill C-72 that are permitted
under the rules where a bill is referred to committee prior to second
reading. Based on our experience we have found that amendments
have been few and far between, usually cosmetic in nature and not
very substantive.
Many farmers are beginning to believe that the minister of
agriculture has manipulated the wheat board reform process. This
has resulted in uncertainty, division and fear among western
farmers. I have never seen an issue develop into such a divisive
issue with the encouragement of the minister. At every opportunity
he has poured gas on the fire rather than try to bring some positive,
constructive and conciliatory measures forward to bring an end to
some of the division and hard feelings that are mounting in the
prairies over this issue.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): No leadership.
Mr. Hermanson: The member from Peace River says that the
minister has failed to show leadership and I certainly concur in that
observation.
First he delayed making any changes to reform the board for
more than two years. That allowed the uncertainty and mistrust to
fester. Next he created a political charade in the form of the western
grain marketing panel. After it came out with a half decent report,
he ignored it, particularly the most important compromises it
suggested. Based on the results of secret polls the minister decided
the only way he would win a vote on barley marketing was by
basing it on an all or nothing type question: no flexibility, no
middle ground.
8239
Now the minister thinks that by appointing a partially elected,
part time board with minimal power that farmers demanding
significant change will be satisfied. Then he will be able to wash
his hands of the issue. The minister is certainly mistaken.
Some of the more substantial problems with the bill include the
fact that it strengthens the government's control over the board
rather than passing that control and responsibility on to the
producers who actually pay for the services of the Canadian Wheat
Board. The board will only be partially elected. The bill states that
one or more directors may be elected. We know that the minister
will agree to changes to that clause in the bill simply to mask some
of the other controls that he does not want to let go, such as the
government will appoint the chairman and president or chief
executive officer instead of those people being selected by the
directors who are elected by the farmers.
The government can dismiss a director at any time without
cause. This is extremely unacceptable. This is the way tin pot
dictators operate. I am ashamed that the minister of agriculture
would bring in such an inferior piece of legislation. It shows no
confidence in farmers to elect capable and competent directors to
run the board.
The new board of directors must follow any directions it receives
from the federal government, even if the directors believe such
orders are not in the best interests of farmers.
The legislation allows the board to restore its authority over the
feed grain market. This has been fairly controversial. Lorne Hehn,
the chief commissioner of the board said it was a mistake, an error,
and that it should be changed. However, the minister said no, it was
not an error and that people misunderstood the bill. It certainly has
the minister of agriculture for Alberta rather concerned. It is
absolutely necessary to change this in the bill to make sure that we
do not revert to 1973 marketing of prairie feed grains where barley
could not even be moved across a provincial boundary without
breaking the law. It is bad enough that our farmers cannot move
their grain across international boundaries without breaking the
law. If this bill is not corrected we may be breaking the law by
moving our grain from Alberta to Saskatchewan or vice versa. This
has to be changed.
(1045)
This bill reduces the possibility of future changes to the board's
mandate. In order to make a significant change to the board's
mandate farmers must go through an excessive approval process.
First the board must recommend change. Then the Canadian Grain
Commission must approve the change. Then there must be a
producer vote held with a question determined by the minister. It
sounds pretty rigged to me and it is certainly not showing any
confidence of farmers to manage their own Canadian Wheat Board.
Even after the vote, however, the minister would not be compelled
to act on the results. Talk about arrogance and a lack of confidence.
I find this measure in the bill absolutely disgusting.
No other political party has stated its position more clearly and
more openly than Reform on matters related to the Canadian Wheat
Board and the current barley plebiscite. Reform has repeatedly
stated that we support and will work toward a reformed Canadian
Wheat Board that is more accountable, more flexible and a board in
which participation is voluntary. That is the debate that is out there
among prairie producers and we know that is where support is
growing. No matter what the minister does, eventually farmers will
persist and will accomplish what they want.
We believe that only constructive changes to the board today will
ensure its survival and effectiveness into the future and we do not
advocate destruction of the board; only our political opponents are
making those claims on our behalf.
In closing, the minister of agriculture has done more to damage
the board, more to bring its usefulness into doubt in farmer's minds
and more to hurt us internationally than anyone, all of us who have
suggested that the board should be changed constructively to
prepare producers to market in the 21st century.
The minister is moving us backwards; we want to move forward.
This is bill is unacceptable in its present form and must changed
substantially. I call on members of the committee to do that.
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague in our party who spoke earlier very clearly indicated
that the wheat board is one of the institutions in the agricultural
enterprise that is working solely for farmers. It is sharing with the
farm community all the benefits of single desk selling at a fraction
of the cost of revenues that are earned by that institution.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has
explained the main objectives of Bill C-72 and I would like to
discuss how we arrived at this legislation.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been serving Canadian farmers
efficiently and effectively for over 60 years. During that time it has
helped our grain sector build an international reputation for quality
and reliability and has realized the best possible returns from the
market for Canadian farmers. And as my colleague indicated
earlier, shipload and boatload after boatload, the consistency is
there and it is well received by those who are doing business with
us.
The business environment is changing. We are doing business in
an increasingly liberalized and competitive international
marketplace. At the same time changing customer demands,
reducing subsidization, new applications of biotechnology,
booming markets for value added food products and a host of other
changes mean that today's grain sector must be more innovative,
more
8240
self-reliant and market responsive than it was historically in the
past.
In that context, the future of the Canadian Wheat Board has for
several years been the subject of a sometimes very intense debate
among farmers and other stakeholders in the grain sector,
particularly in western Canada. As an aside I might indicate that in
my riding of Brandon-Souris there have been court cases for
those individuals who feel that they need to challenge the very
authority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and, for that matter, the
whole method of marketing grain throughout the world.
The purpose of these amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board
Act is to respond to some of the chief concerns that have been
raised during that debate and to ensure that the Canadian Wheat
Board is well positioned to continue as a reliable, responsive,
single desk seller of Canadian wheat in the years ahead.
(1050 )
In preparing this legislation our goal has been to ensure that
everyone on all sides of this tough issue has had a full and fair
opportunity to have their say.
In 1995 the minister established the Canadian Western Grain
Marketing Panel to develop recommendations in consultation with
all stakeholders in the grain industry. That panel did an excellent
job in fulfilling its mandate and in providing a forum for producers
and other stakeholders to discuss the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board rationally, openly and transparently on the facts rather than
on rhetoric.
It was the most extensive consultation regarding western grain in
modern history, one which involved a series of town hall meetings
in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was in this forum that
farmers and others gave their perspective on the current marketing
system for western Canadian grain. Alternative arrangements were
also brought forward.
The panel also held 12 days of hearings in Winnipeg, Regina and
Edmonton, during which it heard 69 briefs and an additional 78
submissions from individuals and organizations who did not appear
before the panel but made submissions for its information.
Following the publication of the panel's report last July, the
minister invited interested parties to forward written responses to
those recommendations. After the panel submitted its report last
summer the minister further distributed a summary of its
recommendations to every farmer in western Canada and invited
their feedback.
All in all, from that process, 12,000 individuals and
organizations responded. I am confident that the legislative
changes we are putting forward today represent the views of the
vast majority of western farmers and will address many of the key
recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel report.
One way or another we are taking action on all points raised by
the panel with regard to wheat board governance. One of the major
recommendations of the panel in this area was that the Canadian
Wheat Board Act be amended to provide for a change in
governance of the Canadian Wheat Board and to provide for
greater flexibility in its operations and in the services which it
provides to farmers. In fact, of all the recommendations contained
in the panel's report, this one received the strongest consensus of
support among farmers.
Under this legislation the overall governance of the board will be
placed in the hands of a board of directors, most of whom will be
farmers. To help ease the transition of the new corporate structure,
an interim board of directors will be appointed by the government
next year and the intention is that by the beginning of 1998 a
majority of the directors will be elected by farmers.
The election of directors will have some fundamental impacts on
the operations of the board, mainly because the board will be no
longer a crown corporation. As much as possible, however, we
have tried to minimize those impacts.
For example, as an agent of Her Majesty, the wheat board's
borrowings are automatically guaranteed by the Government of
Canada. To minimize changes, the Government of Canada will
continue to guarantee the board's borrowings. In addition, the
government will continue to guarantee initial payments and the
Canadian Wheat Board's credit grain sales.
Nevertheless, there are still implications of moving to an elected
board of directors that need to be fully examined. That is why the
legislation is permissive in this area. Farmers need to be aware of
what they have now and compare it to what they will have with an
elected rather than an appointed board so they can make an
informed decision regarding their ultimate preference in this
particular area.
Another major group of amendments relates to more flexible
board operations and improved cash flow. Under these
amendments the board will be able to, first, make cash purchases of
wheat and barley. Second, it will be able to manage adjustment
payments during any crop year on an expedited basis. Third, it will
be able to terminate pool accounts at any time and pay out farmers
returns as soon as possible. Fourth, it will be able to issue
negotiable producers certificates. Fifth, it will be able to defray
farmers grain storage and/or carrying costs. Finally, it will be able
to fully utilize modern risk management tools in dealing with both
farmers and customers. In addition, to allow cash purchases and to
help the board manage adjustment payments quickly, the wheat
board will be allowed to establish a contingency fund.
8241
(1055 )
It is important to note that these amendments do not constitute
the Government of Canada's full response to the concerns of
Canadian grain producers and the recommendations of the Western
Grain Marketing Panel. We are also pursuing many other avenues
to address other issues related to grain marketing and
transportation. Last November our government introduced
legislation to modernize the Canada Labour Code.
Among other things, these amendments stipulate that while grain
handlers and their employees will retain the right to strike and
lock-out, in the vent of a work stoppage involving other parties in
port related activities, services affecting grain shipments must be
maintained.
With the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act and
many other changes we are making with regard to grain
transportation and marketing, the Government of Canada is
demonstrating that it is listening to the concerns of grain producers.
It is taking actions to address those concerns and to lay the
foundation for continuing growth and prosperity in the grain sector
and Canada's rural communities into the next century.
I call on all members of the House to lend their support to this
important legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-72, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts. As you know, I represent an agricultural
riding in Quebec, but it has no wheat or barley producers.
To be frank, the area governed by the Canadian Wheat Board
covers the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
British Columbia. However, as a member of the official opposition,
to the great displeasure of our colleagues in the Reform Party and,
naturally, of the member for Calgary Southwest, I must take part in
the debate, as will my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois later on,
concerning this bill of such importance for many producers.
I know that we are here in this House to defend the interests of
Quebecers. We are in this august place for the purpose of
promoting sovereignty, but we must also use this forum to which
we have access through our functions as members of the official
opposition to speak to other nations. This also includes the nation
of Canada. There is a lot of talk, with the Bloc Quebecois
leadership race, about partnership between equals.
It is very simple: with 52 members, we are the representatives of
the nation of Quebec, whether the members for Saint-Maurice and
Sherbrooke like it or not. In addition, I must add that, for as long as
Quebec is paying taxes to the federal government, it will be our
duty and our right to find out how this money is spent. I would add
that we must claim our fair share.
The bill before us was tabled following a clear and urgent
recommendation for change by the panel of experts. The Liberal
government stepped in in order to serve its own interests. Of
course, it wants to see a democratic approach. It wants to give
general responsibility for managing the Canadian Wheat Board to a
board of directors.
At first blush, the Bloc Quebecois can only be pleased with the
government's proposal by which this board of directors would
henceforth be composed of a majority of producers, instead of
three to five commissioners appointed by the minister. This shows
a wonderful spirit of democracy. Perhaps we will influence the
Liberal members with our fine example of democracy. I refer to my
party's leadership race, and if that is the case, fine.
I am, however, still sceptical about the attitude and the real
motives of the Liberal government, and here is why. According to
the bill, future members of the board of directors will be elected by
their peers or by the grain producers. The Liberal government,
however, is taking care not to specify how many of these
producer-elected members will be on the board.
In the documentation on this bill, care is taken not to set out a
number of elected farmer members. It is stipulated that the
majority of the new board will be composed of elected farmers, but
there is no indication of when this will happen. What is more
certain is that we are proposing an interim board for 1997.
(1100)
Obviously, never a day goes by on this Hill without talk of the
possibility of a 1997 election. It is certain that we will be having
byelections at least, in Jonquière and Calgary West. That I can
announce, if we go by the established rules, but as for a general
election, I will leave it up to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice to
tell us when that will be held.
I am making reference to a possible election so as to clearly
situate ourselves in a pre-election context. You will understand
that, when the Liberal government speaks, through its minister, of
appointing an interim board in 1997, it would be a real temptation
for them to make political appointments, what we call patronage
appointments. This would not be the first time, and it is a pretty
sure bet that it will not be the last, either.
I always find it scary to see one or another minister making
appointments. It is not very reassuring at all, frankly. It was not
reassuring with the Canadian food inspection agency, so why
things be any different a few weeks later? Now the minister
confirms that a majority of members of the CWB board of directors
will eventually be elected producers, which assumes that there
could be some members selected by the minister. The minister
would always be tempted to appoint friends, partisans of the
8242
regime, or financial backers. There is nothing new under the
sun-a well-known, and unfortunately very true, saying.
My party, the Bloc Quebecois, can only support the federal
government's principle of finally giving grain producers a voice on
the Canadian Wheat Board. One cannot help but be pleased to see
such a change taking place. We know that the government is not
doing this willingly. It is prepared to make changes, not as an
unselfish gesture or out of a sudden desire for a more democratic
approach but because it has been pressed to do so. By whom? By
farmers who keep telling the government that the system is
obsolete and does not meet their needs. Why do you think the panel
recommended changes in the executive? Why would they want to
switch from a board of three to five commissioners to a board of
directors consisting of duly elected farmers? Because the latter will
be in a better position to respond satisfactorily to their needs.
It does not take a genius to realize this. It is plain common sense.
Now, western farmers have some very specific complaints.
Transborder farmers are demanding a double grain marketing
system, in other words, to be able to choose between a free system
or working through the Canadian Wheat Board.
It was high time the government decided to look into this. You
will recall that not long ago, the hon. member for Wild Rose
presented a motion demanding a two-year opting out right. This did
not come out of the blue.
I commented on this motion as follows: ``Producers could be
granted more control over the board's operations, or the board
could be given more room to manoeuvre''. It is true that a number
of producers know there are some good business opportunities out
there. I know why they want to market their grain without going
through the Canadian Wheat Board. In the present situation, the
board, through its sales on the American market, is taking
advantage of rising prices.
In any case, the board has been around for more than 60 years.
Its job is to sell a quality product, to offer customers outstanding
service and to maximize returns for western farmers. Here again,
the system is not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
Does this mean government will have to forego these opportunities
for patronage in order to adopt a bill that provides for more flexible
operations and improved cash flow? No, hon. members. I see the
benefits, but I also see the opportunities for patronage.
(1105)
They will have to get people from the agricultural sector, people
who know this area, and who better than farmers, grain farmers, as
members of the board of directors of this Canadian Wheat Board?
And then they will have to be elected. I think this is an excellent
decision, but wait, let us see how this works. The government
wants to make the rules. I do not think it will call on an outside firm
as they do for the 6/49 draws or ask Mr. Kingsley, the chief
electoral officer.
That being said, in spite an apparent willingness to make
changes, the federal government wants to maintain its control over
the Canadian Wheat Board with this bill. How? You will not
believe this. Did you notice that in subsection 3.6(2), our
government reserves the right to remove all elected members of the
board of directors, including the farmers?
Earlier I mentioned how they could be elected, but I forgot to
point out that the chairperson of the board is still appointed by none
other than the minister. He is appointed by the Governor in Council
on the minister's recommendation, so we might as well say he is
appointed by the minister.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
join in the debate on Bill C-72 which is amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act and consequential amendments to other
acts.
I was reading through the bill and was rather surprised when I
read sections 3.93 and 3.94. Section 3.93 starts off with an
innocuous statement:
(1) The directors, officers and employees-shall
(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Corporation;
and
(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would
exercise in comparable circumstances.
That is good stuff. We would hope that these patronage
appointments the government is going to put on this board would
live up to that promise. However, when I read on, I find that while
they may act with honesty and good faith and exercise good
diligence, they are indemnified if they do not. Section 3.93(3)(a)
states:
(3) Directors, officers and employees are not liable for a breach of duty-if they
rely in good faith on
(a) financial statements of the Corporation represented to them by an officer of the
Corporation or in a written report of the auditor of the Corporation as fairly
reflecting the financial condition of the Corporation;
This tells me there is a problem with the financial statements. If
they have the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for
1994-95 which has been audited by Deloitte and Touche and seems
to be a fairly reasonable audit report, and if we find that someone
relies on that financial statement and that financial statement is
wrong, they are now going to be absolved from liability. My rather
devious mind asks the question: What is wrong with the financial
statements if they are to be indemnified if they rely upon these
financial statements?
I read on in section 3.94:
8243
The Corporation shall indemnify a present or former director, officer or employee of
the Corporation-against all costs, charges and expenses, including an amount paid to
settle an action or satisfy a judgment, that are reasonably incurred by them in respect of
any civil, criminal or administrative action-
What are we talking about here? Are we going to indemnify
these people against criminal action? That is what it states. Let me
read it again:
The Corporation shall indemnify a present or former director, officer or
employee-against all costs, charges and expenses-incurred by them in respect of
any civil, criminal or administrative action-
What kind of stuff is this? First we have them indemnified
against relying on audited financial statements. Then we find out
we are indemnifying them against criminal action taken in the
nature of their duties. These are pretty strong words.
(1110 )
Bear in mind also that the wheat board alone is protected in that
it is excluded from the Access to Information Act. We cannot
obtain information on the Canadian Wheat Board because by law it
is protected. No one can use the Access to Information Act to get
information from the board. To make matters worse, as far as I am
aware the auditor general is denied the right to take a look at the
Canadian Wheat Board and pass comment on it.
Let us add all these things up. The auditor general cannot take a
look at the wheat board. No Canadian can take a look at the wheat
board because they are denied access through the Access to
Information Act. And now its officers are being indemnified
against criminal activity and there is some shadow of doubt being
cast on its financial statements.
When we add all that up what do we get? There seems to be some
kind of conspiracy to cover up around here. There seems to be
some doubt being cast on the integrity of this government and on
the management of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like the minister of agriculture to stand up in this House
and tell us what is going on. I do not see any reason why we should
pass legislation that creates a monopoly that is protected by
legislation and is given the greatest secrecy imaginable and its
officers are indemnified against criminal activity. Surely we, as all
Canadians do, deserve real answers. Why are these two sections in
this bill?
I have not heard one word out of the minister of agriculture
explaining why he feels he has to indemnify the employees of the
wheat board who rely on financial statements that have been
audited by an independent auditor. I do not know why he has to
indemnify the employees of the wheat board if they are sued in a
criminal action. Mr. Speaker, can you give me any reason? Can
anyone else give me a reason? I do not know.
This is indicative of the way this government has been managing
its affairs. We have seen it in the Somalia inquiry; it gets
embarrassing and the government shuts it down. We have seen it in
the Krever inquiry seeking information and it is stonewalled. We
talk about the Pearson airport and now we go to court. There is the
Airbus fiasco which the government has bungled from day one. It
has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and we found out the
other day that the Minister of Justice spent $160,000 of taxpayers'
money so he could sell us a bill of goods. It has got to stop.
Criminal activity cannot be condoned under any circumstances
whatsoever. To indemnify through legislation has to be the worst
thing I have seen since coming here three and a half years ago. To
put that in a bill on the wheat board which is protected against
inquiry by the auditor general and against inquiry by any Canadian
through access to information, is something even communist
Russia would be proud of. That is what we are getting from this
government today.
We have had it before and we will have it again. Whitewash. Pull
the wool over Canadians' eyes. Do not tell them what we are doing
with their money. Do not tell them that perhaps, and I say perhaps,
somebody is cooking the books in the financial statement and now
when it may come out, the government wants people indemnified.
The point is that questions are being raised. I do not have the
answers but I am quite sure the minister of agriculture has the
answers. It is his responsibility to stand up in the House and tell us
what he is trying to cover up by these two sections. If he is covering
up illegal activity and fraudulent statements we need to know about
it. We need to know whose head is going to roll.
(1115 )
Maybe it is the minister's head that should roll because this type
of activity in a democratic country cannot be tolerated. I hope the
minister comes in, stands up in the House and tells us what his
intentions are.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we
are debating a motion to refer Bill C-72 to committee before
second reading. I support that move because so much of this
legislation needs to be debated and discussed before the bill is
allowed to be passed.
People have three main concerns regarding the Canadian Wheat
Board. The first is the lack of accountability of the board. It has a
security level equal to that of CSIS. The second is that farmers do
not have control of the board yet it is their money entirely that
funds the operations of the board.
8244
The third issue is that the Wheat Board has a monopoly that was
only given to it under the War Measures Act but which has not been
removed. Farmers want a choice. They want to make it extremely
clear so that no one can possibly say otherwise.
Most western farmers and certainly most Reformers support
keeping the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing agency. That is
not the issue here. We support that. We support giving farmers a
choice. In a democratic country, it is almost unimaginable that they
have not had that choice.
I want to deal with these three issues. I know I will not have time
to cover them adequately but I will give it a try. I will relate them to
this legislation. By the time I finish it will be abundantly clear that
scrutiny of the bill is necessary before second reading.
First, the Canadian Wheat Board has a level of secrecy the same
as CSIS, almost unimaginable. Yet it is not accountable. People
have to ask themselves why that level of secrecy is in place.
The auditor general, for example, does not have access to wheat
board documents and to information from inside the board.
Therefore, we cannot rely on an auditor general's report to deal
with the operations of the board and to determine whether things
are being done as they should be done. That is the level of secrecy.
For example, the only way we found out that a commissioner
who quits or is fired is entitled to a severance package of
somewhere around $290,000 was through a leaked document. Yet
as a grain farmer, as someone who pays for the board's operation, I
was not entitled to know that. We do not know the salaries of
commissioners. We do not know, certainly, the benefits package of
commissioners.
Farmers believe generally that the benefits package is totally
beyond anything that is reasonable. As the people who are paying
for these benefits, paying these salaries and paying this severance
package, we have a right to know exactly the dollar amounts that
are involved.
Accountability is the first issue. Has this bill changed
accountability?
An hon. member: No, it is worse.
Mr. Benoit: Has it dealt with accountability? Yes, but it has
made it worse as my colleague says.
I refer to section 3.93(1) and read from the bill:
The directors, officers and employees of the Corporation in exercising their
powers and performing their duties shall:
(a) act honestly and in good faith-
It talks about what the officers should do. When we read section
3.93(3), it says:
Directors, officers and employees are not liable for a breach of duty under
subsection (1) or (2) if they rely in good faith on
(a) financial statements of the Corporation represented to them by an officer of the
Corporation or in a written report of the auditor of the Corporation as fairly
reflecting the financial condition of the Corporation; or
(b) a report of a lawyer, notary, accountant, engineer, appraiser or other person
whose position or profession lends credibility to a statement made by that person.
(1120 )
The bill says they should act honestly. Section 3.94 goes on to
state:
The Corporation shall indemnify a present or former director, officer or employee
of the Corporation or a person who acts or acted at the request of the Corporation-
It indemnifies former directors or officers or employees. We
have to wonder why. I would like to ask the minister why this
protection has been given to former officers and directors of the
board. To my way of thinking the only reason is that there is
something to hide. That subsection certainly cannot be left in the
legislation.
Because of time restraints I will go on to my second area of
concern. Farmers do not have control over the board. They pay for
the operations of the board but they have no control. Has this been
changed? The answer is not necessarily. The legislation may not
give farmers one bit more control over the board than they have
now.
I refer to section 3.6(1) which states:
On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may, by order,
designate one or more positions on the board to be filled through election by
producers in accordance with this section and the regulations.
Does this mean necessarily that even one director will be
elected? The answer is no. It is unbelievable. ``The minister may
decide to have an elected director''. That is not what he has been
telling farmers.
The minister will probably change that because it certainly will
not be tolerated. If that is slapped into place, the backlash from the
farm community will be unimaginable. I think the minister can see
that and the clause will be removed. However, that does not excuse
him for this being in the legislation.
It is one of two things. Either he has intentionally deceived
farmers and the public when he said that there would be elected
directors, or he is showing incompetence. This is sloppily drafted
legislation and that is intolerable. Either one of those two
possibilities are completely unacceptable and the minister has to
answer to that. Are farmers given more control? Not necessarily.
The third concern is the monopoly, the whole issue of giving
farmers a choice. Farmers generally want the wheat board. But they
also want to have the choice of marketing through a grain company
or on their own. It is a choice that is given to anybody else in the
country.
8245
Will the bill give them that choice? Absolutely not. The
monopoly power is maintained absolutely and that is
unacceptable, especially when we look at how the monopoly was
given to the wheat board in the first place.
In the memoirs of Mitchell Sharp, a former Liberal member of
Parliament and cabinet minister under the Trudeau government and
a close colleague of the Prime Minister, he spoke about when he
was a high level civil servant in the finance department during the
war in 1943, when under the War Measures Act the Canadian
Wheat Board was given its monopoly powers. What did Mitchell
Sharp say about that? Every Liberal in the House should read what
Mitchell Sharp said. He said that because we were in a situation of
war it was reasonable to give the wheat board a monopoly to
control the supply for wheat. He acknowledges that it drove prices
down. That was the purpose, to drive prices down so the
government could afford to help Canada and Britain in the war
effort.
(1125 )
What Mr. Sharp said was that he believed at the time, and he still
believes, that it was absolutely wrong that this monopoly was kept
in place after the war. He believes that it has cost farmers a pile of
money.
In particular, he acknowledged that the five year contract that
was put in place after the war cost farmers hundreds of millions of
dollars. That was only allowed because of the monopoly that was
given to the board. The farmers have never been compensated for
that.
The books are closed. Secrecy is there. The board is
unaccountable. The monopoly remains. It makes no sense. It has to
be changed and it has to be changed soon. Farmers are absolutely
sick and tired of this issue not being dealt with and we have to deal
with it.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-72, the amendments to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. This is an important bill. It is an
important issue which I have been following for a long time.
I have discussed this matter with many producers throughout
Canada and, in particular, throughout Saskatchewan and the
prairies. I attended meetings of the Western Grain Marketing Panel
when they were held in the province. I attended the meetings in
Kindersley and North Battleford. Little of what was talked about is
reflected in Bill C-72.
Bill C-72 is not being given the usual second reading in the
House. Instead it is being introduced here for a short three hour
debate and then sent directly to the agriculture committee for study.
I definitely support the committee study but I oppose the process of
fast tracking debate in the House in principle.
This process of sending a bill to committee before second
reading is a recent innovation in the legislative process. In some
cases it works very well, but in other cases it does not work well at
all and I believe that is the case with Bill C-72. Bill C-72 is
important to all Canadian farmers. Therefore, it is important to
Canada.
Second reading is traditionally a time when members of
Parliament address the principle of recently drafted legislation. It is
a time to examine in public debate the concepts on which the bill,
as written, are based. It is a time when MPs who have discussed the
legislation with their constituents can put those comments on the
record and share them with other MPs in the hopes of influencing
the clause by clause discussion which follows when the committee
studies the bill.
Not all MPs can speak during this shortened three hour debate.
Not all MPs are members of the agriculture committee. Therefore
not all MPs and, most importantly, not all of their constituents will
have their voices heard on the principles contained in this
legislation before third and final reading, when it is too late to
make substantial changes to the bill. This process is simply fast
tracking the legislation, despite the fact that perhaps there will be a
shortened committee stage.
The process of shortening debate at second reading was designed
for highly technical bills and not for ones like the Canadian Wheat
Board legislation which also has political and subjective economic
content. I object to this process being used for Bill C-72. I believe
the minister of agriculture is simply using it to avoid lengthy public
debate on a bill which he knows is flawed and which he does not
want to fix.
I use as an example the fact that the day this legislation was
introduced the minister said he was prepared to accept
amendments. The next day the agriculture committee chairperson
said: ``This bill will in fact be amended''. Today the parliamentary
secretary, when introducing the debate, said that the minister would
look at amendments to the bill. If the minister knew the bill was
flawed and needed amendment he should have written it as such to
begin with and not have introduced it the way it is today. He should
have simply said: ``I am prepared to listen, talk to me''. If he knew
it needed amending he should have done it originally.
