CONTENTS
Monday, October 21, 1996
Bill C-297. Motion for second reading 5447
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5447
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5454
Bill C-6. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5456
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 5464
Bill C-51. Motion for second reading 5464
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 5473
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5476
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5476
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5477
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5478
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5478
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5478
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5478
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5478
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5479
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5480
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5480
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5481
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5482
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5482
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5482
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5482
Bill C-63. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5484
Motion for concurrence in 38th report 5486
Bill C-51. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5486
Division on motion deferred 5487
Bill C-49. Motion for second reading 5487
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5503
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5508
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5511
Bill C-5. Consideration resumed of report stage 5513
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 32; Nays: 146 5513
Motion for concurrence 5514
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 145; Nays, 35 5514
Bill C-60. Consideration resumed of motion 5515
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 130; Nays, 50 5515
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 5516
Bill C-26. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 5516
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 133; Nays, 47 5516
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 5517
Bill C-29. Consideration resumed of third reading 5517
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 47;Nays, 133 5517
Bill C-51. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5518
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 164; Nays, 15 5519
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 5519
5447
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 21, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved that Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis
David Riel, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I think that today is a great day for our
country as we begin debate at second reading of Bill C-297, an act
to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.
In presenting this bill, I was not carried away by my imagination.
I am following in the path of a number of colleagues from different
political parties who have, over a period of many years, taken
various steps that should help us finally bring about a resolution to
a longstanding paradox: Riel has been recognized as one of the
Fathers of Confederation, but, legally, he remains a criminal
sentenced for high treason.
Louis David Riel played a very important role in the history of
Canada. Among other things, he is considered one of the founders
of the province of Manitoba, and the person principally responsible
for its subsequent entry into Canadian Confederation. He was, at
the time, a very strong voice for the west. Without his intervention,
the federal government of the time would have turned the present
western provinces into territories run by governors appointed by
Ottawa.
(1105)
It was thanks to him that Canada pushed back its frontiers to the
Far North and then to the Pacific. In 1871, he organized the
resistance to the American invasion that allowed the country to
consolidate its borders. He was the first to defend the rights of the
Métis, the first nations and francophones.
The House of Commons recognized Louis David Riel's, and I
quote: ``deep devotion to his people and his willingness to pay the
ultimate price of his life to help his people''.
The question of Louis David Riel has quite a history in the House
of Commons. Let us take a brief look at the various actions taken.
On September 23, 1983, the Conservative member for Edmonton
East, William Yurko, tabled Bill C-691, an act to grant a pardon to
Louis David Riel. On March 14, he tried again with Bill C-228, but
with no more success.
On June 28, 1984, there was Bill C-257 and, on December 13,
1984, Bill-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot on a point of order.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to ask my
colleagues from the Reform Party to keep the noise down a bit
while my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is
speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sympathetic to the
request, but it is not a point of order as such. The House notes the
intervention of the hon. member and we hope that the debate will
go on according to the parliamentary practice of the House. The
hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): With Bill
C-257 on June 28, 1984 and Bill C-217 on December 13, 1984, Les
Benjamin, the NDP member representing Regina-Lumsdon,
called for the guilty sentence against Louis David Riel to be
overturned.
On November 28, 1985, on the occasion of the hundredth
anniversary of the hanging of Louis Riel, the hon. member for
Hamilton East, the present Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, asked the House for a posthumous pardon for
Louis David Riel.
I would like to read what the hon. member said on November 28,
1985, and to adopt the words as my own: ``We are now in
November and one hundred years have gone by since the hanging
of Louis Riel. I now ask that this Conservative government
exonerate the victim of the conspiracy of another Conservative
government.
For one hundred years, politicians and historians have shown
that the government purposely misrepresented the events known
today as the Riel Rebellion. Letters and diaries of the participants
5448
and observers reveal the use of unethical tactics to obtain political
benefits from the rebellion.
In a letter from the Marquis of Landsdowne to Prime Minister
Macdonald on August 18, 1885, the Marquis wrote: ``You regard
the recent outbreak in the Northwest as merely `domestic trouble',
which should not be elevated to the rank of a rebellion. I am afraid
we have all of us been doing what we could to elevated it to the
rank of a rebellion and with so much success that we cannot now
reduce it to the rank of a common riot''.
The reason for the Macdonald government's promotion of a
common riot to a full blown rebellion was to win additional
funding for the near bankrupt Canadian Pacific Railway. While the
CPR benefited from the events of the summer of 1985, a Métis
leader was hanged. Louis David Riel, who died unnecessarily,
deserves to be exonerated by the Government and recognized as a
victim of wrongdoing.''
On September 16, 1987, another NDP member, Nelson Riis,
representing Kamloops, adopted the idea of his colleague as his
own, and tabled Bill C-265. On October 13, 1989, Bob Skelly, the
member for Comox-Alberni, also NDP, tabled a motion calling
for recognition of Louis David Riel as one of the Fathers of
Confederation.
(1110)
On March 9, 1992, the House of Commons was to take an
important step. On that day, the hon. member for Yellowhead, Joe
Clark, who was then Minister of Constitutional Affairs in Brian
Mulroney's Conservative government, obtained the unanimous
consent of the House for the following resolution:
Pursuant to order made Monday, March 9, 1992, the following motion was
deemed moved and adopted:
That this House take note that the Métis people of Rupert's Land and the North
Western Territory through democratic structures and procedures took effective steps
to maintain order and protect the lives, rights and property of the people of the Red
River;
That this House take note that, in 1870, under the leadership of Louis Riel, the
Métis of the Red River adopted a List of Rights;
That this House take note that, based on the List of Rights, Louis Riel negotiated
the terms for the admission of Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory into
the Dominion of Canada;
That this House take note that these terms for admission form part of the
Manitoba Act;
That this House take note that, after negotiating Manitoba's entry into
Confederation, Louis Riel was thrice elected to the House of Commons;
That this House take note that, in 1885, Louis Riel paid with his life for his
leadership in a movement which fought for the maintenance of the rights and
freedoms of the Métis people;
That this House take note that the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms
the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the Métis;
That this House take note that since the death of Louis Riel, the Métis people have
honoured his memory and continued his purposes in their honorable striving for the
implementation of those rights;
That this House recognize the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder
of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation; and
That this House support by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and
practice, of the constitutional rights of the Métis people.
On November 16, 1994, I followed the lead of my NDP
colleagues and introduced Bill C-288, requesting the revocation of
the conviction of Louis David Riel.
On February 22, 1996, in answer to a letter from Mr. Ron Swain,
President of the Ontario Métis Nation, the Minister of Natural
Resources, who was also responsible for Métis issues, noted that a
number of steps had already been taken to recognize Louis Riel's
contribution to Canada's development: stamp offerings, tributes in
the form of statues and cultural performances, and a resolution
passed by the House in 1982, recognizing Riel's unique and
historic role as a founder of Manitoba. She noted the $150,000
contribution by the federal government for the new statue of Riel in
front of the Manitoba legislature. The minister ended her letter by
saying, and I quote: ``I would nevertheless wish to assure you that
the federal government will continue, in the future, to listen to the
views of the Métis''.
On May 12, 1996, at the unveiling ceremonies of the new statue
of Louis Riel in front of the Manitoba legislature, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, said,
and I quote: ``For all Canadians, Riel was a Father of
Confederation. Promises were made to the Métis that were not
kept. As long as I am in a position of power, I will try to make sure
that the Métis have full and equal participation in this country''.
On June 4, 1996, I made another attempt and introduced Bill
C-297, again to request the revocation of the conviction of Louis
David Riel.
Mr. Ron Swain, President of the Ontario Métis Nation, wrote to
the Prime Minister asking him to support the bill. The Minister of
Natural Resources, answering this letter on behalf of the Prime
Minister, said, and I quote:
[English]
``As part of the process of healing the wounds created by the
historical events surrounding the life of Louis Riel to which you
have referred, please be assured that the federal government
remains committed to pursuing various avenues to recognize Mr.
Riel's place in Canadian history.''
5449
(1115)
[Translation]
The Indian affairs minister replied, and I quote:
[English]
I understand that my colleague, the hon. Anne McLellan who, as federal
interlocutor, deals with Métis issues, will be writing to you in response to your
petition to her and the Prime Minister on this issue to assure you that the federal
government remains committed to pursuing various avenues to further recognize
Mr. Riel's place in Canada's history. To that commitment I should like to add my
own personal assurance that I will be supportive of these initiatives as they are
developed.
[
Translation]
The Secretary of State for Training and Youth replied to Mr.
Swain in a handwritten note, and I quote:
[English]
Further to your letter of June 7, 1996 on the issue of Louis Riel and setting the
record straight, I will get back to you with a further update on what is happening. I
am committed to doing something soon.
[
Translation]
But who is this man who, 152 years after his birth and 111 years
after his death by hanging, is still talked about with so much
passion?
Louis Riel was born in St-Boniface on October 22, 1844 as the
son of Louis Riel, a Metis, and Julie de Lagimonière, the daughter
of the first white woman to give birth in the North-West. He was
the oldest of 11 children in a very close and deeply religious family.
His grandfather had settled at Red River at the beginning of the
19th century and married a Metis woman named Marguerite
Boucher.
A gifted child, he studied at the Petit Séminaire de Montréal
from 1858 to 1865. Louis David Riel was a good student, always
among the first in his class. He learned Greek, Latin, French,
English and Cree. He also received an education outside of school
since he lived at the Manoir de Terrebonne belonging to Mrs.
Masson, a high society lady who owned a complete library that had
been built up by the famous Louis Joseph Papineau.
After his father died, Riel quit school and worked at Sir George
Étienne Cartier's law firm. Two or three years later, he returned to
Red River where he would play an important role in protecting the
rights not only of the Metis but of all the citizens of Red River. At
that time, the colony's population was estimated at 12,000 and far
from homogeneous. In addition to a majority of French speaking
Roman Catholic Metis, who engaged in buffalo hunting, there were
English speaking Anglican Metis, who worked the fields, and
Scottish Presbyterian settlers.
Despite their different languages, religions and lifestyles, these
groups had learned to live together in a bilingual climate, but
Ottawa's territorial ambitions combined with the attitude of some
newcomers would upset this delicate balance. These extremists'
strategy was to provoke a civil war in the colony and blame the
Metis so as to destroy their political power.
As a result of his two fights in 1869 and 1885, Louis David Riel
became the symbol of a linguistic and cultural minority whose
survival rights were ignored for a long time and are still threatened,
and of the struggle waged by Western settlers who were concerned
above all with being free and communing with nature so as to
prevent civilization from disrupting their lifestyle.
Unfortunately, Riel has sometimes been portrayed as a traitor or
a madman. He was a founder of Manitoba and was elected three
times to the House of Commons. He was a spokesperson for his
community and fought racism by championing human rights.
Basically, Louis Riel was hanged all those years ago because he
had fought for rights which are now generally recognized as
legitimate: the right of any people to govern itself, with universal
suffrage and responsible government; the right of the Metis to own
property, which much be recognized and respected; the recognition
of the Metis as a nation and a distinct society; the right of the Metis
to have their own language and religion, a right recognized by
granting bilingual status to their laws and courts, and a dual
denominational school system.
The rights claimed by this native leader at the time have, for the
most part, been inscribed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of 1982. Riel fought vigorously for the rights of the
Metis and successfully conveyed the concerns the first western
Canadians had. He embodied the dreams of the Metis and instilled
in all native peoples the desire to fight for their dreams and beliefs.
(1120)
A growing number of western Canadians are realizing that Riel
was the first to defend western Canada against the central
government and a forerunner of the movements opposing central
Canada's economic and political power.
We are not asking that history be rewritten. What is done is done,
and Riel is dead. But the memory of Louis Riel is alive and, for that
reason, he must be cleared. Precedents exist around the world
where innocent victims, often political opponents sentenced for
reasons of state, have been pardoned.
In the letter containing his last wishes, Louis David Riel asked to
be given a simple funeral and surrounded with the comfort of
religion. ``Far be it from me and my mortal remains to seek
vengeance. I forgive those who have been so unfair to me''.
Motions to pardon Louis Riel have been tabled in this House by
Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois members. On
March 10, 1992, this House unanimously passed a resolution
recognizing that ``Louis riel paid with his life for his leadership in
a movement which fought for the maintenance of the rights and
freedoms of the Métis people''. All the parties represented in this
5450
Parliament must now unite not to restore the great Canadian that
Louis David Riel was to life but to restore the dignity he was
stripped of.
I would like to conclude with this poem by Manie Tobie:
Fils d'un rugueux pays, écoute, prête l'oreille,
Jamais tu ne croirais une chose pareille.
Certes, après tout ce temps, la terre parle de toi.
Et ton souvenir cause partout l'émoi.
Tu passes pour un héros, mais plus souvent rebelle.
La mention de ton nom fait surgir la querelle,
Ou bien l'admiration. Difficile labeur?
Resteras-tu vaincu? Deviendras-tu vainqueur?
Se rappelant encore, on traîne ta mémoire,
On te rend innocent en admettant ta gloire,
Hélas! beaucoup trop tard arrive l'amnistie.
Ceux qui au bout des ans t'auront enfin connu,
Regretteront toujours que tu fus le pendu.
Si ce n'était pas toi, qui donc commit le crime,
Dont tu fus par erreur l'innocente victime?
Le sang crie, cher riel: la force est dans l'union.
Et ceux qui croient en toi te donnent encore raison.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in today's debate and I want to
congratulate the hon. member who just spoke on this important
initiative.
[English]
I take pleasure in addressing this House on a matter very dear to
the hearts of the Metis people of this country and one that is of
significant importance to all Canadians. Clearly it is a matter of
great interest to this government as well. I applaud what appears to
be at first glance a laudable objective.
[Translation]
-to recognize the injustices suffered by Louis Riel and to
correct the situation.
However, a number of questions were raised. Can we actually do
what is being proposed here today? Can the legislative branch of
the government overlook a judicial decision? This is a
constitutional issue. Is this bill supported by a majority of Metis
people in Canada?
The hon. member's initiative is laudable but, given the Bloc's
vision, some wonder whether it is a ploy to make the agenda of the
Bloc and the Parti Quebecois more palatable. Is the hon. member a
pawn for the separatists forces? I am not saying this to be mean.
However, we are well aware that the Bloc's vision is different from
that of the other political parties. This issue must be raised here in
this House, otherwise we would be denying reality.
[English]
Parliament is being asked today to do something which it may or
may not be able to do, to revoke the conviction of Louis Riel. It can
do so, but is it constitutionally solid? Will it stand? Could it be
contested? Those are questions we need to raise.
(1125 )
I have conducted considerable research in this area. I have
discussed Louis Riel and the constitutional implications of what is
being proposed with the finest experts in the land. There is a great
deal of debate. It seems, according to certain authorities, that a
legislative revocation of the conviction may in fact be invalid. It
may be unconstitutional.
It would appear, according to those same sources, that it would
be highly unlikely that a judicial overturning would stand up in the
courts or would stand up to that kind of challenge. It might be
improper since it may be a breach of the constitutional divide
between the legislature and the judiciary.
Hon. members know that some eight private members' bills
have been tabled in the House since 1978 on the matter of Louis
Riel. A considerable amount of parliamentarians' energy continues
to be expended trying to find ways to heal the unfortunate events of
the past while also trying to find appropriate ways to honour Louis
Riel's contribution to the building of Confederation.
I have been among those who have been proud to speak out on
this matter. For example, in 1995 while debating this issue, I
suggested that we form an all-party committee with an MP from
each political party to determine whether this bill was feasible or
whether there was a more appropriate option. I was not able to find
unanimity to proceed in that way. I wanted to discuss what might
be the best course of action for which we could find unanimous
consent.
I have worked with certain authorities such as the Library of
Parliament. I have held discussions with people of St. Boniface, my
riding, where Louis Riel is buried, with ministers of justice and the
solicitor general on this issue, including our senior minister for
western Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I also had the opportunity to speak on this matter in 1992 when I
supported the resolution:
[Translation]
``That this House recognize the unique and historic role of Louis Riel as a founder
of Manitoba and his contribution in the development of Confederation; and that this
House support by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and practice, of the
constitutional rights of the Metis people''.
5451
[English]
I supported this motion. I even requested that we take a further
step.
[Translation]
I said that, in a spirit of justice, we should go a step further and
``recognize Louis Riel not only as the founder of Manitoba but as a
Father of Confederation''.
As you can see, I strongly support the idea of clearing Louis
Riel, and I support the principle underlying the bill. However, as I
said earlier, I am somewhat concerned about where it could lead us.
I find it ironical that a political party has once again tabled a
private member's bill, allegedly to settle the issue of Louis Riel's
conviction, but which essentially seeks to take advantage of the
circumstances surrounding this case to possibly build a wall
between English and French Canadians, something that would be
unfortunate.
I am not the only one concerned. In a letter to the Prime Minister
regarding this bill, the president of the Metis National Council,
Gérald Morin, said, and I quote:
[English]
First of all, there is a reference. I have it here and I want to make
sure I read it correctly.
He says that he has been encouraged and pleased by the
productive dialogue that has been initiated and promoted by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources
covering a wide range of Metis concerns, including the exoneration
of Louis Riel and the appropriate recognition of Riel as a Father of
Confederation. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated that he
wishes this dialogue be about correcting the wrongs of the past with
respect to the Metis people. At the unveiling of the Louis Riel
statue in Winnipeg on May 12, 1996 he added: ``Promises were
made to the Metis that were not kept. As long as I am in a position
of power I will try to make sure the Metis have full and equal
participation in this country''.
The letter from the Metis National Council, written by Gerald
Morin, continues: ``We have grave concerns about the potential
negative impact of the bill. While the goal of the bill appears
positive, we are concerned about its potential use as a tool by those
who are intent on breaking up Canada. To in any way allow this to
occur would be a travesty to the vision of Louis Riel, which was for
a strong and united Canada and a homeland where the rights of all
people, including French language rights, were assured.''
(1130)
Members will know that Louis Riel negotiated the terms of
admission of Manitoba into Confederation, the Manitoba Act,
which provided for certain guarantees for Metis people, including
schooling and religious rights as well as recognition of French and
English language rights. The rights of other citizens were also
clearly set out.
[Translation]
Such was Louis Riel's vision of a united country in which all
would participate equally.
[English]
Louis Riel was then elected three times by acclamation to the
House of Commons.
[Translation]
Riel was an eloquent speaker. He was a staunch protector of the
rights of the Metis and, in fact, of all members of the community,
aboriginal and non-aboriginal, anglophones and francophones.
[English]
Louis Riel's fate has long been a heavy burden for his family and
for all Metis people. We must find a solution and a way to
recognize his importance and the injustices that he faced.
Is this the way to proceed? I do not know. We need a solution that
would be supported by all parties and by the Metis people, for this
is ultimately, I believe, what we should all want, the rehabilitation
of Louis Riel. What does it mean? It means recognizing the fact
that he would not have been convicted of treason had he received a
trial according to the standards of fairness normally upheld.
Clearly we could say that. We could come to some agreement and
the Metis people of Canada would agree that is so.
[Translation]
His role in the history of Canada is of such importance that he
deserves to be called a Father of Confederation. This is what
``clearing'' means. This is what Metis people and Riel's
descendants want. Surely, we have the authority here, as a political
structure, to do precisely what I just suggested, perhaps in more
eloquent terms, and to rehabilitate Mr. Riel, the Father of
Manitoba, to be sure, but also a Father of Confederation, of
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-297 to revoke the conviction of Louis
Riel.
In discussing the merits of this bill, there is one thing to which
we can all agree, and that is the important contribution made by
Louis Riel to the building of this great nation.
Louis Riel played a key role and was an important contributor to
Confederation. Louis Riel had a vision for this country over 100
years ago. He was a man of action, a man who looked to the future.
If Mr. Riel were with us today he would say: ``Let us look to the
future. Let us build a society where the Metis people can take their
rightful place in society, standing shoulder to shoulder with all
5452
others''. He would be urging us to focus our energies on finding
solutions to our present day problems and building for a better
future.
With that in mind, I would like to spend a few minutes talking
about what the federal government is doing today to advance the
interests of Metis and off reserve aboriginal people. As many
members are aware, the Minister of Natural Resources fulfils the
role of federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians in
addition to her other ministerial duties. In that role the minister acts
as a point of first contact and where necessary as a facilitator
between Metis and non-status Indians and the appropriate federal
ministers and departments.
(1135 )
In addition to that role, she oversees the federal government's
participation in the tripartite self-government process, which is the
forum being used to negotiate self-government with Metis and off
reserve aboriginal groups within the context of the Canadian
Constitution.
As many members are aware, on August 10, 1995 the federal
government announced its approach to the implementation of the
inherent right and the negotiation of self-government for aboriginal
people, including Metis and off reserve aboriginal people. The
federal approach contemplates various practical ways of
implementing self-government for Metis and off reserve aboriginal
people, including the development of self-government institutions
providing services, the devolution of programs and services and
forms of public government all responsive to the needs of the Metis
and of off reserve aboriginal people.
The federal approach has provided a stronger mandate for the
tripartite self-government process which will allow for progress to
be made on the implementation of self-government.
In that regard, I note that self-government processes are
currently under way in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
There have also been some preliminary discussions on the
possibility of beginning an urban self-government process in
Winnipeg.
As part of the self-government framework announced last
August, the federal government also committed to cost share with
the provinces the enumeration of Metis and the identification of
Indian people living off a land base or off reserve. Since the
announcement of the federal approach the federal government has
participated in and cost shared the development of a proposal for a
Metis enumeration along with the province of Saskatchewan and
the Metis Society of Saskatchewan.
I understand the federal government is prepared to cost share this
enumeration. Enumeration is very important as the information
provided by an enumeration would prove very valuable in the
implementation of self-government for Metis and off reserve
aboriginal people.
Before closing, I would like to mention one more important
program through which the federal government works with Metis
groups in an effort to meet their objectives. For the past several
years the federal government has participated in bilateral processes
respectively with the Metis National Council and the Congress of
Aboriginal Peoples. Like the tripartite self-government process,
the bilateral process is also managed from the federal perspective
by the Minister for Natural Resources.
The bilateral processes provide a forum for the congress and the
council to discuss issues of utmost importance to them in their
relationship with federal departments. The bilateral processes
generally focus on issues such as self-government, access to
program funding and the devolution of programs and services.
In closing, I would like to return to my initial comments about
Louis Riel, about the kind of man he was and what he would do in
our situation. I believe he would urge us to keep our focus on the
future and to continue to build on these self-government initiatives
which I have just described.
Louis Riel was a builder, within his community, within his
province, within the nation of Canada. Indeed, Louis Riel was a
member of Parliament, a man publicly commended by the
Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba for his assistance to Canada in
repelling an American invasion. He was working to build a society
where his people could contribute to the important decisions that
confront us all in building a better future.
(1140 )
The federal approach to self-government, which I outlined
earlier in my speech, of working together with the Metis people and
off reserve aboriginal people will finally begin to finish the task
that Riel began many years ago.
For many years within society walls have divided the aboriginal
and non-aboriginal communities. When we look back in history we
see the efforts of Louis Riel and others to tear down those walls and
create a society where all people, regardless of race, religion or
language worked together to build a great nation.