I also object to the timing of the debate. It falls in the middle of
the voting process on the future of barley within the jurisdiction of
the Canadian Wheat Board. I and others had asked that the bill be
delayed until voting had concluded on the barley motion to ensure
that both these matters got the full attention of the public which
they deserve. I am sorry that the minister has chosen not to listen to
this advice.
(1130)
On the other hand, so as not to seem entirely negative, I am
pleased that the agriculture committee to which this legislation is
being sent is talking about travelling outside of Ottawa to make
itself accessible to farmers, farm groups and communities on this
bill. I would argue that the success of the Canadian Wheat Board
8246
certainly depends on the legislation changing, as the views of the
farmers and the farm communities are important.
The committee, if it chooses to travel and if this House gives the
approval of the committee to travel, would be doing the right thing
in this regard. I can only hope that it has given everyone enough
time to prepare adequately to respond to the challenge that is in
front of all of us.
This is an important bill and therefore I want to once again
express my concern and disappointment that the minister chose not
to seek the face to face advice of the farmer elected Canadian
Wheat Board Advisory Committee in drafting the bill. The
advisory committee, which is being replaced in this legislation, is
made up of the farmers most knowledgeable about the operations
of the Canadian Wheat Board and the affect those operations have
at the farm gate.
The minister should have involved the advisory committee
immediately right from the beginning but he did not. Obviously the
flaws in this bill are there because he chose not to consult and
therefore it is obvious that we could be avoiding unnecessary
debate, saving lots of time and money had the minister done this
differently. The advisory committee's advice in designing and
drafting this legislation should have been sought as a matter of
course.
Many in the House today are not farmers and certainly not
farmers of grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Therefore they may not realize that the economies of grain
farming during the last 10 years have been stressful. Last year's
crop and price were probably the best in that 10 year period which
generally was characterized by low prices, low yields, low grades
and lower and lower morale. Bankruptcies and quit claims were
high, as were farm debts, suicides and on farm accidents.
At the same, time huge changes in the international marketplace
have been taking place, not the least of which have been the
subsidy talks of the Uruguay round of GATT and the subsequent
establishment of the World Trade Organization.
Canada agreed with the United States and Europe to do away
with a number of programs identified, I think incorrectly, as
subsidies, and as a result Canadian farmers have lost their ad hoc
emergency programs, the Crow benefit and certain supply
management guarantees. I might add that Canadian governments
under Mulroney and the present Prime Minister have done this
without seeking similar moves by Europe and the United States,
both of which are maintaining their GATT identified farm support
programs.
Into this volatile mix is thrown the Canadian Wheat Board, the
agency that sells Canadian wheat and barley to the international
marketplace. This agency which maintained sales and prices during
the turbulent times of the last 10 years has been targeted by the
United States as an unfair trading practice with support from a
number of Canadians, many of whom are seeking ways to escape
huge debts they have built trying to survive through the very tough
times.
This is a most vulnerable time in the history of the Canadian
Wheat Board and this government should be doing everything in its
power to support and sustain it from those outside attacks. This
legislation and, I might add, the barley vote as well are only fueling
the debate which has the possibility to weaken the board and
therefore jeopardizes its future and therefore the future of farm
income.
If nothing else, the minister of agriculture should resist all
pressures to make substantial systematic changes to the board. He
should give the board his unconditional and unqualified support
and ensure that on the operational side the board has the flexibility
it needs to address the internal and domestic challenges it faces.
Therefore in looking at Bill C-72 we have to look at the bill in
that larger context. Perhaps the best thing the minister could do
right now is to withdraw the bill because it weakens the position of
the board and jeopardizes the future income of Canadian farmers
across the prairies at a time prior to an election when we should
discuss this during the election campaign.
An hon. member: He should resign.
Mr. Taylor: I hear comments from my colleagues that the
minister should resign. I want to put it on record that I support that
move. It sounds like a good move. The minister should resign but
withdraw the bill before he does that.
(1135 )
We certainly need a stronger, not a weaker, Canadian Wheat
Board working for us. Anything less is an abdication of farmers
interests to the corporate controls of the artificial international
marketplace.
In committee I hope we will look at the legislation in a lot more
detail, so I will not be too specific today. However, there are a few
matters I want to put on the record while there is still time. I note
that in this shortened three hour debate members are allowed 10
minutes whereas there would be longer speeches provided for in a
debate at second reading. Many of us would have much more of an
opportunity to express our detailed concerns about the bill.
First and foremost is the question of governance. It seems very
clear that farmers want more say in how the board is run. There are
numerous ways to achieve this goal but the minister and the
government have chosen in this legislation to create an elected
board of directors with a government appointed chair and a
government appointed chief executive officer.
8247
Although the minister says that the vast majority of the board
will be elected by producers, the legislation does not say how
many members of that board will be elected. So we have some
serious problems in dealing with a matter on which there appears
to be a general consensus, more farmer control of the board's
operation. Not only is there no guarantee that more than a couple
of farmers will be elected to the board, but there is no guarantee
that their influence will have any value. As long as the government
appoints some members to that board and controls the
appointments of the Chair and the CEO, the board will not be
accountable to producers.
As a representative of Saskatchewan, of New Democrats and of a
lot of producers in Saskatchewan, I feel there has to be some
assurance of the long term guarantee represented in the legislation.
Most of us in Saskatchewan support amendments that make the
board more flexible and more responsive to producers, but at the
same time we want a better balance between responsibility to
producers and fiscal responsibility to the federal government. That
needs to be struck.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are probably a lot of people across Canada listening
to the debate today via the parliamentary channel. They will be
wondering what we are talking about. Why are the MPs from the
west concerned? I am from Saskatchewan, some of my colleagues
are from Alberta and Manitoba. We are concerned about
agriculture and a very specific matter with the Canadian Wheat
Board. That is what we are discussing today.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rose to
speak in the House. Is there not a rotation with respect to speakers?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary was not
seen by the Chair. I am sorry for that. If I had seen her I certainly
would have recognized her. She is quite right that it is a rotational
system. Is the hon. member, being a perfect gentleman from the
west, prepared to give his place up?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, would I still
be able to speak? There has been a real absence of members from
the government side to address this issue. We have had no
response. This has not been a debate. It has simply been a raising of
issues by the Reform Party and one NDP member with regard to
this issue. If government members would have something to say we
would be happy to hear it. We have not even heard the minister
address this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is also indicating
he would be happy to hear from the member and I take it the hon.
member is in agreement that the parliamentary secretary speak
before him?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): That is fine as long as I
get to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Natural Resources, with thanks to the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a member of
Parliament who represents the rural constituency of
Dauphin-Swan River, as a grain farmer and as a strong supporter
of the Canadian Wheat Board, I am more than pleased to speak on
behalf of Bill C-72, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board
Act.
This legislation is the result of recommendations made last
summer by the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada commissioned the Western
Grain Marketing Panel to hold extensive hearings and to come up
with a set of recommendations to reform western grain marketing
so the system can function more effectively.
(1140 )
After an exhaustive consultation process involving countless
letters, phone calls, faxes, E-mails, petitions, public and private
meetings, demonstrations, parliamentary debates, surveys and the
hard work of the panel, it is clear that most farmers do not hold
extreme irreconcilable viewpoints.
This was evident in the recommendations of the panel that, along
with views of members of Parliament and provincial governments,
helped the Government of Canada to decide on the contents of the
bill we are debating today.
I know there are differences of opinions among farmers and
parties and that in the end one cannot make decisions that will
please everyone.
Indeed, given the historic fractiousness of the western grains
industry and the deep divisions that exist between those farmers
who hold the most extreme views on grain marketing, it is not
possible to satisfy all sides.
I believe most farmers want the board retained but with some
degree of change. They want the board to be more contemporary in
its structure. They want more accountability. They want a bigger
say in how things are done. They want more responsiveness to
changing producer needs and changing producer opportunities.
They want more flexibility in board operations. They want a
greater cash flow from their grain as quickly as possible. And, of
course, they want to minimize their vulnerability to trade attacks or
trade limitations imposed by other countries.
On the other side of the equation, most farmers also value the
proven strengths of the Canadian Wheat Board, its global reach, its
market clout, the sheer size and skill to go head to head with the
world's largest and most powerful grain traders and win, the ability
8248
to minimize the effects of the European and American trade
distorting export subsidies, the board's world leading market
intelligence and weather surveillance systems, and its sophisticated
and comprehensive before market and after market customer
services.
The Canadian Wheat Board currently serves more than 100,000
prairie farmers as a single desk marketer for wheat and barley for
export and domestic human consumption. Its annual sales revenues
are close to $5 billion, making the board one of Canada's most
significant business enterprises. It is the country's fifth largest
exporter and Canada's biggest net earner of foreign exchange. It
carries on business in more than 70 countries and has earned for
itself and Canada a very positive reputation in the eyes of its global
customers.
However, we cannot rest easy about these achievements. There is
a new world out there that requires regular change in business
methods to cope with changes which this legislation addresses.
The changes contained in this legislation fall into three broad
categories. The first category includes changes related to the
Canadian Wheat Board's structure, governance and accountability.
The second includes changes related to more flexible wheat board
operations and improvements in cash flow. The final category
includes changes related to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing
mandate and the empowerment of farmers.
I would like to discuss the second group of changes in greater
detail. To backstop cash purchases and to help the wheat board
manage adjustment payments quickly, the board will be allowed to
establish contingency funds as a financial cushion. The Canadian
Wheat Board is currently limited to purchasing grain from farmers
in elevators or in rail cars at the initial payment and subsequently
issuing those individual adjustments, interim and final payments.
Under the amendments, the Canadian Wheat Board will be
allowed to buy grain on a cash basis. This authority will provide the
board with more flexibility in acquiring grain by allowing it to buy
grain at prices that represent one time settlements with producers.
When used to complement pooling operations, cash trading will
tend to reduce delivery uncertainty and increase pool returns, for
example by reducing demurrage costs, facilitating additional sales
at attractive prices and by improving the overall efficiency of the
Canadian Wheat Board's sales program. With this authority the
Canadian Wheat Board will be able to bid on varying prices for
grain, thereby securing supplies more effectively and improving
the efficiency of its sales program and returns to farmers.
(1145 )
The board will be able to manage adjustment payments during
any crop year on an expedited basis by removing the need to first
obtain cabinet approval.
The federal government currently guarantees Canadian Wheat
Board initial payments and adjustments to initial payments made
during the crop year. The current requirement that all such
payments be approved by cabinet hinders the speed with which the
Canadian Wheat Board can adjust prices during the crop year.
Providing for the board to operate in a more businesslike manner
by adjusting payments to producers more quickly, the current
system of government guarantees and approvals eventually will be
amended to apply only to initial payment established at the start of
each pool period. After a sufficient Canadian Wheat Board
contingency fund has been established, the Canadian Wheat Board
will be authorized to make all subsequent adjustments and issue
related payments to farmers at its discretion.
I should point out that in its 61-year history the board has never
incurred a deficit on an adjusted initial payment on any of the farm
pools. The few deficits that have occurred in the Canadian Wheat
Board's history have all been relative to the initial price established
prior to the start of the crop year.
The Canadian Wheat Board will thus be authorized to establish
the appropriate contingency funds to guarantee adjustment
payments to farmers and to back cash trading operations. Options
for building up such funds include the board's profits on lending
operations which totalled about $80 million last year and a check
off on producer sales.
These new flexibilities will help put more money from the
Canadian Wheat Board operations into the hands of farmers more
quickly. There are some additional changes designed to increase
flexibility, most of them recommended by the western grain
marketing panel.
These amendments will enable the board to offer storage
payments, interest payments or other delivery related payments on
farm stored grain. This change is intended to encourage producers
to sign delivery contracts early in the crop year and will also
authorize the Canadian Wheat Board to pay bonuses for good
delivery performance by farmers.
Payment of carrying costs will reduce the need for the Canadian
Wheat Board to draw grain evenly from across the prairies during
the crop year and thus help in logistical planning. Greater logistical
efficiency results in higher net returns for farmers.
Under the proposed amendments, the board will be allowed to
issue final payments well before January 1 which is not possible
under the current act. The Canadian Wheat Board will be
authorized by the legislation to close pools on short notice during
the crop year and establish a second pool for the balance of the crop
year.
Transferable producer certificates will offer greater flexibility by
allowing farmers to negotiate how and when to receive payment for
grain delivered to the board. Specifically the board will be allowed
to establish a program that would provide farmers with a mecha-
8249
nism to trade their producer certificates at mutually agreeable
terms.
The development of condo storage facilities and the removal of
delivery quotas on non-board grain crops have put out of date a
provision that said deliveries of grain to an elevator facility must
not exceed established quotas. Because it is necessary for the board
to be involved in authorizing the flow of grain to condo facilities,
this change will formalize open access by farmers to condo
facilities.
With the changes proposed in Bill C-72, the Canadian Wheat
Board will be able to become an even more effective marketing
agent for western Canadian grain farmers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed once again. I thought that by allowing
the member to go ahead we might get the answers to some of the
questions we have been raising but we never got any such thing. We
just heard another one of those speeches written by the bureaucrats
in the backrooms. The member never got down to discussing some
of the concerns being raised by farmers in my constituency and as
the member knows, by farmers in her constituency as well.
(1150 )
I will outline what this debate is all about for the hundreds of
thousands of people across the country who are wondering what we
are talking about today. Most of the western MPs who are
concerned about agriculture are debating the issue. The issue deals
with the Canadian Wheat Board.
In agriculture the government has singled out the Canadian
Wheat Board as a special area of concern. The government has
been maintaining a lot more tighter control especially over the
marketing of wheat and barley. It maintains this tight control
through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the essence of the
debate we are having today.
Most people in Canada may not realize why the debate is
important to the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It
is because they do not have the freedom to sell their grain, wheat
and barley that the people in Ontario and Quebec have. They are
being treated very differently. People need to understand the
context of the debate.
Who am I representing? Why am I standing up to speak about
the issue? It is because many, many people in my riding have come
to me. I am their representative. It is my duty to analyse legislation
the government puts forth in a certain area and to critique what the
government has done and to suggest changes.
The biggest concern people have is the delay which is occurring
in making some of the changes that will give farmers the tools they
need to market effectively in today's world. Why is the delay a
concern? The delay has been horrific. We are three and a half years
into this government's mandate and it still has not made any
changes. The people in my riding are very concerned about the
weakness of a minister that would allow this kind of situation to
develop.
The hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River mentioned that the
government must be sure it is making the right changes and that
there are huge divisions developing within the farming community.
Why have those divisions developed? It is because of inaction and
the frustration farmers have experienced. The minister has created
those divisions and he is continuing to widen them by the
ineffective legislation he is introducing in the House.
I do not know why the minister has not bothered to speak to this
but farmers want an answer. They want to know why he continues
to review the situation. In 1993-94, during the first year of this
Parliament, we asked the minister to begin to make some of the
changes. He gave us the standard answer: ``I am reviewing the
situation''. He has been saying that for almost two years. Then he
put a panel into place. Now he is going to study it even further.
Every delay tactic possible has been used not to make changes
that would give farmers more control over the marketing of their
products. Farmers on both sides of the debate no matter what their
perspective is are asking for the same thing. They are asking for
more control over the Canadian Wheat Board. I did a survey in my
riding and the vast majority, 90 per cent of the people who replied,
want the board to be controlled by farmers. Not by the bureaucrats
and not by the politicians in Ottawa; they are much too slow to
respond.
One of the biggest problems with the bill is that it reduces the
possibility of future changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is
entrenching and putting more power into the hands of the minister
of agriculture rather than giving farmers more control over their
own affairs. To the people across Canada who are listening, if you
do not think this is an injustice, then what is? We need to have that
and farmers are asking for it, no matter which side of the debate
they are on with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board issue.
Some of my colleagues have pointed out some sections which
are of a huge concern. An example is section 3.94 where the
corporation will pay the bill for any one of its directors or officers
who may make a mistake. The farmers will still be liable to pay the
bills.
(1155 )
The wording of course is lawyer talk: ``The corporation shall
indemnify a present or former director, officer, employee of the
corporation or a person who acts or acted at the request of the
corporation'' and it goes on to describe it. In other words, it
removes accountability on the part of the people who are transact-
8250
ing business on behalf of the farmer. It removes their
responsibility. Why is that a concern?
We are all aware of what is happening on the west coast.
Demurrage charges by the ships that are waiting in the harbours are
being charged to farmers who have absolutely no control over the
situation yet the farmers have to pay the bill. Now we have
legislation which puts that into law with respect to the Canadian
Wheat Board. It is absolutely wrong that farmers should have to
pay the bills for things they have no control over. Why is the
responsibility not put on those people who are causing the
problem?
Farmers are coming to me every day saying that their
transportation costs have gone up astronomically, especially since
the government removed the Crow rate without any warning. They
have appealed to me asking if there is something I can do.
The problem is that the people who are causing the problem are
not accountable. They do not have to pay. It is entrenched in this
legislation. It is a huge concern.
The government says it is implementing the recommendations of
the panel. Again it is simply cherry picking. It is only picking those
minute things which it feels it can do without lessening its power.
The essence of the problem farmers have is that they are battling
big government. They are being held down. Their freedom is being
limited by the minister and the bureaucrats in Ottawa. They are not
being given more control over their own affairs. That is of real
concern to them.
I noted some of the words the government used in the
introductory speech that would sound good to farmers. For
example, it said that the Canadian Wheat Board will be evaluated
on its marketing success and performance or on its financial
competence. Is there anything in the bill that allows an arm's length
third party such as the auditor general to evaluate the performance
of the board? Farmers do not even know what is happening. They
have a very difficult time deciding whether the board is doing a
good job.
The minister knows what is going on. No one can tell me that the
minister does not know what farmers want. They want control over
the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does it have to be controlled by
the bureaucrats here in Ottawa? That question has not been
answered.
If the minister set out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, he
could not have done a better job of destroying it than he is doing
right now with this delay and the way he is handling the situation.
People on both sides of the debate are telling me that the minister
of agriculture is destroying the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers
are frustrated. They are very concerned about what is happening.
If we are to have an effective marketing tool, we must begin to
make some of the changes which Reformers have been asking for.
This process does not facilitate that. Sending the bill to committee
now is simply another delay tactic as far as I can see. I do not think
the debate this morning will facilitate the changes which need to be
made to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake made a statement
about committees being inaccessible to members and therefore
many members will not be able to debate the bill when it is before
the agriculture committee.
(1200 )
I would like to correct the record and point out that every
member in the House has entitlement to speak at any standing
committee. There is absolutely no restriction. For the hon. member
to make such a suggestion is fallacious to say the least. To my hon.
friends across the way, when this bill goes to committee, these
concerns can very definitely be aired.
The bill makes changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. It gives
farmers more power on the wheat board. The suggestion of my hon.
friend from Yorkton-Melville about the demurrage charges when
wheat is not getting through to load the ships right now is rather
interesting. I wonder where he would like to lay those charges.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): On the railroads.
Mr. Reed: On the railroads. I notice his leader made that
statement in the press. I suspect the next move his leader will make
is to call for the railroads to be taken over again by the government
so those charges can be absorbed out of the public treasury. Is that
what the hon. member wants?
One of the wonderful things about the wheat board and the
service that it provides to grain growers is that it allows them in
times of difficulty to level out those costs. Right now when grain
prices are relatively higher than they have been in a number of
years-
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): No, they are not.
Mr. Reed: Yes, they are and the hon. member knows it if he
watches the grain prices. The temptation and the desire is always
there to want to escape from the wheat board and deal
independently. When prices are low then that opinion shifts and
some of those grain growers then want the protection of the wheat
board again.
They want a dual system where grain can be marketed
independently or not. How in the world is the wheat board going to
survive in that situation? In a year of higher prices there will be a
shift
8251
away from the wheat board and all of those employees and all of
that wonderful infrastructure that is set up to market wheat sits
idle. Then in a year when prices go down there will be a run back to
the wheat board again and all of sudden it has to get back in gear.
It is totally unacceptable to operate in that way in international
markets. Either we go all the way in marketing grain outside of the
wheat board or we keep the wheat board. Let me tell the hon.
member that as long as there is a majority of farmers in Canada
who want the wheat board maintained then the wheat board will be
maintained. If there was a great movement away from the wheat
board, if the majority of farmers did not want the wheat board, the
government would not be forcing it down their throats.
My hon. friends will have all sorts of time to debate this at the
agriculture committee. They will be able to go there whether they
are members of not and sit down and express their concerns. They
will be listened to. I happen to sit on that committee and I will
make sure that they are listened to.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to take part in the debate today to discuss Bill C-72 which
makes amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to move
those discussions to committee.
(1205 )
My son and I and our families operate a 1,500 acre grain farm in
Alberta in part of the area designated to be under the Canadian
Wheat Board. I have a lot of colleagues on this side of the House
who are farmers as well and who have experienced firsthand the
Canadian Wheat Board's operation. It always amuses me to hear
speakers, like the hon. member from Ontario who spoke just before
me, express their views on how great it is under the Canadian
Wheat Board when they have not had any actual experience under
the board. Ontario is exempt from being under the Canadian Wheat
Board operations, and I know there is another member from
Ontario ready to speak here.
Between the members who are not under the board's operation
and the lawyers from the other side who extol its great virtues, it
seems they are being a little hypocritical. If it is so good, why does
the Canadian Wheat Board not operate in Ontario and Quebec as
well?
Bill C-72 has been very badly drafted. It will enhance the control
and the power of the minister of agriculture. That is exactly the
opposite of what is wanted in the agricultural community currently
under the Canadian Wheat Board. It is so bad that I think the
minister should resign. It is not just for this reason. The minister
has established a clear record in the past three and a half years since
he has come to this Parliament and become the minister of
agriculture. I will go through items and I suggest that he has failed
on every account. He has made those on all sides of this issue angry
at him for the way he has handled the amendments to the Canadian
Wheat Board and the whole marketing debate throughout the
prairies.
Some historical background is necessary in order to talk about
the Canadian Wheat Board with some knowledge. The Canadian
Wheat Board was established in 1917 during the first world war as
a war measures act. I can understand quite fully why that would be.
In a war you want control over food supply. We had some
commitments to Britain at the time and we wanted to have stable
prices during wartime.
After the first world war the Canadian Wheat Board was
disbanded as it should have been. The grain trade operated in a free
market economy until 1935 when the Canadian Wheat Board was
re-established. It was brought back as a dual market with private
grain trade. It operated in that way for eight years until the
beginning of the second world war. At the height of the second
world war, in 1943, the Liberal government decided that the
Canadian Wheat Board should be brought back in a monopoly
capacity. There again was the factor of war conditions.
I support the move that was made at that time. We were
supplying grain to Britain again. We were supplying grain to our
allies. We wanted the price to be kept down in order to support the
war effort.
However, after the war other factors became involved. There
were some five-year contracts. As one of my colleagues said
earlier, Mitchell Sharp, who has been a minister in government, has
been quite critical of the fact that the board continued as a single
desk agency when it was not required after the war.
That sets the context for the debate that has taken place in
western Canada for the past several years. The debate is all about
marketing choice. Some farmers want to pool their products, have
the Canadian Wheat Board do their marketing for them and accept
an average price. Farmers on the other side of the issue want to
market their own grain. They think they can do better than the
board is doing. They have their own special needs. It may be that
they have a big farm payment to make at a certain time of the year
and need cash flow when some of their neighbours may not need it.
That is the debate that is taking place. It is a matter of whether
we should have complete restrictive measures and marketing
through the Canadian Wheat Board or whether there should be
choice. I understand fully both sides of the issue. We live in a free
democratic country and my belief is that farmers should be given
the choice to either haul to the Canadian Wheat Board and accept
an average price or to go on their own. I suggest that farmers will
decide with their produce which system they like best. I think it
should be left that way.
This is the background to that issue. In the last three years, the
Liberal government has taken away the subsidized Crow freight
rate even though our competitors have not removed subsidies to the
same extent that this government has. We have moved faster than
all our international obligations suggest we need to. These days
8252
farmers are paying the full cost of freight. As such, they have had
to scramble to try to find the best possible market prices in order to
survive. Many of them are doing just that.
(1210 )
However, I suggest that the minister of agriculture is tying one
hand behind the back of those farmers who want to survive. He is
suggesting that the farmers simply could not market their wheat
and barley internationally. He is saying that it is not possible. I
think he is actually suggesting that farmers are not smart enough to
do that.
Let us look at the facts. I farm myself. We market a number of
products and my neighbours market a number of products already
and there are companies out there that facilitate that. Canola is
right up there in terms of dollar value with wheat as to which is the
biggest export outside the country in dollar value per year. Canola
is not marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Peas are not
marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers are
marketing these products: fescue, clover, flax, rye, lentils. The list
goes on. They are marketing beef. There has been a 40 per cent
increase in the export of beef since the free trade agreement. The
wheat board does not have to do that. There is no monopoly
situation. It is a market economy.
For those who want to market through the Canadian Wheat
Board and accept a pooled average and not have to do their own
research and marketing, I suggest they keep that method in place.
However, for those who do not want to market through the wheat
board but want to look for other alternatives, that should be a
matter of choice.
This brings us to the current round, 1993. Let us go through the
list. Besides losing the Crow rate, the minister decided to increase
pressure on the grain marketing debate and set up a grain marketing
panel about a year and a half ago. This was a hand-picked Liberal
panel. The chairman of the panel is a Liberal buddy of the minister
of agriculture. I am sure the minister thought this guy would do
what he wanted and come up with a favourable report. In fact, I
think maybe that was the original plan.
However, once farmers and farm groups started making
presentations to the panel, the members of the panel had their eyes
opened up. In fact, there was so much demand for the panel to
travel to different parts of the country that it had to finally agree to
go to Edmonton and Regina. It was just going to hold hearings in
Winnipeg.
In my riding, a group in the Grand Prairie-Peace River area said
it did not make sense travelling to Winnipeg to make a presentation
to the committee. Surely the committee should be out listening to
the farmers in their communities. Some kind of compromise was
reached and the panel ended up going to Edmonton. The panel was
not even anticipating that in the beginning. However, there was so
much pressure from producers that is what happened.
Members of the panel had their eyes opened up and, to their
credit, they wrote a credible report suggesting that compromises be
reached in certain areas and a consensus be reached in certain
areas. They then made a series of recommendations. However, the
minister of agriculture did not comply with those
recommendations. In fact, he even refused to meet with the panel to
discuss its recommendations. That is how contemptuous he was
because the panel did not write the kind of report he wanted.
Further to that, the panel had recommended that barley should be
outside the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the minister could
not accept that and decided to hold his own vote. He knew from an
Angus Reid poll he had taken earlier that farmers wanted a choice
in how they marketed their barley.
He knew he could not ask the farmers whether they wanted a
choice in how they marketed their barley because he would lose
and that was not what he wanted. Therefore, he designed a question
that was all or nothing: Do you want to deal with the Canadian
Wheat Board on all sales of barley, malt or feed grain, or do you
want to have the board not involved in any of that and deal with the
entire free market?
That is not the debate that is taking place out there and this
ballot, when it is finally tallied and the minister gets the result he
wants, simply will not end the debate because it has not addressed
the real issue.
Mr. Hermanson: A dishonest question.
Mr. Penson: Absolutely. That brings us to the amendments to
the Canadian Wheat Board Act that the minister has decided to
bring in. What are the amendments? They give more control to the
minister and the government, more control at a time when they are
asking farmers to accept more risk. That is not tenable. If members
look at this legislation they will see countless times that different
matters ``have to have approval by the minister of agriculture and
the Minister of Finance''.
(1215)
Specifically, section 18(1) has been added to the act, requiring
the directors of the new board to follow any directions given to
them by the governor in council. It is apparent that the board has
become merely a puppet board to be controlled by the minister of
agriculture.
In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that the agriculture
committee travel to western Canada. It will fill its members' ears
as should be because this is a badly drafted piece of legislation and
does not reflect what farmers want. I encourage the committee to
8253
take as much time as possible and travel where people live to
discuss this as a very important issue to farmers.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address two issues that have not
been fully discussed in this debate on Bill C-72.
First I would like to put to rest, once and for all, an issue some
have raised which really is a non-issue. I am referring to the notion
that this proposed legislation either rescinds or intends to rescind
the existing free interprovincial movement in the domestic feed
grain market.
Grain farmers in western Canada have been able to sell feed
barley and feed wheat domestically in designated areas on a private
basis outside the Canadian Wheat Board since the government
passed an order in council way back in 1974. It is not being
changed.
This point has been made a number of times: in the policy
announcement the minister of agriculture issued October 1996, in
printed material circulated to all farmers in December, in
comments the minister made in this House, in remarks he delivered
at a meeting last month of Alberta's Wild Rose agricultural
producers, and in a statement he made in Regina on January 21.
Officials of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also reiterated the
point that the existing domestic feed grain market is not being
changed.
The minister said in a statement on January 21: ``Those who
persist in raising this red herring are mistaken''.
Mr. Hermanson: Do you even know what you are talking
about?
Mr. Calder: Yes, I do. If you want to listen, you will understand.
The argument appears to be based on the idea that by repealing
paragraph 46(b) of the existing Canadian Wheat Board Act that we
are repealing the legislative authority for the order in council which
authorizes free interprovincial trade in feed grains in the designated
areas. Consequently that order in council would be null and void.
This is not true and I will try to explain now why.
The order in council has nothing to do with that paragraph of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is not even mentioned. Several other
provisions in the act are cited. It is as necessary, legislative
authority, but not paragraph 46(b); therefore there is no substance
to the suggestion that repealing this paragraph somehow undercuts
the order in council.
If members do not want to take my word for it they can look it up
in the SOR/93-486 on pages 3872 and 3873 of the Canada Gazette
Part II, Volume 127, Number 20.
Even if the order in council did rely on paragraph 46, it would
still be valid unless it were inconsistent with the new act as
amended. Since this is not the case, the order in council is not in
jeopardy.
Again I quote the minister's own words: ``It is not now and has
never been the intention of the Government of Canada to restrict
trade in the domestic feed grain market which was liberalized in
1974''.
This simple point is adamantly clear from the very wording of
the questions that are being asked in this winter producer vote
about barley marketing. The continuing existence of the domestic
feed market is written right into the words on the ballot.
I hope this ends this discussion, but if it does not and if a
reasonable doubt about this issue surfaces during the standing
committee's detailed study on Bill C-72, the minister has already
assured the sector that he would be happy to receive the
committee's advice as to what its members believe should be done
to make the point even clearer.
(1220)
The other matter I would like to raise is the legislation
introduced last November to amend the Canada Labour Code.
Grain exports are very important to Canada in earning foreign
exchange. These sales are of course dependent on our ability to
deliver high quality grain consistently on time.
Most of the time we have been able to do this but there have been
several occasions when work stoppages at western ports have
significantly curtailed grain exports. Since 1972, for instance, there
have been 12 work stoppages that have adversely affected grain
exports, although only on 3 of these occasions has the handling of
grain been the cause of the stoppages. The other 9 involved
longshore operations.
The Minister of Labour last November introduced into this
House legislation to modernize the Canadian Labour Code,
including amendments to the industrial relations section to clarify
the rights and the obligations of the parties during a work stoppage.
The amendments benefit the agriculture and agri-food sector by
promoting the continued movement of grain to market and
reducing the cost of work stoppages to farmers.
In all, Canadian ports engaged in longshoring and other ports
activities as tugboats and mooring for instance would be required
to continue providing services to grain vessels if they become
involved in a work stoppage. Grain handlers and their employers
retain the right to strike and lock-out. I am pleased that this
legislation will help ensure that farmers can get their grain to the
market in the event of work stoppages at Canadian ports.
The agriculture and agri-food sector is one of the most
significant sectors of the Canadian economy. If we continue to
work co-operatively with this sector to improve the way that we
operate, I am confident that this sector will generate more growth,
more
8254
wealth, more trade, more jobs and more innovation for all
Canadians. There can be no doubt that we are living in an era of
unprecedented change, change that is occurring at a faster rate than
we have ever experienced before. That change is driven in part by a
shrinking world brought about by new world trade regulations and
new world trading opportunities.
For 61 years the Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the
cornerstones of our successes in the agricultural industry. With the
changes that we have introduced to build on that success, providing
the board with more modern governances and in its accountability
to farmers and more flexibility and being responsive to that,
farmers will be empowered with more to say in their marketing
system, more power to take on the very real challenges and
opportunities that lie before us.
The amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we are
currently debating and the changes to the Canadian Labour Code to
improving grain handling in the western coast ports will help keep
Canada on course into the next millennium.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill today.
Unlike my very informed colleagues from Vegreville, from
Kindersley-Lloydminster, from Yorkton-Melville, from Peace
River and from Lisgar-Marquette, I admit I do not have the
expertise that they have when it comes to the operation of the wheat
board and the history of the wheat board. But in reading over this
bill there is one thing I can do: I can smell a rat. There is something
that stinks in this bill and I want to talk about those two clauses.
There is something that this minister is trying to cover up before
it happens and that is section 3.93(3) where it talks about the
directors, the officers and employees of the wheat board not liable
for a breach of duty under subsection (1) or (2) with regard to the
financial statements, with regard to the operation of the wheat
board and with regard to lawyers reports, accountants reports,
engineer appraisers reports, all sources that could show the wheat
board up for what it is.
(1225 )
What is the minister of agriculture afraid will come out? What
does the Liberal minister of agriculture fear so much that he would
take the time to put in a clause like this to protect the employees of
the wheat board? What is coming down the pike? What does the
minister of agriculture know that Canadians and Canadian farmers
do not know? Is there something going on there? Is there
mismanagement? Is there corruption? Is there criminal activity?
One can only assume that could be a possibility when looking at
the clauses that have been put in here. What is the minister
anticipating?
Section 3.94 stinks like a barn as well: ``The Corporation shall
indemnify a present or former director, officer or employee of the
Corporation or person who acts or acted at the request of the
Corporation, and their heirs''-they cover them all-``and legal
representatives, against all costs, charges and expenses, including
an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgment''-sounds
a little strange-``that are reasonably incurred by them in respect
of any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding to
which they are a party by reason of being or having been a director,
officer, employee or person'' employed by the wheat board.
What is the minister expecting to come down the tube that would
justify putting in a clause like this which gives such blanket
protection to any director, officer or former employee of the wheat
board? It mentions criminal or civil charges.
One has to suspect that the people who are out there taking a
good look at the Canadian Wheat Board operation may be getting
close to something. Is that the case?
We just heard the Liberal member talk about how good the wheat
board is. If the wheat board is so good, if it is doing such a
wonderful job for Canadian farmers I would like to ask a question
of the member, but I cannot of course. Maybe I will get a reply
some time. If the board is so good, why is the board not doing
things like putting Ontario corn under the wheat board operation?
Corn can be used for food or for feed, much the same as barley can.
So why has the Canadian Wheat Board not brought corn into the
operations of the wheat board? One wonders exactly what direction
the board is taking.
I want to stay on this blanket protection that the minister of
agriculture in this bill is giving to all the directors, officers and
employees who were ever associated with the wheat board. One
only has to say that something stinks in this bill. Is it because the
minister of agriculture fears that something will stink in the
Canadian Wheat Board? Is that why he has tried to give it such
immunity and protection in the bill?
Mr. Hermanson: There is certainly an incentive to be dishonest.
Mr. Harris: As the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
just said, what a wonderful insurance policy for someone if there
was an intention to commit some sort of criminal or other
fraudulent act or gross mismanagement in an area of trust. It is
great insurance to know that these things can be done and one
would not be touched. I am surprised, given some of the things the
Minister of Justice has put out in this House that the Minister of
Justice has not come out with something like this for every crook in
Canada. For goodness sake, what an insurance policy to have. If I
work for the Canadian Wheat Board I can do anything I want with
complete immunity from any kind of prosecution, financial
compensation or costs. Maybe we should tell the Minister of
Justice about this. He could put it in the Criminal Code. He has put
a lot of other dumb legislation in the Criminal Code.
8255
(1230)
Let us be fair to Canadians. If we can give immunity to
employees, directors and officers of the Canadian Wheat Board and
give them that kind of protection should they wish to be involved in
any kind of questionable opportunities, why not be fair, treat all
Canadians equally and give it to everyone, including the crooks?
As I said when I started my speech, something stinks in this bill.
These two clauses are nothing more than an insurance policy to
protect someone who may have some questionable activities in
mind. On these two clauses alone the government should take this
bill and stick it where the sun does not shine.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the
deputy government whip, the vote on this motion will be deferred
until the conclusion of Government Orders tomorrow.
* * *
On the Order: Government Orders:
December 12, 1996-The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Bill C-79, an act to permit certain
modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the
Indian Act to bands that desire them, be referred forthwith to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my hon. colleagues for
considering the motion to move this important piece of legislation
to committee for study before second reading.
From the outset this government has sought to form a new
relationship with First Nations, a relationship founded on the
cornerstone of self-government. We have made significant
progress toward that goal and look forward to the day when the
inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government is fully
implemented throughout this country.
While we are working to reach that goal we must also remove
existing impediments to the social, economic and political
development of First Nations. Some of the provisions of the Indian
Act are such impediments.
(1235)
As self-government negotiations are completed and ratified, and
we are currently involved in about 80 different self-government
negotiations across the country, the Indian Act will have less and
less application to First Nations and no application to First Nations
which have concluded their self-government agreements. But
self-government will not come overnight and until these
negotiations are completed and all First Nations are again
self-governing, the Indian Act will continue to be the governing
legislation.
For many years the Indian Act has occupied a unique place in the
minds and lives of First Nations. It has been seen as both unwanted
and necessary, as both offensive and protective, as both a prison
and a shield.
In its chapter on the Indian Act, the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples quotes Harold Cardinal, a Cree leader who
eloquently sums up the ambivalent feelings that many First Nations
have toward this act. Cardinal says: ``No society with even
pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of
legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under
the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights''.
This has been a dilemma. Until now, to move away from the
oppression of the act could also have meant moving out from under
its protection and from its recognition that First Nations have a
unique legal position in Canada which includes a special
relationship with the federal government. Not surprisingly, there
has been great reluctance to change the status quo, yet the status
quo cannot and should not be sustained.
8256
This situation had to change. The approach had to be different.
That is why we have introduced the Indian Act optional
modification act. The bill takes a step away from the Indian Act
but it does not distance First Nations from their rights under the
act, nor does it distance the federal government from its
responsibility to First Nations. But just so there will still be no
room for confusion or misunderstanding, we have included a
non-derogation clause in the bill to emphasize that the bill should
not be interpreted to reduce protection of aboriginal and treaty
rights given by section 35 of the Constitution, including the
inherent right of self-government.
We also recognize that not all First Nations will want to adopt
the provisions of this new act. First Nations will want to study this
legislation and understand its implications. That is why the entire
bill is optional. Those who choose to opt in will be able to apply the
provisions of this legislation to local governance and their day to
day business. The current Indian Act will continue to apply to First
Nations who choose not to opt in. It will also apply to all First
Nations in areas where the proposed act is silent.
Why are we providing this alternative to the Indian Act? Why
are we proposing the first major initiative with respect to the Indian
Act in 45 years? The answer is simple: fairness requires it; justice
requires it; circumstances require it. We have no other choice.
The Indian Act reflects an earlier time, a time when First Nations
were treated as wards of the state. It was a time when
non-aboriginal governments did not trust First Nations to manage
their own affairs and to run their own lives. It was a time when big
brother in Ottawa was given the authority to intrude and regulate
the most minute aspects of the lives of First Nations. It comes from
a time when aboriginal religious and cultural beliefs were
suppressed and aboriginal demands for justice and land claim
settlements were opposed.
But today is a very different time. Does it make any sense in this
day and age that I as minister should have the authority to operate
farms on First Nation lands, purchase and distribute seeds and
decide how to spend the profits? The Indian Act says that I can
without the consent of First Nations and without any notice. The
Indian Act also gives me the power to dispose of wild rice and dead
or fallen timber on First Nations land without their permission. On
the prairies, First Nations farmers cannot even legally sell their
wheat or other agricultural produce without my consent.
(1240)
This is absolutely ridiculous and should not be tolerated. This is
not the way to engender self-sufficiency. This is not the way to
foster a spirit of economic independence. This is not the way to
conduct relations with First Nations in this country.
The simple fact is that an option is necessary. It is necessary to
get the government out of the areas that should be within the
exclusive domain of First Nations. It is necessary to remove
barriers so First Nations can create their own opportunities and
build their own futures. It is long overdue.
No government should make these sorts of changes to a specific
group in society without consulting them and without offering
them every opportunity for input. That is why we have consulted
widely and why we propose to consult even more broadly through
the committee study. That is why we are making this legislation
optional.
There is nothing radical in what we propose. The optional
modifications are minor but taken collectively they would increase
the power of First Nations while reducing the powers of both the
minister and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The approach is incremental, to act where there is a base of
support and consult where there is not. That is the best way to
proceed and that is the way we are going. First Nations and
governments agree that discussion and dialogue must continue for
that very reason.
It is appropriate that this bill should be referred to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
before second reading. This referral to committee is important
because it allows us to remain open to further changes to Bill C-79.
If we were to go the normal parliamentary route and refer the bill to
committee after second reading, there would be a perception of
greater limits on the extent of amendments that could be made at
committee. It is important not to leave that impression.
We believe there is a need for open public discussion. We want
the committee to have the freedom to conduct the broadest possible
consultation and to have maximum flexibility in its handling of
these proposals. By sending this bill to committee now, there will
be an opportunity to hold in depth hearings and to consider further
additions to and deletions from the bill.
It is time for this House to consider the establishment of a more
formal mechanism, an annual review of the Indian Act by the
standing committee through which First Nations may bring
forward their concerns about particular aspects of the act. In the
meantime the government will continue to focus its energies on
implementing the inherent right of aboriginal self-government,
settling land claims and improving socioeconomic conditions.
The Indian Act optional modification act will give more power
to First Nations which will make it easier to get things done. It
represents not a destination but a means to take us there.
I have had this job for three years. I thought that the trail of tears
aboriginal people have travelled down for hundreds of years was
just that, a trail. It is not a trail. On the way back they thought it was
a trail but it is a wall. I see aboriginal leaders across this country
8257
almost taking spikes in their hands and driving into that wall to get
over it. We have to destroy that wall. I do not care if the UN has
said for three years in a row that Canada is the best country to live
in. Until we have destroyed that wall, until we can bring aboriginal
people back to where they were at the time of the first encounter,
we do not deserve that title. This is one way to a better and more
equitable future that we can all be proud of as Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
say right off that the minister's plan of action is somewhat
incoherent. I will elaborate a little later.
To announce today that this bill is going to amend the Indian Act,
which the government has been saying it wants to get rid of for the
past three years now, and to say that consultations were very broad,
when 550 of 600 native communities in Canada are opposed, is a
bit misleading.
(1245)
I would say first off that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill
and the fast track approach. Things are not being speeded up to give
the committee a better opportunity to introduce amendments, but to
have the bill passed quickly.
I also find it odd that the bill is before the House on the very day
the budget is being presented. There is a whole circus underway
outside the House, and everyone is focussing on the budget and not
on this bill. I think the minister has created a smoke screen. There
is a historical context. Before we know where we are going, we
have to establish where we are. We have to set out the background.
Before the Europeans came to North America, as the great
capitals of the 14th and 15th centuries, like London and Paris,
gained international stature, they had no idea that there was another
continent with a native population spread across its entirety. There
was no problem, because the two continents perhaps had no
knowledge of each other.
The problems began at the moment of contact. I am talking about
the period that goes from the 16th century to the 19th century.
Curiosity and mutual mistrust are normal when two civilizations
first meet. Neither knows what the other wants and what the others
are up to. There is a period of adjustment. Gifts are exchanges,
items are traded-a bit like today's diplomacy. That is the way it
was at the time.
These relations evolved. Eventually, relations were established
between the First Nations and the Europeans in a wide range of
areas, including not only trade but also military co-operation and
coalitions. This marked the beginning of the whole treaty era.
Of course, on one side there were the Europeans, vested with the
authority of their king and equipped with their seals to stamp on the
treaties they signed, while the aboriginal peoples, on the other side,
had a totally different philosophy.
In fact, I have a few lines to read you because references are
often made to the wampum and I think it is important to explain
what it is. The aboriginal peoples' philosophy is clearly explained.
Their equivalent to the royal seal was a wampum exchange.
A white wampum background symbolizes the purity of the agreement. Two rows
of purple beads represent the spirits of our respective ancestors.
They had respect not only for their own ancestors, but also for the
ancestors of those they were dealing with.
Between these two rows are three wampum beads symbolizing peace, friendship
and respect. The two rows represent parallel paths, two boats moving side by side on
the same river. One is a birch bark canoe, representing the aboriginal people, with
their laws, customs and traditions, and the other is a ship, representing the white
people, with their laws, customs and traditions. We travel together, but in our own
boats. Neither shall try to steer the other's boat.
That was the aboriginal peoples' philosophy, a far cry from that
of the Europeans who were thinking in terms of
terra nullius, land
waiting to be conquered. The treaties were signed in good faith by
the aboriginal people. They may not have stamped a royal seal on
them, because the custom in those days was to exchange wampum.
Then there was the royal proclamation, and, again, the
paternalistic tone the minister uses was very prevalent at the time.
Let me read you an excerpt of the royal proclamation: ``And
since it is fair, reasonable and essential to our interests-the
crown's interests-and to the safety of our colonies-the crown's
colonies-that the various nations of savages-as they were called
back then-with whom we have some contact and who live under
our protection, be neither disturbed nor bothered regarding the
ownership of such parts of our domains or territories that were
neither bequeathed to us, nor bought by us, these areas are reserved
for their use as hunting grounds-'' and so on.
This gives an idea of the tone. What is important however, is
that, at the time, native people felt this was from nation to nation.
They considered that the king was dealing on those terms, even
though the tone was definitely paternalistic.
It is in regard to the issue of protection that the federal
government resorted to subtleties and developed its scheme to
assimilate native people.
8258
(1250)
In the 19th century, the quasi-equality began to erode. The
famous immigration policy was in effect, and boats full of people
kept arriving on the continent. By 1812, there were ten times more
new immigrants than natives, because the latter had been
decimated by various diseases.
The fur trade was also suffering badly. So, the colonies, the
Dominion, no longer needed the manpower provided by native
people for the fur trade. Things began to change. The economy's
new sectors were the forest, wood, agriculture and mining
industries.
Then the natives started to be perceived as people who should be
removed. With the new economy, native people became an obstacle
to the federal government, and I dare say that, given the measures
that are being taken and the paternalistic attitudes of this
government-they are almost hereditary in government-things
have not changed much. The idea that Europeans were superior
continued to develop.
The minister is telling us that he will ram through these
amendments to the Indian Act. Why is he doing that, if not because
he has some authority and is making full use of it in deciding the
future of Canada's native people? There are some 500,000 native
people in Canada. The minister is saying: ``I have the authority. I
know you are against this measure, but I will do what is good for
you''. Things have not changed much since the early days of the
colonies.
At the time, the subtlety was in using the famous protection of
the royal proclamation, which, for the government, for the
Dominion, became a domination-assimilation process. And then
the machinery of assimilation kicked in.
In 1849, government, democratic institutions, did something
terrible: they created residential schools. The government began
taking children from native bands and putting them in residential
schools in order to stamp out their culture and their language, so
that they could be assimilated with immigrants, who were ten times
more numerous. White people outnumbered native people ten to
one at the time.
In 1867, a date we keep hearing in all the praise coming from the
Liberal party and from all the federalist parties, the Constitution of
Canada was signed by the Fathers of Confederation, but no natives
were present. In fact, the then newly elected Prime Minister said he
wanted to do away with the band system and completely assimilate
Indians into the Dominion.
So now we can see a little better why the government at the time
felt it had to stamp out the native system of government. It was at
this point that the Indian Act, which is completely consistent with
Confederation, was introduced in order to regulate all aspects of
native people's lives. Not only were children placed in residential
schools but, as well, native peoples were told: ``Your governments
will no longer operate like that. You will elect them in the manner
we tell you. We will drive you from your lands sometimes and, if
there is no game in one location, we will send you somewhere else.
We will decide''. In addition, if there were important minerals in a
particular location, the government said: ``There is no longer any
game in this location, so we are going to send you elsewhere'',
using that excuse to move them so they could make money.
Things went on this way. These displacements were considered
to be ``in the national interest'' at the time.
In 1969, the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Indian
Affairs, presented his white paper. It was the same thing all over
again: the machinery of assimilation continued forward. He said
the Indian Act would have to be abolished. We are hearing the same
thing from the minister today. This was the equality they were
talking about. Once again, native peoples rose up.
Finally, the native peoples took charge of their destiny. There
was an international movement and, relying on the legal aspect,
natives began to say: ``There are people elsewhere on the planet
who are victims just like us''. Finally, the Supreme Court and the
superior courts in each of the provinces kept handing down
decisions in favour of native peoples, with the result that, in 1982,
the government had to add to the Canadian Constitution section 35,
which protects their ancestral rights.
This is the tradition in which the minister follows. He has not
kept the promises in the red book. Furthermore, David
Nahwegahbow and Russell Diabo, who wrote the book themselves,
said: ``They broke their promises, so we are withdrawing''.
There were phoney consultations, as I have said. In addition, 550
aboriginal communities want nothing to do with this bill, but the
minister is forging ahead anyway, confronting the opposition
parties, the official opposition and the Reform Party, and flying in
the face of the philosophy contained in the Erasmus-Dussault
report.
History will judge the minister. It is not too late for him to do
something. If he withdraws his bill, perhaps history will remember
him as someone progressive, but if he goes ahead, he will be seen
as part of the machinery of assimilation like all the others.
(1255)
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-79.
I attended the news conference when the minister introduced this
legislation. I was not impressed then and I now have had the chance
to study the bill and I am still not impressed.
I listened with interest to the minister's concluding remarks. He
talked about the need to destroy the wall. Yes, there probably is a
8259
wall there called the Indian Act. The only way it will be destroyed
is to repeal the Indian Act.
However, I do not think that is a good analogy. I think this is a
pit. It is a pit that we have put the aboriginal people into and they
cannot get out. Now we are providing another pit, we are giving
them a choice between two pits by introducing Bill C-79.
After the minister spoke at the news conference, Assembly of
First Nations Chief Ovid Mercredi spoke on behalf of 500 Indian
bands which oppose this legislation. He said ``we do not like Indian
act No. 1, why should we like Indian act No. 2?''. He was referring
to this. He referred to the Indian Act as a cage. He said ``why
should we be happy because the government says `look at the new
cage we made for you?'''
The minister of Indian affairs promised to amend the Indian Act.
Bill C-79 is not an amendment to the Indian Act. It is an act that
allows Indian bands to opt out of the current Indian Act and into a
new one.
Specifically, Bill C-79 removes the need for ministerial approval
for the sale of agricultural products and certain artefacts. It is not
clear whether they can also bypass the Canadian Wheat Board,
which we were debating earlier this morning. The question should
be answered as to whether they would have to comply with the
regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Additional bylaw making powers are conferred on band
councils. Fines levied for violation of the Indian Act, the
regulations or band bylaws are increased to $5,000 and are payable
directly to band councils. None of this revenue needs to be
accounted for nor does it have any effect on the amount of tax
dollars flowing into the community. Again, we need an answer. We
need to know why this is so.
Bill C-79 allows bands to create a voluntary ticketing scheme in
order to expedite law enforcement.
Also by virtue of Bill C-79 the minister, rather than the governor
in council, is given the opportunity to set aside elections. The term
of office for a chief and council is extended from two to three
years. This will not make many of the native people I know who are
living under anti-democratic band councils very happy.
The minister is authorized to enter into agreements with band
councils for educational purposes. It seems this is already
happening. Is the minister simply putting into legislation what is
already happening today, legitimizing it?
The minister's authority for road construction and repair is
removed in Bill C-79. However, the bill does not say who will be
responsible and liable for public safety on these roads and bridges
under band control. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Bands are now given the authority to manage natural resources
on band held land. However, the revenue flowing from these
resources is once again unaccounted for. Nor will this revenue
reduce the amount of grants and contributions flowing from the
federal government. The fundamental relationship between crown
and aboriginal peoples is not changed.
Bill C-79 includes a non-derogation clause. Aboriginal treaty
rights remain protected under section 35 of the Constitution.
Nothing in Bill C-79 affects taxation, Indian registration, band
membership or the protection of reserve lands. Bill C-79 is like its
cousin, Bill C-75.
First Nations land management which was introduced December
10, 1996 creates two categories of bands with special status for
those who opt into Bill C-79.
Bill C-79 does not meet our party's litmus test for equality,
financial accountability or democratic accountability at the band
level. Those are the three tests we measure legislation with.
Bill C-79 is the first bill introduced by the minister that is not an
initiative of the previous Tory administration. Bill C-79 does not
fulfil the minister's promise to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-79
stands on its own. It is not an amendment to the present Indian Act.
(1300 )
Bill C-79 was rushed to fulfil a promise and respond to the royal
commission on aboriginal peoples. Review by justice officials is
suspect because changes were being made until the evening before
it was tabled.
The Assembly of First Nations claims that only 100 of the 600
First Nations support Bill C-79. Bill C-79 does not bring
democratic equality, and raises serious concerns with powers
granted to chiefs and councillors.
Bill C-79 does not bring financial accountability and reduces the
minister's scrutiny. The auditor general is still excluded from
auditing band books, just like he is excluded from scrutinizing the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-79 will probably be constitutionally challenged as a
consequence of this opting in provision. It will create a
bureaucratic nightmare and a field day for lawyers and consultants.
That is a major concern of ours.
Like Bill C-75, it lets the minister off the hook and allows him to
wash his hands rather than take on those elements of the Indian Act
that warrant amendments and/or repeal.
Canadians, both native and non-native, were looking for
leadership and vision. They got neither. Why is the minister afraid
of giving equality a try? Here are some of the crucial steps we need
to take toward equality. When I talk about equality, it does not
mean assimilation.
The Indian Act must be repealed and replaced with legislation
that will move us closer to true equality. Maybe we should call it
8260
the equality for Indians act. We need to agree on a definition of
self-government, something that has not happened.
The majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian people,
will support aboriginal self-government as long as the federal
government's relationship with Indian reserves is similar to the
relationship between provinces and municipalities. Most of
Canada's aboriginal people-there are about 500,000 of
them-already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000
treaty Indians currently living on reserves or crown land across
Canada.
Treaty Indians deserve the same rights and freedoms and should
share the same duties and responsibilities enjoyed by the tens of
millions of municipal residents across the entire country.
For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the
charter of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to aboriginal
people and Indian governments. We cannot have two systems.
Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic nor
financially accountable until and unless a normal local government
to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal government
must make treaty entitlements payable in part directly to individual
treaty Indians living on reserves. The local band administration
could then establish a local tax system to pay for local services.
Government payments for welfare and housing could easily be
transferred in this manner. All treaty entitlements and benefits
should be considered a taxable benefit in accordance with the
Income Tax Act.
Every treaty Indian should pay income taxes, excise taxes and
the GST, just like every other Canadian. Every treaty Indian
entitled to compensation benefits or services promised by a treaty
should have the choice of receiving those entitlements directly
from the federal government or through local Indian governments
and should be able to exercise this option at any time.
Both the federal government and the Indians should fully honour
the commitments they made to each other in the treaties. Land
claim settlements should be negotiated publicly. They should
outline specific terms. They should be final. They should conclude
within a specific timeframe and they should be affordable to
Canada and the provinces. All reserve or settlement lands should
remain part of a sovereign Canada.
There should be public discourse on the value and extent of all
land claims. That should be the first step in addressing Indian land
claims. For the equality alternative to work, every treaty Indian
entitled to land under the formula articulated in each treaty should
have the choice of taking personal possession of the property or
having the land held in common and administered by the local
Indian government.
(1305 )
Any treaty Indian who wishes to permanently move off the
reserve should have the option to negotiate with the government a
personal compensation package to help with the transition to a new
job and a new life living off the reserve. The compensation should
constitute a fair exchange for treaty entitlements.
Bill C-79 creates two classes of natives. It will make the equality
and accountability issues worse, not better. Like Bill C-75, it will
become a bureaucratic and constitutional nightmare, further
dividing natives and non-natives, creating a money pit for lawyers
and consultants. The best thing we could do is to let Bill C-79 die
on the Order Paper.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an
ancient Oriental proverb that most of us know by heart: the journey
of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
Three and a half years ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development took the first step, the second step and the
third step and moved into an area that had not been tackled with a
view to making great progress, as he has in the last three and a half
years. The minister must be commended for his vision,
determination, hard work and the level of consultation that he has
had over these years with every Indian band in Canada.