Today we must remember that legacy and take that message to
heart as we continue to build this nation. We must continue with the
Canadian values of tolerance, justice, fairness, working together,
sharing and generosity to all people. Canada is big enough for all
people regardless of the differences. By working together and
seeking to understand the tragedies of the past, the divisions that
exist will be avoided. We will be able to begin the process of
5453
tearing down the walls and building an inclusive society where all
people can feel fully and properly a part of that society.
The federal and provincial governments together with all people
within the nation working together will be able to build this great
society, a society that Louis Riel had in mind, the society that he
fought hard to protect, a society that he wanted to see, a society
where all of us could live in shared dignity and mutual respect.
Let us not forget the work of Louis Riel. Let us not forget his
vision. Let us not forget the work he did to bring this about. Let us
never let go of the dream of a country where Canadian values will
be first and foremost in all of our minds. Let us, in all we say and
do, honour the memory of a very courageous man, a leader and a
true Canadian.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege and an honour this morning to be able to speak about
revoking the conviction of Louis David Riel for high treason and
restoring his memory here in this House.
I listened to the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata, who has, in my view, done a good job of
laying out for us the life-I was going to say the work-of Louis
Riel. I have also just listened to the speech of my Liberal colleague,
who, in his turn, has emphasized the important human qualities
shown by Louis Riel during his unfortunately all too brief
existence.
But, at the same time, I cannot but deplore the fact that the
member who should perhaps, of all the members in this House,
have the greatest interest in this subject, the member from
Manitoba, has not taken the lead in supporting the bill before us
with more vigour, resolve and determination.
(1145)
What is this bill about? I think it would be appropriate at this
time to reread it for the benefit of the House and also for the benefit
of viewers. This is a bill to revoke the conviction of Louis David
Riel.
Louis David Riel, it should be remembered, was a member of the
House of Commons for the electoral district of Provencher from
1873 to 1874. He was convicted of high treason on August 1, 1885,
sentenced to death, and hanged on November 16, 1885 at Regina,
then part of the North West Territories.
The second whereas recalls that, notwithstanding his conviction,
Louis David Riel has become a symbol and a hero to successive
generations of Canadians who have, through their governments,
honoured and commemorated him in specific projects and actions.
Finally, the third whereas of this bill points out quite rightly that it
is consistent with this recognition that the conviction of Louis
David Riel be now revoked.
The bill would therefore have Her Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the other Chamber and of this Chamber,
revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel for the offence of high
treason, while recognizing that nothing in this Act shall be
construed as limiting or reflecting in any manner Her Majesty's
royal prerogative of mercy or the Letters Patent Constituting the
Office of Governor General relating to pardons.
This is not, as you know, the first time this subject has been
raised in the House. I would like to point out that, on November 28,
1985, the Liberal member for Hamilton East asked the
Conservative government of the day, through the Speaker of this
House, to exonerate the victim of the conspiracy of another
Conservative government, that victim of course being Louis Riel.
That hon. member, who is still sitting in this House, more or less
committed herself in 1985 to supporting the pardon of Louis Riel.
Now once again she has the opportunity of putting her good
intentions of 11 years ago into deeds. I trust that, even if her seat is
not on the line, this time, she will follow up on it.
Just to show how important this case is, and how often it has
been brought up in the House, as well as to stress the point that this
ought to be the very last time it is brought up in the House-and the
only way that can happen is if this bill is passed-may I point out
that, in the past, many other people in the House have shared the
same concern we have today.
On September 23, 1983, William Yurko, who was then the
member for Edmonton East, introduced a bill to grant a pardon to
Louis Riel. That bill was not followed up on. He tried again on
March 14, 1984.
On June 28, 1984, Les Benjamin, the NDP member for
Regina-Lumsdon, called for the conviction of Louis David Riel to
be revoked.
(1150)
On December 13, 1984, Mr. Benjamin tried again, followed on
September 16, 1987 by another NDP member who is still among
us, the hon. member for Kamloops, who again introduced a bill to
revoke the conviction of Louis Riel.
Today we have a bill introduced on November 16, 1994, and here
we are nearly two years later. The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata is now proposing a bill to revoke the
convicition of Louis Riel.
Louis Riel was a great man in his day, a man of conviction, a
humanist. He held a vision, not only for the Métis people, but for
all Canadians from sea to sea. It seems that he was not given the
attention he deserved. The tenor of the times precipitated events,
and trapped him in a process which, as others have already said,
was a mistake on all sides but not, most certainly, an act of treason.
What took place was an error.
5454
On many occasions over many years, the governments of all
of the provinces have examined this issue. Many have adopted
resolutions or motions aimed at his rehabilitation. But this House
has not yet done what must be done. We find ourselves today with
an opportunity to finally correct the course of history.
I trust that the member from Manitoba who referred just now to
letting some time pass will instead pick up the torch and be the first
to lead all of us in the House to rehabilitate the memory of Louis
David Riel.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me
say at the outset that I can understand the sentiments lying behind
Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.
Perhaps the most recognizable name in all of Canadian history,
he was certainly the greatest leader ever produced by the Metis, the
people whose history is woven together with that of western
Canada. Yet modern historical research has demonstrated that Riel,
in spite of his undeniable greatness, was afflicted with tragic flaws.
To revoke his conviction more than 100 years after the fact glosses
over those flaws in favour of a historically inaccurate portrait of the
man and his age.
Riel's greatest failing was his monumental vanity which is
illustrated in a curious way in my hon. friend's bill. That bill is
entitled ``an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel''. In
fact Riel was not baptised with the middle name David. Rather he
adopted that name when he was about 30 years old and he always
wrote it in quotation marks.
He used the signature Louis David Riel to express his conviction
that he was like the David of the Old Testament, a sacred priest
king. Riel also called himself the ``prophet of the new world'' and
``prophet, priest king and infallible pontiff''. He claimed to be the
divinely inspired founder of a new religion which was to be a sort
of higher stage of Roman Catholicism for the new world.
Many of those who knew him thought he had gone insane when
he started to issue these revelations. In fact, he was confined to
insane asylums in the province of Quebec for almost two years
from 1876 to 1878. Whether or not he was insane in the medical
sense, he clearly saw himself as a divinely inspired prophet. This
self-understanding was central to the movement he led in the
Saskatchewan valley in 1885.
He began the uprising by climbing the steps of the mission
church at Batoche and proclaiming ``Rome has fallen''. The
governing council of the Metis of Batoche declared Riel to be their
official prophet with a right ``to direct the priests''. Even as the
Canadian expeditionary force was advancing on Batoche, Riel and
his council were debating religious innovations such as changing
the sabbath from Sunday to Saturday.
(1155)
As I have said, opinions differ about his sanity. Several
psychiatrists have written that he was mentally ill. Contemporary
historians tend to see him more as a religious enthusiast and
millenarian leader. Either way, little would be served by revoking
his conviction in 1996. We can hardly argue that religious
enthusiasts are not subject to the law. If we say he should not have
been convicted because he was not responsible by reason of
insanity, what message are we sending to the Metis? Does it help
them if we label their greatest leader a lunatic?
From a historical point of view, there is little doubt that in the
context of his own day, Riel was properly convicted of treason. Let
me expand on four reasons why I draw this conclusion.
First, there is no doubt that Riel encouraged his followers to
rebel against the crown. In addition to the testimony of many eye
witnesses, we have documents in his own hand. Perhaps the most
interesting is a short sentence that he wrote in French: ``La justice
ordonne de prendre les armes''. One of his secretaries, William
Henry Jackson, translated it into English: ``Justice commands to
take up arms'', boldly underlining the phrase ``to take up arms''.
These and similar texts will be found in the five volume set The
Collected Writings of Louis David Riel published by the University
of Alberta Press and edited by a team under the direction of the
renowned historian George Stanley, who served as lieutenant
governor of New Brunswick and who also designed Canada's flag.
There is no legal defence for taking up arms against the
sovereign. If the movement is successful, a new legal order is
created but if it fails, the instigators will be charged with treason.
That is why the great leaders of the American Revolution pledged
to each other ``their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour''.
They knew they were taking a risk that transcended legality and
that they would pay the supreme price if they failed. Louis Riel
despite his failings had some of that same kind of courage. It does
no credit to his memory to come asking for a posthumous pardon.
I could add that my hon. friends in the official opposition may
wish to keep all this in mind if they believe, as the Government of
Quebec has said, that they can take Quebec out of Canada in
defiance of the law and the Constitution.
Second, Riel's motives in fomenting the northwest rebellion
were mixed to say the least. Toward the end of 1884 he entered into
behind the scenes negotiations with the federal government,
volunteering to leave Canada if the government would pay him a
large sum of money. He felt he was owed at least $100,000 as an
indemnity for past services to Canada, but offered to leave for
$35,000. He told this to Father Alexis André, Superior of the
5455
Oblate Missionaries at St. Laurent, and to D. H. MacDowall,
member of the Northwest Territories Council from the district of
Lorne.
According to MacDowall, Riel said that if the government would
consider his personal claims against them and pay him a certain
amount in settlement of these claims, he would arrange to make his
illiterate and unreasoning followers well satisfied with almost any
settlement of their claims for land grants the government might be
willing to make. Riel turned to violence only after it became clear
that the government would not give him any money.
Third, it is often said that taking up arms in the northwest
rebellion was the last resort of desperate men. Their peaceful
attempts to have their grievances resolved had all been ignored by
an uncaring government.
The truth however is very different. The Metis settlers of the
Batoche area did have claims to press. Many of them had settled
along the banks of the South Saskatchewan River while the survey
was going on and they wanted their lots resurveyed from the
standard rectangular system to long, narrow river lots. Also, they
wanted a distribution of land and scrip for the Metis of the
northwest similar to what had been done in Manitoba. The
government was in the process of dealing with both claims.
During the winter of 1884-85 the Department of the Interior sent
an official to make a special study of the river lot claims along the
South Saskatchewan River and the cabinet appointed a commission
to enumerate claims for land and scrip across the northwest. It was
the news of these measures that prompted Riel to turn to violence.
He realized that if the government dealt with the real life
grievances of the local people, his own future as a political leader
would be over.
Finally, Riel got a fair trial within the context of his own time
and place. He was tried before a stipendiary magistrate and a jury
of six as required by the Northwest Territories Act. There was no
legal mechanism for trying him in any other way.
Wellwishers in Quebec paid for him to be represented by
outstanding talented lawyers. One, François-Xavier Lemieux, later
became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Quebec. The other,
Charles Fitzpatrick, served as chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada. Riel also had two appeals, to the court of Queen's bench of
Manitoba sitting en banc and to the judicial committee of the privy
council in London.
(1200 )
Louis Riel was a complex man. In speaking against the bill I
have been forced to dwell on the negative side of his character and
career. Of course there was a positive side as well. Riel saw that the
days of the fur trade and buffalo hunt were coming to an end. He
wanted to make a place for the Metis in the new society growing in
the west. He saw his people not as aboriginal wards of the crown
but as British subjects or American citizens, depending on which
side of the 49th parallel they lived.
He wanted them to settle down as independent, self-sufficient
farmers, not to be dependent on government handouts. He
campaigned vigorously against the whiskey trade that was so
debilitating to all native people.
There are some things in Riel's legacy to admire and it is not
surprising that the Metis people of today revere his memory, but
nothing will be gained by this legislative attempt to rewrite history.
Let us leave history to the historians.
As members of Parliament, let us try to live up to the standard
that was laid down by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau when
he said, quoting John F. Kennedy: ``We will be just in our time''. It
is hard enough to do that without trying to take on the fruitless task
of second guessing the justice of another era.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have only two minutes
left for private members' business. I will now recognize the hon.
member for Québec-Est.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Louis Riel question is a very emotional one for me. As I listened to
the speech by the hon. member for the Reform Party, I wondered
whether he really knows his history, because the judgment made
against Louis Riel in 1885 was clearly unjust.
Louis Riel was led before a jury of six anglophones and tried by
an anglophone judge in Regina, as Donald Smith drove the last
spike for the transcontinental railway. In that same year, French
was banned in Manitoba. Louis Riel was, in fact, the victim of a
miscarriage of justice that reflected the attitude to francophones at
the time. People in Quebec knew that Louis Riel's cause was just
and that by the last battle of Batoche, Riel was no longer a sane
man.
He was a victim of his own cause, just though it was, and
Quebecers and francophones across the country were outraged by
the decision made by a jury of six anglophones, negating the rights
of Louis Riel. Despite the uproar this caused in Quebec, even John
A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time, said:
[English]
``All the dogs in Quebec can bark, but Louis Riel shall hang''.
[Translation]
John A. Macdonald said that. It was a way to punish the French
fact in the west, although the rights of francophones were
supposedly guaranteed. I may also point out to my dear colleagues
from
5456
western Canada that subsequently the rights of francophones in
Manitoba were abolished for one hundred years.
The conviction of Louis Riel was unjust, unacceptable and
unpardonable. If people want to reconcile Canada with its
francophones, let them adopt, fairly and squarely, a formula to
absolve or pardon Louis Riel.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5456
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1205)
[English]
The House resumed from October 11 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act
and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-6, which
is the result of approximately five years of negotiations in Yukon.
A lot of people have expressed interest in Bill C-6 and many of
them either wrote to the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs or testified before the committee when it recently held
hearings on these proposed changes to the Yukon Quartz Mining
Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
I want to begin my remarks today by praising those citizens who
took the time and made the effort to communicate their views to all
of us on the committee.
Even more, I want to praise the many citizens who volunteered
their time and effort over the years of discussion and debate in
Yukon as well as the many organizations and businesses which had
such a strong commitment to the democratic process as to fund
participation in such a decision making process. The give and take
of discussion, the responsibility to whatever interest group one is
representing and, most of all, the awareness that the YMAC
discussions would probably impact the economy of Yukon more
than anything other than land claims, were a weighty load for them
to carry and they deserve our praise for their efforts.
YMAC stands for Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, the
group which hammered out this agreement. It is almost entirely
because of its efforts and the compromises which were reached in
Yukon that the Reform caucus and I support Bill C-6. To state it
simply, Bill C-6 represents a made in Yukon solution to Yukon
problems. I do not want to see it changed to a made in Ottawa
solution.
Yukon has a relatively small population, estimated to have
grown to 31,452 as of July 1, 1996. Major sectors of that
population were involved in the YMAC decision which debated
how to change Yukon's mining legislation to accommodate
environmental concerns such as ensuring adequate reclamation of
mining sites and placing deposits to guarantee that the work is
completed.
It was the recommendation of the House standing committee,
just as it was the recommendation of the Government of Yukon
representatives who testified before the committee, that Bill C-6 be
passed as is with no amendments whatsoever. The reason for the
importance of not meddling with Bill C-6 lies in the fact that
YMAC reached a delicate balance about what should be done to
accommodate those environmental and land use concerns
surrounding the second most important primary economic
generator in the Yukon Territory, mining.
To show how important mining is for those folks in Yukon, one
who appeared before the committee kindly sent me figures for the
amount of gold from placer mining in Yukon from the first
shipments in 1885-86 up to and including 1995, a total of 110
years. The number of fine ounces of gold was 12.6 billion. In
dollars which are current for the year when the gold was produced
the value of the gold was $967,789,808,000. That does not mention
jobs, personal and business taxes and the numerous spinoffs across
the rest of the economy.
If we look at the value of total mineral production in Yukon, not
just placer gold, only in the recent decade from 1985 to 1995 we
see a value of $3.4 billion, according to the 1995 Yukon review.
This is despite the fact that 1993 and 1994 were very bad years and
that 1995 barely returned to the level of 1986 for total mineral
production.
Mining means big money in Yukon in economic terms. Mining is
called a primary economic generator. That means that it is not a
spinoff from employment elsewhere as would be true, for example,
of housing construction.
Unfortunately, according to research supplied by the Library of
Parliament, the biggest primary economic generator for Yukon is
transfer payments from the federal government. As a percentage of
provincial revenue, Yukon Territory received 58.3 per cent of its
estimated income for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 from
general purpose federal transfers plus an additional 12.8 per cent
from specific purpose federal transfers for a total of 71.1 per cent
of all Yukon government income.
(1210)
By comparison, my province of British Columbia for the same
period received 12.6 per cent of its income from specific purpose
federal transfers and nothing whatsoever for general purpose
transfers.
5457
By raising 87.4 per cent of its revenue from internal sources
B.C. was second by two-tenths of a per cent to the province of
Alberta. Sadly, Yukon falls far behind and I hope that is something
that can turn around in the future.
To see for myself and to deal directly with the people most
involved in this legislation, this past summer I travelled around
Yukon. I talked with many people there about Bill C-6 as well as
other federal concerns. There is a lot of anxiety in Yukon in view of
its huge dependence on Ottawa as to whether, in our present times
of severe fiscal constraint, it will mean that the Government of
Yukon as well as Yukon Indian bands have to stand on their own
two feet financially.
A great many people in Yukon told me in no uncertain terms that
the only hope Yukon has of becoming more financially independent
from these federal transfers is the industry of mining. Many people
said they were afraid that Bill C-6 would damage the Yukon mining
industry, especially the vulnerable placer mining, where many
claims are worked in the short northern summers by dad and mom
and perhaps an adult child or a couple of hired helpers.
To see what the Yukon government revenue is like we might
want to glance at the budget from last year. The 1995-96 budget
estimated the territorial revenue would include $35.4 million from
personal income tax, $10.3 million from corporate income tax and
$7.1 million from fuel tax for a total of $52.8 million from its total
revenue of $497.8 million.
I have supplied my hon. colleagues with some statistical data so
that they can understand the profound concern in Yukon about
whether these proposed changes from Bill C-6 are going to create
an administrative tangle that will seriously damage the Yukon
mining industry.
This legislation will be accompanied by many pages of new
regulations and by a brand new process of obtaining permits for
mineral exploration as well as getting a new mine into production. I
raised these concerns during the departmental briefing provided
last spring for the Reform Party by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. It told me it was taking every
precaution to ensure that Bill C-6 will not have a negative impact
on Yukon mining.
At the time I was inclined to believe those assurances from the
department but that was prior to a shocking event which took place
August 8 with regard to what could become Canada's first diamond
mine in Yukon's neighbour, the Northwest Territories.
To put what happened into perspective, my colleagues should be
aware that in looking at provincial and territorial income, at the
bottom of the heap in so far as paying for its own well-being stands
the depressed economy of the Northwest Territories which received
72.2 per cent of its 1995 income from general purpose federal
transfers, plus 10.7 per cent for specific purpose transfers for a total
of 82.9 per cent of the income of the Northwest Territories coming
from federal transfers. That is a tragic number and I ask my hon.
colleagues to bear in mind as well the 71.1 per cent for Yukon as a
percentage for territorial income provided by federal government
transfers.
In both Yukon and the Northwest Territories jurisdiction over
natural resources remains with the federal government although the
northern accord gives the Northwest Territories more control over
its energy resources. That gives Ottawa enormous control over the
lives and activities of people in both territories. It is a profoundly
serious responsibility which rests especially on the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
How has that minister discharged that enormous responsibility in
the Northwest Territories? He has single handedly sent a very bad
message to the international mining community. This is what
happened. The BHP project has already invested about $200
million in trying to open Canada's first diamond mine in the
Northwest Territories. BHP Diamonds plans to employ a yearly
average of 830 people across the 25-year life of its project and
1,000 people during the construction. Two out of every three will
very likely be northerners and one out of every three at least will be
aboriginal.
(1215 )
My colleagues will remember the figures I supplied to them
earlier. Currently the federal government provides 82.9 per cent of
the revenue of the Northwest Territories through general transfers
and specific purpose transfers. By contrast, the Northwest
Territories had a total 1995-96 estimated revenue of $1.2 billion of
which only $92.9 million came from personal and corporate
income taxes. If it were not for well paid government employees
paying taxes, the Northwest Territories would have very little
revenue of any kind today.
Against the backdrop of that information I quote from an
October 7 Calgary Sun article regarding the BHP diamond project:
``During the exploration phase, 60 per cent of BHP's workforce
were northerners and 25 per cent were aboriginal. That is a
welcome change from NWT's dependence on government jobs or
welfare and should the final project go ahead, the private sector
will flourish in the Arctic.
``The company has also trudged through the most excruciating
and whimsical regulatory hurdles in the western world. It passed
the arduous and intrusive federal environmental assessment review
panel, a two-year trial. BHP's proposal is the only mining project
except for uranium mines to ever complete such an investigation.
BHP's environmental impact statement is eight volumes long and
weighs 64 pounds. It went through the enviro-extremist wringer''.
5458
The columnist then went on to describe in his own terms what
happened on August 8 when it was supposed to be announced that
BHP had passed the environmental review board. Instead: ```The
federal government will negotiate a binding environmental
agreement with the company,' Irwin announced to a startled BHP.
They had after all met every existing requirement''.
The columnist again attributed a direct quote to the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development: ``The agreement will
cover all of those issues not normally part of license terms and
conditions''.
The columnist then imagined the following comment from the
minister: ```Forget the law', said Irwin. `I am the law. Sure you
passed all our tests and paid all our fees but I want more'''. Then
again the columnist attributed a direct quote to the minister: ``I will
be assessing progress on the environmental and benefits agreement
before signing the water licence for the project''. The columnist
pointed out that the benefits agreement was voluntary in the first
place.
I understand that due to unsettled land claims, BHP embarked on
the remarkable project of negotiating four separate voluntary
socioeconomic agreements or so-called impact benefits
agreements, also known as IBAs with the Treaty 11 Dogribs, the
Treaty 8 Yellowknives Dene, the Metis and the Inuit of Kugluktuk.
In view of Yukon land claims and Yukon self-government
legislation, Bills C-33 and C-34, passed in the first session of the
35th Parliament, we can all see the handwriting on the wall with the
BHP project. We can see what a major mining development in the
Yukon will quite possibly have to go through before the
Government of Canada allows the brave would be developers to
invest their dollars in Canada's north.
That columnist in the Calgary Sun referred to the deadline
imposed for all these additional totally unprecedented conditions
being thrust on BHP as ``Irwin's 60-day temper tantrum''. I wish
this issue was that simple.
The columnist went on to raise some of the fundamental
questions to which the BHP experience must inevitably lead the
international mining community. What comes next? What other
gimmicks can the minister of Indian affairs invent to gum up the
works for this private investment group which has already sunk
about $200 million into trying to start Canada's first diamond
mine?
The columnist raised a question with which I cannot help but
agree: ``If the major spin-offs went to Montreal instead of
Edmonton, do you think Irwin's personal agenda would be allowed
to get in the way?''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have allowed the member
to repeatedly mention one of our other colleagues by his name. I
would ask his co-operation.
(1220 )
Although these come from quotes, we cannot in the House do
indirectly that we cannot do directly. I would ask his co-operation
as much as possible to make the change to the appropriate portfolio
the minister carries and try to avoid the member's name.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I will try. The writer finishes his
article by asking: ``How long will BHP and other potential
investors stand for Canada's anti-business bias?''
Let us be very clear about what has happened here. An
international company, in partnership with a group of Canadians,
has explored an area of the Northwest Territories. They have
complied with every existing Canadian law. They plan to invest
nearly $6 billion in a region of Canada that has been beset by
tragically high unemployment and which basically exists on gifts
from the rest of Canada.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
apparently wants to forget that part of his responsibilities stated in
his title, namely that he is responsible for northern development.
Instead, I believe the outrageous situation with the BHP diamond
project will do serious damage to Canada's international reputation
as a good place to invest mining exploration dollars.
Canada has already lost its market share of those exploration
dollars due to the whimsical, complex and disorganized regulatory
climate for mining in Canada, despite the fact that the mining
industry has been very willing to enforce high standards for
environmental protection. The problem is not the protection of the
environment. The problem appears to be a federal government
more concerned about protecting the jobs of bureaucrats on the
government payroll rather than protecting the environment.
The BHP diamond project passed the toughest environmental
review. Nevertheless and with no advance notice or negotiation, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development imposed
additional conditions which are delaying the start of construction
as the northern winter closes in.
The last time I spoke to the minister no end was in sight. He ran
roughshod over the investors involved. Is BHP's experience the
norm of what international mining companies must face if they
intend to invest in Canada?
When we look at Bill C-6, the anxiety which was already felt
about whether it would have a negative impact on Yukon mining
has been intensified by the minister's inexcusable conduct
regarding mining in the Northwest Territories.
I believe we can use the example of what the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development has imposed on the BHP
5459
diamond project in the Northwest Territories to demonstrate what
an anti-business mentality must permeate the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, the very people responsible for
development in the north, if they are capable of doing such a thing
to a serious and responsible mining investment group.
As a career mining man myself, I want to assure my hon.
colleagues that the biggest reason why Canada has been losing its
market share of international mining investment dollars is the
regulatory boondoggles such as those just imposed on the BHP
diamond project by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. At this point the damage has been done. It is my
profound hope that the minister will act far differently regarding
Yukon mining and that Bill C-6 will not become another serious
blow to mining in Canada.
During committee hearings on Bill C-6, Mr. Harlan Meade,
vice-president of Westmin Resources Limited, a strong voice for
improving the entire Canadian mining regulatory framework,
pointed out one other significant problem with Bill C-6. That
problem is the terrible delay between the time when the legislation
was needed many years ago, the long duration of the YMAC talks
followed by literally years since the Liberal government took
power while little or nothing was done.
As Mr. Meade told our committee: ``The failure to move quickly
to provide regulations sufficient to fulfil the public's desire for
environmental standards for exploration is contributing to the
public perception of problems being encountered in the Yukon by
the exploration industry''.
He points out the value of encouraging voluntary compliance
and says: ``For several years now the larger companies have been
voluntarily conducting their exploration to standards similar to
those that exist in other jurisdictions, including reclamation
activities''. He and many other people from the Yukon have
emphasized the importance of widespread consultations regarding
the regulations which will accompany Bill C-6, although they are
not part of it. Industry must be involved in such consultations
because industry is best at knowing how to achieve the desired
environmental protection with a minimum of cost either to industry
or to the government.
(1225)
Due to Mr. Meade's former employment as vice-president of
environment for the Westmin Company as well as his long time
involvement with other environment and land use issues, I believe
my colleagues should give special heed to his opinions.
Governments, overloaded with senior administrators and pencil
pushers, have a lot to learn about the time it takes to fully consult
with the public in order to put forward the best possible legislation
which can be willingly supported by the people to whom it applies.
In conclusion, I urge my hon. colleagues to learn from the
mistakes of the past regarding the environmental regulations of
mining and to pass Bill C-6 without amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now proceed to the
next stage of debate on Bill C-6 where members will have up to a
maximum of 20-minute interventions subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
tempted to enter into debate with the former speaker, but I will
restrict my comments to the legislation under consideration, Bill
C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon
Placer Mining Act.
It should be noted that the Yukon Quartz Mining Act was first
brought forward in 1924 and the Yukon Placer Mining Act in 1906.
They have been virtually unchanged since that time. I think
everyone is in agreement, while they may not be in agreement with
some of the details of this bill, that there is need for change. That is
the reason I am supporting this bill.
In 1924 and 1906 the bills basically provided administrative
direction, dispersal of federal lands for the use of mining and
mineral rights and the collection of royalties. There were really no
environmental regulations at all at that time, quite understandably
given the era.
It is very important to say at the beginning that there are
environmental and other regulations related to mining in the
Yukon, but these amendments are restricted to exploration
activities for which there has not been environmental regulation.
When one looks at the number of pieces of legislation both federal
and territorial that apply to mining in the Yukon, no one should be
left with the thought that there has been no environmental
regulation. In fact 14 pieces of federal and territorial legislation are
currently on the books that relate to mining activity in the Yukon.
This is of itself a problem which I will address a bit later.
As has been pointed out by other speakers on mining in the
Yukon, the quartz mining and hard rock mining are basically larger
companies but the placer mining is very often small family
operations, some larger than others. Mining is the largest private
sector employer and largest private sector income generator in the
Yukon. Therefore it is a very important industry to everyone in the
Yukon because of the spin-off effects of the jobs created and the
taxes collected. To all of us who want to see greater economic
development in the Yukon, it is very important that mining
continue to be a essential part of the economy.
At the same time we live in a territory that is almost the size of
Sweden which is really in many ways and to many people the last
wilderness frontier. Many other industries are based on the wilder-
5460
ness from outfitting, to trail guiding, trapping and so on. They also
rely on land use in the Yukon.
I want to address specifically some of the issues and not so much
the content of this legislation. Previous speakers have talked quite a
bit about the content. Essentially the legislation addresses certain
environmental issues related to exploration that have not been
covered by existing pieces of legislation.
(1230 )
I am empathetic with those in the industry who say that we have
an extremely complicated process to facilitate mining in the Yukon
and they are right. I strongly believe there should be good
regulations and good environmental controls, but I also feel it
should not be such a cumbersome process for those who wish to do
exploration or who wish to proceed further.
As I mentioned earlier, there are 14 pieces of legislation which
affect mining in the Yukon. As came out quite clearly during the
committee hearings on this bill, those pieces of legislation in and of
themselves are often incompatible and at odds with each other.
That is clearly unacceptable and must be addressed. It is not
addressed by this legislation and continues to be an outstanding
issue.
Essentially the bill contains four classes. Under each class there
are different requirements for notifying the public of the kind of
work the company will be doing. Each of the four classes has
different requirements.
There is not opposition to the entire bill but there is a concern
with respect to a lack of requirements in certain classes. For
example, under a class I licence for developing exploration it is not
necessary to give notification to any public body. When a company
does exploration there may not be intrusive harm to the
environment but there usually is some. They may be taking in a
Caterpillar; they may be going by river; they may have to cut down
trees and so on. A real issue for a lot of groups was that there
should be a notification requirement for all of the four classes.
A good aspect of the legislation is that it does allow time for
implementation. For example, in the quartz mining amendments
there is a six-month transition period for implementation. For
placer mining there is a 12-month implementation period. The
current operating conditions obviously would apply during those
periods.
Another positive element of the bill is that a full review of the
regulations will have to take place after two seasons of
implementation. That is particularly important because it is not
always possible to foresee the long term effects of some aspects of
legislation or regulations. Certainly no one wants to see the
industry regulated out of business.
I can say that in the 10 years I have been the member of
Parliament for Yukon and have worked with the mining industry,
there has been a real desire on behalf of the industry to see that
there are good environmental practices. There have been many
advances.
The Yukon Mining Advisory Committee was established in 1990
by the previous government to bring together representatives of
industry, the conservation groups and the First Nations to formulate
amendments to these two acts. It was very tough to find a
consensus in this diverse group which has differing interests on
these issues. It is fair to say that after two years of meeting, in 1992
the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee worked hard to reach a
consensus. The mining community gave up something and other
groups gave up something. They came up with a fairly good
consensus on what could be done in the immediate term. It was not
seen necessarily as a long term objective.
Other jurisdictions could learn from this. The process of the
mining advisory committee was exceedingly good. It was an
attempt to sit down face to face to come to grips with difficult
issues. The resulting report was positive. The problem was that in
the intervening time, from 1992 to 1996, there was a change in
government which again changed the mandate. There was certainly
a lag when the committee was not as active as it had been. Also in
1995 the land claims and self-government agreements came into
force through this Parliament. There were certain requirements
under those agreements which had not been met in the mining
advisory committee process.
(1235)
The lesson to be learned is that the YMAC process is an
extremely good one to use. However, we cannot have a process of
consensus making and then have a lag of three to four years and
expect the consensus will hold together. That is essentially what
happened with this issue. It is not the fault of anyone in particular
but we and other jurisdictions could learn from this process.
I would like to raise a few things about the legislation which
were raised as concerns in the committee. Although I am
supporting passage of the bill, these are issues which will have to
be dealt with down the line.
We should understand that these proposed amendments do not
really conform with the Whitehorse mining initiative which was set
in 1994. The proposed legislation does not make our mining
legislation as strong as that of the NWT, British Columbia or
Alaska. It is a true compromise but certainly by Canadian standards
it does not come up to that of our neighbours in the Northwest
Territories.
Another concern which needs to be addressed is that it does not
meet all the objectives of the Whitehorse mining initiative. Again,
that came after the 1992 consensus and is another example of why
this gap between the process of consensus making and
implementation created a real problem.
5461
I mentioned earlier the concern about notification on class I.
That is a general concern of a number of groups.
Security and security deposits. Everyone in Canada can
understand that there have been huge costs to the Canadian
taxpayer in terms of environmental clean-up of various mining
sites, and this is quite true in the Yukon. People want to see
adequate security provisions. This legislation basically states that
security will be determined on a case by case basis. It has been
suggested that this is not sufficient but should simply be required as
a cost of doing business.
I am somewhat empathetic to those, particularly small operators,
who say that this would be very difficult to fulfil. This section of
the act will have to be watched really closely in terms of the
implementation I spoke about earlier.
Another issue as a result of the time gap is a very serious concern
which was raised by the Council of Yukon First Nations. Under the
land claims and self-government agreements there is a very clear
clause that the federal government must consult with the First
Nations in terms of any legislation it is bringing forward. This
came up around Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, where the four
groups including the Council for Yukon First Nations who have
constitutionally entrenched agreements, according to their view
which they substantiated, had not been properly consulted. It is
equally true with this bill.
These agreements came into place after the 1992 consensus. We
have an adjustment here to a new political dynamic which in
respect of this legislation I would have to say was not met. It must
be addressed by the federal government.
Wildlife habitat is an issue of great concern. Between the
territorial and federal government there is a bit of contention about
who is responsible for the preservation of wildlife habitat. To make
the point, CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
unbeknownst to most Yukoners did staking in some very sensitive
wildlife habitat areas. Of course, it did not have to notify anyone
because that was not in the law. The society did it not because it
was going to mine, but to point out that wildlife habitat areas are
not protected under this legislation. It has not been sorted out
whether the federal or territorial government is going to take
responsibility for this. It is an outstanding concern.
(1240 )
Another concern is competing land use. Historically, under
mining legislation there is what is called the free entry system. In
other words someone can stake and mine with free entry into any
lands. There was an incident in Whitehorse recently in green space
behind a residential area and people were fairly upset. The free
entry system is not part of this legislation. I will not dwell on it, but
it is an issue with regard to competing land use between outfitters,
wilderness guides and trappers that people did raise which needs to
be discussed at length.
Many people see this piece of legislation as better than nothing.
As much as anything it points out what we have to do in the future.
Mining is important and it needs to be supported. We need to
streamline the regulations and process. The involvement of all
stakeholders in the regulations would be a very important step on
behalf of the federal government to perhaps bring together some of
these concerns in a constructive way.
The federal government has put forward a proposal to the Yukon
for the devolution of northern affairs programs by 1998 and that
includes mining. We see that within two years, should these
amendments pass today, there will have to be a comprehensive
review of mining legislation by the territorial government if it is to
assume responsibility for mining as a territorial responsibility. The
YMAC process illustrated the usefulness of that kind of body of
consensus making but also the faults if one does not follow up with
action immediately.
The real challenge within the next two years will be for the
federal and territorial governments to work together to consolidate
some of these pieces of legislation to make sure that mining
legislation conforms to the Whitehorse mining initiative, and to
ensure we can have a viable industry but also an industry which
respects environmental standards and regulations.
I will conclude by simply saying that this is a step in the right
direction. It will require a lot of further work but it will take us one
step toward better mining legislation in the Yukon.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the member for Yukon for her balanced and
thoughtful approach as usual and for the opportunity she gave us to
better understand the implications of mining in her riding. I wish I
could say the same for the member for Okanagan-Shuswap who is
still struggling after three years in Parliament to learn the basic
rules of debate in this House.
The debate on Bill C-6 can legitimately take place against the
background of the leadership council accord document, namely the
Whitehorse mining initiative dated November 1994, and signed by
a number of outstanding citizens and politicians including our
Minister of Natural Resources. In the document we find some very
interesting statements which deserve to be put on record in
connection with this second reading debate. On page 14:
The environmental impact of mining can be minimized by: careful exploration;
mine design and operation, including risk assessment; and appropriate management
policies, programs and procedures. Prevention of post-closure impacts requires
effective site reclamation and monitoring. Voluntary programs emphasizing-
5462
(1245)
On the same page:
Environmentally responsible mining exploration, development, operations and
public policies are predicated on maintaining a healthy environment and, on closure,
returning mine sites and affected areas to viable, and, wherever practicable,
self-sustaining ecosystems that are compatible with a healthy environment and with
human activities.
This is beautiful stuff on page 14. There are also other very
interesting and meaningful paragraphs on page 16. Time does not
allow me to read them all.
Under planning and environmental assessment, the following
principle is espoused:
Environmental assessment is an essential tool for identifying potential
environmental impacts of proposed projects, determining their acceptability, and
evaluating potential mitigation and remediation measures, thus enabling economic
activity to proceed while safeguarding the health of the environment.
Among the goals is to ensure that government policies and
programs adequately incorporate environmental considerations.
This is music to the ears of anyone who is concerned with
sustainable development because this is the essence of good
sustainable development policy processes. It is a very recent
document as I mentioned, dating back less than two years.
Coming to the bill, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining
Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, this bill establishes an
environmental management regime for mining activities conducted
in the Yukon Territory.
This bill amends the Yukon Quarts Mining Act an the Yukon
Placer Mining Act to provide an environmental management
framework. This is a much needed initiative. The member for
Yukon already referred to it in positive terms.
It is desired if we in Canada are to make environmentally
sustaining mining processes a reality. It must be noted that to this
point Yukon is the only jurisdiction in North America that has not
regulated the impacts of mineral exploration and development.
Until now, experience has taught us that mineral development
can result in habitat loss, the leaching of acids into soil and water,
creating sedimentation in rivers and streams, adding to water
pollution and other erosion problems to name a few.
We all appreciate that mining is an important factor in the
Canadian economy but it must be achieved through a well
regulated industry which safeguards the environment, human
health and wildlife and which takes into consideration the justified
claims and goals of our native people. Again, the member for
Yukon made reference to that.
I am told that each day in Canada the mining industry generates
approximately 1 million tonnes of waste rock and 950,000 tonnes
of tailings, totalling some 650 million tonnes of waste a year.
At present there are approximately 6,000 abandoned tailing sites
in Canada. Some of these contain 185 million tonnes of uranium
mine tailings considered to be low level radioactive. Others contain
an estimated 875 million tonnes of rock and tailings capable of
allowing acid to leach into the soil and water.
The clean-up costs of all these abandoned tailing sites is
estimated at $6 billion I am told, a cost which presently is likely to
be borne by the public at large, Canadian taxpayers, if and when
required.
Some of us are concerned that certain activities described in the
bill as class one activities require no approval or notice, and
therefore the level of activity approved under class one exploration
programs could cause significant environmental damage,
especially in environmentally sensitive areas and heritage sites.
The potential impact of these class one activities is significant
when one considers that there are over 40,000 mineral claims in
Yukon.
(1250 )
Imagine the cumulative environmental impact of these claims if
not properly regulated. It could have a far reaching impact on the
environmentally sensitive northern ecosystem, but as a general rule
it should be a concern regardless of whether the ecosystem is
particularly sensitive. That sector has a long way to go in operating
within a regime that is now becoming more and more accepted in
the southern latitudes.
In order to provide a regulatory framework in Yukon or
anywhere else in Canada capable of ensuring environmentally
sustainable mining, the government should seriously consider the
following suggestions. First, it should provide an environmental
protection regime that is as strong as any in North America and not
weaker than that.
Second, it should ensure that mineral rights are not granted
without considering competing land use values. I will address that
issue a little later.
Third, it should regulate all stages of mineral exploration and
development.
Fourth, it should ensure that sufficient funds are set aside to
cover the full costs of mine reclamation, namely the good old
polluter pays principle.
Fifth, it should ensure effective inspection, monitoring and
enforcement of mineral activities including provisions for citizen
enforcement.
Sixth, it should provide for special control measures for
ecologically and culturally sensitive areas.
5463
Seventh, it should ensure that penalties for failing to meet
regulatory requirements are strong enough to act as a real
deterrent.
I will spend a couple of minutes discussing the free entry system.
In Canada and throughout North America there has been a pattern
over the decades to have a so called free entry system which
permits the mineral operator to enter lands where minerals are in
the hands of the crown. It obliges the government to grant
exploration and development rights if the miner, the applicant,
applies for them.
The free entry system was developed in the 19th century to
encourage the extraction of mineral resources. While this approach
may have been suitable and understandable when Yukon was
considered a wild frontier to be tamed, it is certainly no longer
appropriate today. Elevating the importance of mineral extraction
above all the other resources has led to other problems.
Provinces such as Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia
and other countries such as Australia have eliminated the free entry
system. Other jurisdictions in Canada are currently moving away
from the free entry system.
Under the free entry system, the right to stake a claim and mine
cannot be refused on public lands unless the lands have been closed
entirely from staging. This fails to give consideration or protection
to other land users, which is a very serious matter. This fact is
recognized in the Whitehorse mining accord which I mentioned
earlier. The need to consider other land uses is also stressed: ``No
aspect of social, economic and environmental sustainability can be
pursued in isolation or be the subject of an inclusive focus without
detrimentally affecting other aspects''.
It seems the Government of Canada has a responsibility to all
members of the public when regulating the uses of public lands. It
basically boils down to that. Under the free entry system it could be
said that the government essentially abdicates its responsibility to
regulate whether mining activity will occur at a particular site.
(1255 )
I would submit that the free entry system is still a fundamental
weakness of mining in the mining regulatory system in Yukon.
In short, the free entry system assumes mineral development is
the most important interest in public land and once a mineral claim
is staked there can be no consideration of importance of other uses
of public lands. This flaw undermines the effectiveness of good,
sound, long term land planning. This method requires the
government's attention. I would hope that it will be possible to do
so if not in committee in the examination of the bill then on another
occasion.
The automatic right to mine on public lands should be replaced
by a system where the government has the discretion to permit the
production and development of crown minerals as in the case with
other natural resources such as timber, gas or oil, or even if
necessary deny their particular use for reasons related to the larger
public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to participate in
this debate.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the previous speaker for his well thought out
comments. I really do not have much disagreement with him at all.
I would just like to make a couple of points and perhaps ask a
question. The first comment is around the class one and the fact
that there is no necessity for public notification. I think that is an
issue that causes a lot of people, including me, some uneasiness. I
would add, however, that when one stakes a claim under class one
one has to register that claim so that it is registered with the mining
recorder. There is that kind of notice at least. However, I still think
it is an outstanding issue.
As I said in my remarks, the issues around quartz and placer
mining certainly are not completed by this legislation. There is
much left to do.
The hon. member mentioned reclamation. I agree that is a huge
problem. In one instance in Yukon, a venus mine was closed down.
The owners have long since disappeared and have probably become
some other company. The estimated cost to the Canadian taxpayer
is about $800,000 for the clean-up of the arsenic leaching tailings.
This is very costly and it is something we do have to be concerned
about.
I wondered if the hon. member would support the suggestion that
has been made, which is not in this legislation, but for future
consideration that 1 per cent of royalties from mining be put toward
reclamation.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the correction that the
member for Yukon made in connection with class one procedures.
As for the suggestion of the 1 per cent royalty, it is a policy
approach that commands attention and certainly requires serious
consideration.
Quite frankly, I cannot think of a better alternative in order to
ensure that the corporate and collective benefit that may derive
from certain economic activity, in this case a mining activity, also
is put in a position to restore the quality of the environment as it
existed before. There may be alternative approaches which I am not
aware of but this approach certainly is one I will look at very
carefully.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
5464
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
(1300 )
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-51, an act
respecting the water resources of Nunavut, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to address the House on Bill C-51, the Nunavut Waters Act. I
am pleased to bring this legislation before the House so that we can
establish a modern water management regime in the eastern Arctic
that has a solid legislative and regulatory basis.
Bill C-51 is important for a number of reasons. First and
foremost, it represents a major step forward in fulfilling the
government's obligation under the Nunavut land claims agreement.
As my hon. colleagues are aware, our commitment to fully
implement land claims agreements was clearly stated in the red
book. This is an ongoing process that will require the continued
attention and support of the House.
Section 13 of the Nunavut land claims agreement requires that a
special board be established with powers over the regulation,
management and use of waters in the settlement area. The
agreement also requires that this board be established through a
statute. This is the primary purpose of Bill C-51.
However this proposed legislation does more than fulfil a lawful
commitment under the Nunavut land claims agreement. It also
advances the government's policy of fostering the political
development of northern Canada by supporting the decision
making in the north by northerners.
[Translation]
As the Nunavut water board begins to plays its role, local
participation in the decision making process will increase. The new
regime will result in a significant decrease in the number of
applications for water use licences requiring ministerial approval
as compared to that under the former Northern Inland Waters Act.
By establishing a viable, affordable and efficient form of
government in Nunavut, the bill will allow the Inuit to effectively
practise self-government in the eastern Arctic. Without passing any
new law, under powers given in the land claim agreement, the
Nunavut water board was established on July 9, 1996, on the third
anniversary of the coming into force of the agreement.
As it stands now, the Nunavut water board has all the powers
described in section 13 of the land claims agreement, but the latter
did not give any details regarding the board's responsibilities. In
view of the regulatory nature of the board, its role and jurisdiction
were to be laid out in the bill before us today.
[English]
In order to ensure that the regulation and licensing of water use
in Nunavut has a clear basis in law, we must proceed with this
legislation. Bill C-51 will establish a fair, efficient and
comprehensive water licensing system. In so doing, it will enhance
the prospects for economic development and job creation in
Nunavut while respecting the rights and benefits flowing from the
Nunavut land claims agreement with the Inuit.
In the interests of good and efficient government the proposed
legislation extends the jurisdiction of the Nunavut water board
beyond the settlement area to encompass the entire Nunavut
region, except for national parks. In this regard Bill C-51 exceeds
the requirements of the Nunavut land claims agreement but creates
a uniform management regime.
(1305)
It is critical that we have a uniform water management regime
throughout Nunavut. A single regime will be more cost effective,
consistent and easier to manage, and will meet the government's
commitment to industry to streamline the licensing process. I want
to assure my hon. colleagues that we are not establishing a
completely new system of water management with this legislation.
Bill C-51 is modelled on the Northwest Territories Waters Act and
its predecessor, the Northern Inland Waters Act, with a few
modifications to reflect the requirements of the Nunavut land
claims agreement.