It is a privilege for me to speak to the motion on Bill C-79, which
is designed to refer the bill to committee for further input,
consultation and possibly for further amendment. The bill
addresses concerns too long ignored and inefficiencies too long
endured. It presents First Nations with an option. If they want they
can remove themselves from certain parts of the Indian Act or they
can choose to continue under its provisions.
The design of the bill is to reduce the powers of the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and put more authority
for the day to day management of their affairs into the hands of the
First Nations.
Some have suggested that the government has not adequately
consulted before introducing this legislation. Those people would
like to see more delay, more paper shuffling, more hand wringing,
with a view to living with the status quo. That may be good enough
for some members, but it is not good enough for the First Nations.
It is not good enough for the minister. It is not good enough for the
government.
The truth is that the Government of Canada has been trying to
improve the Indian Act not just for one year, two years or three
years. It has been trying to fix it for 50 years. Minor tinkering
began almost immediately after the Indian Act was passed in 1876.
Since then there have been a number of attempts to make the act
more relevant, more just and more responsive.
8261
The first major series of amendments came in 1951, following
a report by a joint committee of the House and the Senate. These
amendments were far reaching, but they still did not change the
fundamentally paternalistic nature of the original act. While the
minister's powers were reduced, they still remained extensive and
intrusive.
Efforts were made again in 1960 with a commentary on the
Indian Act prepared for a joint committee. This report was not
taken up and the act remained unchanged.
In 1969 extensive consultations took place examining the whole
relationship between the government and the First Nations. In their
submission the United Interior Tribes of British Columbia said
something which everyone then and everyone now knows to be
true. ``The Indian Act is definitely not the answer to the problems
of the Indians of today''. That was in 1969. Just as the Indian Act
was failing First Nations then, it continues to do so today.
(1310 )
The Indian Act was revisited in 1970 when the Alberta chiefs
released their citizens plus report. That report recommended
amending but not abolishing the Indian Act. No amendments were
made and the status quo continued.
In 1982 the House established a parliamentary task force on
Indian self-government. This task force included, as ex officio or
liaison members, representatives from the National Aboriginal
Association as well as the Native Women's Association. It tabled
its report, commonly known as the Penner report, in November
1983.
If implemented, that report would have fundamentally altered
the relationship between First Nations and the federal government.
The Indian Act would have become largely irrelevant, but again
there were few results to show for the effort and the Indian Act
remained in place.
Further consultations were held with chiefs across the country
and the government did produce legislation in 1984. Unfortunately
First Nations opposed that bill and the legislation died after second
reading.
The government of the day introduced another bill, C-31, the
very next year. That legislation dealt with several specific
provisions of the Indian Act which discriminated on the basis of
gender and made the application of the act much more equitable.
That legislation passed but the underlying problems of the act
remained unchanged.
In 1986, the auditor general conducted the first comprehensive
audit of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. That report focused on lands, revenues and trusts,
areas governed by the Indian Act. As a result of the auditor
general's report, the department undertook an extensive review of
these areas, culminating in the government's introduction of Bill
C-115. The amendments proposed by that bill grew out of
recommendations by the Kamloops band in British Columbia.
These recommendations had been studied by the government
and band councils and were then referred to all chiefs, provinces
and MPs for comment. From April to December 1986, further
consultations were held with bands, organizations, provinces and
federal officials. These amendments, known as the Kamloops
amendments, were finally passed into law in 1988.
It was also in 1988 that Bill C-122 was introduced. This
legislation was aimed at a very narrow issue with respect to the
Indian Act emerging from a report of the standing joint committee
on regulations. That bill did not proceed beyond first reading.
Further modifications were made to the Indian Act in 1988
through Bill C-123, which dealt with the provision of support for
minors and Bill C-150 which cleared up a technical error which
was discovered in 1985 Indian Act.
We come to the present time. I have gone into some detail with
respect to the past efforts to alter the Indian Act because it is
important to put the Indian Act optional modification into
perspective. The legislation before the House has its genesis in
many years of frustration, many years of study. Government after
government has revisited this issue. Government after government
has consulted, debated, reviewed and considered. The Indian Act
has become one of the most studied pieces of legislation in our
history. However, all of that study has produced few results.
We find ourselves in 1997 with an act that has remained largely
unchanged since 1951. We find ourselves with an act that First
Nations understandably find demeaning. We find ourselves with an
act that treats First Nations as wards of the state and which gives
the minister authority to intervene and intrude in the lives of First
Nations' communities.
The time has come to provide an alternative, to begin to step
away from the paternalism of the Indian Act. Before introducing
this legislation we conducted our own consultations with First
Nations and I will briefly review that process.
(1315)
The minister first raised the idea at the Alberta chiefs summit in
March 1995. The next month he wrote to every chief, councillor
and leader of First Nations organizations asking for their views and
suggestions about changing the act, the one step at a time along that
journey as described in the Chinese proverb.
Based on numerous discussions with First Nations and the input
he received, in September 1995 a package of proposed-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lincoln): Excuse me, would the hon.
member conclude as your time is up.
8262
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the progress
of the House.
In conclusion, the minister has carried this vision along this
journey and these amendments which are very important will go to
committee, will be discussed and if necessary will be amended. We
hope that the minister's dream will be realized.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
wondering about the timing of this bill, but I hear my colleague for
Halton-Peel referring in his conclusion to the fact that the
minister has finished his journey.
Yet this bill, Bill C-79, merely amends the act of which we all
are ashamed, the Indian Act. This act infantilizes aboriginal
people, makes them into incapable minors. It imposes upon them a
government system which, to all intents and purposes, has been
such that some of them have lost their own system of government,
or are unable to make use of it. With this bill, the native peoples
have been more or less forced, in a roundabout way, to accept that.
What I find the most shocking in this bill is the nastiness of its
nature. It holds out a few little goodies and forces band councils
who want them to accept the principle of this hated act, an act
which is, in their eyes, a symbol of subserviency.
This bill is shocking for other reasons as well. It is also shocking
because no one among those who addressed the aboriginal
question, as a commission or otherwise, has thought that not only
the solution, but the beginning of the path toward a solution, lay
with amendments to the Indian Act.
Yet the red book, with its generosity, its understanding, its
compassion, with all the illusions that it held out, never made any
reference to even minor amendments to the Indian Act. Now we
find the minister wanting to be able, on the eve of an election, to
say: ``Mission accomplished''. There is one thing you can be
certain of: he will not be able to count on us to help him be able to
say that.
The native people of Canada-if I may use that term-have a lot
of grievances. I have long had an interest in these matters. I was a
minister in the Lévesque government when René Lévesque gave
official recognition in the National Assembly to the ten Indian and
Inuit nations. This arose out of a process begun in 1983 when
representatives of the aboriginal groups were brought together and
certain proposals were advanced. Not all were judged to be enough,
but this did mark the beginning of a process of change.
Obviously, as on the one hand the Indian Act was supreme, and
on the other a process of transformation was initiated, beginning on
the federal level with the Penner commission and later with the
Erasmus-Dussault commission, the native people of Quebec chose
to respond: ``Very nice of you to offer, but we will continue to call
for recognition on the federal level of the rights we feel we are
entitled to''. In Quebec it was felt this was a valid option.
(1320)
But what has happened since then? Not long ago we had the
Erasmus-Dussault report which is far removed, I would say light
years removed, from Bill C-79. We hear nothing about this report.
We do not know where it has been shelved, and what we see now is
this pitiful excuse for a bill which hardly deserves to be called even
an attempt to deal with aboriginal issues.
Meanwhile, in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, which later formed
the government, worked hard on preparing proposals for aboriginal
people, proposals that were made to the various groups, to the
leaders of aboriginal communities. What we have managed to do is
create an opportunity for change that would get rid of the Indian
Act once and for all and let each community, moving at its own
pace, take over the management of its resources, develop its
economy and become aware of the need to protect the environment
beyond the limits of its territory, and I am sure aboriginal people in
Quebec are starting to understand.
They are starting to realize that it will be in their best interests to
negotiate with the government of a Quebec that is sovereign,
because if they wait for Canada to deliver on its futuristic promises,
they will never get anywhere.
Even today, and this is not something to brag about because
much remains to be done about improving the circumstances of
aboriginal people, but anyone who is aware of these issues knows
perfectly well that aboriginal people are much better off in Quebec
than anywhere else, whether we are talking about knowledge and
retention of mother tongue, demographics, education or the
poverty rate.
We also had the James Bay agreement signed by Robert
Bourassa which remains a model of its kind. In spite of the
unhappy events in Oka, which I will not discuss here, there is no
comparison between the relationship between Quebecers and
aboriginal people, although coloured by a past which both sides
have to live with, and what we see elsewhere.
It is unfortunate that this government, instead of making real
progress on aboriginal issues, and we can draw a parallel here with
the national question, preferred to take the easy way out, an easy
way I would call pernicious because it will force aboriginal
communities to go along with the fundamental principles of the
Indian Act if they want to take advantage of certain changes.
8263
I may add that it is rather unusual that this bill is optional. It
will be up to the band and the band council to decide, and once
they decide to go along with the new legislation, they cannot go
back.
(1325)
Now this can cause major divisions, and here again, the
settlement process will remain in the hands of those who
administer the Indian Act. Instead of improving, the situation has
become even more complex and the future does not look very
promising.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate on sending the Indian Act optional
modification act to committee before second reading. The minister
has already outlined the contents of this legislation. He has referred
to the government's overall objective to reduce federal control over
the lives of First Nations people.
This legislation does not replace or amend the Indian Act.
Rather, it provides an option to parts of it. First Nations can decide
for themselves whether to opt for its provisions or to remain under
the terms of the Indian Act.
Eventually the Indian Act will no longer be needed. It is
outdated. It is paternalistic. It is cumbersome and costly. It gives
the minister powers that he does not need. I anticipate that by the
time the last nail is driven into the coffin of the Indian Act, very
few First Nations will still be affected by it. That is because this
government has set in progress a pattern of building
self-government from the ground up. So this legislation must be
seen within a larger context of the government's efforts to promote
the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal peoples.
Over the long history of the relationship between governments
and aboriginal peoples we have seen an ebb and flow of
self-government. It is not a happy history. It demonstrates a
fundamental lack of understanding on the part of past governments.
They did not appreciate the sophistication of aboriginal cultures
and forms of government. The history of legislation concerning
First Nations demonstrates a degree of arrogance and paternalism
that causes us today to shake our heads and wonder how
governments could have been so narrow minded, insensitive and
unfair.
There are five statutes that provide the framework for First
Nations policy during the past 200 years. The first was the royal
proclamation in 1763 which separated Indian lands from those that
formed the colonies. It initiated a process by which Indian land
could be purchased. Second was the Gradual Civilization of the
Indian Tribes in Canada Act of 1857. Third was the the Gradual
Enfranchisement Act of 1869. Theses acts endeavoured to remove
all distinctions between Indians and non-Indians.
Fourth was the Indian Act of 1876, the first to bear that title. It
consolidated previous legislation and introduced new provisions.
Fifth was the Indian Act of 1951 which followed the
recommendation of a joint committee of this House and the other
place. It introduced major reforms, including the reduction of
powers exercised by the government. Those are the principal
statutes but in between these key dates many amendments have
been introduced that have had a profound impact on the day to day
lives of First Nations peoples.
I will look at some recurring themes within those statutes and
regulations. When we look at the way in which the rules have been
changed at the whim of successive administrations, this House will
get a better idea of why we now want to give First Nations the
option to get government off their backs. One of the most important
themes is the basic question who is an Indian. By 1876 the
definition was someone of Indian blood, or in the case of mixed
marriages the definition was a non-Indian woman married to an
Indian man.
The 1951 act replaced the notion of Indian blood with the notion
of registration. Registered Indians had the right to band
membership and could live on reserve. Indian women who married
non-Indian men were not recognized as Indians. This was not
changed until the Indian Act was amended in 1985.
(1330)
But the issue of who is an Indian also includes whether the
government has a right to decide, whether the government has a
right to take away the rights and privileges of an individual Indian.
This was the objective of the Gradual Civilization Act passed in
1857. It introduced the notion of enfranchisement. An Indian adult
male could obtain the franchise but he would lose his Indian status.
Over the years the government sought to encourage Indians to
give up their status by promising them land which they would hold
as individuals, not as members of a band. In 1857 the government
promised up to 50 acres. How many Indians fell for this? How
many were willing to lose their Indian status in return for
enfranchisement and private ownership on reserve land? Between
1857 and the passage of the Indian Act 19 years later, only one.
This method of encouraging Indians to give up their traditional
ways was not working, so in 1876 the law was changed. In a
breathtaking piece of paternalism, enfranchisement was imposed
automatically on any Indian who earned a university degree or who
became a doctor, a lawyer or a clergyman. Compulsory
enfranchisement for all Indians over 21 was taken in and out of
legislation frequently over the next 43 years. In 1933 it was again
reintroduced and it stayed in effect until the act was revised in
1951.
8264
What we have here is a record of arbitrary decisions on the part
of former governments to try to destroy the fabric of First Nations
by removing Indian status from some of the most prominent
members of the First Nations communities. This is part of the
legacy of the Indian Act. This arbitrary power extends to other
spheres.
In fact, much of the concern about the enfranchisement issue
arose out of another broad area of concern: land. The history of
government relations with First Nations with respect to land shows
an alarming degree of high-handed imposition of government will.
Individual land holdings on reserves were instituted in 1876.
Residents received a location ticket from the superintendent
general; otherwise reserve residents would not be considered to be
lawfully holding their individual plots of land. The superintendent
general could order that a reserve be surveyed and divided into lots
and then require that band members obtain location tickets.
By 1884 a male Indian holding a location ticket could bequeath
property to family members, including his wife, but the wife had to
be living with him at the time of his death and she had to be of good
moral character. Who decided whether she was of good character?
Government authorities.
It was the government, not the band council that would decide
how moneys from the surrender and sale of reserve lands and other
resources would be spent. It was the superintendent general, not the
band council who decided whether non-Indians could reside on or
use reserve lands.
The governor in council could allow leases to be issued for
surface rights on Indian reserves. There was no need to get
approval from a band council. According to the changes
established in 1919 the owners of the land would have to be
compensated, but by 1938 even this provision was dropped.
In 1941 Indians were prohibited from selling agricultural
produce, furs and wild animals. To this day the Indian Act contains
a provision prohibiting the sale of agricultural products by western
Indians without official permission.
Changes to the act in 1951 removed many of the most glaring
inequities surrounding land. Expropriation powers were
significantly reduced. Administration of Indian estates was brought
more into line with provincial laws. But many of the old rules
remain.
(1335 )
Today we shake our heads and wonder how governments of the
day could be so imperious and paternalistic. But the day will come
when Canadians will wonder why they continued to keep so many
restrictions in the Indian Act in the latter half of the 20th century.
That is why the government has introduced the legislation before
us as an option to get out from under some of the old rules, to start a
new era without paternalism.
I urge all members to join me in voting to send this legislation to
committee for further study.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-79, the bill that makes
what they call optional modifications to the Indian Act. I was very
pleased to hear the words of the minister in introducing the bill to
Parliament and as well to hear a number of the Liberal members
commenting on why they think the act needs to be changed and
eventually eliminated.
I applaud the minister of Indian affairs for his work over the past
three years in visiting with aboriginal people from coast to coast to
coast. He has travelled more extensively than probably any other
minister of Indian affairs that I am aware of.
It seems that while he was travelling he learned some of the
language Indian people want to hear, but the actions he has taken
are not the ones the majority of Indian people would like him to
take. The Indian people in Canada would like the language being
used by the minister and by government members to be more
adequately reflected in the legislation proposed and in the actions
the government takes in terms of removing some obstacles that are
in their way, along with providing them with the resources
necessary to assist them in getting themselves out of the difficulties
past legislation and government practices have put them in.
In looking at Bill C-79 I recognize there are a number of positive
aspects to it. However, they are almost insignificant in terms of
what it is that needs to be done for aboriginal people in Canada
today. The legislation allows the government to remove itself from
certain aspects of Indian community life. It allows different First
Nations to buy into the proposal or to leave things as they are. Let
us look at some of the specifics.
For example, departmental officials will no longer have to
approve the sale of farm produce. This is admirable but that has not
been going on for years. This part of the Indian Act has basically
been ignored by all the officials, the department and the minister
for years.
The act allows for a First Nation not to require the instruction
from the minister on road repair. I am sure most First Nations are
glad they no longer have to ask the minister for permission to fix
their roads, but they have no money to fix their roads. Their roads
are in horrible disrepair and it is because the resources are not
available to fix them. They do not have to ask the minister because
they cannot fix them in any case. If the government were truly
interested in assisting in this regard, it would ensure that the
necessary moneys were there, not just for road repairs, but for the
8265
establishment of new roads to connect with provincial highway
systems which ignore a lot of the First Nations communities.
The bill also states that the terms of office for chief and council
could be extended from two to three years. Obviously many of the
Indian governments would applaud the move from two to three
years, but most of them have been asking for an extension to four
years. Because other governments around them have terms of
office of four years, many of them see that the work they start is
interrupted at the end of the second or the third year. Most of them
have been thinking that four-year terms would be appropriate.
Having the opportunity to set their own terms of office in
conjunction with people in their own communities is very
important.
(1340)
I notice in the briefing papers that the government indicates it
would ``not fundamentally affect the crown's fiduciary relationship
and treaty obligations''. The word fundamentally is very important
to aboriginal people in Canada. Fiduciary responsibility of the
federal government is paramount. The fiduciary responsibility
exists and cannot be changed, yet the government acknowledges
that it will not be fundamentally affected. That means there may be
an effect on the fiduciary responsibility. We must ensure that does
not happen at all.
All of this follows the release of the report by the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. There has been a great deal of
comment around the country about the expense and the expanse of
the royal commission. Fifty-eight million dollars was spent on the
royal commission, money that the minister even said he would
rather have spent on housing than on the royal commission.
Regardless of what we think about the process and the financing
of the royal commission, the fact is the documents released by the
royal commission exist. This is the most extensive study of the
relationship between aboriginal people and the rest of us that has
ever taken place in this country.
I do not claim to have read the entire royal commission report. I
am only almost finished the first volume of the several volumes of
the report, but I am overwhelmed at the value of the information
contained in the document. In skimming the other documents that I
intend to read over the next few months, I can tell that the royal
commission has done a tremendous job of identifying the problems
that aboriginal people have faced and suggesting some solutions as
to how to overcome those problems.
Certainly getting rid of the Indian Act is a part of that, but it is
not negotiating the Indian Act away one Indian band at a time or
one section of the act at a time. What this country needs is a
thorough parliamentary First Nations provincial government
review of the Indian Act and the overhaul of it in one fell swoop
with the idea of ensuring that the resources are available to all
levels of government to ensure that the replacement is a success.
It makes no sense to replace the Indian Act one nation at a time,
one clause at a time. This does not seem to me to be the most
efficient way of doing it. Certainly the words, the study, the
thought, the work that has gone into the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples make it very clear that
substantial changes are necessary both in attitude and in
programming in order to fix a number of the problems that exist.
Some of them cannot be fixed by this type of negotiation; they will
simply be fixed within the Indian communities on their own.
When we ask First Nations communities what is at the top of
their list for correction, they are not saying they want to get the
minister off their backs from selling farm products. They talk about
the need for more housing. They talk about the need to improve
their health and justice systems. They talk about the need to fix
their education system to ensure that their young people are well
educated and skilled both in traditional knowledge and in the ways
of the neighbouring communities, to ensure that their young people
will be successful as they get older. They also talk about culture
and language, economic development and self-government, land
and resources which ensure their economic development packages
are successful.
(1345)
These are all matters which require a great deal of attention from
all members of this House, from all members of provincial
legislatures and from all municipal governments across this
country. We as communities, as people living together, must
understand the history of this country, how all of our people have
worked together to get us in the position we are in today. Tinkering
with the Indian Act, one clause at a time, one band at a time,
certainly will not achieve the goals which we wish to achieve.
I wish the minister well as we go into the election period. I know
there are major challenges in front of us. I challenge the minister to
address those serious, important issues before we face the people.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak today to Bill C-79, which amends the Indian Act.
This bill allows bands so wishing to amend certain provisions of
the Indian Act. We are looking at the reform of a bill passed over a
century ago. That was a long time ago. The amendments concern
45 of the 120 sections of the Indian Act.
The main areas affected by the changes are estates, new powers
to band councils, electoral procedures, infractions and the
application of criminal law on reserves. For example, the chief and
the band council have a three year mandate; we do not know why.
The
8266
minister has the power to annul an election; we do not know the
reason for that either.
Because the new powers this bill confers are optional, only the
nations so requesting will be covered by this new legislation. The
others will remain under the old one.
This is a bad bill. The report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal
commission of inquiry noted the bill was outdated and backward
and said that amending it was not the way to establish a new
relationship between natives and non natives.
With Bill C-79, Canada returns to its colonial past with respect
to its aboriginal peoples. At the time, the only aim of the Indian Act
was to assimilate the native peoples. This bill does not even have
the approval of those primarily affected by it-the native peoples.
In December 1996, of 610 aboriginal communities, 542 came out
against this bill. In other words, more than 85 per cent of the First
Nations categorically reject the process set in motion by the federal
government in this respect.
How can the government go ahead when the vast majority of
those affected oppose its proposal? Many of the commitments the
Liberal Party of Canada had made to the aboriginal people before
the election were not fulfilled. Even the aboriginal people involved
in developing the election platform set out in the red book made
sure to publicly dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party of
Canada when they saw this government's attitude and behaviour
toward the First Nations.
There is no mention anywhere in the seven pages of promises
relating to the aboriginal people in the red book of any amendment
to the Indian Act. Where does this initiative come from? The red
book states at page 98: ``A Liberal government will develop a more
comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers
and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision making that
directly affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples''.
This is another example of a serious consultation problem on a
bill that concerns specifically and directly aboriginal peoples. This
approach is contrary to the red book, which goes on to say: ``It does
not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally
making policy or budgetary decisions that affect the lives of
aboriginal people, without their consent''.
(1350)
The fact of the matter is that it is the core of the commitments
made to the aboriginal people that this government failed to
honour. Where is the ``new partnership'', the ``mutual respect'',
and the ``participation of aboriginal people in the decision making
process'' this government had promised before the 1993 election?
On November 21, the report of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples was released. This is a comprehensive,
important and interesting study prepared by the Erasmus-Dussault
commission. I agree with the objectives stated in this report
concerning self-government, the recognition of aboriginal nations
and territorial claims.
Canada's aboriginal nations are distinct. As such, they must have
increased self-government, so as to be able, among other things, to
generate revenues and to protect their languages and cultures.
Aboriginal nations have a right to be sovereign in strategic sectors
such as health, education, language and economic development. It
is the only way they can ensure the preservation and development
of their own identity.
However, aboriginal people must first be recognized, so that they
can negotiate directly with the federal and provincial governments.
We must repair the harm done over the years to aboriginal people
by the various Canadian governments. After more than a century of
Canadian policies designed to assimilate, if not eliminate
aboriginal people, it is time the federal government recognized its
mistakes, assumed its responsibilities and made the necessary
changes.
Aboriginal nations must achieve self-government status to stop
being financially dependent on Ottawa. I am pleased that the
Government of Quebec negotiated and signed a modern day treaty
with the Crees. The James Bay Agreement made it possible to
improve the Crees' economic situation and to let them take charge
of their development. I should point out that the fair sharing of the
land was instrumental in the success of this initiative.
It is well known that I come from Latin America, where Indians
make up a large part, sometimes the majority, of the population in
certain countries. From the beginning of colonization in 1492, the
aboriginal peoples were exploited and exterminated. Today, more
than 500 years later, they are still living in inhumane conditions, in
unacceptable poverty and misery.
The Erasmus-Dussault report is critical, and rightly so, of the
living conditions of native people in Canada, ``the best country in
the world'' as the Prime Minister so often tells us. In Latin
America, these conditions are much worse.
I take this opportunity to urge the federal government to put the
issue of Amerindians on the agenda when meeting with various
countries, whether bilaterally or multilaterally through the OAS, or
in other international forums.
International co-operation must be developed in this regard with
respect to the Americas. The Erasmus-Dussault report describes
and deplores the immense problems confronting Canada's native
peoples with respect to health, education, unemployment, housing
and crime. Native peoples are a minority representing 3 percent of
the population. They are often the victims of racism and discrimi-
8267
nation. In addition, this study points out that over 10,000
households on reserves are without indoor plumbing.
The Liberals have done nothing to resolve these serious
problems. Nor will they with Bill C-79. For all these reasons, I will
therefore be voting against Bill C-79.
(1355)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lévis has the floor. Dear
colleague, I wonder whether you would prefer to wait until after
oral question period to begin your speech? Did you hear the
question?
Mr. Dubé: I am in agreement.
The Speaker: We will take these five minutes to begin
statements by members. You will lead off when we resume debate.
Thank you.
[English]
It being almost two o'clock, we will go to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
8267
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise in the House today to recognize a
constituent of mine, Mr. Harry Burke. He is a local artist who was
inspired by the names that he found inscribed in stone at the Exeter
cenotaph.
He was so deeply stirred that he began an intricate endeavour to
paint portraits of each of the people who had so valiantly served
their nation in its time of crisis.
His project originated with the idea that these individuals were
more than just names cast in marble. They were people with
families and friends and they should be remembered as such.
I have had the opportunity to view Mr. Burke's work. I was
struck by the realistic manner in which the faces of our fallen
countrymen were captured in each portrait. So accurate were the
images that family members and veterans were moved to tears as
they viewed the impressions of their departed companions.
I would like to relay my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Burke for
his substantial investment of time, energy and emotion into this
venture. His valuable contribution pays a fitting tribute to those
Canadians captured forever on his canvas.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
wollastonite is a little known mineral, a white crystalline substance
used in the manufacture of plastics, ceramics and paint. Production
of this mineral has doubled over the past decade. This is good news
for the first wollastonite mine in Canada, which is located in
Quebec near Saint-Ludger-de-Milot.
At the present time, annual production is forecast at over 50,000
tonnes, and the mine has the potential for expanding its production
to 85,000 tonnes. Such forecasts are, of course, forecasts as well of
economic growth and increased employment for Quebecers.
Thanks to such initiatives, the mining industry has become a
pillar of the Quebec economy, providing close to 17,500 people
with jobs. In order for this progress to continue, I am asking the
government to turn its promises into concrete actions and to do
away with the costly duplication in regulations which is hindering
investment in Quebec's mining industry.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police deserve a fair deal from this
government. Under present law, RCMP personnel are unable to
voice their concerns or grievances through a police association.
The Reform Party recognizes that RCMP officers should have
the right to organize democratically and bargain collectively. This
means that officers should be able to do so through voluntary
membership in a police association. To those officers who want to
bargain collectively, Reform applauds your efforts.
Reform also recognizes that the RCMP wants real freedom of
association. To those officers who feel their concerns are best
addressed individually, Reform supports your right to opt out of
compulsory union membership. We support your right to work.
I say to the RCMP officers in the gallery, on the Hill here this
week or out in the communities, your concerns are not falling on
deaf ears.
Reform challenges the solicitor general to act now. Give RCMP
officers a fair deal.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today it was
my pleasure to meet with members of various police forces from
8268
my home province of New Brunswick. They are here in Ottawa
representing the Canadian Police Association.
The men I met with are concerned because of the government's
long delay in bringing forth legislation providing for DNA data
banks. Fingerprints are kept in a bank. Why is DNA treated
differently? Setting up a DNA data bank would allow police forces
across the country access to a wealth of information which could
help them conclude unsolved violent crimes. The government
really has to get its priorities straight. It does not want a criminal's
genetic fingerprint on file, but it does want all law-abiding gun
owners on file.
(1400)
To the many men and women representing our police forces I
say, continue your fight. To the government I say, let us do what is
right and get this legislation passed in the House.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians across this great country recently celebrated
flag day and honoured our maple leaf flag.
In the past few months 4,000 Canadians have indicated to me
that they want an official pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag
and are supporting my private members' bill C-302.