The Nunavut water board will have responsibilities and powers
equivalent to those currently held by the Northwest Territories
water board, which are essentially the authority to license the use
of water and the deposit of waste. Licences will not be required to
use water for domestic purposes, for emergency purposes such as
fighting fires or controlling floods, or in national parks.
[Translation]
Bill C-51 sets clear rules for issuing, renewing, amending or
cancelling water use licences. These rules give the industry added
certainty and will protect the environment in the eastern Arctic.
Also, they will ensure that the licensing process takes into account
the interests of all the water users.
The Nunavut water board will have a wide range of powers to
carry out its mandate, including holding public consultations with
regard to licence applications. In some cases, such as applications
5465
for permission to expropriate, the board will be obliged to hold
public hearings.
In such a case, the board will have to form a panel made up of
some of its members and will have to give advance notice of the
hearing. It will also have to publish notice of its decisions.
The board will have the power to impose strict conditions for the
issuance of licences. The maximum proposed penalty for offences
is a $100,000 fine, one year imprisonment or both. Similar
provisions exist in other similar water management systems
elsewhere in Canada.
Furthermore, I am happy to inform the House that the board will
have the authority to order the compensation of consumers
adversely affected by licensees' activities. It will also have the
power to order a licensee to deposit a security with the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[English]
Bill C-51 will clearly place a great deal of decision making
authority into the hands northerners and in particular the Inuit of
Nunavut. At the same time, in a fashion similar to the Northwest
Territories Waters Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act, the
governor in council will retain the authority to make water
management regulations. However, in certain instances, as
specified in Bill C-51, the recommendation of the federal minister
will be subject to the concurrence of the board.
In the interests of effective planning, the water board will be
expected to work closely with the Nunavut planning commission
and the Nunavut impact review board. Legislation covering these
two boards will be introduced in the near future.
As mentioned earlier, there are important provisions in the
legislation that reflect the letter and spirit of the Nunavut land
claims agreement. Specifically, the Nunavut water board will not
be allowed to issue, renew or amend a water use or waste deposit
licence that may substantially affect waters that are on or flow
through Inuit owned land unless a compensation package is in
place.
To ensure a smooth transition from the current water licensing
regime, all licences issued under the Northwest Territories Waters
Act will continue to be valid after promulgation of Bill C-51.
Hearings that had begun under the Northwest Territories Waters
Act before the Nunavut board was established will continue until a
decision is reached. If hearings for an application had not
commenced when the Nunavut water board was established the
application will be addressed by the Nunavut water board under the
provisions of the new legislation.
(1310 )
This legislation also contains a clause that will validate decisions
made by the Nunavut water board before Bill C-51 comes into
effect, as long as those decisions would have been valid under the
Nunavut Waters Act.
[Translation]
As the members of the House know, in the eastern Arctic, we are
concerned about the impact of the Nunavut Land Claims
Agreement on the other Inuit who have traditionally occupied and
used the land in the region affected by the settlement of land
claims.
I am happy to say that Bill C-51 does take these concerns into
account, with respect to water. The proposed Nunavut Waters Act
includes provisions allowing the representatives of the Makivik
Corporation to sit on the board whenever it studies activities
affecting areas, in Nunavut, which the Inuit of Quebec use in equal
proportion.
The Inuit of Northern Quebec will also be fully represented
before the board when it will examines issues concerning the
islands and the maritime regions traditionally used by these
aboriginal people. Some First Nations will also be represented
before the board when the issues at hand affect the regions they
have traditionally occupied and used and are still using.
[English]
Negotiations with the Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated to
establish this board have proven to be extremely complex. We have
fundamentally different views on how the new water management
regime should be implemented. Essentially, NTI is of the opinion
that the Nunavut water board should be the final authority on the
issuance and enforcement of all water licences in Nunavut and that
there should be no ongoing role for the responsible minister or for
the governor in council.
We believe it is the responsibility of elected governments, not
appointed boards, to establish an appropriate balance between
economic development and environmental protection. This
principle of accountability is at the very heart of our system of
democratic government.
There is concern that NTI's position would give the Nunavut
water board more authority on water matters than a future elected
Nunavut government when the responsibility for water
management is transferred to the territories. This is clearly not the
situation in any other jurisdiction in Canada and it would not be an
acceptable situation in Nunavut. Unfortunately, it has become
evident that we cannot reach a consensus with NTI on this matter.
In the interests of good government and to eliminate regulatory
uncertainty in Nunavut, we have decided to proceed with Bill C-51
which fulfils our legal obligation and is fully consistent with the
Nunavut land claims agreement.
5466
Let me reiterate that the regime we are establishing in Nunavut
is very similar to the regime already in place and working well
in the Northwest Territories. This regime has recently been
strengthened, modernized and streamlined based on extensive and
positive consultations with key stakeholders in the north and in
particular with the aboriginal peoples.
Bill C-51 ensures that more decisions that affect the people,
waters and environment of Nunavut will be made in Iqaluit, Rankin
Inlet, Cambridge Bay and other eastern Arctic communities as
opposed to in Yellowknife or Ottawa.
I believe this is a logical step forward in the political
development of the north. I believe that it is an important step
toward the creation of a new territorial government in Nunavut. I
am therefore seeking the support of hon. members from both sides
of the House in referring this bill to committee for review.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on the bill before us respecting the water
resources of Nunavut. As usual, I will briefly put things in
perspective for my colleagues and also for the people who are
presently watching us.
When I took on the role of Indian affairs critic and when I read
words such as ``Nunavut, Nunavik'', I was all confused. I think
people wonder where Nunavut and Nunavik are. It is important to
put these things in perspective before dealing with the content and
provisions of the bill as such.
(1315)
Finally, it may now be said that Nunavut is a territory where
Inuit people are everywhere. It is a huge territory north of Quebec,
Ontario and Manitoba, almost 4,000 kilometres long. It is inhabited
mostly by Inuit people, although there are also Dene and Metis
people in the western part.
If we look at the whole of the territory north of the 60th parallel,
starting with the west, we see a new division of the Canadian map.
We know there are already Canadian provinces. We know there are
also two territories that are the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories. We have a tendency to divide them according to the
Inuit influences and traditions.
If I start with the far west, this territory is called Inuvialuit. An
initial agreement on self-government was signed here at the time
with the Inuit people from the northwestern part of the country.
Immediately after that comes Nunavut. Here too, within a few
months of our last federal election an agreement on
self-government was signed. This is probably the first Inuit
territory in Canada. Inuvialuit is a small territory, while Nunavut
starts immediately north of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and
stretches on across almost all of the rest of Canada.
Discussions are being held on self-government for Nunavik, the
same as for Inuvialuit and Nunavut. It is the northern part of
Quebec, which was transferred like the other territories in 1912.
These territories are under discussion now. I know the Inuit and
Cree people are discussing these territories. Quebec may be
partitioned. But I will not get into this. Today we are dealing with
the water resources of Nunavut.
I simply want to tell you that northern Quebec will always
remain in Quebec, unless Quebec itself decides to let it go, which I
doubt very much. I wanted mostly to locate Nunavut in relation to
Nunavik and Inuvialuit. There is also a small Inuit section of
Labrador, where discussions on self-government are bogged down.
I have had the pleasure of visiting these four regions. There are
land claims involved. There are demands for self-government in
Labrador. Newfoundland seems to have a hard time negotiating
with the Inuit who live there.
So Nunavut represents most of the land occupied by the Inuit.
This territory will be formally established on April 1, 1999. What
does Nunavut mean in Inuktitut? It means ``Notre monde'' in
French and ``Our Land'' in English. It means that these people have
lived in this part of the continent for over 10,000 years. Traces of a
presence dating back 10,000 years have been found in the Nunavut
territory.
The Inuit world is extremely interesting. As I said, I had the
pleasure to travel there several times. There is an example I often
use when making speeches, as I did last week in my riding, when
people in a classroom asked me about the Inuit, their territory and
traditions. A part of their culture that is especially rich is the
Inuktitut language. I do not know much about Inuktitut, but I know
they have 50 words to describe snow. When we talk about snow,
whether it is melting, wet, solid or icy, we only have one word for
it: snow. But they have 50 words for it. The region has a very rich
Inuit culture, and the language itself is very interesting.
These people signed a self-government agreement in 1993, as I
said just a few months before the federal election. The Inuit had
been working toward self-government for 20 years. I will give you
a little historical overview in a moment.
People wonder why the Inuit did not start earlier. Since they have
occupied the land for over 10,000 years, 20 years seems like a very
short time. I think everyone will agree that 20 years is a rather short
period of time.
(1320)
But native people and Inuit people do not share our concept of
property. Our culture finds its roots in Great Britain and France and
with it comes a need to mark boundaries, to insist that the property
we plan to buy be properly surveyed, be given a proper legal
5467
description. We white people have one way of seeing the ownership
of property that is completely different from the way the Inuit and
native communities see it.
In fact, when they first came here, the Europeans were surprised
to see that these people had almost no conception of what property
was. For them, the land was there and it was to be shared by
everyone, and not divided up into individual pieces of property.
The Inuit-and I can vouch for this having visited them-are a
family-based people. They are often on the move, leading a
nomadic life. With a population density of one person per 1,000
square kilometres, the likelihood of encountering another human
being is quite slim. The concept of property is therefore foreign to
them. All that land, this whole area of the continent belongs to their
peoples and to whoever decides to live there.
When the self-government agreement was finally signed in 1993
after 20 years of negotiations, it was described at the time as an
agreement under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which, as
you know, recognizes treaties entered into with the Inuit, Métis and
Indians, as defined in the Indian Act.
Of course, this self-government agreement being covered by
section 35 of the Constitution, any disagreement on the
interpretation of the agreement may eventually end up before the
appropriate courts.
The Nunavut planning commission was established to oversee a
transition period of six years, from 1993 to 1999, when the transfer
of powers will be complete.
These people are already at work and they have set their
priorities. Not surprisingly, water is listed as a priority. And so are
impact assessments because there have been some mishaps in
Nunavut and in the Yukon as well. Just the other day, we debated
Bill C-6, consideration of which was concluded this morning and
whose purpose is to regulate to some extent, through
environmental standards, land use.
There have been cases of abuse in that respect in Nunavut. That
is why their number one priority is to try to clean up mining
operations. There are mines that have caused considerable
pollution and the committee was concerned about that. It was also
concerned about waters because ridiculous ideas about water use
come up every now and then. Some can be quite surprising. Take
for instance the Americans who were keen to build pipelines to
carry, no, not gas, but water.
Indeed, water does have a real value there, because, even if some
traces of pollution have been noted for some time now, it is still
purer than our ground water supply here.
So we are sometimes tempted to misuse these waters, and I think
the bill before us today is quite consistent with the work of the
board watching over the list of priorities, that is water cleanup and
impact studies.
The bill is also interesting in this regard, because it provides that
impact studies will not be limited to the environment, but will
extend to caribou sanctuaries and Inuit communities. We will thus
have a board with slightly broader powers which, before granting
any operating licences, will be in a position to say: ``We want to
know the impact this will have on our caribou''. It is important,
because caribou is a traditional source of food for the Inuit, and
everybody knows that this animal is very sensitive to
environmental changes.
We will have an act to respect Inuit traditions and to examine
carefully the impact of water use not only on the Inuit, but also on
animal populations.
(1325)
Finally, the Nunavut planning commission, the very same
commission, will also be in charge of zoning and urban planning,
because there is some urban development. Everybody thinks of
Iqaluit, the capital. It must be remembered that the Inuit decided
that the capital of Nunavut would be Iqaluit, while the present
capital of the Northwest Territories is Yellowknife. So, the Inuit
said: ``The government functions that you agreed to hand over to us
will be carried out in our capital'', and there was a discussion to
determine whether it would be Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit. Through a
referendum, the people finally chose Iqaluit as their capital.
These are more like villages. The capital, Iqaluit, with 3,600
inhabitants, it is not a major urban centre. I went there and found
that it takes maybe an hour to cover all the streets. Nevertheless,
people are concerned about zoning and urbanization and they want
to make sure their community develops adequately while
respecting the environment.
Earlier, I said a few words about the location. Nunavut covers
1.9 million square kilometres, or one-tenth of Canada. It is larger
than three quarters of Greenland and it is six times the size of
Germany.
Nunavut extends from the 60th to the 85th parallel. It is bordered
by Arviat in the south, Coppermine in the west, Alert Bay, which is
known because it is a military base in Canada's far north, is the
northern border, and Iqaluit, on Baffin Island, in the east. The small
island of Sanikiluaq, in the Hudson Bay, is also part of the territory.
This is interesting, given that mining operations were once
conducted on this island.
We often wonder why the Indian affairs department deals with
this issue. The explanation is the same as for Bill C-6, which dealt
with quartz and gold mining in the Yukon. The department for
which I am the official opposition critic is called the Department of
5468
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This means it is
responsible for everything north of the 60th parallel. This also
explains why bills such as this one often come under the
jurisdiction of the Indian affairs department.
Nunavut has a population of about 22,000, including an
overwhelming majority of 17,500 Inuit. Earlier, I mentioned some
figures about the number of people in relation to the size of the
territory. A quick calculation shows that 1,900,000 square
kilometres for 22,000 inhabitants represents a little less than one
inhabitant per 1,000 square kilometres. This is probably one of the
least populous parts of the planet, which does not mean however
that just anything should be allowed to go on in that region. The
legislation we have before us is to develop a very important
resource of Nunavut, its waters. Even though its population is
small, the time has come now for Nunavut to have a little more
control over its waters.
Nunavut has 22,000 inhabitants, including 17,000 Inuit. In the
four large regions I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the
Inuit population totals 25,000 people. Iqaluit, the capital of
Nunavut, is a city of 3,600 people, some 2,000 kilometres away
from Ottawa. Iqaluit has 20 kilometres of roads. These figures
show how isolated it is. I will tell you more about this later.
I was elected as the member for Saint-Jean in October of 1993.
Since there were 205 new members, the Prime Minister decided at
that time that the new Parliament would not start sitting before the
following February. My leader at the time having confirmed me in
my role of official critic, the first trip I made in that capacity was to
Iqaluit.
(1330)
I spent two days in Iqaluit. Since I knew nothing about Iqaluit, I
spent the first day walking around and talking with people. I met
some interesting people. Since Iqaluit is a small town of 3,600
people, it does not take long to see it all, to walk down every street.
As it was quite cold, I had to walk fast. During my first trip, the
temperature was 30 degrees below zero, and during my second trip,
it was even colder.
The first time, I walked around and talked to people. The native
issue is fascinating, because one has to see the living conditions of
the people firsthand. Things are quite different in native
communities. They are also different in Metis communities, in
Inuit communities and even from one Inuit community to another.
Just like I said a while ago, there are four regions, and each one of
them is different.
One realizes that subsistance hunting and fishing are extremely
important to them. The first matter I had to discuss with the Inuit
concerned their economy, and how they can make a living in an
economy where they have no choice but to hunt and fish to provide
half of their food. Among other things, I noticed that a loaf of bread
costs $3 in Iqaluit, and the price of two litres of milk is $7. These
people's wages are half the national average, and groceries cost
twice what we pay here.
These people have a hard time making ends meet, and their only
option is to turn to nature by hunting and fishing in their traditional
way. Naturally, water is important in that regard. During part of the
year, the water flows freely, and the thawing of streams is a
wonderful thing to see, but they have harsh winters, and they need
snowmobiles to go hunting and fishing. Snowmobiles are a
necessity.
I made my second trip to Iqaluit for hearings on social program
reform, and many people told us how important water is to them.
That is why this bill comes as no surprise to me today. They are
concerned about water quality. However, there was not much
flowing water when I was there. As I was saying, the temperature
was 30 below during my first trip and 40 below during the second
one. When we tried to leave, we could not. The plan's engine froze.
We had to go back to the hotel and wait for another plane from
Montreal to pick us up. It took a whole day.
When the second plane landed, they left the engine running to
avoid any further problem, since the engine on the first plane froze
in the bitter cold, as I was saying.
There are also some interesting issues in terms of economic
development. I talked earlier about the progress being made in
commercial hunting and fishing. They have stores up there that
specialize in the marketing of caribou, seal and whale meat, for
instance. The industry exists, but is not allowed to ship outside
Nunavut. I think discussions are under way to find ways to allow
Canadians and Quebecers to have the opportunity to enjoy these
delicacies. People up there would like to export caribou or seal
meat, as these species are not threatened with extinction. It would
be very profitable for them to be able to sell these products.
Then there is the transportation industry. Air Cri provides
passenger air service to several communities. Actually, almost
every community is accessible only by air. Air Cri is crucial to the
economy. They are also taking control of several hotel facilities.
There is also the federal contribution pursuant to the Nunavut
agreement. The federal government has agreed to pay them $1.1
billion over 14 years, a very attractive contribution indeed.
(1335)
They will be able to use this money for economic development.
In fact, Nunavut and Nunavik encourage economic development
programs especially in the business sectors I mentioned earlier.
There is a profusion of new public and professional agencies.
Since the agreement was signed in 1993, people are beginning to
5469
receive money and to ensure sustainable development. And I think
that this legislation is in keeping with sustainable development.
Moreover, three new national parks will be established. Also,
there will be a mining resources evaluation program. I must point
out that mining requires a lot of water. This legislation will correct
certain oversights.
Before speaking about the bill, I want to explain the background
of the Nunavut agreement, which was signed in 1993 and which led
directly to this legislation. As I said, the Northwest Territories were
established in 1912 out of the northern parts of Manitoba, Ontario
and Quebec. After 1950, the Northwest Territories were governed
by an appointed commissioner and an elected territorial council,
which was not really very representative. It was only around 1975
that the council began to be representative.
In 1966, the federal government set up the Carrothers
commission, which advised it on a greater distinct representation in
the centre and in the east. Before that, these subdivisions did not
exist and there was only one vast Northwest territory. People asked
that the territory be subdivided so that it could be more
representative.
In 1967, the federal government transferred the management of
nearly all programs to the Government of the Northwest
Territories, the legislative assembly of which is in Yellowknife. I
visited the Northwest Territories legislature, and it is obvious that
this institution was inspired by Inuit tradition.
It a fairly recent structure, having been built about ten years ago,
I would say, and it is quite nice. Part of the structure looks like
igloos, it is difficult to describe. In Inuit tradition, the circle is
omnipresent, whereas our Parliament is laid out to show the
difference between the government benches and the opposition
benches. We face each other. Over there, everybody sits in a circle.
I find that very interesting.
We can see that the Northwest Territories have been heavily
influenced by Inuit culture, as well as Dene and Métis culture.
There are many Dene and Métis in the western part of the Nunavut.
The circle is very important for these people.
In 1976, a Inuit group, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, of which Mrs.
Kuptana is president-this organization still exists and it is quite
dynamic-suggested the federal cabinet establish a territory
separating the west, the center and the east of the Territories.
In 1981, a new approach was suggested, that is the creation of a
new government composed principally of Dene and Métis, but this
plan never was adopted. In 1982, a referendum was conducted on
the idea of dividing the territory. The question was: ``Do you think
Northwest Territories should be divided?'' The participation rate
was 53 per cent, and 56 per cent of those who voted said yes. I must
say that organizing an election or a referendum in the Nunavut is
almost a miracle. To begin with, even before the election or the
referendum, informing the people of every village takes weeks. It
is absolutely extraordinary to see a 53 per cent participation rate.
People from Nunavut often have to travel 200 to 300 kilometres by
snowmobile to vote in a referendum or an election. Under those
circumstances, people who exercise the vote are real heroes of
democracy. I think that people who travel 300 kilometres by
snowmobile to vote deserve our appreciation.
The government recognized the referendum on certain
conditions. Of course, there are several political parties in
Northwest Territories. One of the conditions was that all parties
accept the division, and they did. Second, all parties had to accept
the division of powers between the territories and local
governments.
(1340)
Some specific fields like education and health were transferred
to Inuit people even though the government of the Northwest
Territories had jurisdiction over them. So, there were agreements to
effectively divide powers and to ensure viability of all of the
Northwest Territories after the separation. I think that, by now, we
can consider that it has been proven that all the territories are
viable.
In 1992, there were a second referendum on separation into four
regions and 54 percent of the voters said yes. As I said earlier, the
Nunavut agreement was signed in May of 1993, just a few months
before the last federal elections, in October.
The bill is on water resources of Nunavut. It was read the first
time on June 14 1996. It implements the water management
provisions of the Nunavut agreement. Pursuant to chapter 13 of the
land claims agreement between the Inuit and the federal
government, a commission or a board was to be formed to settle the
issues concerning waters. This is why we are studying legislation,
which, in some ways, is very similar to many others, whose aim is
to implement clauses of the Nunavut agreement.
Some of us have a few minor concerns regarding the members
appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. I have here a breakdown of the members of the
Nunavut Water Board. Four members are appointed by the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the
recommendation of an independent development organization; two
members are appointed directly by the minister; two members are
also appointed by the minister but on the recommendation of a
minister from the Northwest Territories; and the chairperson is
appointed by the Indian affairs department on the recommendation
of the other members.
I think the Indian affairs department and minister have too much
control over this process. At this stage, we have not yet completed
our consultations and we do not yet know if we will ask for
amendments to these provisions. We obviously agree with the
substance of the legislation, but on the issue of the establishment
of the board, I think the government should have given more
5470
autonomy to local groups instead of leaving it all up to the Indian
affairs department.
This new legislation is similar to the one that already exists in
the Northwest Territories-because there is one-under the
jurisdiction of the territorial legislative assembly. Its primary
function is to license uses of water and deposits of waste.
Interestingly, this bill provides for public hearings and, in line
with the Nunavut agreement, shows great respect for the Inuit. This
is important to us because I think that, when we talk about water in
Nunavut, we have to talk about Inuit traditions and culture.
I just want to mention four paragraphs that have attracted my
attention. Public hearings are allowed and their conduct is
governed by certain administrative rules which recognize the
importance of the culture, customs and knowledge of the Inuit. For
instance, the testimony and contribution of some experts is
acknowledged during public hearings on issues such as the use of
waters in Nunavut but the role of the Inuit, who are probably the
best experts on water quality, will also be recognized. This
provision will truly allow them to influence proceedings.
Before holding public hearings on a request concerning water the
NWB must take whatever steps are necessary to inform the public
that hearings will be held, namely by giving notice, circulating
information and setting the day, hour and place of the hearings.
This goes back to what I was saying earlier because these people
live in such vast areas that if they decide, for instance, to come to a
public hearing, they must be notified weeks ahead because
travelling 200 or 300 kilometres on a snowmobile is not an easy
thing. It requires some planning and this is why I was saying earlier
that these people are the heroes of democracy, because they travel
hundreds of kilometres for a hearing, an election or a referendum.
This is why it is important, and the bill makes adequate provision
for it.
(1345)
If the public receives, within a reasonable time frame before the
beginning of hearings, the information transmitted to the NWB on
requests about water, the Nunavut water board will hear testimony
and advice from experts and will spread this information on the
largest possible scale.
The interesting aspect of public hearings is that the NWB holds
such hearings in the communities that are the most directly
affected. No matter the community, no matter how isolated it is, if
there are problems in a far northern community, the NWB will have
to hold public hearings locally so that people do not have to travel
long distances. In that respect, this bill is quite consistent with the
Nunavut agreement as such, and, this is, I think, worth mentioning.