Over 350 municipal councils from communities like Gambo,
Newfoundland; Puslinch, Ontario; Beaconsfield, Quebec; Leaf
Rapids, Manitoba and Hay River, Northwest Territories have
passed resolutions supporting this legislation.
Canadians pledge allegiance to the flag in a variety of ways.
Thousands of Canadians are telling me, either individually or
through their local councils, that it is time for Canada to adopt an
official pledge of allegiance.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep concern over last
Thursday's display of religious intolerance and blind bigotry
displayed by police in Karachi, Pakistan against the Christian
minority.
I believe it is essential for people of different religions, including
minority groups, to respect each other's faith. We are all children of
God, so rather than work to destroy each other, we must try to
eliminate the true source of conflict which is religious intolerance.
In the words of Patrick Henry: ``Religion must only be directed
by reason, not by force or violence. All individuals are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, and it is the mutual duty of
all to practice tolerance, love and charity toward each other''.
Therefore, I would ask that the Government of Canada issue a
strong call for religious tolerance and understanding in Pakistan.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Quebec government introduced a plan to cut $246 million
from its environment budget, partly through allowing polluting
industries to police themselves.
The Alberta government is also in the process of reducing the
budget of its environment department by $164 million and 1,360
jobs by the year 1999.
Not to be outdone, the Ontario government has cut its ministry of
the environment and energy budget by one-third, eliminating 752
staff and has also reduced the staff of the ministry of natural
resources by 2,150 people.
In light of these actions, Canadians are more than ever looking to
the federal government to ensure high standards of protection for
their water quality, their air quality and their soil quality.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after 76 straight months with national unemployment over
9 per cent, the worst string of jobless rates since the great
depression, unemployment in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap
stands at 10.7 per cent.
Those are not just numbers, they are people: from new graduates
looking for their first jobs, older workers laid off because of
downsizing, to people in the prime of life who are unable to support
their families no matter how hard they try.
Last October bankruptcies were up 61 per cent from October
1993 when the Liberal government took office. Families are also
carrying the highest debt load in history.
These figures are a national tragedy. And what response do we
get from this caring, sharing Liberal government? Last week it
tabled legislation that will sharply increase payroll taxes, making it
more costly than ever before for businesses to hire new employees.
Out of work Canadians want to know: Where are the jobs, jobs,
jobs this Liberal government promised them?
8269
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to some people, Canada is the finest country in the world,
yet it is also the country in which a Quebec family on welfare,
composed of one parent and one child, must struggle desperately to
survive on $8,337 less than the poverty level.
This actual drop in purchasing power is the direct effect of
federal government cuts to transfer payments to the provinces.
(1405)
In fact, under the new Canada social transfer, the provinces will
be receiving approximately $7 billion less for health,
postsecondary education and welfare. The federal government
needs to loosen its grip and have the courage to fight the deficit at
the expense of someone other than the most disadvantaged.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last month seven post-secondary education groups
representing universities, community colleges, students, professors
and student aid administrators urged the federal government to
adopt a comprehensive package of student aid measures to provide
affordable futures to students. They note that fast rising student
debt loads are fueling a deep anxiety on the part of students and
their parents.
The measures they propose include targeted grants for high need
individuals, repayment assistance where required to help former
students meet their debt obligations, a work study program to
provide opportunities for students to earn while they learn and tax
measures to help Canadians save for their children's education.
New Democrats strongly believe in the need for continued
federal investment in student assistance in order that every student
who is academically qualified is able to benefit fully from
Canada's post-secondary education opportunities regardless of his
or her financial status. We urge the Liberals to implement these
progressive proposals.
Later today we will see the Liberals' budget and we will know
whether they are serious about tackling soaring student debt loads
and growing inaccessibility to post-secondary education in Canada.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to rise in the House today to speak of this government's
commitment to the film industry in Halifax.
Yesterday the member for Dartmouth and I were proud to
announce the construction of three sound stages in the Halifax
metropolitan area. The new production capability will help to meet
the demand of Nova Scotia's growing film industry or as we call it
at home, Hollywood North.
We have highly skilled trained professionals in the television and
film industry both behind and in front of the camera. They love
their craft, they are dedicated and they are successful. However,
their success stems from the combined efforts of this government
through ACOA in partnership with the provincial government and
the private sector working together to turn a vision for the Halifax
film industry into reality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in a little over two hours, the Minister of Finance of
Canada will bring down his fourth budget.
Since our government was elected in 1993, much has changed in
this country, mainly for the better. Inflation is at its lowest level,
interest rates and mortgage rates are at levels that are reasonable
for consumers and more than 700,000 jobs have been created in
Canada.
The deficit we inherited from the previous government has
dropped considerably, and all major international institutions
expect Canada to experience the strongest growth rate of all G-7
countries.
Canadians again have confidence in their government, and that is
due to the excellent work done by the present Liberal government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Cape Breton, indeed all of Canada, lost a living
legend with the passing last Friday of Archie Neil Chisholm.
At 89, Archie Neil had become the embodiment of the cultural
revival taking place across Cape Breton Island and was among its
most eloquent and colourful exponents. He was a master teacher,
8270
entertainer, broadcaster and story teller, and a devotee of Cape
Breton music. He contributed his talents generously to causes and
charities too numerous to mention. No one could emcee a concert
with the same grace and good humour as Archie Neil.
Archie Neil's life was a triumph of spirit over adversity. Born in
a large family of modest means in the community of Margaree
Forks, he was crippled by polio at an early age. But he overcame
the disadvantages of humble beginnings, physical disability and
other challenges to transform his life into an example of
contribution to others.
I am proud to have known Archie Neil Chisholm and to have
grown up in Margaree under his inspiring influence. Like so many
of his friends, I will miss his cheerful presence.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
advance of the federal budget I feel it is my duty to warn Canadians
of the top 10 pick up lines that Liberals will use to try to seduce the
Canadian voters.
Pick up line number 10: I'll show you my ethics only if you'll
show me yours.
Pick up line number 9: Red book? Don't talk about the red book.
Let's not spoil the moment.
Pick up line number 8: Hey baby, let's regulate.
Pick up line number 7: Will you wear red for me?
(1410 )
Pick up line number 6: What do I stand for? Well, what would
you like to hear?
Pick up line number 5: If you don't like my principles, I promise
I'll change.
Pick up line number 4: Honest, I'll pay you your CPP later.
Pick up line number 3: Respect you in the morning? Heck, I
don't even respect you now.
Pick up line number 2: Pardon me, can I give you a grant?
And the number 1 pick up line that Liberals will use to try to
seduce the voter is: Trust me, I've never taxed anyone before.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to suggest the following exercise to see what Canadian cultural
products would look like if creators focused on national unity.
La La La Human Steps would get funding if it changed the title
of its latest show, ``2'', to read ``One Canada, United and Unique''.
The latest Arcand offering would be more likely to get funding
under the name: ``Le Canada: quel beau pays malgré ce qu'on en
dit'' or ``Canada: It's a Wonderful Country After All''.
Pierre Falardeau would get a grant if, instead of making a movie
about the Patriotes, he made one about the members of the Doric
Club.
The théâtre du Trident would change the title of the Cocteau
play, ``Les parents terribles'' or ``Rotten Parents'', to read ``Le
Québec, cet enfant terrible'' or ``Quebec, that Brat''.
``Broue'' should become ``Canadian Ale''.
Guy Cloutier should change the name of his show, ``Jeanne la
pucelle'' or ``The Joan of Arc Musical'', to ``Sheila la guerrière'' or
``Sheila, Warrior Princess''.
Fortunately, making a fool of one's self is not harmful to one's
health, otherwise the federal cabinet would be in pretty bad shape.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib. Dem.): Mr. Speaker, today's budget will be another fine
display of hocus-pocus and sleight of hand by the finance minister
with the blessing of the Prime Minister who has done nothing to
fulfil his two major promises to Canadians.
For more than three years Canadians have seen absolutely no job
creation plans and the GST has not been eliminated. The Prime
Minister has not delivered on these two verbal promises and
Canadians will not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors budget
announcements today.
I am sure that the finance minister will unveil a good news
budget announcing no new tax increases. Why should he not for he
has already picked the pocketbooks of Canadians with hidden
taxes.
Last week's changes to the CPP was the biggest tax grab in
Canadian history. The bottom line is that the average Canadian's
net pay is less than it was three years ago. Let us not be fooled for it
is the middle income earners that continue to pay for the financial
mismanagement of governments.
8271
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
government still considers Montreal the cornerstone of Quebec
economic activity. Many businesses in the high tech industry are
located there, and their expertise makes Canada a leader
internationally in these areas.
The CGI group in Montreal is the biggest Canadian owned
information technology company. It was a member of Team
Canada on its latest Asian trip.
While in Thailand, the CGI group, which employs over 1,700
people in Canada and abroad, signed a contract a Chomburi
company to supply a management system. The contract is
estimated to be worth $2 million.
The high tech sector is a jewel in the Montreal economy and,
thanks to Team Canada, our know-how has spread to the far corners
of the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
action taken jointly by the federal government and a majority of
provinces to put the Canada pension plan on a sound footing is an
example of responsible leadership.
It may have been politically expedient to delay, but that would
not be in the best interests of Canadians young or old. Delaying the
decision would have resulted in a bigger bill down the road.
[Translation]
In fact, it is precisely because previous governments failed to act
that we find ourselves in this situation today. It is precisely to make
the plan affordable and sustainable, for generations, now and in the
future, that we are acting right now.
[English]
Those who attempt to score political points by preying on
people's fears should come clean with Canadians and tell them
what their own plan is, and that is to dismantle the CPP. It is also
irresponsible to try to make this an intergenerational battle.
Canadians believe in the CPP. They want it preserved as a public
pension plan and that is what we are doing. That is political
leadership.
8271
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we thought we had seen everything with this government,
but it seems more is yet to come.
Apparently, from now on, Canadian artists and creators will be
able to obtain financial assistance from the Department of Foreign
Affairs for tours abroad only if they promote Canadian unity. The
federal government has decided to impose its political views on the
creative process. This is absolutely incredible.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How can the minister, who is responsible for culture on behalf of
the Canadian government, allow this government to set political
criteria for the creative of work of Canadian and Quebec artists?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it will be a pleasure to answer the hon. member's question. He said
in his question that funding would be given only if one particular
criterion was met. That is entirely inaccurate.
There is a series of objectives, as my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, mentioned yesterday. There is no need to meet all
objectives, and I expect the hon. member opposite is well aware of
this. There is only a list of objectives, and one of them is to present
Canada as a bilingual country consisting of various cultures. Is the
hon. member against our artists presenting Canadian diversity
abroad? I hardly think so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is the limit. The minister tells us there is in fact a rule
that if you do not defend Canadian unity, you may not get your
grant. Maybe you will, but it is not a sure thing. It is up to the
government.
How can the minister responsible for Francophonie, who is
attached to Foreign Affairs, and I am not sure in what capacity he is
answering my question, how can he be so matter of fact about a
program that is trying to control all Canadian artists and Quebec
artists as well who are more specifically on the receiving end?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the exact opposite of what I just told the hon. member. I
made it quite clear that these were not criteria. As for the objectives
I mentioned, and there are six, there is no obligation to meet all
these objectives.
8272
One of them, as the hon. member said, mentions national unity.
Another one refers to diversity. Is he against diversity? And
another objective for instance, is to present our culture abroad.
Another objective is to talk about cultural and other exports
abroad.
So there is a whole range of objectives, and I am sure that
everyone can find within that range ways to convey the message of
Canadian diversity abroad.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if this were a page from Astérix, the comment would be:
``Those Romans are crazy''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I will not violate the
Standing Orders. You know my respect for the Standing Orders of
this House.
The minister was explaining that they include this criterion but it
does not have to be met. They put it in by accident, this thing about
Canadian unity, but it does not really matter if we do not promote
Canadian unity. What he just told us does not make sense.
I will ask him another question: Does the minister agree that the
government has two objectives in mind by including this criterion,
a new criterion artists will have to meet? First, they want political
control over the creative arts in Canada, and second, they want to
reduce substantially assistance to Quebec creators who, according
to this government, are not interested enough in promoting national
unity.
(1420)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Official Opposition doth protest too much, but I
want to thank him for his short course in pop culture in the form of
a quote from Astérix.
The hon. member opposite must know, and I told him so earlier,
that this is not about criteria that must be applied regardless. In fact
this is not about criteria at all. There are no prerequisites. We
respect the freedom of the artists, that is quite clear.
What we have here are simply objectives. One of those
objectives is diversity. The hon. member opposite mentioned
another one. Is he against cultural diversity and cultural
excellence?
I believe that Mr. Léveillée, that Edith Butler and many others
are excellent examples of this cultural diversity in Canada. And I
hope my hon. friend will agree that these people excel in their field.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
strangely enough, this government, which has made major cuts to
culture, always seems able to find money to fund propaganda
campaigns. The latest idea the Minister of Canadian Heritage came
up with is a propaganda kit on Canada for distribution in schools.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The
federal government had promised to withdraw from provincial
jurisdictions. Why is the minister jumping in with both feet and
squandering public funds to distribute her propaganda kit in
schools when her colleague, the Minister of Finance, is cutting
transfer payments for education?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the cultural affairs
ministers' meeting in Saskatchewan last year, one of the questions
raised by the provincial ministers concerned the lack of availability
of Canadian material for use in schools.
Last year, I had a kit prepared-
Mrs. Tremblay: You are not allowed to show it around.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: -which was such a hit with school principals that,
within two weeks, we had received 3,000 telephone requests for
kits from school principals, including 300 from Quebec.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): It makes no
sense, Mr. Speaker.
After the flag operation, after the Canada information office,
after the TV quiz, now the heritage minister wants to indoctrinate
children starting in junior kindergarten.
Where will it stop? What is next? ``Flushabye Flags''?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken on the
challenge of the cultural affairs ministers, who asked the
Government of Canada to provide information to school principals.
Later, I sent a letter to school principals to tell them about this
kit, and the response was incredible. I would like to quote for the
record the president of the Fédération des directeurs d'école du
Québec, who stated today: ``It is up to school principals to exercise
judgment in deciding whether or not to order the multimedia
educational package''.
I always give school principals the choice. All we do is provide
information. It is such a hit that, after two weeks, we had to have
5,000 new packages prepared.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a 70 per cent increase in mandatory Canada pension plan
premiums; up to $10 billion more per year in revenue for the
8273
government; $690 more taken off Canadian paycheques. That
sounds like a tax, smells like a tax and looks like a tax, but not so
according to the Minister of Finance.
(1425)
In the House yesterday he said: ``This is not a tax grab. It is not a
tax''. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is really the
position of the Government of Canada that Canada pension plan
payments are not a payroll tax.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance mentioned that it is a contribution
by every citizen and employers to make sure there is a Canada
pension plan available for generations to come.
The leader says that there was neglect in the previous
government and I agree with him. That is why we are obliged to fix
it at the request of the provincial governments. This program is a
joint federal-provincial program.
They are pretty close apparently to the Conservative
Government of Ontario. In the paper over the weekend the minister
of finance of Ontario was claiming a victory.
It was to be proceeded with to make sure that this element of
public finances of the provincial and the federal governments will
be in order.
The people have to understand that these contributions are used
by the provincial governments to finance their operations. That is
why they wanted it fixed. We did that jointly with the provincial
governments.
The premier of Alberta was very happy that this problem was
resolved. He, like us, like Ontario and like most of the people,
wanted the finances of the nation to be in good order. This is not the
time to try not to tell the truth to the Canadian people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, therefore according to the Minister of Finance and the
Prime Minister, the CPP premiums are contributions and not a tax.
I have on my desk a paper entitled ``Growth in CPP/QPP
Contributions''. In it the author clearly describes contributions to
the Canada pension plan and the Quebec plan as compulsory
payroll taxes. He demonstrates that increases in the payroll taxes
from 1986 to 1993 reduced employment by 26,000 jobs. The author
of this paper, Joe Italiano, is with the economic analysis and
forecasting division of the Department of Finance.
Who is right, the finance minister who says that CPP premiums
are not a payroll tax and that raising them has no impact on jobs, or
the analysis of his own department that says exactly the opposite?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to start at the beginning and go
very slowly for the hon. members opposite.
These are not revenues of the Government of Canada. He
misleads Canadians when he says that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I encourage you to stay away from
words like ``mislead'' in questions and answers. I invite the hon.
parliamentary secretary to give his response.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, their statements to the effect that
these are taxes rather than describing them as what they are have
left an unfortunate impression among Canadians. These are
contributions to a public pension plan available to pay benefits
under this plan. They are not revenues of the Government of
Canada.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister once said he would kill the GST. He
broke that promise. The Prime Minister claims there have been no
tax increases under his administration. Now we have a 70 per cent
hike in a particular payroll tax alone.
Soon the Prime Minister will be sending candidates across the
country to seek re-election. As they go from meeting to meeting,
they will be followed like some hound from hell by the Prime
Minister's record of broken promises on jobs, broken promises on
taxes and broken promises on integrity.
How does the Prime Minister hope to improve his reputation for
honesty and integrity when he refuses to admit that CPP
contributions are a payroll tax and a 70 per cent hike in premiums
is a tax grab?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary explained the contributions
very well.
As I explained earlier, this is a joint plan between the federal and
provincial governments. We cannot change the plan alone. We need
the collaboration of the provinces. Because the provinces needed
the money to finance their operations, they were urging us to make
the contributions equal to the payments for the future.
At this time there is a deficit. The hon. leader of the third party is
always talking about deficits but when we try to do something to
put the finances of the nation together, he does not support us. He is
the one who has completely changed his position. Because he is
now desperate, he is trying to buy the votes of Canadians with their
own money.
8274
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Yesterday, when asked about spying activities targeting a
Quebec diplomat in Washington and involving military officers at
the Canadian embassy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said there
was no policy, no direction whatsoever that anybody in any
embassy should spy on any Quebec official.
Given that the two officers involved may, of their own initiative,
have engaged in illegal activities under American laws, can the
defence minister tell us whether these officers were suspended and
whether he ordered an investigation into the activities of his
military personnel at the Canadian embassy in Washington?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that,
yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained very clearly
that no one had engaged in spying activities in that case and that
nothing wrong was done. We have no reason to believe that any
illegal action under American laws took place.
We know that the allegations resulted from a misunderstanding
or a difference of opinion between an American government
employee and his superiors.
As for us, as the minister said yesterday, there is no government
policy to spy on any official of the Quebec government or of any
other provincial government.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
once again asking the Minister of National Defence whether or not
an investigation was conducted and, if no investigation did or will
take place, who are we supposed to believe? The Minister of
Foreign Affairs, who told us yesterday that the allegations were
unfounded, or the Minister of National Defence himself, who the
day before said the issue had to be looked into?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows that this information was the result of reports
following representations made by an American government
employee against his superior.
The employee claimed that representations had been made to
find out whether someone had been present at a breakfast.
Let us be serious when we talk about spying activities. As for
myself, at this point, based on the facts that are known, I have no
reason to believe that spying activities were conducted against the
person in question.
(1435)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary said that the CPP premiums are not a tax
but a contribution to a public pension plan. Let us just look for a
moment or two at a private pension plan, the MP pension plan, the
most obscene in the country.
Canadians are now paying twice as much of their salary for a
paltry $9,000 a year in CPP. Thanks to the government,
parliamentary porkers like the member for Sherbrooke and the
Deputy Prime Minister are going to pocket five to six times that
amount. That is scandalous.
How can the Prime Minister justify asking Canadians to pay 70
per cent more of their meagre pensions when he and his Liberal
colleagues are just going to lap up the lavish MP pension plan?
An hon. member: There is more than a slab of bacon talking
there.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is mixing up two things; one has nothing to do with
the other.
In making the Canada pension plan fund able to meet its future
obligations, the government with the provinces is making sure that
the plan is sustainable. In terms of the members of Parliament
pension plan, we reduced it by 20 per cent and reduced the cost. We
have introduced 55 as the age when it can be collected. Therefore,
once again, we have made the plan much more in conformity with
the requirements.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it may
be that I am a porker but I opted out of that pension plan and the
taxpayer does not owe me one single penny for that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: A pension porker I am not. I opt out; Sheila copped
out.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know we would all prefer to stay
away from personal remarks. I would ask you, my colleague,
without further preamble to please put your question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister
this question. To be consistent, to be fair to all Canadians in this
Chamber and outside, will the Prime Minister today announce an
immediate 70 per cent increase in the premium for the potlicker
MP pension plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
8275
have already mentioned that benefits for MPs in respect of service
after July 12, 1995 have been reduced by 20 per cent.
(1440 )
During the debate on Bill C-85, which was retirement
allowances for MPs, there was an MP for the Reform Party, whom I
will not name, who said: ``We should get fair compensation, fair
remuneration. It is a senior executive level. Pay us $150,000 a
year''. That is the example Reform gives us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, has twice
asked the Minister of National Defence whether there has been an
investigation into allegations that military staff of the Canadian
embassy in Washington engaged in certain illegal activities.
I am simply asking the Minister of National Defence a very
simple question for the third time: Did his department conduct an
investigation to check out these allegations? It seems like a rather
simple question to me.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously,
following statements reported in the newspapers, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and I looked into the matter, because obviously we
have to know what is going on, and in my mind there is no doubt,
based on the information we have, that no spying took place, no
activity that could be described as spying, in the situation to which
the American government employee is referring.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Well, Mr.
Speaker, we have just obtained a quicker answer from this minister
than from the former minister. It took the last one a good two
months before we could get at the first thing about the Somalia
affair.
So, if there was an investigation, surely there was a written
report for the minister. The minister must have taken his decision
on the basis of written reports.
Could the minister, in the interests of transparency, make this
report public, so that the allegations that have been made and that
appear to be serious, since there are affidavits, so that we can know
clearly that it is not true that Canada is acting in this manner and
can put an end to this story? Is the minister prepared to make this
report public, yes or no?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said
three times, when we learned, through the newspapers, that an
employee of the American government, in a dispute with his boss,
alleged that discussions had taken place concerning a
representative of a government of a Canadian province, obviously
we asked what exactly had taken place.
According to the information I have received, which is very
limited, I am told that it was a question of finding out whether the
gentleman in question was attending a breakfast.
This is not something I consider to be spying, even from the
perspective of separatists.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the $1,300 job-killing Liberal Canada pension plan
payroll tax increase will patch over deficiencies in the plan for the
time being at a terrible cost in job opportunities for young
Canadians. The very young Canadians who are already saddled
with a $600 billion national debt will now be forced to subsidize
the retirement of the very Canadians who built up the debt in the
first place. However, because the Canada pension plan is still a pay
as you go plan, it is not sustainable.
Will the government guarantee there will be no further premium
increases or benefit decreases to the Canada pension plan?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have done in responding to
the wishes of Canadians is to provide a plan that is sustainable in
the long term. By moving to the new contribution rates we are
ensuring that they will not have to rise to the rates they would have
had to rise if we had not taken action, something no earlier
government has done. The provinces by and far agree with this.
Canadians will benefit from sustainability of the plan, a plan they
know will be there for every working Canadian.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is like the federal government saying: ``We are not
guilty because all we are doing is driving the getaway car''.
The most vulnerable Canadians in the workforce, younger
Canadians, the last hired and the first fired, will pay the price for
maintaining the Canada pension plan. The minister's own officials
have admitted that younger contributors to the Canada pension plan
will not receive a fair pension from the plan.
(1445)
Is it right to force young Canadians to pay almost 10 per cent of
their income into a retirement plan that will return substantially
less than the same amount invested in an RRSP?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained, and maybe I have
to go slower, that it has been fundamental in western societies
indeed since the turn of the century to have programs like a public
pension plan, social insurance type programs. Working Canadians
8276
of all ages want that. They want to know it will be there for them. It
will be there for them.
By contrast, the member opposite and his colleagues have
proposed a combination of things which may or may not be there
for them at some unknown cost to Canadians. When are they going
to come clean and tell us what their costs would be?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister has decided to resume expulsions of refugee
claimants to Zaire, while the authoritarian regime and the civil war
in that country continue. The minister is showing a flagrant lack of
compassion and humanity toward these persecuted people.
Can the minister explain to this House just how the political
situation in Zaire has improved to such a point that she can now
resume expulsions of refugees?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee on
country conditions for removals has examined the situation in
Zaire most particularly. A number of people in Canada and
elsewhere have provided it with input.
We looked a bit at what was being done internationally, and
found that a number of countries continue to return people to Zaire.
It is very clear that we will not return people to certain regions of
Zaire, the east in particular. This is not the case for other regions of
the country, where it is totally possible.
I will conclude, if I may, by stating that no one has been returned
to Zaire without a risk assessment being done to ensure that he or
she is returning to one of the regions of Zaire in complete safety.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of
taking refuge behind a phantom committee, the minister ought to
face up to her own responsibilities.
Is the minister aware that she is committing a flagrant injustice
toward the Zairian refugees, whose country is experiencing serious
instability, while maintaining the suspension of deportations to
Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat: there is no question
whatsoever of returning a person whose life would be at risk if he
or she were returned to certain parts of Zaire.
However, yes, people can return in complete safety to certain
regions of Zaire, and this is why we do an individual assessment.
This is exactly the same policy as in some other countries, and I can
assure you that we are keeping close tabs on the situation. If ever
we have to suspend deportations, we shall do so. We will never put
anyone's life in danger.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
It is recognized that research, technology, information and
knowledge are now the driving forces of economic growth. What is
the government doing to ensure that Canada is leading this parade
as Canadians march together toward the 21st century?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our government has a vision for the 21st century. We are
investing in science, technology and building the information
society.
(1450 )
We announced last week numerous programs for science for
young people. We have renewed the Canada space plan. We put
major funding into Technology Partnerships Canada. We are
putting Canada on the fast lane to develop the information highway
with programs like CANARIE, SchoolNet, the community access
program, and digital collections. We have invested in the health
services research fund, have started the medical discovery fund and
numerous other initiatives. The auditor general has said we have
the best ever strategy for science and technology.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the past
76 months unemployment has remained above 9 per cent. Youth
unemployment is a fixture at 17 per cent. Every welfare and job
creation program introduced by this government has been a failure.
Yet the Minister of Natural Resources was quoted last week in
Alberta as saying the pain is over. She wants to get back to more
Liberal tax and spend policies to create jobs.
Will the minister acknowledge that the tax and spend youth jobs
strategy is merely another welfare program for the unemployed
rather than a serious attempt to get Albertans and Canadians back
to work?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government was extremely
8277
pleased last week to be able to give some hope to children and
young unemployed people who really want to do something with
their lives. That is what the youth of this country want and that is
what we are giving them.
There is the amount of $2 billion that we are already spending
for young people in this country. We have announced two major
new programs to gain work experience and 110,000 young
Canadians will have access to some work experience in order to get
them out of the no experience, no job and no job, no experience
cycle. Our government is doing a lot. We need to do more and that
is what we will do.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question the government needs to do more. It has to give tax relief,
not more tax and spend programs. These tax and spend programs of
this government are merely creating dependency on welfare. We
know and the government knows that the entrepreneurial sector is
the sector which creates jobs. It is not welfare dependency.
That is why I ask the minister to explain the policy of this
government dependency on welfare. Why is the government
insisting on that way of resolving the problem rather than creating
the entrepreneurs we need in this country and giving them the
breaks? Jobs will be created this way rather than the government's
way. Does the minister acknowledge that job creation can be better
done this way?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will have to look at
the jobs strategy before commenting on it. This is precisely what
we are doing. We are doing precisely that in partnership with the
private sector and non-governmental organizations in creating jobs.
These work experiences will not be in the government. They will
be in the private sector and non-governmental organizations.
[Translation]
That is why this strategy for young people who want to find jobs
and gain work experience is greatly appreciated across Canada. In
partnership with the private sector and non-governmental
organizations, we will provide 110,000 young Canadians with work
experience to get them out of the no experience, no job and no job,
no experience cycle.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On November 26, 1996, in response to a question from the
official opposition, the minister recognized having received from
the Quebec Minister of Justice a letter requesting an amendment to
the Criminal Code to permit the opening of casinos on
international cruises in Canadian waters. The minister even
promised at the time to keep me abreast of his consultations with
the cruise industry and the provincial governments.