Requirements will be prescribed by law for such purposes as
issuing, renewing or amending a license in respect of a use of
waters or a deposit of waste that may substantially alter the quality,
quantity or rate of flow of waters through Inuit-owned land, unless
an agreement has been reached between the parties concerned.
From now on, people who worked in mines or elsewhere will
have to comply with the regulations, and a public hearing will be
held as soon as it is felt that their activity may substantially alter
the quality, quantity or rate of flow of waters. Through the Board,
the Inuit will have more control over development projects and the
environmental impact of those economic development projects.
The Board will also perform those other functions described
earlier by my colleague. It will be required to work closely with the
Nunavut Planning Commission and the Nunavut Impact Review
Board. These Commissions come directly under the Nunavut Land
Claims Agreement signed in 1993. They will ensure compliance
with environmental standards and will oversee social and economic
impact. This is also interesting, because it broadens the mandate
somewhat further.
There is something about the bill that has been said many times
before: it does not apply to shipping. I know it is hard to include the
whole area of sea and air traffic in the North. I was an
environmentalist before I got into politics and I believe everybody
remembers the mess of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. That is why I
wonder if the bill could not have had a larger scope and include
shipping.
I do not understand why we are told that shipping is not affected.
That means that ships, oil tankers and others, may carry on. Of
course, ships are governed by other laws, but not necessarily ones
that come under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories'
legislative assembly or of the capital, Iqaluit, which is Nunavut's
capital, where the Inuit are. We will examine the possibility of
adding some clarification.
I spoke a moment ago about the Board's membership. We lament
the extent of the Department's control over appointments. Even
though, for instance, several organizations are invited to submit
recommendations, the minister has the final say on appointments.
The bill suggests that public hearings be held for some big
projects. Not only will there be hearings for existing projects,
which could involve stricter water management rules, but from
now on, anything that could affect water quality, quantity or
flow-rate will have to be submitted to the Board. That is important
for us.
As for possible recourse, the independent developer is naturally
entitled to ask the competent jurisdiction to decide if someone has
5471
a right to use Nunavut's water. They will make regulations, and if
these regulations are contravened, recourse will naturally be had to
the courts.
Therefore, the bill, as such, is completely consistent with the
agreement, where this took 20 years. I told you earlier that there
were 20 years of negotiations, although they were preceded by
several hundreds of years of joint occupation of the area by Inuit
and whites. It is therefore in line with the Nunavut agreement.
(1350)
The management provisions, as I said, are being implemented
with the greatest respect for the Inuit, with compensation, recourse
as an option, and the real possibility for them to hold hearings, to
examine fully any development projects. It merely gives official
expression to the act, the Nunavut provisions.
We will naturally vote in favour of the bill, although the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, to which this bill will be referred later on, will be
looking at the possibility of perhaps going a little bit further with
respect to navigation or to control by the Inuit of their board.
We feel that the Nunavut Inuit government has the competence
and abilities required to make appointments and also to be
responsible for this board. I think that it will demonstrate
confidence in the Inuit. I have confidence in the international
experts on the quality, quantity and flow of water, but the Inuit,
who have been living there for 10,000 years, perhaps can be trusted
when it comes to controlling the waters.
Therefore, with respect to Bill C-51, we will be looking at the
possibility of making small changes. As for the merits of this bill,
the Bloc Quebecois is completely in favour of this legislation, and
when it has been passed, we will be wishing the Inuit the best of
luck with the management of the quality, quantity and flow of their
waters in Nunavut.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I stand
today to oppose Bill C-51 for three reasons. The first is that I
support good government, namely, government which provides a
necessary service, is cost effective and is accountable to the people
who pay for it. The second is that the government's process has
been faulty.
The third and most serious reason is that the original legislation
creating Nunavut ought to be declared unconstitutional on the
grounds that it creates what amounts to another province without
meeting the 1982 constitutional requirement that at least seven
provincial legislatures representing 50 per cent of Canada's
population have to consent to Nunavut's creation. The provinces
have never been asked.
With regard to the need for good government, this new illegal
province of Nunavut, which of course is not a province officially
but will have the administrative and governmental trappings of a
province, has a land mass about twice as big as the legal province
of Ontario. Its population at 22,000 is less than the area population
of Cranbrook, B.C. where I have my constituency office.
Canadians often complain about the fact that the Atlantic
provinces are so small, but even the beautiful but tiny province of
Prince Edward Island has a population of 130,000, about six times
the population of the new illegal province of Nunavut. My hon.
colleagues will therefore understand if I state my firm belief that
having so much government for Nunavut is over governing at its
worst.
Specifically the Nunavut Water Board's eight appointed
members plus a chair for a population of 22,000 is part of the
excessive bureaucracy of an additional 930 civil service jobs cited
by a Coopers & Lybrand report of December 1992 on establishing
Nunavut, plus 705 public service jobs to be transferred from
Yellowknife. The entire Northwest Territories Water Board
currently consists of from four to nine members and Nunavut has
half the land and less than half the population. However, the
various groups of northern peoples apparently said they wanted
additional board members in order to guarantee representation for
different population groups, including the Inuit of Nunavut and the
Inuit of northern Quebec.
I can understand somebody wanting something. There are things
I would like myself, for example, a big ranch on prime land maybe
with a herd of fallow deer, or all of the waterfront of a small lake in
central British Columbia. There are two things that keep me from
having that big ranch or lake. First, nobody is going to give it to me
just because I want it. No, if I am going to have the ranch or lake, I
am going to have to pay for them. The second thing that stops me is
that I would have to look after them because nobody is going to
look after them for me just because it is something I would like.
Neither of those conditions applies to the Nunavut Water Board.
Somebody else is going to pay for it and somebody else is going to
have to look after it. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the
somebody is you and me and all the other taxpayers of Canada.
(1355 )
With such a small population and such a huge land mass, it is
perhaps not surprising that the Northwest Territories is at the
bottom of the heap compared with all other provinces and the
Yukon in so far as paying their own way is concerned. I make
mention of that not that it is the fault of the people who are in the
Northwest Territories, I simply mention it as a fact.
According to research supplied by the Library of Parliament, for
the 1995-96 budget year it is estimated that the Northwest
Territories received 72.2 per cent of its income from general
purpose federal government transfers of funds plus 10.7 per cent
from specific purpose federal government transfer of funds for a
total of 82.9 per cent of the income of the Government of the
Northwest Territories coming from federal transfers. Let me repeat
that astounding number: 82.9 per cent of the income of the
Government of the Northwest Territories for the fiscal year
1995-96 came from federal government transfers.
5472
If this were to provide the necessities of life, many Canadians
would probably go along with such a staggering figure, but when a
lot of those funds go to employ bureaucrats who seem to be thicker
on the ground than the caribou, Canadian taxpayers lose patience.
Maybe the Ottawa mandarins have led such sheltered lives that
they do not realize that civil servants are not a necessity of life.
Taxpayers want the number of civil servants kept to a minimum,
just the minimum required to provide essential services. Instead,
all too often taxpayers find themselves funding such ridiculous
bureaucracies as the water board consisting of eight members plus
a chairperson to serve the 22,000 people of Nunavut.
Good government has to do with having the people elect some
leaders who are responsible to ensure that public services are
provided at a cost the people can afford, by the level closest to the
people and best able to perform the service efficiently. Instead, the
Nunavut Water Board is appointed by the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development who in turn was
appointed-surprise-by the Prime Minister after being elected by
the people of Sault Ste. Marie, which the last time I looked on the
map was a long way from Nunavut.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you still have quite a bit of
time left in your discourse.
[Translation]
It being nearly 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
5472
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
AIDS is a scourge that has affected the lives of families all across
this country.
One of my former students has contracted this terrible disease
from a heterosexual partner who has already died because of AIDS.
Recently she was awarded the Ovation Award for Activism by the
Toronto People with AIDS Foundation.
Like many Canadians, my constituents appreciate the effort the
government has made through the National AIDS Strategy to
combat the disease through research, treatment and education.
Canada has made a substantial and recognized contribution in
fighting AIDS. I was pleased to see the response to the petition I
presented on the AIDS strategy. It states that the Minister of Health
is participating in active discussions in various sectors concerning
the federal role with regard to HIV-AIDS.
I urge the Minister of Health and the entire government to secure
continuing funding for the AIDS strategy before the program runs
out in March 1998.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to honour the courage and determination of two young
men from my riding, who made the 6,000-kilometre journey from
Calgary to Drummondville by canoe.
Alain Bourbeau and Jean-Philippe Bourgeois made a trip that
has not been made since the 18th century. These two coureurs des
bois set off from Calgary this past May 7 for a five-month trip
along the route of the fur trade.
This was an adventure which brought them both closer to nature
and to the essentials of life. As one of them so aptly put it: a life
that is not lived in search of a dream is not worth living. This
phrase describes not only their present day exploit, but the exploits
of all Quebecers involved in past exploration and discovery in the
vast reaches of North America.
I would like to send this message to Alain and Jean-Philippe:
thank you for this example of perseverance and courage. Your
accomplishment is worthy of our total admiration.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal 747 has hit turbulence. The seatbelt signs are
flashing and the Prime Minister has called for an emergency
landing.
(1400 )
The GST engine has backfired. The engine of accountability is
sputtering and black smoke clouds the Prime Minister's vision. The
gauges show that engine three is overheating with political
rhetoric. Canadians fear the fourth engine will not be strong enough
to
5473
save them from a crash landing as experienced by the Tories in
1993.
It is therefore encouraging to see Canadians clamouring to board
the Reform jumbo jet into the 21st century. It offers full service,
prosperity and a clear vision of a new and better Canada. Reform's
message of political accountability will ensure that all the engines
on its jumbo jet operate at maximum efficiency and power.
Canadians who want to venture securely into the 21st century
can now board with Reform at gate 97.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to attend the recent open house
reception and information night hosted by the Youth Internship
Canada program in school district 17 in Oromocto, New
Brunswick. The federal government is providing more than
$100,000 for this important initiative.
The youth internship program provides students and employers
with opportunities to work together by developing skills and
knowledge that can lead to employment. Students participate in on
the job and in class training which will be applied directly to
specific jobs.
In preparing the students for work readiness, they will be taught
basic employability skills along with anger management and social
skills training. The program is designed to include special needs
students, youth at risk, learning disabled and native students.
I applaud the federal government for funding this innovative
program and I congratulate all the students, teachers and businesses
involved.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in support of Small Business Week in Canada. Canadians
know that small business is the engine of our nation, the place
where job creation has been phenomenal.
I am particularly pleased to be able to highlight four Burlington
business leaders who made the Ontario top 100 entrepreneurs list.
Ray Simmons is CEO of CRS Robotics, a leading developer of
human scale robots and robot systems. Ian Hopkins heads up
Magic Wand Carpet Cleaning, a company he plans to franchise
across North America. Archie Bennett is president of Zeton Inc.
which designs and manufactures small computer controlled pilot
plants. Kevin Milne's company is Mars Metal, a specialty casting
and keel company.
Each of these individuals credits their team of employees and
good customer relations as the keys for their success in the
marketplace. This government salutes their success and the success
of the entire small business sector in Canada.
We commit to ensuring that more individuals get the chance to
be entrepreneurs and to Canada becoming an evermore successful
trading nation.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is Women's History Month, this year's opportunity to
celebrate the contributions of the women who laboured to shape
our nation.
[Translation]
This very special month affords us the opportunity to celebrate
past and present contributions by the women who have helped
shape our country and to encourage future generations of women to
continue to contribute to the enrichment of our country.
[English]
Too often the achievements of Canadian women have been
denied the prominence they deserve in our recorded history.
Women's History Month unearths the roots of Canadian
accomplishment and identifies the fingerprints of women who
toiled to make the difference.
This year's celebration coincides with the annual
commemoration of the Persons Case of 1929, a legal and political
battle to have all Canadian women considered as persons under the
British North America Act.
[Translation]
I call most strongly upon all of my colleagues in the House of
Commons to celebrate the contributions women have made to
Canada and to take part during October in the activities of
Women's History Month.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
October 23, 24 and 25, Trois-Rivières will host the 3rd
international francophone symposium on small and medium
businesses. This year, the theme will be strategy and growth for
small and medium businesses.
Over 120 researchers from 11 countries will discuss issues such
as strategic direction, growth, financing, industrial policy and the
role of small and medium businesses in regional development.
The fact that this international event will take place in
Trois-Rivières confirms the reputation of the Groupe de recherche
en économie et gestion de la PME, at the Université du Québec in
Trois-Rivières, as a major stakeholder, not only in the field of
5474
research, but also in the development of various small and medium
business strategies.
I want to thank and to congratulate Jocelyn Perreault and André
Joyal, both professors with the department of management and
economic sciences, for their remarkable work, as well as
Pierre-André Julien, holder of the Bombardier chair at the
Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières, for his outstanding role.
* * *
(1405 )
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month on Canada's west coast, just out of Bella Bella,
a light keeper reported a downed float plane and initiated an
immediate response which allowed the pilot to be saved by a search
and rescue team.
And, last week's storm is being called the worst to hit the west
coast in 35 years.
In fact, the media reported: ``Coast guard officials were
breathing a sigh of relief that no sailors were killed during a
powerful storm that hit the west coast''.
Their relief, I am sure, stems from the 100 per cent failure of
four newly automated light stations in B.C.
Speaking to our lighthouse experts, besides lacking crucial up to
date local conditions, critical pieces of information appear to be
missing from the automated data. One is visibility, another is sea
state and a third is alerting the coast guard. None of these can be
judged adequately by a machine.
And further, as the destaffing program is completed, Canadians
will have to purchase their navigational information from a U.S.
satellite at whatever price the U.S. government wishes to charge.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October marks the 67th anniversary of the Persons Case.
It was in 1929 that the British judicial committee of the privy
council declared that women are persons under the terms of what
was then called the British North America Act. The decision was
delivered in response to a dispute over whether section 24 of the
BNA act permitted women to be appointed to the other House.
In striking down an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada, the privy council called the exclusion of women from
public office ``a relic of days more barbarous than ours''.
This decision went a long way in combating the sentiment
expressed by a British court in 1876 that ``women are persons in
matters of pains and penalties but are not persons in matters of
rights and privileges''.
Members from all parties should note that there are more women
in this Parliament than in any other previous Canadian Parliament.
I would ask all members to join me in commemorating the Persons
Case and to recognize it as a watershed event-
The Speaker: The hon. member for York North.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to offer congratulations to the 4.5 million residents of the
greater Toronto area whose city was today chosen by
Fortune
magazine as the number one international best city for work and
family.
Fortune has recognized that the greater Toronto area has
expanded tremendously while retaining its high quality of life.
The survey evaluated factors such as incidence of crime, quality
of schooling and cleanliness. Overall commuting times, access to
health care and the rate of taxation were all considered in creating
the list. Building on past strengths in areas such as financial
services and the automotive industry, and exploring growth sectors
like telecommunications and biotechnology and the entertainment
industry all contribute to our strengths.
The federal government intends to continue to work with other
levels of government and industry in our area to promote growth
and opportunity for our citizens. Programs such as technology
partnerships Canada, the Canadian television and cable production
fund and the program for export market development, not to
mention lower real borrowing costs, all contribute to the future
health of the local and national economy.
Once again, congratulations to the residents of the greater
Toronto area on their designation as the number one international
city for work and family.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Nobel committee focused attention on the
villainous situation in East Timor when it awarded the Nobel peace
prize to Bishop Belo and José Ramos-Horta, brave fighters for
human rights and freedom in that small forgotten country.
Prior to 1974 East Timor was a Portuguese colony but became
independent at that time when Portugal withdrew. Immediately
afterwards in 1975 Indonesia invaded its neighbour and annexed its
territory. Since this invasion one-third of this country's population
has been killed, resulting in the worst genocide on a per capita basis
since the Holocaust. At the Dili massacre in 1991, 200 people,
5475
peaceful demonstrators, were killed by Indonesian soldiers.
Despite two UN resolutions condemning this invasion and
requesting the withdrawal of Indonesian troops, 20 years have
passed and nothing has happened.
I urge Canada and other governments to make a greater effort to
support the Nobel winners and the-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
understand it, the dangerous offender status is reserved for
Canada's worst criminals, those who are deemed likely to continue
repeating their pattern of violent crimes.
Why is it that we have yet another case of a repeat dangerous
offender out on parole?
As revealed this past weekend, George Harvey Miln was
classified a dangerous offender in 1980 after being convicted of
sexually assaulting three teenage boys in Kelowna, B.C. the
previous year.
In the early 1970s he was convicted of similar crimes in Toronto.
Subsequently, Miln was allowed to apply for parole every year.
In 1993 he was deemed rehabilitated and released.
Lo and behold, Miln decided to revert to his old ways by
seducing two teenagers this past August with beer, drugs and
pornographic magazines before sexually assaulting them.
Are these not the same crimes for which he was sent to prison
indefinitely in 1980? Here we go again, a special parole board
deciding who it feels is rehabilitated.
Miln committed crimes in the 1970s, 1980s and now in the
1990s. If that is not repeating a pattern of violent crime, I do not
know what is.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a poll
showed last week that, in the opinion of managers of small and
medium businesses, the constitutional issue is the major obstacle to
job creation in Quebec.
Quebec entrepreneurs are prepared to create jobs and to promote
the province's economic recovery, as requested last year by our
Prime Minister, and more recently by Quebec's premier Lucien
Bouchard. However, the efforts made will not be truly successful as
long as the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois continue to threaten
sovereignty.
The 310 leaders of small and medium businesses who took part
in the poll are right, and it is time the PQ and the Bloc realize it. If
we are to create good, lasting jobs in sufficient numbers to truly
promote Quebec's economic recovery, we must put an end to the
political uncertainty generated by separatist threats.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise today and inform the House of a
great accomplishment by a young promising dancer named
Jennifer Hale.
Jennifer has been accepted to the Royal Academy of Dancing in
London, England. This academy accepts only 15 students per year
worldwide.
Jennifer is 18 years old and is from Lindsay, Ontario. She has
been studying ballet, highland, modern and jazz dancing at the
Lindsay Dance Studio for 10 years.
I would like members to join with me in congratulating Jennifer
for her fine accomplishments and wishing her all the best with her
future studies and endeavours.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October
17, community and social groups across the country, including
Montreal, marked the International Day for the Eradication of
Poverty. They demonstrated against increased poverty.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops took this
opportunity to remind the federal government that its cuts to social
programs are making the living conditions of the Canadian people,
especially women and children, significantly worse.
They also condemned the government's failure to introduce a
real action plan to eliminate poverty in this country. The figures
speak for themselves: one in five Canadian children lives in
poverty.
I hope the government will take immediate action to stop the
growing impoverishment of Canadians and Quebecers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here are the top 10 contradictions of the Liberal government.
5476
10. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs advertises a
Liberal fundraiser on privy council office letterhead, says he was
wrong, then takes it all back again.
9. It takes secret ethical guidelines to hold cabinet ministers publicly accountable.
8. The term distinct society means nothing in the west but
everything in Quebec.
7. The term red book promise and the ever present GST.
6. Democracy and the Liberal constituency nomination process.
5. The head of the standing committee on defence is a peacenik.
4. We will not lower taxes, Canadians, because the Liberal
government feels it knows better than you do how to spend your
own money.
3. Fourteen Senate appointments after promising in 1990 that
after two years a Liberal government will elect the Senate.
2. Our millionaire Prime Minister imagines that he is hanging
out with the homeless.
And the top contradiction of the Liberal government:
1. The Minister of Health apparently smokes cigars.
* * *
(1415 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, in a small departure from our usual
procedure, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the
gallery of the recipients of the 1996 Governor General's Awards in
commemoration of the Persons Case. I will introduce the five
women who are here and we will then receive them as we usually
do in the House of Commons: Gladys Cook, Dr. Katie Cooke, Mary
Eberts, Dr. Margaret Gillett, Jeannette Marcoux.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
5476
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Prime Minister championed the cause of the homeless. He told
everyone in Canada that he was aware of their problem, that he was
very sensitive to the problem and that he saw people like these
every day and talked to them.
My question is as follows: Will the Prime Minister admit that his
government's record, which shows that it has concentrated far
more on reducing the federal deficit than on dealing with the
problems of those who live in poverty, is a clear indication that the
Prime Minister is far more inclined to listen to those who are
prepared to pay $1,000 for a Liberal Party fund-raising dinner than
to the homeless and the poor of this country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the speeches I made last week, I made it clear to
Canadians that there are social problems that remain to be dealt
with in this country and that as soon as we have achieved our
objectives-and I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance is
well ahead of the forecasts he made a few years ago and that we
will have a balanced budget a few years from now-and I told the
business people I met that before concentrating exclusively on tax
cuts like the Reform Party is doing, we had to remember that we
still had problems to deal with, that there were poor people in our
society. That is what I told business people in Toronto and
Winnipeg, and I told them that was our priority.
In the course of my life I have met people who live on the street.
I met some of them and talked to them, and that is why we want
Canadian society to function properly and why we want a
government that is in good shape, so that we can really look after
their problems. That is our abiding concern.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister keeps saying that there are still problems in this country,
as if he had started to deal with the problems of the poor. However,
that is not the case. The number of poor people and poor children
has increased steadily since 1993, when his party came to power.
Does the Prime Minister realize that by cutting the Canada social
transfer, money that is used for health care, education and social
assistance, he is aggravating the problems of the poor by forcing
provincial governments to reduce funding for measures that are
intended to support people who are in need? Will he at least admit
that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, despite the cuts we had to make, in his February budget
the Minister of Finance directed $250 million more towards
helping the poor through a system of tax rebates for their benefit.
(1420)
I agree we have made cuts, but clearly, if the hon. member looks
into this he will realize that when you take federal transfers to
provincial governments-in his case, to the Government of
Quebec-since we came to power we have not reduced our transfer
payments. Some transfers have gone down, but equalization
payments have gone up, so that today Quebec receives about the
same amount it received when we came to power.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister just misspoke himself. The poor, the people we are talking
about, do not pay income tax. That is what I am trying to explain to
the Prime Minister. We cannot use fiscal measures to help those
5477
who are in need because they do not have enough money to pay
income tax. And that is a fact.
One of the measures introduced by this government was
employment insurance reform. Will the Prime Minister admit that
as a result of this reform, his government has forced thousands of
unemployed workers, tens of thousands of unemployed workers, to
go on welfare? Does the Prime Minister think this is the kind of
measure that will help the neediest in our society?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to answer the first part of his question, I would like to say
that even people who do not pay income tax receive tax credits. In
other words, if they do not have to pay taxes and they are entitled to
tax credits, the government sends them the money to which they
are entitled. If I am not mistaken, the same applies to the GST.
These are amounts that are paid directly to them by the
government.
I repeat that we have tried to put our finances in order, and today,
we enjoy the benefits of this policy because interest rates are at
their lowest levels since 1958. Last week, a political leader said
that reducing interest rates was a priority. I am referring to the
Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard.
* * *
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. But
first, I would like to say, to follow up on what has just been said,
that the unemployment rate has gone up, again.
On October 9, the Minister of Human Resources Development
said he wanted to assure all Canadians that the employment
insurance program had become a more active measure or insurance
program. He stated that a total of $800 million will be injected into
this program every year.
According to a departmental document, however, not only is this
$800 million investment not assured, but making this investment
possible will require recovering a further $365 million per year,
and the measures planned to recover the amounts collected by
people who cheat the system will not be enough. As a result, a
special recipient assistance services will be established.
Will the minister admit that this $800 million will not be
available for active measures unless an extra $365 million is
recovered every year?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that the new
employment insurance program makes work more attractive and is
designed to encourage unemployed Canadians to go back to work,
and that we want to help them through active measures. I think this
is very important.
The envelopes I was referring to last week represent an $800
million improvement over what would have been the case had no
changes been made to the employment legislation. By the year
2000, if the calculations are correct and they will be, approximately
$2.7 billion in active measures will be available to unemployed
Canadians who want to find jobs and re-enter the labour force.
This is therefore $800 million more than what would have been
available otherwise.
(1425)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only
is this not $800 million more, but the question I just asked the
minister was this: Does he or does he not admit that, according to
his own officials, in order for this $800 million to be generated, an
extra $365 million will have to be drawn from the system every
year by going after people who cheat the system-and in cases of
real fraud, we agree-but also through a proactive approach in
which all recipients may well be treated like potential abusers?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that, when we
talk about recovering certain sums, the labour market is very
different today from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. We will do our
best to break away from the past and deal with the current situation.
Very often, businesses use employment insurance to alter the
labour market playing field. They are the ones we intend to go
after, not those individuals who are eligible for benefits and whom
we want to help. We have compassion for these individuals and
want to help them re-enter the labour force.
But we will not let employment insurance become a tool in the
hands of businesses to be used to alter the labour market playing
field. In a word, we are against fraud but in favour of showing
compassion for those who truly need assistance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Prime Minister said not to read his lips but to read his
record. That record is pretty dreadful.
There are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, two to three
million who are underemployed, 500,000 who have given up
looking for work. One in four Canadians is worried about losing his
or her job. There are record bankruptcies, record levels of personal
debt, plummeting personal incomes, record taxation levels and a
list of broken promises as long as your arm. It is a record to be
5478
ashamed of. The government has not learned the lesson that taxes,
taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs.
When is the government going to stop breaking the backs of tax
worried Canadians and start shrinking government and lowering
taxes? That is what creates jobs.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given this new found interest in jobs perhaps I should remind the
hon. member what his leader said in 1993. In Penticton, Reform
leader Preston Manning said it would take up to three years before
any job creation would occur under his party's economic plan.
In fact, he acknowledged that his zero in three plan could
actually cost more jobs in the interim and then he went on when
asked a further question he said: ``What is the alternative?'' The
alternative was the government that was elected. It has seen the
private sector create close to 700,000 new jobs. That is 700,000
more jobs than the Reform Party would have created.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind members to please
not use each other's name in the House. Use a title or riding.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised the finance minister is still fighting the last election.
Since the government has taken power the average family has
lost $3,000 of annual spending power because of tax increases.
Under the Reform's tax cut proposals a single income family of
four with an income of $30,000 will pay 89 per cent less in federal
tax. The Reform plan offers low and middle income Canadians real
tax relief.
Will the finance minister stop the attack on Canadian families
and announce today that it is time to give Canadians a pay raise
after years of Liberal-Tory national pay cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us understand what the Reform Party recommended in its
document last week. In its $2,000 tax reduction, a one earner
couple with two children and an income of $15,000 by its numbers
would save $420.
The same one earner couple with two children and an income of
$100,000 would save $3,200 a year and more that made a capital
gain.
(1430 )
That is progressivity according to the Reform Party. This is a tax
cut for the wealthiest Canadians and it is done in order to pay for
the gutting of the basic social programs that protect the middle
class in this country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister has a lot of gall when he talks about tax relief for
high income Canadians.
Using Reform's tax cut proposal, according to a StatsCanada
econometric model that we had run this morning, over a million
low income Canadians would no longer have to pay taxes. That
would leave money in their pockets where it is desperately needed
instead of in the pockets of bureaucrats and high-flying politicians
where it is usually wasted.
When is the government going to realize that its rinky-dink,
make work, job creation programs are not the way to help
Canadians and that cutting the size of government and giving
Canadians real tax relief is?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party likes to think it has done something new.
Essentially it is recommending that we rob the poor to pay the rich.
For anybody who wants to understand what the government has
done, let me quote Carl Weinberg of High Frequency Economics,
the American expert on what has happened in this country. He said
that you can now price Canadian securities on the basis of domestic
economic fundamentals rather than slavishly marking up U.S.
yields. That is what happened. He said it is a whole new world.
He goes on to say that what is happening in Canada right now is
one of the boldest experiments in macroeconomics that has ever
been undertaken. It is a sea change in the way we will have to think
about this country.
The Speaker: Now that we are back in shape, we have to close
in a little bit on the questions and the answers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is only Monday. On March 19, the heritage minister returned
DMX's license to the CRTC because the proposed Canadian and
French content of the company's audio programming was clearly
insufficient. However, on October 11, the minister granted the
license to DMX, even though the situation was still essentially the
same.
Since DMX's proposal is basically the same in October as it was
in March, can the heritage minister explain what made her change
her mind and grant a license to DMX?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as
the one I gave before recess, about a week ago. The reason is that,
thanks to our intervention, the two companies involved have
increased their Canadian content by 25 per cent.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister's reputation for calculating speaks for itself. How can
the heritage minister intimate that DMX increased its Canadian
content, considering that 17 of the 35 channels DMX intends to
5479
offer will be programmed in the United States, where no Canadian
content requirement applies? Do the calculation and tell me about
it.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, you must always address the
Chair.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the calculation is as
follows. The CRTC requires a 30 per cent Canadian content from
Canadian cable operators. DMX and Power raised their Canadian
content to 40 per cent. The difference between 30 and 40 per cent
represents the 25 per cent increase I told you about a week ago.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the new Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The government's latest billion dollar tax grab is a payroll tax on
part time employment. Why has the government imposed a new tax
on part time employment that will hurt those Canadians least able
to afford it: small business, working mothers and university
students working their way through school?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the
unemployment situation in a new way. We want to make sure there
is an ethic of work in this country. We want to make sure that every
hour counts.
Five hundred thousand workers now benefit from unemployment
insurance, which we now call employment insurance. They are
now covered by this scheme because part time workers are
included in it.
This is part of the new labour market we are in where many
people work only part time. We wanted to cover them and this is
the reason we are doing it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says that every hour counts. So does every dollar. The
government will collect between $1 billion and $1.5 billion before
it pays out any benefits with this new tax.
Taxing part time employment results in increased labour costs
and with any kind of logic the net result is fewer jobs.
Given the government has a $5 billion surplus in the UI fund,
why will the government not give an immediate 28 per cent to 30
per cent reduction in the UI tax rate as recommended by the
Reform Party and the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business so that businesses can help stimulate the economy, help
stimulate job creation and help business create those jobs that the
government promised?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when one looks at the Reform Party's suggestion, it would appear it
is going to pay for its premium reduction by eliminating a great
deal of the benefit that arises from the program.
These are the questions one should really address: Is it true that
the Reform Party would eliminate sickness benefits? Is it true that
the Reform Party would eliminate maternity benefits? Is it true that
what the Reform Party would do with unemployment insurance is
to put Canadians out on their own and effectively pay for that
premium cut by cutting off those Canadians who are most in need
of the help it provides?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, the Commission nationale des parents francophones
released a study on the funding of official languages programs.
This study shows that the federal government clearly favours the
anglophone minority in Quebec at the expense of the francophone
minority in Canada.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that, according
to her own figures, 1 million francophones outside Quebec receive
only 36 per cent of the budget allocated to the official languages
teaching program, compared to 64 per cent for the 636,000
anglophones in Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that
the hon. member, who learned such good French in his hometown
of Penetanguishene, now admits that there are 1 million
francophones outside Quebec, that they are not paraplegics in
wheelchairs in any way, shape or form, and that they are not about
to disappear.
Second, I am also happy to admit that, since the inception of the
bilingualism and biculturalism commission, the federal
government has invested $5 billion in this area. Ever since we came
to office and even today, for every dollar spent on providing
services to anglophones in Quebec, two dollars are spent on
francophones in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
saying that the minister is ``like'' a snowblower is not the same as
saying she ``is'' a snowblower. When I spoke about francophones
outside Quebec, I did not mean that they were paraplegics in
wheelchairs, but that, compared to anglophones, they are put at
5480
somewhat of a disadvantage by this government, especially since
the minister cannot even answer such a simple question.
So I ask the question again, because she probably wants to
correct such a deplorable situation in this so-called bilingual
country.
(1440)
Can she do it? She suggested some action plans at a press
conference. So I am asking her, since we know what federal action
plans to save francophones are worth, if the federal government has
ways of forcing the provinces to better fulfil their constitutional
obligations to francophones?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave a specific answer.
At this time, for every dollar spent on minority schools in Quebec,
two dollars are spent outside.
The figures quoted by the Comité national des parents
francophones reflect the fact that there used to be many more
English language school boards in Quebec because that province's
education policies supported minorities, which was not the case in
some other provinces in the 1980s.
Today, thanks to federal policies, there is a French language
school board in every province, except Ontario. That is why the
figures show the way things should have been in the early 1980s,
but unfortunately were not.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Prime Minister announced his fiscal policy
for the near future. Higher taxes will be used to balance the budget.
Higher tax revenues will be used to increase spending. It is obvious
that the Prime Minister only listens to old fashioned Liberals who
get their jollies out of spending other people's money.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he fail to grasp
that Canadians have a fundamental right to keep the money they
earn and to spend it in the way they like rather than having it spent
for them by the Liberal caucus?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could not believe it when I read somewhere last week
that the Reform Party is going to spend money. Remember they
said they were to spend more money for-
Mr. Abbott: We are putting back what you took away.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Fine, I do not disagree with
that.
We said that the goal of this government is to stay the course and
to go to zero cash requirements and zero deficit as quickly as
possible. We are not there yet and already the Reform Party is
trying to spend the money we are saving.
I said that when we are at zero there are problems in our society
that have to be managed where the federal government has to play a
role. We are not there just to have an across the board tax cut; that
when a person pays $100,000 of tax he will receive $10,000 of
benefits is not the way we will do things. We will target our tax cuts
and spending to make sure that those in society who have less can
have the chance that they deserve.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has clearly defined the battleground
for the next election. There is one group of people that will want to
increase spending of the people's money. There is another party
which will give it back to the people who have earned it.
Trevor McLean, a small business owner in my riding in a recent
letter said: ``Over-regulation and overtaxing small business have a
multiple negative impact on our economy-. They cause enormous
disincentives for jobs, business failure and investment''.
Why does the Minister of Finance listen only to bureaucrats and
in his economic update offers no hope to small business and the
desperate unemployed Canadians who would find jobs if taxes and
regulations were cut?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance has listened to the vast majority of
economists in this country. They have said very clearly that a tax
cut at this particular time would be inappropriate. They have said
that a broad base tax cut at this time would not only be
inappropriate but would undoubtedly lead to higher taxes later.
I simply ask Reformers to listen to what John McCallum of the
Royal Bank said last week. He said that as a result of the actions of
this government we are going to see a steadily declining debt to
GDP ratio. We are going to give this country the possibility of
having tax cuts which the Reform Party is unable to provide.
The vast majority of legitimate economists in this country have
simply said that what the Reform Party is suggesting is the road to
financial ruin and we will not accept it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canada recently negotiated behind closed doors a free trade
agreement with Israel. Given that the Israeli swimwear industry
imports its fabric from Europe without paying duty, unlike our
companies, this treaty may kill the top of the line swimwear
5481
industry, which is located primarily in Quebec, thus costing
hundreds of jobs.
Despite the fact that the official opposition raised this important
problem last May, and in light of the present discontent of the
swimwear industry, how can the minister explain that he has done
nothing to protect this up and coming industry with its job creation
potential?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations with
the industry through the Sector Advisory Group on International
Trade as well as directly with the industry itself. In preparation of
the free trade agreement with Israel a lot of consultation went on.
As a result of that, we responded and said we would give a two and
a half year phase out period.
The problem the swimwear industry has is that it has to pay a 19
per cent duty on European fabrics. We have now given the industry
the opportunity to address this issue before the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal to try and even up the playing field so
that within the two and a half years it will be in a position where it
will be able to compete fairly. The industry has accepted that so
that we do have a level playing field and we are trying to protect
jobs in that industry.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the minister says he has consulted, I would like to quote him
Claude Gilbert's reaction: ``When I learned by accident that Ottawa
was negotiating with Israel, I was terrified''. There was no
consultation.
In order to resolve this situation, which may well increase
unemployment, primarily in Quebec, will the minister promise
today to negotiate access to the European textile market at the
earliest opportunity, and in the meantime to impose equivalent
tariffs on Israeli products in this sector?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just said we have protected the industry for
the next two and a half years by allowing for a phase out. I might
also add that all of our other industries will receive immediate
access to the Israeli market with absolutely no tariffs at all which is
a good advantage for them.
We are protecting that industry by giving it the opportunity to
sort this matter out with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
The industry knows what is involved and knows what to do. There
were consultations. We will certainly want to assist it to make sure
that we preserve jobs in Canada. Overall this agreement has to
preserve and enhance the job opportunities for Canadian industries.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are honoured to have with us the award recipients of the
1996 Governor General's Persons Case Awards.
Can the secretary of state please tell us why, after all the
accomplishments women have made and for which they have been
recognized, do we still need such an award?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this award recognizes a very
important day in 1927, a time when five women from Alberta
challenged the fact that women could not go to the Senate because
they were not considered to be persons. The Supreme Court of
Canada ruled against them. They went to London where it was
ruled that women were in fact persons.
We must continue to look at our past if we are going to move
forward in the future. Every year five women who have done a
great deal to advance equality for women are honoured. This year
these women happen to be in the House. I understand that the
Speaker has recognized them. They are great women. They have
faced many challenges and we must continue to view them as role
models in the future.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
weeks ago the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs advertised a
Liberal fundraising dinner on privy council office letterhead and
sent it out at government expense. First he admitted it was wrong
and promised to pay back the money. Then he took it all back and
reversed his position.
I have written to the Treasury Board and asked its director of
ethics to make a ruling on this, but perhaps the Prime Minister
would stand up in the House and comment on the actions of his
minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the actions of his
minister contravene his secret ethics guidelines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the minister did was to advise the press that he was
going to make a speech somewhere. It is exactly what the Reform
leader, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and others do every week.
The press gallery is informed of where we are going. Sometimes
they are happy to come, sometimes they are not happy to come, but
at least they want to be informed.
5482
It was not a letter asking people for contributions. It was to say
to our friends in the press that the minister was making a speech
that night. If they accepted the invitation, I am sure they would
have listened to a nice speech and they would have learned a lot.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
guess we could all debate that.
We can see the problems that arise when the Prime Minister does
not make his ethics guidelines public. The Minister of National
Defence only responded after an access to information request
made his dilemma public. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is confused. His staff is confused. The department is being
used for political purposes. Meanwhile the public is kept
completely in the dark.
Will the Prime Minister please table the ethics guidelines which
he says he has, or are they another imaginary friend that the Prime
Minister says he has but which we do not know for sure?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the facts have been made public. He did what is
absolutely normal.
The facts are in front of the public. If the member thinks that the
minister broke the guidelines, he should tell his leader that he broke
the guidelines. Members of Parliament, including ministers, use
their letterhead to inform the press of their whereabouts.
I suppose the hon. member might have done it once in a while. I
do not think he does it very often because he knows that if he
invites members of the press to listen to him, they will not come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
For more than three months, the Liberal government has been
showing its irresponsibility by refusing any further involvement in
the business of France's banning asbestos. All stakeholders agree
that the Canadian government must put more muscle into its
response to France on this.
France and Canada both being signatories to the Geneva
Convention, including ILO directive 162 on the safe use of
asbestos, can the Prime Minister indicate what measures have been
taken by his government to remind France of its commitments to
the ILO?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have personally written to the Prime Minister of France,
and this very morning two of my ministers have met with a
delegation here in Ottawa to discuss this problem.
Through the Ministers of International Trade, Foreign Affairs
and Health, the Minister of Labour is making representations to the
French authorities, and I am convinced that the latter will, once
they have an objective view of the situation, acknowledge, as the
international labour organizations do, that it is possible to use
asbestos safely. We do so in Canada, and I do not see why it would
not be possible in France.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is busting its britches because it is spending $500,000,
whereas Quebec has already committed more than $2.7 million,
and the previous federal government had even spent nearly $13
million to help the asbestos industry in the late 1980s.
(1455)
Is the Liberal government waiting until asbestos is banned
everywhere in Europe and some 2,000 Quebec jobs have vanished
before it takes any serious steps to save this industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are doing everything within our power to maintain the
asbestos market. As I have just said, we are making representations
at the highest levels possible. We cannot take decisions for the
European community, but we are making representations at the
highest levels.
It is my opinion that they are ill advised in not using this form of
product, which can be used very easily if the necessary precautions
are taken to protect the public from possible hazard.
It is, moreover, hard for me to bust my britches; I have a very
sturdy belt.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over the
summer the heritage minister flew to Toronto and made a big show
of a $200 million TV production fund. She seems to do that when
she gives away a lot of taxpayers' money. Just two weeks ago,
without a press release, without any fanfare at all, the minister
doled out $5 million for the book publishing industry. We wonder if
there is a connection.
We know she cannot responsibly spend the $200 million in this
fiscal year. Where did she get the $5 million for the book
publishing industry? Was it from the TV production fund?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only a few moments ago
his colleague questioned the government in terms of our job
creation measures.
The member should underscore to the House that the $200
million cable television production fund, which is a partnership of
5483
government and the private sector, will result in the investment of
$650 million and the creation of 30,000 jobs in the fastest growing
industry in Canada, that is, the cultural industry.
Rather than decrying the government measures to support
cultural industries like the book publishing industry and the
emerging television production industry, the Reform Party should
engage in a real fresh start and congratulate us.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was
very notable of course that her answer did not contain any answer
to the question. She will not answer any specific questions about
her spending.
For example, take the $23 million for the free flags. It could not
have come from the Canadian identity branch because it only has
$50 million in total. Flags were only budgeted for $1 million.
She will not answer specific questions. She refuses to tell us
where she got the taxpayers' money from for the flags or for this $5
million. If it was not from the TV production fund, where was it
from?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the
member once again mentioned the flag program.
Perhaps the member could speak to his colleague, the member
for Simcoe Centre, who has just received a letter from a constituent
of his, a member of the Reform Party who along with eight of his
colleagues has quit the Reform Party because it refused to support
the flag program in the riding of Simcoe Centre.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
There is great public concern about the steady extinction of
species around the world. In Canada, this concern translates into
massive support for legislation to protect endangered species.
Can the Minister of the Environment advise us when we will see
the long awaited endangered species legislation in this House?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for Peterborough not only
for the question but for his diligent work on this file and others
before the environment and sustainable development committee.
As was mentioned last week at the international conservation
congress in Montreal, this government for the first time will be
putting before the House of Commons federal endangered species
legislation in a couple of weeks. That speaks for the aspirations of
Canadians in all parts of the country.
(1500 )
As I said, outside of complaining about the weather, this is the
one file that elicits the most passionate response from both young
and old alike.
Second, it is important to understand that we want a national
framework and not a national patchwork. That is why it is equally
important that all the provinces and two territories, along with the
federal government, have agreed to a national accord to protect
endangered species. The country and Canadians will get a national
strategy which they and these species are entitled to.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Under the land claims agreements which have been signed by the
federal government and entrenched by Parliament, there is a
provision that when federal legislation affects the groups which
come under those land claims they must be consulted. I have
written to his colleague, the Minister of Justice, about this issue as
well.
Can the minister tell the House what steps he and the Minister of
Justice are taking to define what consultation is because it is
causing a lot of confusion. I am afraid it will result in costly law
cases if we do not have a definition of consultation under the land
claims agreements.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
As the hon. member is aware and is still celebrating, the Yukon
is now represented by a new government and three of the members
are aboriginal. They are very concerned that there be consultation
with First Nations. I have talked to the new leader of the Yukon and
I am prepared to sit down with him and develop a more proactive
scheme than we had under the former government.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Hon. Stan Shumacher, my brother
Speaker from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
5484
The Speaker: Colleagues, one of our own has been away a little
while. I refer to the dean of the House of Commons-I can use his
name-the Hon. Herb Gray. Please make him welcome.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
5484
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 seven
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which deals
with Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. I am
proud to report this bill with several amendments.
* * *
(1505 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act and the Referendum Act.
The Speaker: Herb, before you begin, in the name of all of your
colleagues here we missed you. Welcome home.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the good wishes are very much
appreciated. I will not say more than that, except that I am deeply
touched by the good wishes, not only of members of the House but
by people from all over our wonderful country.
I am really rising in connection with the question of when shall
the bill be read a second time. I wish to rise on a point of order.
Therefore, I am at your disposal in that regard.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wish to inform the
House that it is my intention to propose that this bill be referred to
committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order
73(1).
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today. The first deals with taxation of the
family and comes from Victoria, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition on labelling of alcoholic beverages comes from
Stittsville, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure
to table a petition containing 76 signatures on behalf of petitioners
in the community of Terrace in my riding.
The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned citizens of
Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: whereas,
the majority of Canadians believe that the justice system in Canada
is not fair and the system does not demand that criminals pay for
their crimes and, whereas we would like to see an end to plea
bargaining and life sentences, therefore, your petitioners pray and
request that Parliament recognize the need for change within the
justice system to work to put the rights of the victim ahead of those
of the criminal.
5485
(1510 )
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
signed by 86 of my constituents who pray that Parliament enact
Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West,
at the earliest opportunity to provide in Canadian law that no
criminal profits from committing a crime.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of my fellow citizens, I am happy to introduce a petition which
reads as follows:
``We the undersigned citizens of Canada wish to draw the
attention of the House of Commons to the following. Whereas the
Senate consists of unelected members who are not accountable for
their actions; whereas the annual budget of the Senate is $43
million; whereas the Senate refuses to be accountable for its
expenditures to committees of the House of Commons; whereas the
Senate does not fulfil its mandate to represent the regions; whereas
the Senate duplicates the work done by members of the House of
Commons; whereas it is necessary to ensure modern parliamentary
institutions; and whereas the House is presently debating a motion
proposing the abolition of the Senate; therefore, yours petitioners
ask that Parliament take steps to abolish the Senate''.
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present six petitions. Three of
these petitions call on the Government of Canada to provide in
Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions that call on
the Government of Canada to proceed with amendments to the
Criminal Code to ensure that persons convicted of impaired driving
causing death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a
maximum of fourteen years.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last petition calls on the Government of
Canada to legislate a comprehensive ban on the production, export,
trade or transfer of anti-personnel mines and to advocate strongly a
worldwide ban on land mines.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a
petition from people living in Victoria-Haliburton.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on the Parliament of
Canada assembled to enact legislation to ensure that Canada
remains one country, undivided, from coast to coast to coast.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 56 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 56-Mr. Wells:
Have any tenders been awarded in the past 12 months by Public Works Canada
where any condition or provision provided for in the tender document was waived
and the contract awarded despite the non-compliance with this provision or
condition?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): It is Public Works and Government
Services Canada, PWGSC, policy that bids be evaluated solely
against the criteria set out in the tender document. In addition, all
contracts issued are subject to compliance audit. In two recent
audits of contracting, in both headquarters and the regions, and
based upon a random selection of files, no cases were identified in
which mandatory bid evaluation criteria were waived.