Does the fact that we have not yet heard from the minister about
the latest developments on casinos on international cruises mean
that he has simply given up the idea?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. As I told this House a few
months ago, we have received a proposal from the Province of
Quebec concerning floating casinos.
(1455)
As the hon. member knows, this requires an amendment to the
Criminal Code. The justice department has initiated consultations
with the provinces, the territories, the aboriginal peoples, the
industry and all other interested parties.
We are now discussing every aspect of this issue with those
concerned. In the months to come, I am confident that we will be
able to state our position.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that what is
at stake are the jobs, jobs, jobs promised in the Liberals' red book
during the last election campaign.
Am I to understand from the minister's answer that he is
prepared to support the bill I tabled in this House last week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is very important
that we see this consultation process through. As I told this House,
the interests involved are many and varied. I would rather wait and
see what comes out of this consultation before stating a position.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is getting quite the
reputation of engaging his mouth while his brain-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
8278
Could the minister imagine what it is like to be a tourist
operator in my riding in May getting ready for a busy summer,
then suddenly being deluged with surveys from half a dozen or
so government departments? I know the information is important
to collect but would the minister tell this House what he is doing
to ensure this paper burden is not interfering with doing business?
Hon. John Manley (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, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard from small business people from across
Canada that they are concerned about the extent and number of
surveys they have been receiving.
We have asked Statistics Canada and it has agreed to work with
small business people to choose the best time of year for them to
complete survey information. Small business owners know how
important it is, not just to the federal government but to provincial
and local governments as well, that Statistics Canada has adequate
information so it can provide a basis upon which policy decisions
can be made.
StatsCan has moved in the last two years to reduce the burden it
imposes on small business by over 15 per cent.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The present Prime Minister said in this House on April 1, 1993
that Canada should not side with the multinational drug companies
by passing Bill C-91 at the expense of poor and sick Canadians who
need drugs. The Prime Minister was joined by the present ministers
of health and industry in criticizing and voting against Bill C-91.
Last night Canadians were told by the Minister of Industry that
reducing the length of time for drug patents which could save
Canadians billions of dollars on prescription drug costs will not
happen under a Liberal government. Why have the Liberals now
flip-flopped and sided with the multinationals at the expense of
Canadians who need affordable prescription drugs?
Hon. John Manley (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, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the hon. member listens closely because he
evidently has been misled by somebody.
He will know that since the time he has referred to, Canada has
entered into, among others, the World Trade Organization
agreement which resulted from the Uruguay round negotiations.
One commitment of that agreement is article 33 of the TRIPS
agreement which was signed subsequent to that: ``The term of
protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period
of 20 years counted from the filing date''.
I understand why Bill C-91 was very controversial. I was here
during those debates. I also understand how important it is for
Canada to participate in international trade organizations such as
the World Trade Organization, particularly when so much of our
economy benefits from export access to many countries.
(1500 )
I urge the hon. member to make significant and important
contributions to the work of the industry committee that is
reviewing Bill C-91, but to understand the context in which that
review is being conducted.
The Speaker: I have received written notification that the
member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing wishes to raise a point of
privilege. I will hear that and then I will hear the points of order.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises from a response to a
question yesterday by the Minister of Justice.
It is not a question of interpretation of fact which would not
make it a point of privilege. It is a clear point in which the minister
said something that was not the case.
I would like to read what the minister said in yesterday's
Hansard. It relates to services relating to Airbus. He said that ``all
services that were rendered were entirely within those
contemplated properly by the contract''.
I have a copy of the contract and it plainly is not the case that
those services were rendered within it. I can read it or not, as the
case may be.
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member could identify for me
the specific privilege which is being impinged upon.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Yes, Mr.
Speaker. I believe it is contrary to the privileges of the members for
anyone in the House to mislead the House and it is particularly
important for the minister not to do that.
The Speaker: With all respect, we seem to be going down the
road of debate in this particular case. The hon. member mentioned
that a statement was made. I take it he disagrees with whatever that
statement was. Usually in the give and take of question period
where a question is asked, the minister or a parliamentary secretary
gives a response and that is all part of question period. It is surely
8279
not for your Speaker to decide that which is or which is not, and I
quote your word, ``misleading''.
Perhaps the answer was not the one that the hon. member wanted
or was expecting, but I would be hard pressed to judge when a
statement is or is not misleading.
At this point, the hon. member should identify further what was
his particular privilege. We have a question and answer and we
have to take for granted that all of you are honourable members,
therefore, that the answer will be given in good faith. I would let
the matter rest there.
I am going to hear the point of order.
* * *
(1505 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the course of question period in an exchange between the
member for Beaver River and the government side, the member for
Beaver River pointed out that she had opted out of the $1.4 million
parliamentary pension on principle.
The Minister of National Defence was clearly heard to say- I
will not repeat the phrase because it is beneath the dignity of the
House. But he should withdraw those words and he should be
ashamed of his conduct in the House today.
The Speaker: Once again, with all due respect to you, I did not
hear unparliamentary words.
Mr. Williams: We all heard it.
The Speaker: I will review the blues and see if unparliamentary
language was used and to whom were they directed. If it is
necessary, I will come back to the House. I will review the blues
and the tapes and see if, indeed, any unparliamentary language was
used so that I can ascertain who said it and to whom it was said. We
will try to work it that way. If necessary, I will get back to him.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on a different point of order?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could you explain to the House if
there is a difference between parliamentary or unparliamentary
language and personally cruel remarks? Is there a difference?
The Speaker: I have undertaken to see if unparliamentary
language was used. That would be my purview.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you said you would review the blues, but can you make
sure to see them before any changes are made?
The Speaker: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of
order is with regard to the ruling to my hon. colleague for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I would like you to review
why that decision was made-
The Speaker: Again, with great respect to you and to all
members of the House, in my view where this was leading was use
of unparliamentary language-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1510 )
Mr. Benoit: It was going to hurt the government, that is what it
was going to do.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That didn't occur.
The Speaker: -and, with respect, a decision was taken and the
decision stands.
Mr. Hart: A point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?
Mr. Hart: Yes.
The Speaker: I have ruled on that. On another point of order, the
hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
complete deference to yourself and to the office that you hold, I
would like to point out there is a perception by the Reform Party
that there appears to be a double standard in the way that things go
along-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Zed: How dare you.
Mr. Hart: How come we can hear so good on this side of the
House but it is not so good on that side? Can you hear this?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Every one of us in here heard what
Doug said.
Mr. Strahl: We got phone calls in the lobby about it already.
Everybody heard it.
The Speaker: My colleague from St. Albert, as you know, a
decision of the Chair is a decision I take with the full authority of
all members of this House.
I know that probably in the heat of all this we all get excited
sometimes, but if your remarks were directed to the Chair, that I as
your Speaker have a double standard in this House-and this is
what I understood-I would like the hon. member to stand in his
place and withdraw that statement forthwith, please.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw the
statement that I made, if you believe that I-
8280
The Speaker: I thank you. I accept the withdrawal.
Now I put the question to you, my colleague. Do you have a
point of order which is different from one that I have ruled on
today?
Mr. Williams: My original point was, as I said, there was a
perception in the Reform Party. In no way, shape or form did I
accuse the Chair of having a double standard. I said there was a
perception by this party which is different.
Mr. McKinnon: Get the blues out.
The Speaker: Again, with respect to you, my colleague, I
suggest that we just let the matter drop for now.
I am going to go to another point of order, the hon. member for
Revelstoke-West Kootenay.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the point of order that I rise on is with regard to procedure.
When the Chair examines the blues for a possible breach of
conduct or unparliamentary language, the normal procedure,
should the Chair find that something did in fact occur, is to ask the
member to withdraw that particular statement.
(1515 )
Given that the statement in question that we allege took place
regarding the hon. member for Beaver River was on an open
microphone and given that the person who we believe made that
statement-
The Speaker: My colleague, I have already undertaken in the
House to review the blues and to review the tapes. I will do that. I
will come back to the House if it is necessary. I have said that.
Do you have a point of order other than that which I have just
described?
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to bring that particular
point up again. The only thing I ask, on a point of procedure, is that
if a member, whether it be this incident or a different one, speaks
on an open microphone, and if it is viciously directed at another
member, no matter on which side of the House, I contend that it is
not sufficient for the hon. member to withdraw that remark. When
it is made openly against another member it should be in the form
of an apology.
The Speaker: There again, my colleague, a withdrawal in this
House embodies an admission that what was said was
unparliamentary. In my view that would constitute perhaps the
apology for which the member is looking.
8280
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
address Bill C-79, which seeks to amend to the Indian Act. As you
know, the Indian Act is over one hundred years old and has often
been referred to as a measure which is obsolete, does not reflect the
reality and, more importantly, does not meet the needs of
aboriginal people themselves.
This act is so flawed that it should be changed, not merely
amended, as the Minister of Indian Affairs wants to do. The
minister is doing the opposite of what was recently recommended
by the Erasmus-Dussault commission, which is to recognize that
there is currently an injustice done to aboriginal people.
I sat on two committees of the House. First, I was a member of
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, and I
now sit on the Standing Committee on Health. When I was with the
human resources committee, we toured all across Canada and
visited a number of aboriginal communities.
Following the testimony heard not only from aboriginal people
themselves but also from people working with them, it is obvious
to me that aboriginal people have much greater health problems
than the rest of Canadians.
Unfortunately, aboriginal people are still the victims of a great
deal of prejudice. As the hon. member for Drummond knows, the
Standing Committee on Health conducted many studies on the
health of aboriginal people. It is rather sad and even disappointing
to see that, in spite of these studies, and in spite of the fact that a
commission of inquiry released a five-volume report on the
condition of aboriginal people, we end up with a bill that only seeks
to amend the Indian Act, this in a rather dreadful, embarrassing and
nonsensical way.
(1520)
This bill runs counter to a lot of other legislation. Legislation
must apply to everyone. This bill, however, will create two classes
of natives: those to whom the old act applies and those to whom the
new one applies. It is optional. It will concern only those bands of
Indians or aboriginal groups that wish to submit to it, to take the
goodies being held out as an enticement to them to give up their
ancestral rights. This is something many Indians cannot and will
not do.
Despite the opposition of the very great majority of native
people in Canada, the minister is deciding to go ahead with this
bill. For what purpose? Obviously, to give Canadians the
impression, before the election, that he has done something. He
dared to
8281
change a statute that has existed for 100 years. What an
extraordinary feat. But it is a bill that would not affect everyone,
only those who wanted it to.
Has anyone ever seen legislation that is optional like this? It is as
though you were told you could not drive faster than 120
kilometres an hour in Quebec; only those who drove under this
limit would be affected by this legislation and the rest could decide
to have other legislation apply to them.
It is not an acceptable way of doing things. Some people might
say that it is interesting, that all legislation should be like that, that
people could then take advantage of their freedom of expression,
their speed of adaptation we could call it. The law does not work
like this. It is not my understanding that the law works like this.
A piece of legislation must apply to everyone. What the minister
wants to do is to blind Indians to the facts. He wants to show other
Canadians that he has just done something important, when in
reality, the proposed legislation, in most cases, would not be
applied. It will change nothing. It will only give the impression that
he has done something, a bit like the health minister, who boasted
about his bill C-71. In the end, he has left himself so many options
with this bill that it is not certain if it will be enforceable.
I do not know whether or not it is parliamentary to say so, but I
will take the chance. I call this hypocrisy. It is deceptive at the very
least, it is misleading. Pretending to do something, when you know
in advance that you will do nothing. This is not good government.
It is time the Liberal government held an election, because it
seems to be catching. All of the ministers want to do a little
something to show that they can get something done before the
election, before they change portfolios. If the Liberals do get back
in, we know there is a risk of their changing portfolios. They can
boast in their c.v. that they have changed a hundred year-old law.
But history will say: this law did not change much, because it was
obeyed only by those who wanted to. That is extraordinary.
I have made light enough of this serious subject. It is serious:
438,000 status Indians in Canada, and the minister wants to divide
them into two categories: those who follow the new act and those
who follow the old. There are already two types of Indians: there
are the non-status Indians, 112,600 in 1991, and then there are the
Metis, 139,491. There are 37,800 Inuit. That makes a total of
720,000 individuals.
In Quebec, the total is 69,300. Now, that represents 1 per cent of
the total population of Quebec. A group must not be ignored just
because it accounts for only 1 per cent of the total population. At
the present time, the Department of Indian Affairs is maintaining a
paternalistic system, one which keeps the Indians, the aboriginals
of Canada, in a system of dependency. What the aboriginal nations
are calling for is the opposite: more autonomy.
You may perhaps reply that they want a bit too much, that this is
a negotiation. We in the Bloc Quebecois have always said that they
had to be given more.
(1525)
The day after the commission of inquiry's report was tabled, the
Bloc Quebecois even tabled a motion in the House urging the
Liberal government to join it in saying that the First Nations are
distinct nations. In other words, they should be given the means to
promote their distinctiveness, to preserve their culture and
especially to obtain the financial resources that will liberate them
from this dependency so that at last they will become more
autonomous and be able to manage their own health services.
The suicide rate figures, which I will not mention here, are
incredible. Which group in Canada has the highest suicide rate?
Amerindians. Which group in Canada has the highest rate of
alcoholism? Amerindians. Drug addiction? Amerindians. This is
also the group that has the lowest life expectancy. Which group has
the highest death rate? Amerindians again.
The situation is so bad that Lise Bissonnette wrote the following
in the newspaper Le Devoir:
The story we read in the five volumes of this report-and I am referring to the
commission of inquiry-is on the whole a story of domestic colonialism that was
unique in its brutality and still is, at a time when racism and exploitation should be a
thing of the past. The United Nations may have given Canada first prize for being the
best place in the world to live, but the fact remains that all social indicators, when
applied to the First Nations in this country, are in free fall, indicating a third world in
the midst of abundance. From education to health care and employment, the rule is
under-development, from coast to coast. According to the commissioners
``aboriginal people are 90 times as likely as other Canadians to be without running
water. On the reserves, more than 10,000 homes have no inside plumbing''. How can
we read this and hundreds of other horror stories, in one of the most comfortable
places on the planet, and keep on accepting awards?
Or doing what the minister of Indian affairs and the ministers
opposite are doing when they tell us that we live in the best country
in the world.
It goes on to say that today, one child out of five in Canada lives
below the poverty line. We treat aboriginal people this way and
would have them believe we are living in the best country in the
world, as the situation deteriorates.
This afternoon, the Minister of Finance will tell us how he
managed to speed up deficit reduction, either by cutting assistance
to the needy, by cutting spending on health care and transfer
payments to the provinces and by cutting health care to aboriginal
people. Are we supposed to believe that everything is okay, that we
8282
are in good shape? No, Mr. Speaker. The aboriginal people, like
the poor in Quebec and Canada, deserve a better deal.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
speak on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the
application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.
This bill is a superficial reform of the Indian Act, which is more
than a century old. The amendments affect 45 of the 120 sections of
the Indian Act, the following areas in particular: inheritance
mechanisms, new band council powers, election procedures,
offences, and criminal law on the reserve.
In order to get around the First Nations' general opposition to
any changes to the Indian Act, the Department of Indian Affairs has
decided to make the act optional, and has made far fewer changes
to the act than it had initially planned when it undertook the reform.
Its optional nature means that only those aboriginal nations so
requesting will be governed by this new act; the others will remain
under the unmodified act.
(1530)
Let me tell you, we are opposed to this, for Canada is going back
to its colonial past with Bill C-49. The Indian Act was intended to
assimilate the Indians. In attempting to modify this legislation
from another century, instead of adopting a new approach, the
government is not making a clean break with the paternalistic
policy that prevailed when the Indian Act was passed.
A new constructive approach to the First Nations is described in
the report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal
peoples, which stresses the outmoded and backward nature of the
Indian Act. In their report, the commissioners ruled out any
amendment to the Indian Act as a way to establish a new
relationship between natives and non-natives.
In short, in changing the Indian Act, the minister is going the
wrong way. He is merely proposing cosmetic changes to this
outdated and paternalistic bill, which native peoples reject.
In December 1993, just before Bill C-79 was tabled in the
House, the Bloc Quebecois received letters from 542 native
communities out of some 610 opposed to Bill C-79. In other words,
some 85 per cent of the First Nations categorically reject the
procedure followed by the minister in drafting this bill.
It affects the interests and the rights of the First Nations in
Quebec and Canada. In fact, these are the only communities
affected. How can the government proceed when its bill is being
opposed by the vast majority of those affected? In this time of
budget cutbacks, should the government not put its limited
resources into projects supported by the communities concerned?
Who is the minister working for?
The minister of Indian affairs claims to have the support of the
First Nations. Who does he mean? The minister has not revealed
the results of his so-called consultations. He did not show clearly
who supported his initiative. When we ask the minister who is
involved, which communities support his bill, he says it is none of
our business. If the minister is working on behalf of particular
groups, he should be honest enough to tell the public who is
involved.
The communities rejecting Bill C-79 did so publicly. We have in
our offices letters signed by each of the organizations that object to
the bill and the consultation process it stems from. This strong
opposition, from more than 85 per cent of aboriginal communities
in Quebec and Canada, shows that the minister's so-called support
can only be marginal. This kind of behaviour makes no sense.
Very few of the promises made to the aboriginal peoples by the
Liberal Party of Canada were kept once the election was won. In
fact, even the aboriginal people involved in developing the election
platform outlined in the red book felt the need to publicly
dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party of Canada after
witnessing this government's attitude and behaviour toward the
First Nations once in office.
In connection with Bill C-79, there is no mention anywhere in
the seven pages of promises relating to the aboriginal peoples in the
red book of any amendment to the Indian Act. Where does this
initiative come from? While there is no mention of it, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and the Prime Minister managed to break red
book promises by preparing, without any real consultation, a bill
dealing specifically with aboriginal peoples.
Let me quote the Liberal Party of Canada's red book, which
states at page 98: ``A Liberal government will develop a more
comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers
and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision making that
directly affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples''.
(1535)
Is sending four letters to the Assembly of First Nations over a
two-year period the Liberal Party of Canada's idea of a wider
consultation? If this is the case, interest groups in Quebec and in
Canada should be wary if a Liberal government talks about
consulting them. There is no doubt in the Bloc Quebecois' mind
that the Liberal government is acting in an absurd manner with Bill
C-79.
This government unilaterally developed, without any serious
consultations, a bill which directly concerns aboriginal people.
Here is another quote found on page 98 of the Liberal Party of
Canada's red book: ``It does not make sense for the federal
government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary deci-
8283
sions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their
involvement''.
The fact is that this government ignored the very basis of its
commitments to aboriginal people. On page 98, the Liberals speak
of a ``new partnership'' and of ``mutual respect''; on that same
page 98, they say: ``A Liberal government will-a new partnership
with aboriginal people that is based on-participation in the
decision-making process''. All these illusions in the red book left a
bad taste in the mouths of aboriginal people. The few letters
received by the First Nations by way of consultation were simply
meant to associate them with a bill whose basic thrust they could
not influence.
We have no choice but to say that the term ``consultation'' does
not mean the same thing to the Bloc Quebecois that it does to the
government. The Bloc Quebecois considers consultation to be
more than just four letters to native communities and their
representatives, the results of which the minister of Indian affairs
refuses to divulge. Consultation involves two parties getting
together to discuss and consider the consequences of a new law. No
formal meeting of the government and the Assembly of First
Nations was ever held on the changes to the Indian Act.
It would be more complex than simply drafting the legislation in
camera, but the solutions that would have come from such a
process would last longer.
Is this government going against the conclusions of the Penner
parliamentary committee? I regret I have only one minute left,
because I still have some things to say.
In conclusion, by refusing to consult properly, the government
has come up with a superficial bill that will resolve no basic
problems and that will therefore fail to satisfy the vast majority of
the First Nations involved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in this debate on Bill
C-79, an act to amend the Indian Act. I cannot say, however, that I
am too proud of what this government has accomplished on the
Indian issue since taking office three and a half years ago.
Perhaps three and a half years is nothing in the history of Indians
in Canada, but it shows this Liberal government's blatant lack of
vision. A bill is introduced, which purports to deal with rather
important issues: distribution of estates, new powers for band
councils, election procedures, contraventions and criminal law on
reserves.
Unfortunately, in view of what I would call generalized
opposition-more than 500 aboriginal communities told the
government, and sent us copies of their letters, that they did not
want this bill-I think we must realize one thing, which is true in
Quebec as well as in Canada.
In the past, we have not always treated aboriginal people, the
natives, like adults, as equals. And instead of changing this
attitude, the minister is perpetuating it. Imagine what impact
making this act optional will have, with some communities coming
under the it, and others not.
(1540)
We can easily imagine that it will be a carrot and stick situation,
where special advantages will be used as incentives to get some
communities to agree with the optional modification of the act.
This will result in a proliferation of unacceptable situations
condemned previously, by the Auditor General of Canada among
others, concerning allocation of funds, that is to say how federal
government funds are allocated to and used by aboriginal people.
One really has to wonder what prompted the minister to make
such a decision. Why not have gone to the bottom of the issue like
the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission did in a thorough
analysis? One may not agree with all the recommendations in this
report, but the commission conducted a major exercise and took a
look at the overall situation. Why does the minister come up with a
bill which, to me, is a cosmetic, pre-election measure?
The government wants to be able to campaign and say: ``We
passed an act amending the Indian Act. We had said we would do it
and we did it''. All these cosmetic changes before an election are
nice, but we are not elected for that purpose.
We are elected, ultimately, to truly fulfil the commitments made
during the election campaign, so as to be credible as a government.
In this case as in many others, the current Liberal government is
launching into what could be called a coverup operation. It is like
putting a bit of paint on an old car to hide the rust for a while, for
the duration of the election campaign, before it will resurface
again.
The plight of Canada's Indians is much more serious. Let me
read the Liberal Party's position, as stated in the red book. It says:
``A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive
process for consultation between federal ministers and aboriginal
representatives with respect to decision-making that directly
affects First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples''. There are 542
communities opposed to Bill C-79, that is 85 per cent of the total
number. Something is wrong somewhere. It does not make sense.
The federal government's decision is even insulting for aboriginal
communities.
There is another line in the red book which is even smoother
when we read it today. It says: ``It does not make sense for the
federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary
decisions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their
involvement''. Yet, the government introduced a bill which will
8284
have major policy and budgetary consequences, partly because of
its optional nature, without the support of aboriginal communities.
If I were a member of an aboriginal community, I would be even
more stunned by the way the Government of Canada is treating
them. Let us not forget that the Indian Act was based on the same
principle, the same structure as the apartheid legislation, in South
Africa. It stems from the great wisdom of the British Empire, many
years ago. Since then, we never went to the bottom of the issue to
really find out how to solve the problems relating to aboriginal
communities and their rights, and to also find out how to deal with
them.
Today, the Liberal government has placed us in a sad situation. If
this bill is passed by Parliament, native peoples will be able to say
once again that the government has decided to offload the problem,
as the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead would say, to
ignore the facts.
If I were a native person, I would be rather puzzled. First of all, I
would wonder why the Government of Canada, which is supposed
to be my defender, which is so described in the bill, is passing such
bills, when the only people to truly come to our defence are
Quebec's sovereignists. What is going on in this Parliament that
things have come to this?
One answer is that, in the past few years, Quebec has begun
treating native communities with the respect they deserve. We
began by recognizing their status as a nation, and then went on to
other areas that have not always been easy, but we are still trying to
establish a relationship that is evolving slowly through
negotiations.
(1545)
It is not just a matter of keeping an election promise by passing a
bill, so that during the election campaign they can say: ``You see,
we kept this promise, the eighty-second or eighty-third, increasing
our score to 82 or 83 per cent''.
Quantitative results like these are not what the people of Quebec
and of Canada, what native peoples expect from their government.
What they want is to get to the bottom of things, because there are
social problems, important economic problems resulting from the
failure of the Canadian government to take action on this issue for
several decades. This government, which announced interesting
things in its red book, has been completely unable to deliver the
goods.
Today, on the eve of an election campaign, it confronts us with a
completely unacceptable bill. I urge the members of the majority to
go back and consult the 542 communities who wrote to tell us that
they did not want to see the bill passed, that they wanted it thrown
out. They gave us the reasons they did not want to see it passed.
Each of you in the Liberal majority, in your respective ridings,
before the election campaign begins, during the period when the
bill is being studied in committee, should go to see your
communities and ask them the reasons they find the bill
unacceptable.
I am certain that, when you come back from this consultation,
you will make sure that your government at least kills this bill, or
has the courage to propose a bill that completely transforms the
relationship with natives within Canada, so that this major problem
can be eliminated. A solution must be found to this problem, which
is a stain on the quality of democratic life in this country, because
Bill C-79 is no solution.
I will close by saying that it is essential that any bill that speaks
about relations with native peoples must include as a basic
principle that they be treated like adults and that their rights be
respected. It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois is coming to
their defence against this bill, which is unfair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I now recognize the hon.
member for Compton-Stanstead-
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I always forget the first
part of the riding's name.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, you are perhaps assuming the outcome of the
next election, which is why you designate me with the name
Compton-Stanstead. In fact, after the next campaign, my riding,
which has been altered considerably and separated from Mégantic,
will be called Compton-Stanstead.
I see you therefore as a visionary, who already acknowledges not
only that I will be re-elected in the riding of Compton-Stanstead,
but that the Bloc Quebecois will be here in full force after the next
election for its well known purpose of defending the interests of
Quebecers.
My colleague, who wants to hear nothing but the truth, is
perfectly right, and that is what I am going to try to do in the next
few minutes. I am going to try to explain what the truth is in
connection with Bill C-79.
First of all, if I may, I will take a few moments of my time to
congratulate my colleague, whose performance as Indian affairs
critic is recognized by all those involved in this question, which is
such a touchy one and so important, not only for the future of the
aboriginal communities, but for the future of our respective
communities, I would say, that is the people of Quebec and the
people of Canada.
We cannot treat this question lightly, as the Liberal government
has already done for decades, ever since Canada began, I would
8285
say, by denying reality. In recent years, we have witnessed a study
without precedent in this area, and I would say without precedent
anywhere in government activity.
(1550)
I am of course referring to the Erasmus-Dussault report which
was tabled only a few months ago. This study took years to
complete. It thoroughly examined aboriginal issues and proposed a
comprehensive plan in its recommendations. That was and still is
what made the Erasmus-Dussault report unique, that it proposed a
comprehensive plan to deal with aboriginal issues.
I would also like to say that in addition to the hon. member for
Saint-Jean who has done and still does an excellent job in this
respect, the Government of Quebec has also made an effort in the
past to understand the expectations and demands of the First
Nations in Quebec. I am referring to the government of former
Premier René Lévesque.
This was the first government in North America to recognize the
First Nations for what they were, peoples who had and have a
different culture, who want to develop this culture as part of their
lives, not only for the benefit of their own communities but also for
the benefit of the other communities around them. In Quebec we
were the first, as a people and as a government, to recognize that
fact. I think that is an important point.
We should also remember, setting all political considerations
aside, that the Quebec government, the Liberal government under
Robert Bourassa in the 1970s, was also the first government to
negotiate an agreement with a First Nation, with the Inuit in
Northern Quebec on the development of James Bay, an agreement
which although not perfect, set a historical precedent. As a result, a
First Nation was considered a legitimate party, with the authority to
decide on behalf of its people, which led to the James Bay
agreement, an agreement which has been quoted as an example on
many occasions in the past and still is today.
I mentioned these two positions to point out that as a people, we
may wish to consolidate our future. As a people, we may wish to
develop our potential while respecting those who live around us.
This is the example that should be taken from the earlier positions
of the Government of Quebec in the case of native communities.
What we have before us looks more like a botch. In other words,
following the conclusion of the Erasmus-Dussault commission,
which cost over $50 million in tax money and produced a report of
thousands of pages including hundreds of recommendations
proposing a comprehensive plan, the Liberal government arrives
with a bungled proposal on the eve of an election. This government
does not want to go into another election without being able to say
it has done something for the native population. Thus we have Bill
C-79, which uses a piecemeal approach to try to resolve a number
of problems.
This is not the way to go about it, and I consider it almost an
insult to the native peoples. This is not the way to resolve the
government's problems with the native peoples. It must first
recognize their existence and the importance of the
Erasmus-Dussault report and the riches it has to offer and then sit
down with these communities to define their future.