However, suppliers who believe that PWGSC has failed to
comply with the stipulated criteria in a tender have recourse to the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CITT. Over the past 12
months, approximately 60,000 contracts have been awarded.
During this time the CITT has found that on two occasions,
PWGSC through error did not conduct the evaluation according to
the criteria set out in the bid solicitation.
PWGSC strives continually to ensure that errors of this nature
are not repeated. Systems and procedures are constantly evaluated
and ``lessons learned'' maintained in order to improve our
performance in this regard.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 14 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
5486
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 14-Mr. White (North Vancouver):
With respect to the Squamish Indian Band in North Vancouver, what has the
Federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development determined to be
(a) the total number of Band members living on the Reserve, (b) the total amount of
funding provided to the Band in each of the years from 1990 through 1995 from all
federal govermnent sources including, but not limited to, transfers and grants for any
purpose, government leases of land from the Band, housing costs, education and
training, special purpose funding, and (c) income from the Park Royal South
Shopping Centre lease collected on behalf of the Band?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have not had an
opportunity to consult with the other parties, but if the House gives
its consent could we revert to presenting reports from committees?
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 38th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 38th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to.)
5486
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1515)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51,
an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Just before question period the hon. member for
Kootenay East had the floor. It is around 35 minutes that he still has
left.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members
will be happy to know that after the first five minutes I am already
half way through my speech which does not change the fact that we
are going to be opposing this bill for three fundamental reasons.
Just before the break we were dealing with reason number one
which is that it represents bad government.
Good government has to do with having people elect some
leaders who are responsible to ensure that public services are
provided at a cost people can afford by the level closest to the
people best able to perform the service efficiently.
Instead, the Nunavut water board is appointed by the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development who in turn was
appointed by the Prime Minister after being elected by the people
of Sault Ste. Marie, a long way from Nunavut. Its costs will be paid
by the people of Canada who have no say whatsoever about the
board; all we get to do is pay for it.
Regarding my second reason for opposing Bill C-51, namely the
process the government used, the government has been
ridiculously slow. The Nunavut land claims agreement passed in
1993. It required the federal government to establish three major
governing institutions, including the Nunavut water board within
three years, by July 9, 1996, or the board members would be
appointed and proceed as though the legislation had been passed.
This Nunavut water board has been up and running for several
months without the limits imposed on it by legislation.
We are all aware that Bill C-51 was tabled so late last spring, on
June 14, that there is no way it could have passed before the July
deadline. It was totally irresponsible of the government to delay its
consultations about the Nunavut water board with both industry
and northern residents until August 1995. Because it was a
foregone conclusion that especially given the great distances and
the severe climate of the Northwest Territories it would simply not
be possible to receive widespread public input and draw suitable
legislation to get through Parliament before the July deadline, this
government should have started the necessary consultations very
shortly after it took power three years ago.
5487
Were the officials in the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development so lax in their duties that they failed to
make the fact known to their minister or did the minister simply not
care? Clearly the Liberal government is totally unfamiliar with the
process of thoroughly consulting with the people of Canada's
north. Despite a lot of fine talk, the federal government has been
run by unaccountable bureaucrats both in the south and especially
in the north who, plain and simple, do not realize that it takes time
for people to provide input.
The result is that this legislation was not brought to Parliament
with enough time for proper debate before the July 1996 deadline.
Another defective part of the government's process is that it has
repeatedly refused to provide a briefing to our caucus critic and
other members of the Reform caucus despite our repeated requests
ever since Bill C-51 was tabled last June. Only on the morning of
Friday, October 11 this year when Bill C-51 was quite possibly to
be debated that same day did the government offer to brief the
Reform caucus on Bill C-51. Clearly once again the government is
treating this House with contempt.
Parliament is not a rubber stamp and the Reform Party is doing
everything possible to thwart the Liberals' efforts to depreciate this
Parliament and the democratic process in Canada. That fact should
probably be raised as a question of parliamentary privilege because
the lack of a departmental briefing on legislation proposed by the
government makes it extremely difficult for my colleagues and me
to perform our proper role of holding the government accountable
and providing our own thorough input about the content and likely
effects across Canada of legislation that the government is
proposing.
(1520 )
However, this government does make it a practice to trample on
the rights of parliamentarians, which means trampling on the rights
of the voters who elected us. Now we must proceed with
consideration of Bill C-51, even without a departmental briefing.
This enactment creates the Nunavut water board to license uses
of waters or deposits of waste on other water users. The board must
also establish agreements providing appropriate compensation for
any loss or damage due to changes. The board must work closely
with the Nunavut planning commission and has input on all
Nunavut land use plans involving water, which is to say that this
Nunavut water board will have a remarkable influence once it is in
place within the new illegal province of Nunavut with its sweeping
powers. The powers are so great that Parliament had to add a
special clause to ensure nothing in the original Nunavut bill gave
this illegal province greater powers than those enjoyed by the legal
provinces. That clause is subsection (2) of section 23 of the
Nunavut Act, which should never have been allowed to pass this
House in the first place.
This is my final point of objection and certainly the most serious.
It was raised in the book Our Home or Native Land?, written by
constitutional scholar and lawyer Mel Smith of Victoria, B.C. Mr.
Smith wrote that perhaps the only way out of the terrible waste and
over government of the Nunavut deal would be to declare the entire
issue unconstitutional. I quote page 22 of his book:
Since 1982, the Canadian Constitution requires that the establishment of new
provinces requires the approval of not only Parliament but also at least seven
provincial legislatures having 50 per cent of the population of Canada. If this new
territory is not tantamount to establishing a new province without the consent of the
other provinces and therefore subverting the constitutional requirement, then I do
not know what a new province would look like. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a
duck and walks like a duck, the chances are it's a duck.
Therefore I ask my hon. colleagues, very few of whom were
elected to Parliament when it passed legislation to create the vast
new bureaucracy called Nunavut, to join me in opposing Bill C-51,
the Nunavut waters act, not only because it represents bad
government and was advanced by a bad process but because the
original Nunavut legislation should be declared unconstitutional.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
The Speaker: As requested, we will delay the vote until later
this day when the other votes are being taken.
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in
relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to
reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time
and referred to committee.
5488
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-49, the
Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures)
Act. This bill illustrates once again our government's commitment
to fulfill the promises it made to Canadians.
The bill is part of an integrated and consistent effort to promote
sound public management and economic growth. It is also a major
component of our goal to restore the confidence of Canadians in
their national institutions.
We must continue to build this confidence by displaying
openness, honesty and integrity, while also managing our finances
in a responsible way. Members of this House are aware of the
results of the program review, this fundamental analysis of all
federal departments, programs and activities.
Members will also remember that last year we discussed Bill
C-65, the first legislation on government organization, before
eventually passing it. This legislation stemmed from a review of all
the federal government's boards, agencies, commissions and
advisory bodies. It was the first omnibus bill designed to eliminate
redundant organizations and to streamline the operations of federal
organizations and boards, so as to improve effectiveness and the
quality of services provided to Canadians.
The legislation before us today is the second omnibus bill to
implement the decisions I announced in February of last year in the
final report stemming from the agency review. The bill also seeks
to implement other changes deemed necessary following the
review, while increasing administrative accountability and
uniformity for 30 organizations by winding up seven organizations
and restructuring or downsizing 13 others.
[English]
Last year's act eliminated 150 governor in council positions,
wound up 9 organizations and downsized 16 others. The bill before
us will wind up 7 organizations and eliminate a further 271
governor in council positions for savings each year of about $2.5
million.
I am also happy to report that as a result of the agency review
over 400 other governor in council positions are being eliminated
by order in council, by separate legislation and administratively.
In total, the review will see the wind-up of over 80 organizations
and the elimination of over 800 governor in council positions.
I suggest to all hon. members that these results, while not
insignificant in themselves, are indicative of a much larger issue.
When we start thinking hard about getting government right, as we
promised we would do, when we take some clear decisions about
putting the government's affairs in order, the pay-offs to taxpayers
and all Canadians can be very substantial indeed.
When I say pay-offs I do not simply mean saving tax dollars,
important as that may be. Like most major western democracies
facing severe financial pressures, Canada has been seriously
rethinking the role of government in the modern state.
How do we restore the hope and confidence of Canadians in their
future? How do we reconnect citizens with their government so
they can see that government is immediately relevant to their daily
lives?
Government itself is critical in answering both questions.
(1530)
How then do we reshape the federal government so that it
focuses on the things that only government can do or can do best?
Canadians repeatedly told us that they have had enough of big
government. The message was clear and simple. Government is too
big, it is too costly and it is not close enough to the people it serves.
To give Canadians the government and economic opportunities
they expect and deserve, we have provided leadership in reducing
the deficit, rethinking the whole role of the federal government,
reforming our social security system, making federalism more
efficient and streamlining government agencies.
Clearly the bill before us is an integral part of this government's
coherent and wide ranging program of government renewal.
[Translation]
Program review was another key feature of our strategy to
promote job creation and economic growth. This was the most
comprehensive review of governmental programs and services in
two generations.
The purpose was to reduce government operations to a bare
minimum, a core of essential services, in an orderly fashion. And
this is exactly our approach in pursuing the three program review
objectives: first, to reduce the public administration function of
federal programs and services, resulting in a leaner and more
effective federal government providing high priority programs to
Canadians; second, to modernize Canadian federalism, enabling
our government to ensure the provision of programs and services
only when the federal government is the most appropriate level of
government to do so; and third, to help the government meet its
financial targets.
This essentially entails reviewing all of the federal government's
responsibilities and determining which of these Canadians can
afford. Now that positive results are starting to show, I am sure that
the distinguished members of this House will agree that we made a
wise decision in taking measured steps. The review was not just
another bureaucracy bashing initiative. Neither did it reflect the
latest fad in management styles. And it definitely was not an absurd
slash and burn exercise.
In the past, many studies were conducted on behalf of the federal
government by the Lambert Commission in 1979, by the Nielsen
5489
Task Force in 1986 and as part of the Public Service 2000 initiative
in 1990. We are strongly encouraged to eliminate waste and
inefficiency within the public service, especially during election
campaigns. It is obvious however that the review should not result
only in little squares being moved around on public service
organization charts.
Why is this review different? Simply because our government
has the political will to act and enough imagination to take
whatever action is required. This review focuses on the main
problems we are facing, namely the need to reduce government
spending and improve the economy in order to promote job
creation.
Another distinctive feature is that this review involved every
minister and department. Departments are now setting aside their
secondary responsibilities and merging so that similar programs
and services can be grouped in a single portfolio. They are
eliminating costly overlap and duplication and using new
technologies to reduce the cost of providing services while raising
standards. Finally, they are funding necessary programs through
cost recovery and user fees.
[English]
I began by suggesting that Bill C-49 is an integral part of our
well thought out program of government renewal, of getting
government right. It is the second omnibus bill to implement
decisions stemming from the review of agencies helping to
simplify government by eliminating unnecessary or inactive
organizations and streamlining others.
(1535)
The 1994 budget launched this review and its major work is now
virtually completed. We have no set targets. Rather, we wanted to
identify sensible and practical changes to make government work
better.
Ministers reviewed the various agencies within their portfolios
and recommendations for change were made in consultation with
the agencies themselves and with the Canadians they serve. For
example, the changes range from eliminating a single governor in
council position on the International Boundary Commission to
reducing the governor in council positions on the Canada Pension
Plan Review Tribunal from 400 to 300 members.
Other amendments relate to accountability, standardization and
administrative efficiency. These affect 30 organizations.
Members will notice that the bill improve the governance of
agencies, boards and commissions in two main ways. First,
governor in council appointments have been reduced to the
minimum number necessary for efficient operation. Second,
accountability has been improved in several ways.
One example is the phrase ``remedial and disciplinary
measures'' in the bill's title. This refers to the fact that several
statutes do not provide clear mechanisms for those rare cases where
it might be necessary to undertake remedial or disciplinary
measures with regard to a member of an administrative tribunal
appointed during good behaviour. The bill now brings in consistent
provisions.
The bill's provisions clarify the complex accountability of
persons appointed during good behaviour on the one hand and
during pleasure on the other. Persons appointed during good
behaviour may be removed only for cause. This applies to
appointees of agencies at arm's length where independence and
impartiality are important. An example is the National Parole
Board.
Where appointments to serve during good behaviour are not
justified by the need for independence and impartiality, the bill
amends tenure to serving during pleasure. This means that
appointees may be removed at the discretion of the governor in
council.
Finally, to clarify accountability, consistent appointment
mechanisms are being introduced for the chairpersons of
administrative tribunals.
[Translation]
I think this bill illustrates on a reduced scale our preferred
formula for rethinking the government's role. Until the basic
questions are raised, the temptation is to go on as before. On the
other hand, some are now saying about government that what has
not been reviewed does not deserve to survive.
We are rapidly moving toward some radical changes aimed at
reducing the size of the federal government so that it can focus on
national roles, responsibilities and priorities and provide the
services important to Canadians at a cost everyone can afford.
[English]
Programs and services must focus even more on client needs, not
on jurisdictional hair splitting or administrative needs. I believe
that national confidence in government can be restored if it is
involved in activities that properly belong to it.
Government in today's world cannot be static. I see a constant
and continuing rethinking about how we can do better. The results
will be a more responsive, service oriented and leaner government.
It will mean more sensible federal priorities concentrated on the
major social and economic issues. As clients, Canadians want
services that are speedy, accessible, reliable and responsive.
(1540)
As citizens, Canadians want services that guarantee health and
safety, public security, fairness and equity and economic
well-being. As taxpayers, Canadians want a government that is
efficient and cost effective. In other words, Canadians want a
competent government with political imagination, leadership and
courage. That is exactly what this government will continue to
deliver.
5490
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
legislation is about administrative tribunals and the dissolution of
certain federal agencies.
As Treasury Board critic for the official opposition, I will first
address the real financial impact of Bill C-49 and then I will look
more closely at its administrative and political impact.
The minister tells us that all these dissolutions and
reorganizations contained in Bill C-49 and in a similar bill adopted
by Parliament in June 1995 will result in savings of about $10
million a year.
What is the use of all these changes which, according to the
minister, may help us save some $10 million a year when we know
that, in spite of their red book promises, the Liberals have let the
public debt grow and have not addressed the problem of chronic
unemployment. Ten million dollars is just a drop in the ocean of
debt created by the Liberals. Canada's debt is growing by more
than $100 million a day, which is ten times more a day than Bill
C-49 and the other bill adopted in June 1995 will help us save in a
year.
Since 1961, the federal debt has increased twenty-six-fold, and
the Liberals have been in power during 26 of those 35 years. We
know who is responsible for this huge debt.
In its annual brief presented to federal parliamentarians in
December 1995, the Conseil du patronat du Quebec asked the
federal government to set right then a higher deficit reduction
target than the one it is supposed to meet in March 1997, which is
$24.3 billion. Reducing the deficit to $20 billion by March 31,
1997 should be a minimum target according to the Conseil du
patronat du Québec, which invites the federal government to
re-examine seriously its spending rather than increase direct or
indirect taxes paid by Canadians.
And a bill such as Bill C-49 will not lead to a serious
examination and considerable reduction of federal spending. The
deficit reduction targets are too low and efforts to stop the growth
of our debt are insufficient.
Bill C-49, just like the last budget tabled by the Minister of
Finance, means the end of the government's efforts to put our fiscal
house in order. The impact of the budget measures on the deficit
will be non-existent this year and will total only $200 million next
year. Can you imagine an impact of $200 million over a two-year
period on an annual budget of over $160 billion. This is ridiculous.
The President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance
are still trying to make us believe that deficit reduction remains one
of the major concerns of cabinet, by regularly bombarding us with
statistics on the debt as a percentage of the GDP and by comparing
Canada to countries with the worst record concerning deficit
reduction. Let me remind the minister that there is no glory in
making such comparisons.
In the briefing notes released by the Treasury Board, it is written
in black and white that the two stages of the agency review will
only account for $10 million in savings. The Liberals have come up
with very little after making such a big show of the program
review, which has not amounted to much. It is, indeed, very
disappointing.
As I said earlier, the President of the Treasury Board and
minister responsible for this program review has been making a lot
of fuss these past two years, by bringing forth some very
impressive figures: 45,000 jobs cut in the civil service, and more
cuts right and left.
(1545)
In fact, we should let the figures speak for themselves. If it were
not for the estimated increase in revenue of $100 million this year
and $245 million next year, the budget re-allocation made by the
minister in charge of the Treasury Board would have resulted in an
operational deficit of $134 million for this year and of $92 million
for next year.
Why cut so many jobs and affect so many workers and their
families if just to re-allocate funds to so-called priorities? Not only
is this exercise bound to result in no gain or even worse a deficit,
but a slower economic growth than what was forecast could mean
an even higher deficit in the upcoming years.
The government does not keep its word. Furthermore, it wants us
to believe that it exceeds its own objectives. Fiscally speaking, Bill
C-49 is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the fact that the Liberals
are not able to reduce the deficit.
All the accumulated effects of this year's budget will have an
impact of only $1.9 billion by 1999. Do not forget that the
predicted impact of the 1994 budget was $45 billion over 5 years
and that of the 1995 budget was $43 billion over 4 years. According
to the predictions, this year's budget will have a nominal impact of
$1.9 billion on the debt, which will have increased by $110 billion
by the end of this Liberal government's mandate.
The government is dragging its feet and continuing to estimate
the impact of its actions over several years because they are
generally laughable when taken individually each year. And the
best example of this is Bill C-49 tabled by the minister responsible
for the Treasury Board.
All the important decisions concerning cuts and reductions in
spending were taken in the 1994 and 1995 budgets. Why then
propose an administrative overhaul, which will have no real impact
on government management? In practice, the finance minister
always tables deferred budgets to avoid the backlash of unpopular
decisions.
5491
Cuts undertaken in past years coming into effect in 1996 and
1997 will continue to reduce government expenditures without the
need for the government to make some new unpopular decisions
this year and as it approaches the deadline of the elections planned
for next year.
Meanwhile, the President of the Treasury Board is proceeding
with a few administrative and symbolic changes to show that the
government is still bent on improving public finances. This is an
election-oriented strategy and the people is not fooled by it.
With regard to the political and administrative impact of Bill
C-49, we can say without fear of error that the President of the
Treasury Board set out some fine principles in the backgrounder we
received recently from his officials, but, in fact, this piece of
legislation is backward looking when it comes to the administrative
tools it is proposing and shamefully partisan in its objectives.
The Treasury Board's backgrounder talks about streamlining
disciplinary measures taken by administrative tribunals,
streamlining the process of appointing chairpersons to
administrative tribunals, winding up 7 federal agencies and
revamping or downsizing 13 others, as well as standardizing
terminology and pay, and several other changes. All these are fine
principles indeed, but what is Bill C-49 really hiding?
Let us take a closer look at the administrative and political
consequences of this piece of legislation. Bill C-49 makes
significant changes in the way administrative tribunals operate.
Several of my Bloc colleagues will take the floor shortly, as critics,
to tell you about the particular impact of Bill C-49 on each one of
the 19 administrative tribunals involved.
(1550)
I ask the House for unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That, when Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in
relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve
certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has
been concurred in by the Liberal majority at second reading, it be referred to every
standing committee of the House connected with an administrative tribunal affected
by the said bill.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, if I am not mistaken, you are
asking for unanimous consent of the House on a motion.
Mr. Bélisle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: In my opinion, this amendment is not admissible
at this point. We will go on. To obtain unanimous consent, the
motion must be admissible and I do not think it is. So you may
continue with your speech.
Mr. Bélisle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Even though they are not as well-known as superior courts, the
administrative tribunals have major impacts on the daily life of
Canadians and Quebecers. Their rulings often have serious
consequences for the citizens and the country.
In fact, the increased importance of administrative tribunals in
recent years is common knowledge. They have become popular
decision-making venues where the citizens regularly face the
government to assert their rights.
For more than 25 years now, a debate on these administrative
tribunals has been going on in Quebec. A project for the reform of
administrative tribunals has even been submitted to the Quebec
National Assembly. Fundamental questions like the independence
and the impartiality of the judges of those tribunals are being
discussed there.
Although they are being debated at the Quebec government
level, these issues are also relevant at the federal level. Bill C-49
could have solved the fundamental problem of partisan
appointments of members of the administrative tribunals. But the
federal government chose to return to a not so glorious past in that
area instead of modernizing the appointment process as Quebec is
about to do.
At a time when the public is so cynical about politicians, the
President of the Treasury Board is implementing even more
partisan rules, which give political authorities increased control
over the administrative tribunals.
(1555)
The bill establishes a new mechanism to remove from office
people appointed to administrative tribunals by the governor in
council. This is in clause 3 of the bill. Also, after certain
procedures, the governor in council will have the power to remove
these people from office for cause, as specified in the bill.
Only after receiving an inquiry report, will the minister have the
power to make a recommendation ``to suspend the member without
pay, remove the member from office or impose any other
disciplinary measure or any remedial measure''. This is in clause
14 of the bill. The minister's recommendations are entirely at his
discretion, regardless of the content of the inquiry report.
Chairpersons of administrative tribunals will now all be
designated instead of being appointed. Such a change makes the
chairperson very vulnerable to political pressures by the
government, which can simply designate a new chairman when it
sees fit. These new measures can even further undermine the
credibility of administrative tribunals and, moreover, make them
even more
5492
dependent on political authority. It is unacceptable to introduce
measures that seriously attack the independence and impartiality of
administrative tribunals. It really flies in the face of the
transparency people want from a modern and progressive
government.
Unfortunately, federal administrative tribunals are constantly the
object of Liberal patronage. This was true under Trudeau, and it is
still true under the present Prime Minister.
The President of the Treasury Board refuses to discuss these
important issues because he wants to maintain the power of
ministers to appoint the members of administrative tribunals. Any
reform of administrative tribunals should start with the arbitrary
nature of the process for appointing and renewing the mandates of
administrative judges. In 1996, political patronage in a
quasi-judiciary process should no longer exist in a modern
democracy like ours.
Bill C-49 is a direct attack on the independence and impartiality
of judges. The Liberal government is fully prepared to ignore
principles that should underlie the work of administrative tribunals.
With the sword of Damocles that he wants to suspend above the
heads of members of administrative tribunals, the President of the
Treasury Board may vitiate the entire judicial process of
administrative tribunals. In so doing he is subordinating the
judiciary to political considerations.
The president of the Quebec Bar Association was very clear
about this when she said, and I quote: ``The lack of job security
may have an unexpected psychological impact on the decisions of a
person who may be more concerned about pleasing the government
than rendering a fair judgment''. This quote was taken from Le
Soleil of July 8, 1995.
Members of administrative tribunals might even be reluctant to
develop jurisprudence that would be favourable to the individual,
so as not to penalize the State.