(1555)
This is the only logical and intelligent way to proceed in this
matter as in all matters. This is what my colleague from Saint-Jean
is proposing on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
We will not agree to support a bill that does not even start to
honourably address the claims of the aboriginal nations. The
government and its minister must get into the habit of sitting down
and talking to people. They must sit down with the native groups,
see what they and their representatives want, and how they would
like the necessary changes in the relations between the federal
government and the communities to be planned.
Is the hon. member of Saint-Jean, who has convinced his
colleagues, including myself, of the validity of this proposal, now
alone? Are we the only ones to take this view of resolving the
problems of aboriginal communities? No.
I need not repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned earlier. We all know
that the Liberal members of this House can be hard of hearing, to
say the least, and have a hard time understanding sometimes, which
means that we have to repeat the same things over and over if we
want to at least be heard by this government and try to get our point
across.
On this issue, it is important to remind the House that 542 of the
610 aboriginal communities, not only in Quebec but across
Canada, oppose this bill; 85 per cent of the First Nations
categorically reject the proposal put forward by the minister in
terms of process.
I will close on this last remark I just made: 85 per cent of
aboriginal communities, of the First Nations have rejected the
process put forward by the minister. Be that as it may, the minister,
and his government, stubbornly want to press on. The minister and
his government are going to botch this bill purely for electoral
reasons, in order to be able to claim during the campaign that they
have started working on the aboriginal issue. We condemn this
today and will continue to condemn it during the next election
campaign.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
8286
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1600)
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): At the request of the chief
opposition whip, the recorded division is deferred until tomorrow
at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian nuclear
safety commission and to make consequential amendments, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to join this debate at the third reading stage of
Bill C-23, an act to establish the Canadian nuclear safety
commission.
It is worth noting this bill constitutes the first effort in 50 years
to redefine the relationship between the Canadian public and the
Canadian government in the nuclear industry. The fact that this is
the first effort in 50 years is enough reason for Reformers to at least
give qualified support to the legislation. We are at least applauding
the effort that has been put forward. However, I insist on using the
term qualified because the bill has a lot of shortcomings.
The bill's shortcomings were identified both at committee and at
report stage. Those shortcomings remain in the bill because as
usual the Liberal government did not give serious consideration to
the proposals put forward by Bloc and Reform members in
opposition. The suggestions put forward by my colleague from the
Bloc were well reasoned and well intended proposals and were very
similar to those advanced by my colleague, the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan. Both groups of amendments would have
enhanced the transparency of the activities within the Canadian
nuclear industry.
I will briefly discuss the proposals and why they were found to
be unacceptable. The proposals were intended to enhance the
accountability of the nuclear industry to the Canadian people and to
make those issues understandable by people across the country and
members across the way. I do not understand why the Liberals have
such a problem with the concept of accountability, but it is
certainly understandable when we look at the other issues that have
been before the House, for example the GST, Airbus and the Krever
inquiry. But that does not make it any better than in this instance.
The issues of transparency and accountability are very central to
this bill and to the desires of Canadians, at least from what we
heard from the witnesses in committee. For years the nuclear
industry in Canada has functioned with little public scrutiny, little
transparency and virtual immunity or impunity, depending on your
point of view. In in either characterization there is a sense among
the population of Canada that nuclear safety has not rated as a
priority for this and previous Liberal and Tory governments. The
situation has not been addressed by Bill C-23, which is regrettable
because the government had the opportunity to do so in this bill.
To illustrate the bill's shortcomings let us look at the present
issue of nuclear safety through the lens of nuclear waste disposal.
This is a matter I will continually refer to. In May 1995 and
November 1996 the auditor general's report touched on the fact
that the clean-up of low and high level radioactive waste would
cost billions. Yet the auditor general noted that the federal
government's share of the clean-up did not constitute parts of its
budget forecast and expenditures. The auditor general indicated
that this lack of financial acknowledgement by the federal
government constitutes a serious unfunded liability which changes
the accuracy of the government's reported financial position.
My friends across the way will argue, as the natural resources
minister did on November 26, 1996, that the government takes the
health related concerns of nuclear waste disposal very seriously.
But the reality and the lack of a co-ordinated action by this
government speak volumes about the neglect and the problems
associated with nuclear waste. In any event, the auditor general
reported that the costs associated with cleaning up contaminated
federal sites was being ignored by the federal government. This
should highlight for Canadians the inadequate accounting
procedure by the federal government and represents a lack of
responsibility by the Liberals to the taxpaying public.
(1605)
When we put that alongside recent efforts by the Liberal
government to delay and possibly scrap their promise to dispose of
low level radioactive waste near the town of Deep River, Canadians
can appreciate that this government is not serious about addressing
8287
the problems and research solutions needed in the area of nuclear
waste disposal.
In short, the government will not recognize the environmental
disaster in its own backyard or the potential costs associated with
its clean-up. It is reneging on its promise to the people of Deep
River and closing R and D facilities all because it says it does not
have enough money to pay for services in these areas. However, I
want to remind the Canadian public and the Liberals that they have
no problem coughing up $1.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer money
to lend to the Chinese government. The Liberals can do this so the
current government of China could build CANDU reactors.
Bill C-23 does increase the regulatory burden already present
within the nuclear industry. The nuclear safety and control act
replaces the Atomic Energy Control Act with a new regulatory
framework for the nuclear energy industry.
The natural resources ministers has stated that the bill is
intended to modernize nuclear regulations and eliminate overlap
with provincial regulatory agencies. This is something that has not
been done in 50 years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. Minister
of National Defence on a point of order.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Chair will
know, there is a major presentation to be made to the House this
afternoon.
In question period this afternoon the hon. member for Beaver
River referred to parliamentarians as parliamentary porkers and I
want to apologize because in response to that I said something
relating to pork. I think the words were totally inappropriate and I
want to withdraw those words.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I thank the hon. minister.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23,
an act to establish the Canadian nuclear safety commission and to
make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to go back by
way of background some 50 years ago. When the atomic age
started in Canada we were in the throes of the second world war.
Scientists who discovered nuclear fission realized its tremendous
potential as a weapon if controlled and its potential to destroy the
world if uncontrolled.
Since then nuclear experiments and facilities were given the
highest possible security classification. The absolute necessity for
secrecy has haunted and been part of the atomic and nuclear energy
field ever since. Certainly that same situation does not exist today
in Canada. Canada has long since rejected the participation in the
production of nuclear war machinery or issues of war production
and therefore should have also rejected the veil of secrecy that
surrounds the production of nuclear energy in Canada.
Canada's nuclear role begins with the building of the research
facility at Chalk River, Ontario and, oddly enough, the recent
closing of a research facility in Chalk River might also herald the
end of Canada's nuclear age.
All too often the activities at facilities under the administration
of AECL are shrouded in secrecy. I agree that the public's right to
know must be tempered with considerations of national security,
but the concerns of national security certainly are not as paramount
as they were some 50 years ago.
Yet this has meant that government is given a ready made excuse
which it can use to limit Canadians' access to information where
matters of atomic energy are concerned. Bill C-23 could have
begun to diffuse some of the public apprehension and
misunderstanding which has plagued activity within the Canadian
nuclear industry for the past 50 years.
Again, I suggest to all members that there is a need to keep the
public informed on issues where nuclear safety and energy are
concerned.
(1610 )
Given what has been going on at AECL facilities across Canada
in recent months, public openness by the government is sorely
needed.
For example, Canadians should be told about the closure of the
Chalk River superconducting cyclotron facility. Canadians should
know that this research facility was closed down by the Liberal
government's Minister of Natural Resources on January 31, 1997 at
11 a.m.
The Liberals would not even wait for this House to resume
sitting so that the closure could be brought forward for discussion. I
am sickened that even with the member for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke sitting in the Liberal caucus
could not stop the closure.
Then again, perhaps the closure of TASCC was his reward for
voting against the government's gun control bill, Bill C-68. It did
not matter that hundreds of scientists from around the world,
including three Nobel laureates, pleaded with the natural resources
minister back in October to keep this research facility open.
8288
I point out for the benefit of those listening that Canadian
taxpayers spent $70 million on building this facility and now it
has been turned off. Now that it has been closed it is worth
absolutely nothing. In addition, the research scientists who worked
at the facility are preparing to move to the United States where
evidently research and development is taken more seriously.
The former employees of TASCC have indicated that equipment
from Chalk River may find its way into the Brookhaven Institute in
the United States.
Reformers and Canadians can speculate on the myopic vision of
the government's commitment to research and development
initiatives in Canada. However, the question still remains why the
Liberals closed this facility.
They will argue that it was a question of priorities and that the
government could not find the money. Yet because the federal
government could not come up with $3 million in operating costs,
it effectively threw away $70 million. This was done even though
companies such as Spar Aerospace of Canada had been funding
increasing amounts of research efforts at TASCC with private
funds. Eventually this would have seen the facility function
without any tax dollars.
However, let us look at the government's priority and
commitment in spending in general. The TASCC facility needed $3
million in operating grants which would have allowed it to remain
open. The government claims it did not have the money. Yet this is
the same government that spent an estimated $20 million on
Canadian flag giveaways, $100 million toward the propaganda
office in Montreal, $87 million in a loan to the financially sound
and profitable Bombardier of Montreal. Sadly, the Liberals also
had $3 million and climbing of taxpayer money to apologize to
former Prime Minister Mulroney and pay his lawyers. The Liberals
will probably need to waste another billion dollars because of their
incompetence and bungling on the Pearson airport deal.
Perhaps it is not fair to my colleagues across the way to highlight
wasted tax dollars on those projects. No doubt Liberal members
will want to point out that those expenses are unrelated to the
workings of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited or, for that matter,
the nuclear safety commission which is what Bill C-23 seeks to
establish.
The members across the way want Canadians to believe that the
Liberal commitment to R and D is well in line with red book
promises.
In any event, the real blow to the Canadian taxpayer is in the area
of prioritised research and development spending at AECL.
Just before Christmas the government announced the sale of
CANDU technology to the Chinese government. In order to get the
deal signed, the Government of Canada committed to lend the
Chinese government $1.5 billion financed on the backs of
Canadian taxpayers.
The government was willing to gamble over $1.5 billion but
could not come up with a minuscule fraction of that, $3 million, in
order to keep the TASCC project at Chalk River going.
Again, the perception of secrecy surrounds these and other
projects and continues to remain part of the nuclear energy scene.
This perception, perhaps more than any other, has been responsible
for the public's lack of knowledge and apprehension about nuclear
matters. However, the byproduct of any nuclear endeavour is the
radioactive waste that results.
Radioactive contamination is the other big consideration
affecting the nuclear industry today and tomorrow. This poses a
problem of considerable magnitude for this government because
not only do we mine and export uranium, we burn it in our reactors
as well.
Canada is one of the world's leading producers of uranium and
therefore one of the leading producers of uranium tailings. This is
the residue associated with uranium mining. The government has
recognized this and decided that any legislative response must
ensure that uranium mining and refinement industries are subject to
government controls and laws such as those in Bill C-23.
(1615)
Clearly Canada has great technological expertise in the nuclear
industry generally and specifically in the construction of nuclear
reactors. This should be exploited but not at the expense of other
problem areas which must be addressed and controlled.
Again I want to stress to the Liberal members across the way that
Bill C-23 falls short in its response to the issue of radioactive
waste, particularly high level waste.
The high level waste disposal problem is exacerbated by the
rumoured disposal of plutonium from Russia and American nuclear
weapons which are to be destroyed. Here again Canada has
expertise and can help the world situation. Yet it can only do so if
the Canadian public knows what is going on and understands the
risks and agrees with the plan of action.
This bill does nothing which would permit an agency to educate
or inform the Canadian public on the consequences or risks
associated with burning plutonium in a Canadian reactor.
No doubt something like Bill C-23 is needed. Reformers feel this
bill does not adequately address two key areas. The first is the
question of public education. The Canadian public has a right to
know what is going on and to help decide what Canada should or
should not be doing in the nuclear field.
Canadians need access to more facts than they have had in the
past. Regrettably, the amendments put forward by my colleague
from Nanaimo-Cowichan were not accepted. They would have
addressed the issue of public awareness by assigning some respon-
8289
sibility for public education information to the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission.
The second area of concern inadequately addressed by Bill C-23
is the removal of ministerial responsibility for promoting nuclear
safety. If the Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for the
promotion of the nuclear industry, and that in itself is a question,
she must also be responsible for all aspects of nuclear safety.
Members of the opposition put forward motions that would have
addressed the short circuiting of ministerial responsibility, but the
government has chosen to ignore them.
As I stated earlier, my Reform colleagues and I will be
supporting the bill at third reading. In doing so, we point out for
members on both sides of the House that Bill C-23 is the first effort
in 50 years at redefining the relationship between public and the
nuclear industry within Canada.
Therefore Bill C-23 constitutes only the first tentative steps in
the right direction. However, there is still an unfulfilled expectation
that the government would put measures in place that would open
up the nuclear industry to greater public scrutiny.
It was also hoped that the Nuclear Safety Commission, tasked
with providing information to the public, would also be transparent
in its future dealings. Sadly, this will not be a benefit resulting from
Bill C-23.
In closing, I stress to the Canadian public that Reform MPs
would correct many of the deficiencies of Bill C-23 if allowed to do
so. Indeed, we may very well be given that opportunity after the
next election.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
An hon. member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: On division.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In light of the time, is
there agreement on the part of the House that we suspend the sitting
until the call of the Chair at 4.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.19 p.m.)
[Translation]
The House resumed at 4.35 p.m.
The Speaker: It being 4.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
the consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 15, dealing with
the budget.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents,
including notices of ways and means motions. The details of the
measures are contained in the documents. I am asking that an order
of the day be designated for consideration of these motions.
Pursuant to an order of this House, I will introduce today a bill
seeking borrowing authority for the 1997-98 fiscal year. I am also
announcing that the government will, at the first opportunity, table
bills to implement the other measures announced in this budget, as
soon as the implementation of these measures will require such
legislation.
Before beginning, let me take this opportunity on behalf of the
Prime Minister and myself to express our appreciation to the
various committees of caucus and of this House, including the
Standing Committee on Finance, for all the work they have done
leading up to this budget, the fourth one of our government.
[English]
As in budgets past, cabinet ministers in each of their departments
have had to wrestle with difficult choices. The members of caucus
have been on the front lines of the debate in each of their ridings.
We are deeply indebted and very grateful to them.
Last but most important, let me say how much we owe to the
unprecedented numbers of Canadians who have come forward to
offer their views and their ideas to us. They have responded with
enthusiasm and energy to the opening up of the process of budget
making, and the country is much the better for it.
[Translation]
Our goal from the beginning has been clear: to strengthen the
Canadian economy so that it creates more jobs; to strengthen
Canadian society by preserving the programs that sustain the
well-being of our people; in short, our goal has been to restore the
confidence of Canadians in their future.
8290
When we took office, Canadians were aware of the many
challenges we as a people faced and of the need, therefore, for
broad and deep reform. They did not want tinkering. They sought
lasting solutions. They wanted their government to implement a
plan-and to stick to it. This, we have done in our first three
budgets, and this, we are continuing to do in this budget.
As a country, we have had to make some difficult decisions. The
adjustment has not been easy. But today, we are well down the road
to success. Our task now is to complete the journey.
[English]
Our purpose today is twofold. It is to report to the Canadian
people on progress made and it is to set out the further steps that lie
before us. This budget will show that our effort to restore health to
the nation's finances is very clearly on track and that we are staying
the course of deficit reduction.
This is a budget that will impose no new taxes on Canadians. It is
a budget that in selected areas will reduce them. It is a budget
without further cuts to government programs. It is a budget that
will reinforce our plan for economic growth for jobs in the
immediate and in the long term. It is a budget that will announce
important investments in key priority areas for Canadians,
post-secondary education, medicare and children.
(1640)
Finally, it is a budget that will lay out the direction for the years
that lie beyond, for our concern cannot only be to address the
remainder of this government's mandate; we must as well prepare
Canada for a new century.
Since the deep recession of the early 1990s, Canada's economic
recovery has not been as strong as any one of us would have liked.
There can be no more visible sign of this than an unemployment
rate that is still unacceptably high. But today our economy is
growing and strengthening.
[Translation]
Short-term interest rates are lower than they have been in close
to 35 years. Inflation remains under firm control. Our merchandise
trade balance-exports over imports-set a record surplus in 1996.
Our current account moved into the black for the first time in 12
years. This means that more of the income generated in Canada,
stays in Canada, rather than being sent abroad.
[English]
The renewed confidence in our economy has not happened by
accident. It has come about because of the efforts of millions of
Canadians, each in their own way, striving for a better future. It has
happened because governments finally caught up with what
Canadians have long realized, that chronic deficits and runaway
debt had become an obstacle to jobs.
It is no exaggeration to state that only four short years ago the
economic future of our country was at risk. A vicious circle had set
in. Higher deficits pushed interest rates up. Higher interest rates
weakened the economy and hurt job creation. The weaker economy
and high interest rates, in turn, pushed the deficit up even further.
Canadians knew that this vicious circle had to be broken and we
have broken it. That we chose to do so was not a question of
ideology; it was a matter of necessity.
In 1993-94 the deficit had risen to $42 billion, approximately 6
per cent of GDP. During the 1993 election campaign we committed
that it would be reduced to 3 per cent of GDP or $24.3 billion by
this current year.
I cannot today give a definitive deficit number for 1996-97. We
still need to receive the results for January, February and March.
That being said, it is now clear that our target will be bettered.
Indeed even after including this budget's new spending, we can
safely say that the deficit for 1996-97 will be no higher than $19
billion. This is more than $5 billion lower than our target. It is
about $9.5 billion below the previous year. It is the largest year
over year decline ever in Canadian history.
[Translation]
We can safely say that the deficit for 1996-97 will be no higher
than $19 billion, that is $9.5 billion below the previous year. It is
the largest year-over-year decline ever.
(1645)
Furthermore, we are also clearly on track to meeting our deficit
targets for the following two years-2 per cent of GDP for
1997-98, and 1 per cent for 1998-99.
[English]
I know that a good number of private sector forecasters are
saying that we will do much better than this, including some public
sector forecasters. I hope they are right. They may very well be. We
have always said that our targets were not the most we would do
but the least we could do.
Let me explain. Most forecasters assume that the future will
enfold without surprises. Ministers of finance do not have that
luxury. The world rarely behaves as predicted. The bond market
changes its mind every single day. Ministers of finance, on the
other hand, must set out a track on which people can rely. That is
why, first of all, we have built into our deficit targets a $3 billion
contingency reserve to handle unforeseen developments. We have
always said we would not spend this reserve and we have not.
8291
Second, having taken the consensus forecast of the private sector
as our base, we have built a further prudence factor into our
assumptions with respect to interest rates and growth.
The result of this approach, in addition to the measures taken to
reduce spending, has been restored credibility in financial markets,
and a rising level of confidence in Canada's economic future. That
this has led us to doing better than our targets is hardly reason to
change our methodology. It is in fact a reason to stick with it, and
we will.
[Translation]
For 1998-99, the government's deficit target is $9 billion, an
amount that the government will be able to finance internally, that
is to say without any net new borrowing from financial markets.
International comparisons are important in this highly
competitive world. The comparison arising out of new borrowing
requirements is one of which we can be particularly proud. This is
the way many countries-the United States, Germany and Japan,
for example-measure their deficits. According to this measure, by
1998-99, Canada is expected to have a small surplus-and the best
financial record of any of the seven largest industrialized countries.
This is a turnaround of unprecedented proportions.
[English]
Let me reiterate what we have said in each of our previous
budgets. We will balance the books. We will do so by maintaining
our pace: deliberate, measured and responsible. We will maintain
our approach of two year rolling targets. And we will not alter
course. Moreover, we will meet our objectives, as in the past, by
focusing on getting spending right, not by raising taxes.
The fact is that by 1998-99, government spending on everything
but the debt will have been reduced from $120 billion in 1993-94 to
$103.5 billion. This is $2 billion less than was projected last year.
I have spoken thus far about the deficit, about spending, about
our borrowing requirements. But the most important measure of
the financial health of a country ultimately is its ability to manage
its debt. This ability is measured by what is called the debt to GDP
ratio.
Over the past two decades, this ratio has been rising relentlessly.
In other words, the debt of Canada's government has been rising
faster than the income of the country. This had to be stopped. And
we are stopping it. Our economy will soon be growing faster than
our debt. More and more of each revenue dollar will go to pay for
services that Canadians need rather than to pay bondholders. Our
goal is to put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward
track. It is a goal that for the first time in over 20 years is now
within reach.
(1650)
[Translation]
It is clear that on virtually every financial indicator, Canada is
doing well. Fine. The question is, what does this have to do with
jobs? The answer is everything.
The recovery in our financial health has caused the interest rate
picture in Canada to improve dramatically. This is crucial for job
creation.
[English]
The turnaround in Canada's short term interest rates has been
historic. In the past two years, they have come down by almost five
and a half percentage points. But what is even more significant is
that for the past 20 years short term rates in Canada have averaged
two percentage points higher than those in the United States.
However, as we speak today, they are about two and a quarter
percentage points lower.
This dramatic reversal in our favour is not a matter of luck. The
new found freedom to make our own decisions can only be
explained by the discipline in the country's financial management
and the new confidence and credibility this has created.
While we know from history that it takes time for lower interest
rates to stimulate the creation of jobs, we also know that today this
process is taking hold. In the last four months 85,000 new jobs have
been created by the private sector. It is equally significant that
almost all of these jobs have been full time.
Those sectors of the economy that respond the most quickly to
lower interest rates are growing strongly. Housing resales have
reached record levels and the sale of consumer goods is up
substantially. Indeed, there is a consensus, both domestically and
internationally, that none of the seven major industrial countries
will do better than Canada in 1997. As a result, most Canadian
forecasters are projecting that employment will increase by
between 300,000 and 350,000 jobs during the course of this year.
All this being said, while the outlook is brighter, it is by no
means bright enough. Those who are unemployed certainly know
that. So too do those who have jobs but worry they might lose
them. So too do families that are concerned about what the future
may hold for their children.
Economists can talk about globalization. They can talk about
technical change in the abstract all they want, but governments
must not. We cannot treat the restructuring that we are all living
through as if it were some mechanical concept of academic interest
only. It is a phenomenon with very real human consequences. As
economies restructure, as governments are forced to do so as well,
we must never lose sight of the impact this is having on hundreds of
communities and on many thousands of families.
8292
This is why we believe that the role of government is not simply
to stand still or to stand aside. Its role must be to stand with those
Canadians who are having difficulty adjusting to a turbulent world.
The simple fact of the matter is that the short term interests of
the market do not always address the long term needs of the nation.
A country is not a balance sheet. For this government, taking care
of our future requires more than simply taking care of the books.
(1655 )
On coming into office, it was very clear what our jobs and
growth plan had to be. First, we had to restore responsible
management to the country's finances. Second, we had to invest in
those areas of the economy that would provide immediate growth
and job potential, thereby serving as a bridge until the full impact
of our effort to get interest rates down and restore confidence took
hold. Third, we had to look beyond the short term to make
investments that would strengthen long term economic growth,
investments that by their very nature would take time to kick in, but
would create ongoing momentum in an ever-changing job market.
This plan has been part of every budget we have brought down
including this one.
[Translation]
We have taken initiatives in infrastructure, trade, youth
employment, labour market training, payroll tax reduction,
tourism, rural Canada and small business.
For example, upon coming into office, we provided $2 billion for
the $6 billion three-year Canada Infrastructure Works Program. In
partnership with the municipalities and every province across the
country, over 12,000 projects were undertaken.
Last month, we announced an extension of this Program for
another year. This means that in 1997, the federal government's
contribution will be $600 million, $425 million of which is new
money.
In the international trade sector, four Team Canada trade
missions unprecedented in their results have been led by the Prime
Minister. Moreover, financing for Canadian exports has been
improved through new investments in the Export Development
Corporation. All this is paying off. The fact is that since 1992, the
volume of our exports has soared by almost 50 per cent. Talk about
jobs!
On youth employment, last week, the government announced an
initiative that will support 120,000 summer jobs over the next two
years and, in addition, create new internship programs to provide
over 19,000 positions to give young Canadians real work
experience.
On payroll taxes, when we came into office, we acted
immediately to stop EI premium rates from rising to $3.30, and we
have reduced them as much as we can each and every year. For
1998, we have assumed the EI premium rate will be reduced to
$2.80.
Furthermore, last fall, we announced a New Hires Program that
will virtually eliminate EI premiums for additional employees
hired this year by almost 900,000 eligible small businesses.
Reductions in the EI premium rate, and other EI reforms,
together with the new Hires Program will save workers and
employers $1.7 billion this year alone.
Looking ahead, we have been clear since taking office that we
will continue to reduce EI premiums as fast as our fiscal situation
permits.
[English]
Tourism is an important creator of jobs. Indeed, the Canadian
Tourism Commission estimates that over the next decade 125,000
new jobs can be created in this sector alone. Therefore, today we
are providing the commission with an additional $15 million of
funding for tourism promotion in each of the next three years.
As in the past, the private sector will be asked to match our
contribution dollar for dollar. In addition, we are investing a further
$50 million in the Business Development Bank to help it finance up
to $500 million worth of private sector tourism infrastructure.
(1700 )
The pressures of adjustment to a changing world are as acute in
rural Canada as they are anywhere in the economy. Therefore let
me state unequivocally that we will ensure, whether it is through
programs for infrastructure, tourism or high technology, that rural
Canada has an opportunity to participate fully in everything the
government has to offer as it builds for the next century.
In addition to the other programs in this budget, $50 million in
capital has been provided to the Farm Credit Corporation to expand
its capacity to support growth and diversification in rural Canada.
Furthermore, we are announcing today that $10 million in
funding in each of the next three years will be devoted to ensuring
that virtually every community in Canada between 400 people and
50,000 in population will be connected to the information highway
over the next four years-5,000 communities in all.
Finally, we know how essential small business is to job creation.
It is therefore no coincidence that virtually all the measures
described thus far are of direct relevance to the success of Canadian
entrepreneurship. However, there are two further initiatives that I
would like to highlight.
First, I would like to note the announcement last week that
Canada will be open to foreign branch banking. This will increase
the financing options available to small and medium size business.
8293
Second, small business has been very clear about the major
costs of the paper burden created by governments; for example,
those imposed by the requirement to file payroll deductions with
the federal government on a monthly basis. Small business is
right. Therefore for small businesses with good records of
compliance we are eliminating this requirement. They will now
be permitted to file on a quarterly basis. This has the potential
of benefiting up to 650,000 small businesses.
[Translation]
In each and every one of the areas I have addressed, a new ethic
of partnership has clearly developed. It is important because
co-operation and partnership among governments, and with the
private sector, have become very much our way of conducting the
nation's business.
I have just described some of the investments which have had an
immediate impact on economic growth, and which will help bridge
the gap to the stronger job creation that is now expected. Canadians
can be assured that we will continue to provide this bridge as long
as it is needed.
[English]
We have discussed the short and the medium term. We must
discuss the long term as well. We must broaden our notion of
infrastructure. We must take it beyond its traditional meaning to
include the components of future economic success,
post-secondary education, knowledge, innovation. These are the
building blocks of the new wealth of nations. It is in this
infrastructure as well that government must invest, for if we fail to
do so we will fail the country of tomorrow. We will short change
the next generation.
Canadians know that a better education equals better jobs. This
is true for our young people who are in school. It is also true for
those already in the workforce whose continued employment is
increasingly dependent on lifelong learning.
Therefore last year, to help with living expenses while attending
university, a community college or a vocational school, we raised
the amount used to set the education credit, thus reducing the taxes
students or their parents must pay. Today we are raising this
amount further. We will double it in two stages to $200 per month.
(1705 )
Next, students also face additional fees apart from the cost of
tuition itself. Up until now these have not been covered by the
tuition credit. Henceforth they will be.
Furthermore, under the current rules, some students or their
parents cannot take advantage of these credits because they do not
have sufficient income in a particular year to utilize them. This is
often the case, for instance, for those students who do not have
supporting parents or for people who enroll in an education
program later in life. Therefore we are changing the rules so that
those who are not able to use these credits in the year of study will
now be able to do so by carrying them forward to offset against
future income.
As a result of the measures just announced and those put in place
by last year's budget, the combined federal and provincial tax
assistance for a typical student will rise from $900 to over $1,200 a
year, an increase of one third.
Next, we are taking steps to assist students who have difficulties
in managing the debt burden they incur through the taking out of
student loans. Despite the assistance currently provided under the
Canada student loans program, some students are unable to meet
their loan repayment obligations. Therefore the federal government
will extend from 18 to 30 months the period of time that students
facing these difficulties can defer making loan repayments.
During this period the federal government will pay the interest
the student would otherwise have had to pay. Combined with the
existing grace period this means that students will have up to three
years of help after graduation in managing their loans.
Furthermore, the federal government is ready to pursue with
interested provinces, lenders and other groups an additional option
for repaying student loans, one where the repayment schedule will
be tied directly to a student's income.
[Translation]
Thus far, we have spoken about measures to support those
already in school, or those who wish to return to upgrade their
qualifications. But increasingly, parents with young children are
worried that they will not be able to afford the costs of their
education. Registered education savings plans exist to provide
parents with incentives to save for their children's education.
[English]
Today we are announcing measures to make registered education
savings plans more attractive and flexible. In order to help parents
save more in RESPs the annual contribution limit will be doubled
to $4,000. This will enable those parents who do not start until their
children are older to still accumulate substantial savings.
Finally, we have found that some parents may be reluctant to
invest in RESPs because they fear losing their investment if their
children do not pursue higher education. Therefore we are allowing
individuals to transfer unused RESP income into their RRSPs if
they have room.
In all, the initiatives announced in this budget will at maturity
increase tax assistance to students and their families by some $275
million a year.
8294
Just as broader and better access to higher learning is essential
for students and those already in the workforce, so too they must
be provided the facilities needed to acquire that education.
In many such instances, the research facilities at our universities,
our colleges and our hospitals are critical. They are the linchpin for
world class education. Why? They provide the tools needed to
develop leading edge skills. The fact is that it is only through
knowledge, information and ideas that new products and new
services will be created. It is only if there is an opportunity to
develop these products and these services in Canada, not abroad,
that our best and our brightest will be able to contribute to the
prosperity of their own country.
(1710)
[Translation]
In short, the research facilities in our hospitals, our universities
and our colleges are part of the root system of our economic
prospects for the future.
But, too often, those facilities are far from what they should be to
meet today's challenges. The fact is that much of our current
research infrastructure is literally unable to handle the kind of
pressures required to keep Canada in the front ranks of the new
economy.
Innovation doesn't just happen. It requires investment.
Therefore, the government announces today that it is establishing
the Canada Foundation for Innovation, with an $800 million
contribution to support research facilities in our universities,
colleges and hospitals.
The focus of the Foundation will be to support research
infrastructure in the areas of health, the environment, science and
engineering.
[English]
Innovation does not just happen. It requires investment.
Therefore the government is announcing today that it is
establishing the Canada Foundation for Innovation, with an initial
investment of $800 million to support research facilities in our
universities, our colleges and our hospitals.
The focus of the foundation will be to support research
infrastructure in the areas of health, the environment, science and
engineering.
[Translation]
The Canada Foundation for Innovation represents an entirely
new approach to addressing the innovation challenge we have
described.
The Foundation will be set up outside of government and will
operate independently of government. Investment decisions will be
made solely by a board of directors, the majority of whom will be
drawn from the private sector and the research and academic
communities.
The Foundation will be able to provide about $180 million
annually over the next five years to support important research
infrastructure.
[English]
The Canada Foundation for Innovation is about looking forward.
It is about our children. It is about education. In short, it is about
investing in the future growth of our economy, making a down
payment today for a much greater reward tomorrow. Through
partnerships for individual projects, be they with the research
institutions themselves, with the private sector or with the
provinces, the Canada Foundation for Innovation's resources could
very well lead up to $2 billion in needed investment, laying the
foundation for tomorrow's jobs as well as today's.
Thus far I have spoken about our plan for economic growth and
jobs, but if our plan for a strong economy is to succeed then we
must have a strong society as well. The ultimate test of a nation lies
in its will and its capacity to support those who are the most
vulnerable, its will and its capacity to sustain the programs upon
which every one of its citizens depends.
This government promised to make the retirement income
system secure for Canadians. We are well on the way to doing this.
No other industrial country has done as much as Canada has to
come to grips with the challenges of an aging society. As we
announced last week, we and a majority of the provinces have
agreed to a strong and balanced package of reforms that will ensure
that the Canada pension plan is there for Canadians. With the
introduction of the new seniors benefit in the year 2001, we will
have taken action to make the public pension system in Canada
secure and sustainable for future generations while fully protecting
current seniors.
(1715)
Canada's system of publicly funded universal health care is one
of this country's greatest achievements. This government's
commitment to the principles contained in the Canada Health Act
is unequivocal. These principles will be maintained. They will be
enforced.
[Translation]
The federal government supports health, education and welfare
by providing transfers to the provinces. Last year, under the new
Canada Health and Social Transfer, a predictable and assured level
of funding was legislated for the five-year period through to the
year 2002-03.
A stable transfer of more than $25 billion annually in cash and
tax points is in place until the turn of the century, at which time it
will begin growing. Legislation passed last year also guarantees
that the cash component of the transfer will never fall below $11
billion per year. This is a floor, not a ceiling. Indeed, cash transfers
to the provinces are projected to begin growing around the year
2000.
8295
This federal funding ensures that the principles of medicare will
be protected. But this speaks to only one part of our challenge.
The second part is to acknowledge and act upon the need for
change. Yes, we will protect medicare but, more importantly, we
must show the will and the wisdom to improve it-to strengthen it.
[English]
Upon coming into office, the Prime Minister established the
National Forum on Health to advise Canadians on how to improve
our health care system. Earlier this month the forum issued its
report. As the Prime Minister has stated, it provides a
comprehensive and common sense view of how governments must
work together to address the long term health care challenge in
Canada.
The forum's report is very clear. It confirms that while as a
nation we devote sufficient financial resources to the health care
system, these resources are not being spent as efficiently as they
might be. The forum further states that the transition to a more
effective way of running the system in the future requires some
targeted investment today.
Therefore this budget provides $300 million over the next three
years to respond directly to the recommendations of the national
forum. Let me emphasize that every single dollar will be devoted
toward the delivery of better health services for Canadians.
First, the forum makes it clear that one of the greatest challenges
we face is devising more innovative ways to deliver health care.
Therefore, we are announcing today that we will provide $150
million over the next three years to help the provinces put in place
the type of pilot projects, for example, new approaches to home
care, drug coverage and other innovations, that will enable them to
test ways in which our health systems can be improved. This
amount will be allocated to the provinces on an equal per capita
basis and decisions regarding spending will be made jointly by
Canada's ministers of health.
(1720)
In the same vein, we will also provide $50 million over the next
three years to allow both levels of government to put in place a
co-ordinated national system of health data, the Canada health
information system. This will ensure that health care planners and
individual Canadians across the country have the right information
at the right time, including the most up to date knowledge possible
concerning the best treatments available.
Next, the forum spoke out in favour of stronger community
based programming. We agree. At the present time the federal
government funds two community based programs directed toward
improving the health of children.
The first is the community action program for children which
today supports hundreds of community groups, for example in
providing parenting education, child development centres and
family resource programs, all directed to addressing the needs of
children at risk up to the age of six years.
The second program is the Canada prenatal nutrition program,
which promotes the birth of healthy babies among high risk
pregnant woman.
We are announcing today that the resources for these two
programs are being increased by almost $100 million over the next
three years.
It will not have escaped notice that the last two programs are
directed to Canada's children. On this the forum was unequivocal.
One of the best health care investments we can make for tomorrow
is to improve the well-being of our children today.
[Translation]
Our children are our most precious resource and ensuring their
health is our greatest responsibility. We know that an important
determinant of the health of our children is the income they have to
live on, as well as the services at their disposal. The question is,
what are we doing about it? The answer, for too many children and
their families, has been not nearly enough.
Child poverty is an issue on which the country is coming
together. Canadians believe the challenge must be addressed. The
Prime Minister has taken a leadership role and he and the premiers,
at the First Ministers' Meeting last June, agreed to make investing
in children a national priority. Social services ministers from
across Canada are making great progress in identifying how we can
move forward together.
We know that the causes of child poverty are many. We know
that not all of them can be easily addressed.
For example, it is very clear that the ultimate solution includes a
growing economy that creates jobs. That goal underpins the
economic course we are on.
We also know that we must take the steps necessary to ensure
that the services are in place that Canada's children require. Those
include, for example, health and dental benefits, remedial help and
good nutrition.
Yet today, for many children, those services are not there. This is
simply not acceptable.
[English]
The fact is the way the current system of services and support to
families works is contrary to common sense. It is also unfair.
At present, in most parts of the country when parents move off
welfare and into the workforce to provide for themselves and their
children, they may see their incomes actually drop. Their children
8296
lose the services provided them under social assistance, services
they need and deserve.
(1725 )
To persist with a system where the price that parents pay for
rejoining the workforce is to see the circumstances of their children
actually worsen is bad social policy. It is bad economic policy.
Going to work should make people's lives better, not worse.
[Translation]
Meeting this challenge requires a national effort, a co-operative
strategy, on the part of both the provinces and the federal
government. Why? Because it is the provinces that are best
equipped to deliver the services and support families need. And it
is the federal government, through the tax system, that has the
capacity to take the first step that will provide the provinces with
the flexibility to devote appropriate funds for these services and
support.
How? Through the provision, by the federal government, of an
equal level of support for all low-income families, a platform on
which the provinces can build.
[English]
Most of the great national programs in this country were built in
stages. This was true of medicare. It was true of seniors pensions.
What is important is to take the crucial first step.
In this budget the federal government is proposing to allocate
$850 million to increase existing spending under the child tax
benefit. This includes $600 million in new funds as of July 1998 in
addition to the $250 million increase in child benefits announced in
the 1996 budget. This means that $6 billion will be provided
annually to Canadian families under a new Canada child tax
benefit.
Let me explain. In last year's budget we explained that funding
for the working income supplement which helps meet some of the
expenses incurred by low income families participating in the
workforce would be doubled in two stages. In this budget to
facilitate the move toward a national child benefit system, the
working income supplement will be further enriched and then
restructured as of July this year.
First, $70 million of the increase in the supplement that was to
be paid next year will be paid a year earlier. This will provide $195
million in new benefits as of this July 1 to over 700,000 families
who earned up to $26,000 a year. One-third of these families are
headed by single parents, usually women.
Next, the allocation of this benefit will be changed to reflect the
number of children a family has, as do the child benefit allowances
provided by the provinces under social assistance.
Finally, as just announced, an additional $600 million per year
will be provided to the new Canada child tax benefit.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, together with the $250 million for the Working
Income Supplement, which is being rolled into the new benefit, this
will mean $850 million per year of further federal support for over
one million children and their families.
(1730)
[English]
The creation of a new child benefit system is a major change
which by its very nature requires moving forward together with the
provinces. Discussions as to detail design are now under way. Part
of the design involves the provinces moving to use the funds freed
by the federal investment to provide children with the support and
the services so needed in their formative years.
For our part we are planning on full implementation no later than
July 1998. However, if based on our discussions with the provinces
it is possible to go sooner, we will do so. There can be no more
worthy effort than a new partnership on behalf of Canada's
children.
Today we are devoting significant new financial resources to
meeting this challenge. Yet this can be but the beginning. We will
provide additional resources as soon as we can afford it. The reason
is very clear. Opportunity denied in childhood too often means
chances lost in adulthood. The future of Canada's children is the
future of our country as well.
Despite the many difficulties that Canadians face in day to day
life, most are able to do so as healthy, able bodied citizens.
However, Canadians with disabilities do not have the same
opportunities. They face real barriers in everyday life. What these
Canadians seek is not special treatment. They seek equal
citizenship and they need our support to secure it.
[Translation]
Today, we are announcing measures that flow from the
recommendations of the Federal Task Force on Disability Issues
and build on the actions we took last year.
[English]
First, disabled workers will now be able to deduct the full cost of
attendant care from their earned income. Second, audiologists will
now be allowed to certify eligibility for the disability tax credit.
[Translation]
Third, the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax
credit is being broadened substantially.
Fourth, we are doubling the limit on part-time attendant care.
8297
[English]
Fifth, we are introducing a refundable tax credit for low income
working Canadians to help cover the high medical expenses that
people with disabilities often face. This measure will provide
additional support to about 280,000 working Canadians with high
medical expenses.
Finally, the government is establishing a $30 million dollar
opportunities fund which will operate in partnership with
non-governmental organizations to provide assistance for
Canadians with disabilities. All in all, the measures outlined
amount to an investment of some $230 million over the next three
years, a step on the way to a better life for many thousands of our
fellow Canadians.
Across Canada millions of Canadians give freely of their time to
support the work of non-profit, voluntary and charitable
organizations. The generosity they show and the good work they do
is invaluable. Their participation as citizens builds and maintains
the quality of life in our communities. Governments have a very
clear obligation to support their involvement and their dedication.
Today we are announcing important measures to encourage
charitable giving. I will highlight two of the more significant
measures.
[Translation]
First, the government proposes to increase the amount of
donations for which the charitable credit can be claimed in any one
year. In this budget, the allowable amount is being raised to 75 per
cent and is being uniformly applied to all charities.
This will particularly help smaller charities such as food banks
and shelters.
(1735)
[English]
Next, as a result of the actions taken in past budgets as well as
this one, for donations of cash, particularly from individuals with
middle incomes, Canada has a more generous tax regime than that
in place in the United States.
However, there is one area where the Canadian system is
significantly less supportive of charities than that of the United
States and that is in the donation of gifts in a form other than cash.
As a result of this differential, Canadian charities have told us
that they have been far less successful in securing large donations
than they otherwise might have been.
Therefore we are proposing tax changes for donations of
publicly traded securities which will put our charities on an equal
footing with those in the United States.
This change is designed to assist charities of all types. This
means the United Way/Centraide, every member of Community
Foundations of Canada, universities, hospitals, for example. This
provision will be reviewed after five years to ensure it is effective
in both increasing donations and ensuring that the resulting
distribution falls fairly and broadly across the spectrum.
[Translation]
Let me set out our policy and our commitment on the issue of
taxation.
Our goal is straightforward. It is to reduce taxes.
The fact is we came into office in 1993, after a decade of
constantly rising taxes. Within a month of our election, I stated that
this was clearly one of the principal reasons why Canadians had
lost faith in government. I further stated that we were determined to
put a halt to spiralling taxes. And we have.
In not one of our budgets has there been an increase in personal
income tax rates. Indeed, in last year's budget, and in this year's,
we have not raised taxes at all. Indeed, we have put in place
selective tax cuts where their positive impact will be greatest.
[English]
As we have outlined today, this budget proposes selective tax
cuts for low income families, for charities, for Canadians with
disabilities, for students and workers pursuing higher education,
and for parents saving for their children's future education.
We have always said that this is the way that we would begin the
process of tax relief. In addition, we are continuing to reduce and
simplify tariffs on imports, a major reform that last year alone
saved Canadian consumers and business $600 million.
Finally, as a result of fiscal restraint, Canadian interest rates
have dropped substantially and this alone has put several billion
dollars in additional purchasing power into the hands of Canadians.
With this as background, I would now like to address the
suggestion by some that this is the time to introduce a broadly
based tax cut.
Our position is quite straightforward. We would like to reduce
personal income taxes more significantly and we will do so as soon
as the country can afford it. But to do so now would be
irresponsible.
Indeed, this debate is possible only because of the progress we
and all Canadians have made in reducing the deficit and restoring
responsible financial management over the last three years.
(1740)
[Translation]
To propose a broadly based tax cut at this time is to pretend that
the attack on the deficit is over. It isn't. It will be soon-but only if
we keep to our course and stand firm.
8298
The issue is not whether we should reduce taxes because we
are ahead of our deficit target. The real issue is whether we can
afford to reduce taxes when we still have a sizeable deficit and
when the debt-to-GDP ratio has not yet declined.
[English]
Let us face it. A broadly based tax reduction today would have to
be paid for in one of two ways: by adding to the deficit or by cutting
government programs further. Our view is clear. Neither one of
these choices is acceptable. We will not break faith with the
Canadian people after all the sacrifices they have made and after all
that we together have been able to achieve. To drive the deficit up
again would be to drive up interest rates. It would be to reduce
confidence and seriously diminish the prospects for jobs and for
growth that we now see. And this we will not do.
Nor will we cut programs further. Yes, we have to keep up our
efforts to root out waste and inefficiency. And yes, we have reduced
spending, but we have done so in a way that preserves the essential
priorities of the nation. Having spent three years looking at
government spending, I can say that cutting billions of dollars
further on top of the cuts that have already been made would have
no other consequence than to put at risk programs that Canadians
want us to protect, the programs that go to the heart of the nation's
very sense of its well-being.
There will be a time to consider a broadly based tax reduction.
But we will not do it until we know we can afford it and until we
know it can be sustained. Our goal must be permanent fiscal
recovery. That is the only assured route to permanent tax relief.
[Translation]
In concluding-
[English]
I just said I was going to conclude and the House leader said
``thank heaven''.
[Translation]
Let me now summarize our plan for a strengthening economy
and a stronger society, a plan acted upon in each of our budgets.
On taking office, we had to first re-establish confidence in the
country's management of its financial affairs. Every one of our
deficit targets has been met-in fact, bettered.
The second element of our plan has been to take action in areas
that have an immediate impact on growth and jobs.
The third element has been to strengthen the foundation of
long-term economic growth and jobs by investing in the knowledge
infrastructure Canada must have.
And the fourth element has been to invest in a stronger
society-in health, in the future of our children.
[English]
Fiscal control, immediate initiatives for jobs and for growth,
longer term investments for a stronger economy, laying the
foundation for a stronger society; these four elements make up our
plan. They are what our previous budgets have been about. They
are what this budget is about.
As I draw to a close, let me just say one thing. We must be very
clear. There can be no going back. The days of over-reaching,
over-spending governments are over. Nor can there be a return to
the time when government would not or could not set priorities
and, as a result, spent too much money on what did not matter and
not enough on what did. What government does with its scarce
resources shows what its values are.
(1745)
This government has set its priorities and with this budget we are
investing in them. While continuing to bring the deficit down, we
are providing substantial new resources to invest in jobs, in health
care, in education, in our children. This is a reflection of our
values.
We have made it very clear that we will not deviate from the
deficit track. However, to those who would use deficit reduction as
a cover, an excuse to make government disappear, let me say that is
not what we believe.
We believe that a government relieved of the deficit burden is
not a government relieved of its responsibilities. It is a government
able to fulfil them.
Our role must be to reach out to those in need. We must be able
to speak for those whose voices are drowned out by the winds of
change and the forces of privilege. The role of government must be
to help the country reach forward to the future.
[Translation]
There is no doubt this has not been an easy decade for
Canadians.
We have faced a painful process of adjustment to free trade and
technological change.
But now, having done what we had to do, we can see that the
worst is behind us, that brighter days lie ahead.
Obviously, we have not yet reached our destination, but we have
made considerable progress, the era of cuts is ending, the finances
of the nation are finally being brought under control, and we are at
the point where we are now able to forge a new destiny for
ourselves.
[English]
In terms of the nation's finances, very clearly our journey is not
over. But equally clear is how far we have come. Far enough most
8299
certainly for us now to come to a shared vision of the kind of
country we want for our children and then to go on to build it.
This vision can never be anchored in the extremes of ideology, of
left wing or right. It must be based on the great balance that has
always been at the heart of our national mission, the balance
between individual freedom and collective responsibility. It must
be based on the knowledge that in a civilized society our public
institutions and the sense of community and common purpose they
represent are as critical to our economic health as are the
operations of the free market.
If we have been forced to spend much of our energy addressing
financial problems inherited from the past, now, with those
problems on the way to resolution, we can focus on the promise of
a future, on the great national challenges that lie ahead.
[Translation]
Let us never come to believe that there is such a thing as a
tolerable level of child poverty or that a growing gap between the
rich and the poor is ever acceptable. Let us never forget the debt we
owe to our seniors.
[English]
Let us leave no stone unturned in our quest for jobs. Let us
recognize that Canada's greatest natural resources do not lie buried
deep in the ground, but in the skills and the talents of those who
walk upon it.
Let us do what is necessary to ensure that Canada not only meets
the standards of innovation that the world has set for today, but that
we set the standards that others must meet tomorrow.
Let us speak loudly and clearly to those who believe we cannot
afford medicare any more. Let us say that if there was ever a time
in our history when we cannot afford not to have medicare, it is
now. Let us go on to strengthen it for all time.
(1750)
There is literally nothing standing in our way. We have it within
ourselves to do all of this and even more. For three years now, our
course has been to provide Canada with a new beginning. The time
has come to turn this beginning into great achievement.
It is time to shed doubt. It is time to turn away from the timid,
from the pessimists, from those who believe we can settle for
second best. It is time to speak to the reality of the national interest.
It is time to say that this will not be a good country for any of us
until it is a good country for all of us.
This is the course we are on. On this course we will stay and on
this course we will stand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-83, an act to provide borrowing authority for the
fiscal year beginning April 1, 1997.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, before I get underway, I would like to acknowledge in the
gallery Mr. Yves Duhaime, the next member for Saint-Maurice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: To get back on track, the budget tabled today by
the Minister of Finance is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is
despicably election oriented.
It is an election budget, because the Minister of Finance missed a
golden opportunity to do extraordinary things, given the
exceptional circumstances. He could have done extraordinary
things in job creation, in really fighting poverty, in providing a real
impetus to long term employment while continuing to aim for zero
deficit in the year 2000.
Instead, the Minister of Finance presented measures that are
blatantly election oriented and a sad reflection on this government.
(1755)
Let us take taxation, for example. Last November, we suggested
to the Minister of Finance, in a detailed analysis with respect to a
review of corporate taxation, ways to tighten up fiscal spending,
unfair advantages for large corporations. This would have allowed
him to recover no less than $3 billion to plow back into SMBs in
support of their job creation effort. What do we see in this budget?
Nothing, in this regard. As for individual taxation, it is exactly the
same thing.
He has been at the head of the federal finance department for
three and a half years and he is unable to produce a single line of
tax reform to make the system more equitable for low and middle
income taxpayers. What they have done is to hang on to the unfair
advantages for the very rich friends of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Minister of Finance had extraordinary leeway. I will
explain. If we compare the projected deficit when he brought down
his last budget and the projections in the present budget together
with the projections from the large Canadian firms that specialize
in this sort of figures, the Minister of Finance had at least $8 billion
to play with in 1997-98.
8300
In other words, while continuing to focus on lowering the
deficit, and eliminating it by the year 2000, as the Government
of Quebec has undertaken to do, the Minister of Finance could
have done extraordinary things. Eight billion dollars worth of
leeway, of flexibility. And the Minister of Finance is not taking
advantage of this.
As far as job creation is concerned, 1.5 million people in Canada
who were officially unemployed, three million if we include those
who stopped looking for work because they were discouraged or
because measures like employment insurance have marginalized
them, three million unemployed could have expected something
tangible in the way of job creation. They were waiting for the
Minister of Finance. They were waiting for the budget.
Instead, the only measure involving new money in this budget
amounts to $25 million. Twenty five million dollars, when the
Minister of Finance, with his $8 billion, could easily have used part
of the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to make a
substantial reduction in premiums. Not 10 cents, which is peanuts,
but a substantial reduction in premiums to give job creation a
boost. He could have done that. This is something we have been
asking him to do for almost a year and a half.
He could also have announced that this decision to put in place
the employment insurance system, a name that is rather odious,
which came into effect last January, he could have taken part of the
surplus generated by the unemployment insurance fund to once
again provide adequate protection for the unemployed.
Instead, the Minister of Finance acted like a manager who is hard
as nails. Not just a zero deficit objective for the year 2000 but a sky
high surplus. The unemployed would just have to wait. As the
Prime Minister said not long ago to the unemployed: ``Good luck''.
That is the Minister of Finance for you.
As for child poverty, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance
and the Prime Minister were all of sudden filled with compassion
for the children they made even poorer during the past three and a
half years with their cuts in social programs totalling $4.5 billion.
All of sudden, they feel compassion for poor children.
So what do they give to poor children? This year, $50 million.
This year, $50 million more in new money for poor children. Next
year, a program worth $600 million in new benefits. Sure, $600
million, but compare that with this government's past record. And
this $600 million is new money that is supposed to come to us after
the election. Suppose they change their minds, the way they did
with the GST?
(1800)
They have changed their mind as well, an unkept promise of
$600 million for daycare; they could change their mind about the
child benefit. A total of $600 million, while they have cut $4.5
billion from social programs. A total of $600 million, while they
are going to take very close to $1.5 billion away from the
unemployed, just by creating employment insurance.
Impoverishing the parents of children living in poverty-is that
what battling poverty is all about?
It is odious to present things to us under that light. They are the
ones responsible for the rise in child poverty, and they are the ones
who were calling for a campaign against poverty in the red book,
where they decried the fact that there were a million poor children
in Canada. Thanks to them, those numbers have risen to 1.5
million; the bulk of the blame lies with them.
This budget sets up a foundation, with all the hoopla, all the
theatrics and window dressing the Minister of Finance is capable
of. A foundation to fund research in areas that include health and
higher education. Here again, an $800 million foundation. The first
question that came to mind was where in the Minister of Finance's
balance sheet did the $800 million fit. Once again, it boils down to
one thing: the Minister of Finance has cut transfer payments to the
provinces for funding post-secondary education and health.
As a result, as a Canadian coalition told us in the Finance
Committee, the cuts the minister has made will mean, for instance,
that in the years to come biomedical research will be cut 30 per
cent. This is the disaster the Minister of Finance has wrought. Then
they come along to tell us that a research foundation is being
created. Yes, created in order to try to pick up the pieces, for they
have realized that they made a mistake, but cannot face up to their
mistakes.
And where, once again, are the $800 million going to come
from? Looking at the forecasts for transfer payments to the
provinces made public last year by the Minister of Finance, and
comparing them with the revised transfers presented by the
Minister of Finance this year, we see that there is a ``slight'' drop of
$800 million in transfers to the provinces. And the research
foundation costs precisely $800 million, so once again it is clear
that the initial funding for this foundation will be created at the
expense of the provinces. That is what the finance minister is up to,
and that is what we should thank him for? This budget is why we
should be telling him he did a fine job? It is a monumental
disgrace.
I will point out, Mr. Speaker, that all these new measures
announced with fanfare, every one of them, are in areas exclusively
under provincial jurisdiction. They all deal with health, education,
income security, which are areas identified in the Constitution as
areas exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
It is quite strange that the Minister of Finance was able to find
money on the side to announce, and make a big production of it,
federal programs identified by a big flag and the words
Government of Canada underneath, but he cannot find a red cent to
maintain the transfer payments that were normally made to the
provinces for social programs. It is really quite strange. Could it be
that he is taking over provincial jurisdictions by squeezing the
provinces out and using the Canadian flag and the words Govern-
8301
ment of Canada, prominently displayed, to score political points?
The answer is yes.
The measures put forward by the Minister of Finance in this
budget are an extension of the Deputy Prime Minister's flag policy,
nothing more.
I would have had much to say about this budget; in fact, we will
have the opportunity to do so in the days to come. Let me tell you
about another important issue which is not mentioned in this
budget: the compensation to which Quebec is entitled for
harmonizing the GST.
Our province harmonized its sales tax with the GST as early as
1991. Today, it is presenting the federal government with a $1.9
billion bill. The federal government signed an harmonization deal
with the maritime provinces, and a cheque was immediately issued.
The maritime provinces got close to $1 billion in compensation for
harmonizing the GST, while Quebec, which did the same in 1991,
did not get anything. For reasons of fairness and justice to Quebec,
we expected the budget to make mention of a first payment to the
Government of Quebec for harmonizing the GST, but there is no
such mention.
In closing, I would like to quote the Minister of Finance, who
said in his budget in brief, and I quote: ``What government does
with scarce resources shows what its values are''. This budget
shows the government's cynicism, blatantly election oriented
strategies and mockery of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.
I would like to move the motion to adjourn the budget debate. I
move, seconded by my colleague for Rimouski-Témiscouata:
That the debate be now adjourned.
(On motion of Mr. Loubier, debate adjourned.)
The Speaker: It being 6.05 p.m., the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.)