The Liberals, with their base partisan manoeuvring, are
attacking the very foundations of a modern democracy. The
separation of powers has long been a part of Canadian and Quebec
democracy, and the minister would do well to drop Bill C-49 if he
does not want to go down in history as the man for whom the
development and modernization of institutions is a backdoor
proposition.
This government bill is totally unacceptable. It is a direct attack
on the impartiality and independence of members of administrative
tribunals. These two principles are seen as fundamental to a
democratic society, principles that the government prefers to
ignore in favour of maintaining its power to make partisan
appointments to administrative tribunals.
(1600)
These appointments are a way to reward friends of the party who
may not always have the qualifications to exercise such important
duties. The Liberals are simply perpetuating the patronage system
with which they are so familiar and which has been their trademark
as a government for a long time.
I hope the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board will listen
to reason and withdraw this retrograde and backward looking bill.
The minister will have a chance to redeem himself by supporting
my amendment to Bill C-49, which is as follows:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49, An Act to authorize
remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, because the principle of the said Bill does
not allow for the possibility for any parliamentary mechanism governing the
appointment or revocation of the appointment of members of administrative
tribunals.''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment is in order.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps you
can clarify whether we are talking about the amendment. Is debate
only on the amendment or can we still talk about the bill, since it is
the intention of the amendment to postpone the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me put it in these terms.
Technically we are debating the amendment. Of course the original
motion is always relevant. I will leave that to your interpretation.
(1605 )
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the advice. I also
appreciate the motion by my colleague from the Bloc that says we
should not be debating this bill. We in the Reform Party do not
agree with the contents of the bill either.
If I can endorse the feelings of my colleague from the Bloc
perhaps I can give my feelings on Bill C-49 and why this bill
should be voted down and out. I do not think the government has
achieved very much other than some grandiose statements from the
President of the Treasury Board in introducing the bill. It was a
wonderful speech but when it is analysed he did not have much to
say.
One point that did strike me as being very important was the
statement that 271 positions had been eliminated. Attached to that
was the statement that $2.5 million would be saved. When we look
at the 271 positions that are being eliminated we find that these are
271 vacant positions. The minister gave no explanation of how he
was saving $2.5 million by eliminating positions that are sitting
vacant and were not costing taxpayers anything. I wonder how this
5493
is going to move the Liberal agenda forward or is it just more
smoke and mirrors of the type that we have become accustomed to
over the last three years in this House.
Unfortunately, I have drawn the conclusion that it is very likely
in the realm of smoke and mirrors than an actual advancement of
policy which is why I think the Bloc's amendment is in order.
Patronage has always run long and deep and lies close to the
heart of members of the Liberal Party. That is why when the
President of the Treasury Board is touting this as a great new
advancement I am somewhat sceptical. I looked at some of the
points he made, such as keeping promises to Canadians, which I
will talk more about later. The major component of the objective of
this exercise is to improve the confidence of Canadians in the
exercise of government. We are talking more government and more
spending.
Reformers have asked the Minister of Finance to cut spending
but the spending of this government has not changed in three years.
Interest costs on the deficit have more than offset any decreases the
Minister of Finance has been able to make elsewhere. The actual
cost of government is just as much today as it was three years ago
except that Canadians are getting less for their money as it is used
to pay interest and given to bankers, lenders, foreign investors and
all the people who really do not need the taxpayers' money.
I listened to the Minister of Finance during question period
today. He was really getting quite hot and bothered by the Reform
Party's plan. He tried to defend his own but I did not hear him
defend how he taxes Canadians, especially poor Canadians and
young Canadians who are looking for jobs. The money is
transferred to foreign investors, bankers, money lenders and so on
who are rich beyond all imagination. This is just because the
government cannot get its spending act together. These are the
types of things for which Canadians want answers.
Now the President of the Treasury Board stands up in the House
and gives us a wonderful speech. However, when it is analysed he
has not said anything. There will be 271 positions eliminated. Is
that not a wonderful piece of work? When we look underneath we
find these are vacant positions. He has not axed one single person
out of the patronage pork barrel. Did he tell us that? No. Did he tell
Canadians that? No. Did he admit that this was just smoke and
mirrors? No. This was presented as wonderful leadership by the
government.
The philosophy of appointments by the Liberal Party is
questionable at best. Merit is certainly not a consideration. When I
say merit I again come back to the President of the Treasury Board.
He is the minister in charge of the department that is the employer
of the civil service. We are trying to introduce merit into the civil
service to recognize the people who work harder and do a better
job, who deserve more pay and to be advanced up the ladder faster.
Yet we have Bill C-49 which contains 100 pages or so and not one
single mention of merit in it.
(1610)
The President of the Treasury Board is promoting merit but
supports a bill that completely bypasses merit and favours
partisanship. The minister has a mandate to renew the civil service
which he has accomplished through job cuts and the restructuring
of departments. Yet Bill C-49 offers no such review of
appointments or an overhaul of the appointment process.
The government has eliminated 45,000 jobs in the civil service.
Not all of them are legitimate eliminations. There are lots of smoke
and mirrors too. However, the point is there is some serious
downsizing in the civil service. But no, the government cannot
touch the patronage jobs. It can eliminate the jobs that are sitting
vacant, but will not go after its friends.
The bill goes on to restructure words. Fisherman is eliminated
and replaced by fisher. The President of the Treasury Board
promotes neutrality, accountability and integrity within the civil
service but does not feel that these qualities should apply to Liberal
colleagues when they are appointed to the plum patronage posts.
Smoke and mirrors. As the House will see, Liberal Party claims
about how much it has done to improve the patronage system is
really bogus.
Let me remind my hon. colleagues on the other side of their
party's boasts some three years ago in the red book. On page 92 it
states: ``A Liberal government will make competence and diversity
the criteria for federal appointments''. I read in the paper this
morning that with the Liberal convention coming up this weekend
they are going to publish a document telling us how many of these
promises they have met. Bill C-49 does not even have the word
competence in it yet it deals with patronage appointments by the
hundreds.
I wonder how the crafters of this document are going to tell us
how they achieved their promises in the red book. I am sure they
will be able to point to one particular appointment where just by
chance perhaps the guy actually has some qualifications as well as
being a member of the Liberal Party and hence the promise has
been fulfilled.
Let us remember that a Liberal government will make
competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments.
However in the bill there is not a mention.
How strange is it that the best candidate all too often turns out to
be a Liberal? For example, the current Minister of National
Defence appointed Marian Robinson, a long time Liberal staffer to
the National Transportation Agency with a per diem of $500 a day
without even interviewing her to determine her competency or
expertise in the field. However, being a good Liberal and working
for the minister deserves an appointment courtesy of the taxpayer.
5494
How about all of these appointments to the Senate in the last
three years? Many of them came from that side of the House. Not
one of them was not beholden and committed to the Liberal Party.
I have a book here that I got from the Library. It is called Federal
cabinet appointments handbook: A compendium of Governor in
Council appointments. You can see how thick it is, Mr. Speaker. If
the number of pages are counted it might be embarrassing. There
are a number of pages for each chapter. It is full of the names of
people, hundreds and thousands of people, each and every one of
them enjoying the largesse of the taxpayer in order to do some
political appointment job. There are lists of names under the
Department of Health, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse,
the Medical Council of Canada, Medical Research Council,
National Advisory Council on Aging, Patented Medicines Price
Review Board.
Let us move to a different chapter. Under the Renewable
Resources Board, the chairperson is picked by the governor in
council with remuneration at $200 to $275 a day. Renewable
Resource Board, in Sahtu in the Northwest Territories, per diem
$160 to $250 a day. Under the Department of Industry there is the
National Economic Development Board, remuneration to be fixed
by the minister but it does not tell us how much.
(1615)
There is the Business Development Bank of Canada and pages of
names. Remuneration is $200 to $300 a day with an annual retainer
of $4,000 to $5,000. This one is up. As soon as we put a bank in
there I guess it deserves more. This is getting expensive.
There is the Canadian Space Agency, the Canadian Tourism
Commission, the Copyright Board. There is Edmonton Northlands,
in my hometown. There are two people on there. Remuneration is
fixed by the organization. Directors who are public servants serve
without remuneration but they look to be local people who have
served for pleasure.
On and on it goes with hundreds of names, thousands of people,
millions of dollars and no accountability.
Going back to the government, the Prime Minister in his
acceptance speech in 1993 vowed that Liberals were elected to
serve the people of Canada and not to serve themselves. Is that not
a wonderful statement? The Liberals were elected to serve the
people of Canada, not to serve themselves yet when we look at all
these patronage appointments it is rather interesting.
I have a copy of the Monday, October 14, 1996 edition of the Hill
Times. It contains part one of the Liberal patronage appointments. I
put the emphasis on part one.
Let us take a look at Gerald Allbright who was appointed to the
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. Party: Liberal.
Background: a well known Liberal supporter.
Gary Anstey. Position: Minister of Fisheries, that is the previous
minister, Brian Tobin, who is now the premier of Newfoundland.
He was appointed as executive assistant. Party: Liberal. He worked
for another member of Parliament and later resigned from Mr.
Tobin's office temporarily until cleared of financial wrongdoings.
A little shaky there.
There is Claire Brouillet, a staffer in the Minister of Transport's
office. She was an unsuccessful candidate in Terrebonne in 1993 so
she got a political patronage plum rather than being in this House.
Talk about political patronage.
There is Richard Campbell, Director, Marine Atlantic. Party:
Liberal. He was the campaign manager for Lawrence MacAulay. It
carries on.
There is Moses Coady, a lobbyist. He is a former aide to Liberal
Allan MacEachen and is seeking infrastructure dollars. Well there
you are.
There is Dorothy Davey, vice-chair, Immigration and Refugee
Board, Liberal.
That is from part one. I could go on forever. Wait until next
week's edition with part two.
I go back to the Prime Minister's point that in his words
``Liberals were elected to serve the people of Canada, not to serve
themselves''. Bill C-49 does not do very much about that. The
Prime Minister quickly forgot his promise when he appointed his
longtime ally, Mr. André Ouellet to Canada Post with a salary of
$160,000 a year, or when he appointed the sister of the Minister of
National Defence to the bench at $140,000 a year, or the brother of
the member for Gander-Grand Falls to the board of the Bank of
Canada at $300 a day.
Members may have recalled in the Globe and Mail a couple of
weeks ago when we were giving the government such a hard time
about its code of ethics which the Prime Minister refuses to
divulge. The Globe and Mail had a little article which said that the
perception of influence has to be avoided as well as actual
influence.
The perception must be avoided yet there are people who sit next
to the Prime Minister in this House, who move out of this House
into a $160,000 a year job. Relatives and friends of the Minister of
National Defence move into $140,000 jobs. A brother of the
member for Grand Falls moves to the Bank of Canada. The
perception is downright awful.
Canadians are sick and tired of this type of perception where
friends and who you know is more important than what you know.
Merit is what Canadians like. Canadians have no problem with the
5495
fact that they have to compete and work hard today to get ahead in
this world. When I gave this country 25 years or more, it is what I
most appreciated about this country. It was not who you are or who
you know, but what you can do and accomplish that will get you
ahead. That whole way of Canadian life has been thrown in the
garbage can and people are losing faith.
(1620)
We wonder why people are losing faith in their politicians when
there are these types of appointments, friends and relatives and
connections right across the board. There are books in the Library
of Parliament which contain names upon names upon names.
Agencies, boards and tribunals were once an important forum for
alternative decision making. In most cases they have become
another arm of the bureaucracy, laden with people in an
environment where political loyalties rather than merit are the
criteria for decision making. We see organizations whose functions
overlap and duplicate the work of the non-partisan bureaucracy, but
where else would we be able to help our friends?
Before I look at the bill in detail, I would like to briefly discuss
the history of agencies and administrative tribunals in Canada.
Agencies predate the Confederation of Canada. In 1851 the Board
of Railway Commissioners was created. Even back then the
independence of the agency subsequently came into question when
in 1888 the agency was criticized because its members spent most
of their time in Ottawa, served only on a part time basis, lacked
expertise and were becoming subject to the daily political
wrangling in Ottawa. What is new?
It seems that very little has changed over the last 130 years.
Since that time both the Glassco and the Lambert commissions
have questioned patronage practices and agency accountability.
But once again nothing has been done and Bill C-49 continues that
tradition. The President of the Treasury Board has made grandiose
statements about change, updating, revamping and eliminating
positions but really when we look at it, nothing has changed.
Clearly we have a problem with the government's vision of the
roles of agencies and tribunals. The government has lost its focus
and the lure of patronage has become too great to implement
meaningful changes. Even where the independence of an agency
should be respected by cabinet, it is overlooked.
The National Parole Board is a perfect example. How often have
we talked in the House about the problems, the mistakes, the
incompetence of the National Parole Board that has allowed people
to walk our streets and commit violent and horrendous crimes
where the innocent suffer? Tragically, families are ruined all
because the National Parole Board gets its act wrong. Of course it
is staffed by friends of the government.
The former chair of the parole board stated that the National
Parole Board had become a haven for dangerously inexperienced
appointees. I am sure he used the word dangerously advisedly
because criminals are turned back out on to the streets and what
happens? They commit another murder, another rape, another
violent crime when they should be behind bars. These appointees
have no training yet we literally put them in charge of keeping the
doors locked on our violent offenders. That job should be given to
competent, trained people who know how to make the proper
decisions rather than to friends of the government.
Political agencies have corrupted the day to day duties of the
agencies. When I say corrupt I am not talking about illegalities but
the whole concept of agencies as an expression of the public will by
people who are competent and able to do so has been totally
corrupted by the fact that they are seen as a place to reward friends
and family. That is the corruption I speak of.
That is why politicians are held in such low regard. This
government has every opportunity to do something about it. It
promised to do something about it in the red book. The Prime
Minister promised to do something about it in his acceptance
speech yet three years later it is the same old story.
(1625 )
Bill C-49 for all its hype changes things such as ``chairman'' to
``chair'' but does not change the fact that the National
Transportation Agency is currently staffed by well connected
former Liberal MPs. Bill C-49 changes the term ``fishermen'' to
``fisher'' and the term ``salary'' to ``remuneration'', but these
changes do not renew confidence in the appointment process. They
are politically correct changes for a politically incorrect practice.
Bill C-49 will reorganize the Immigration and Refugee Board,
but that does not change the fact that Pierre Trudeau's former
executive assistant is on the board, along with the defeated Liberal
MP Gary McCauley. We are paying these people $80,000 a year.
Let the truth be known. The cost cutting, the 271 positions and
the whole exercise being proposed by the President of the Treasury
Board has no teeth. The bill for all its fanfare saves no money and
offers no innovation. The only innovation is the use of common
sense that we would propose. Why were these appointments not
eliminated a long time ago? Why did he wait and take the great
glory of doing it all at once when the positions have been sitting
empty for a long time?
I have some serious problems with the bill again with what I
perceive to be the smoke and mirrors concept. Clause 5 of the bill
proposes that the minister will have to wait for a request by the
chair of a tribunal or agency in order to investigate or apply any
disciplinary measures to a member if the chair feels there is cause.
5496
One could argue that the chair is right there and aware of what is
happening to the members and therefore it is only appropriate that
the chair should advise the minister if he perceives any
impropriety. That is a good argument, but there is nothing in the
bill which causes the chair to report to the minister if he is the one
who is accused of impropriety. There is no mechanism to deal with
that.
The bill also allows the minister to hide behind the chair if the
chair does not report to the minister an impropriety of his
colleagues. Clause 5 allows the minister to hide behind the chair.
That is the type of innuendo which we see built into legislation. If
there is a problem down the road with any member of any agency,
the minister can say: ``I have not had a report from the chair. My
hands are tied''. Nothing will be done. These innuendoes in the
legislation will ensure the smoke and mirrors game which the
government is so fond and capable of playing.
I do not recall the minister talking about this aspect of the bill.
The CBC and the CRTC for many Canadians are the bastions of
Canadian culture. The CBC is Canadian owned. It is paid for by the
taxpayers. It promotes Canadian culture. The CRTC regulates our
broadcast industry to ensure that Canadian content rules are
followed. Those are laudatory goals. Bill C-49 allows us to appoint
non-Canadians to the boards. I scratch my head. I shake my head.
Are we now going to say that boards such as the CBC and the
CRTC no longer require Canadian citizens?
The only way individuals cannot have Canadian citizenship is if
they have not been in the country for three years. They have landed
immigrant status but they have not been here long enough and
therefore they cannot apply for Canadian citizenship but they can
sit on the board of the CBC or the CRTC.
Even if an individual has been here for three years, they must be
sufficiently committed to Canada to say: ``I want to be a Canadian.
I want to be known as being a Canadian. I want to stand up and be
proud of the country that has adopted me and I want to take out
Canadian citizenship because I am proud of this country and I want
to support this country''. No, we do not want these people on the
board. We only want landed immigrants.
(1630)
Bill C-49 says that our Canadian culture, which this government
and many other governments before it have spent hundreds of
millions of dollars promoting, can be run by non-Canadians. The
hypocrisy is beyond belief, that this government, which has just
gone through a referendum and almost lost the country through its
incompetence, should now turn around and give us in Bill C-49
these bastions of Canadian culture no longer requiring Canadian
citizenships. It boggles my mind. I find it quite incomprehensible. I
have no idea what this government is trying to achieve.
If anybody doubts my word, take a look at clause 38 on page 11
regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a director if the person is
not a Canadian citizen who is ordinarily resident in Canada or a permanent resident
within the meaning of the Immigration Act or if, directly or indirectly, as owner,
shareholder-
My point is the government has opened it up now to include
non-Canadians, and that is not just the CBC but the CRTC and
other organizations. You do not have to be a Canadian to sit on the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
These are things in the bill that the minister made no mention of
at all. There are all kinds of little things that have been slipped into
this bill that I find rather offensive and I would have thought the
minister would have spoken out clearly on them.
I am also looking at the page on the Race Relations Foundation,
clause 68. In clause 68.(1)(a) the objectives of the foundation are to
undertake research and collect data to develop a national
information base in order to ``eliminate racism and racial
discrimination'', a laudable objective again.
However, now the government has changed the act. Rather than
trying to help eliminate racism and racial discrimination it has
moved it into the pejorative to eliminate racism and racial
discrimination. I would suggest this is an oxymoron. As long as we
continue to undertake research and collect data on the number of
people of various colours, sex, racial origin and so on that we have
in this country, we will guarantee the continuation of racism and
racial discrimination. That has been foisted and fostered and
counted by the bureaucrats and agencies of this government.
I could go on at length. There are many situations in here that I
would like to bring up, which we will do at committee. That is
flavour of the types of issues that deserve to be properly aired.
In his speech the minister said that they want to rethink
government, reach people the best way possible, that people do not
like big government, they want government that is close to the
people it serves. The minister should have been talking about
decentralization and delegation rather than political appointments
and so on.
I support the Bloc's amendment. This type of bill is not laudable,
as the minister would have us believe. This bill is not going to
advance government, as the minister would have us believe. It is
not going to reduce patronage, as we would believe. It is not going
to fulfil the red book promises, as the minister would have us
believe. Therefore the Bloc's amendment is perfectly in order.
5497
(1635)
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate on Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals,
remedial and disciplinary measures, act.
I would like to comment on the remarks of my hon. colleague
from St. Albert. As I understand it, to date this government has
made 2,040 GIC appointments to agencies, boards and
commissions. Of these, 525 or 25.7 per cent were reappointments.
These persons, I understand, were there before November 4, 1993.
This bill is an integral part of the government's approach to
getting government right, renewing the federal government and
restoring the confidence of all Canadians in our national
institutions.
In 1994 a review was conducted of all federal boards, agencies,
commissions and advisory bodies as one of several initiatives
aimed at reducing the cost of government and improving the
efficiency of its operations.
The objectives of the agency review were to simplify
government by eliminating unnecessary and inactive organizations,
to streamline operations by examining the size of boards and their
remuneration of members and to ensure that these bodies were
geared to meet the challenges of today and the demands of years
ahead.
Bill C-49 is the second omnibus bill that has introduced changes
resulting from agency review. Last year, this House approved the
first bill, Bill C-65, the government organization act No. 1.
Today's bill will improve the accountability and administrative
consistency of 30 organizations. It will amend the statutes
governing 13 federal boards, agencies and commissions by
restructuring or downsizing them. It will wind down 7
organizations that are no longer necessary. It will eliminate 271
governor in council positions. By these measures, Bill C-49 will
save taxpayers some $2.5 million annually.
Agency review was conducted under the leadership of the
President of the Treasury Board. His commitment to cost effective
and streamlined government is yet another example of what can be
accomplished by a government that is determined to serve
Canadians efficiently, honourably and compassionately.
Good government means creating jobs and growth, creating
opportunities for every Canadians.
The critical part of the jobs and growth agenda is reshaping
government so that it is lean, efficient and sensitive. It must
respond to the needs of Canadians, helping all of us adapt to global
change and an increasingly competitive marketplace.
The bill reflects our commitment as a government. We promised
good government to Canadians and we are delivering on that
promise.
I appreciate that a 70 page omnibus bill can be somewhat
intimidating at first glance. However, the changes it introduces are
quite straightforward and involve twelve types of proposals.
Perhaps it would be helpful to hon. members if I commented
briefly on each kind.
The first three of the twelve types of proposals deal with
accountability requirements for governor in council appointees.
These involve changes in tenure, designation of chairperson and
remedial and disciplinary measures. These follow from the
decisions about the accountability in the final report of the agency
review released in February last year by the President of the
Treasury Board.
The next three types of proposals concern the appointment
authority of winding up agencies and restructuring.
(1640 )
The next five are housekeeping items and the last type of
proposal deals with other changes for better management of several
agencies.
Accountability is being improved, for instance, by changes in the
tenure of some governor in council appointments. The changes will
allow the government to manage agencies, boards and
commissions more effectively. Members are aware that governor in
council appointees serve either during good behaviour or during
pleasure. Perhaps serving during good behaviour may be removed
from office only for cause, while persons serving during pleasure
may be removed at the discretion of the governor in council.
In cases where good behaviour appointees are not justified by a
need for independence and impartiality, the bill amends tenure to
serving during pleasure. This proposal will affect five agencies,
including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
I should add that there are transition clauses in the bill so that the
changes will not apply to incumbents.
A related change affects the appointment provisions for the
chairpersons of several tribunals. Most chairpersons who are
serving during good behaviour have the status of members, which
is actually the status that warrants the good behaviour tenure.
For consistency, clarity and accountability, the bill modifies the
appointment provisions in six agencies so that a person will be
appointed a member first and then will be designated chairperson.
As a member, he or she will serve during good behaviour; as a
chairperson, he or she will serve during pleasure. The agencies
include the Copyright Board and the Civil Aviation Tribunal.
5498
This appointment provision already exists in a number of other
administrative tribunals such as the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission and the National Parole
Board.
Again, there are transition clauses in the bill so that changes will
not apply to incumbents.
Another element of accountability arises on the rare occasion
when it might be necessary to discipline or remove a member of an
administrative tribunal. Statutory provisions for the discipline of
good behaviour appointees already exist for appointees on the
Immigration and Refugee Board, the National Parole Board and the
Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Bill C-49 brings in standard provisions for these three
organizations and other administrative tribunals.
Contrary to some speculation, standardizing these provisions
will not make it easier for the government to remove appointees.
One of the standard provisions will ensure that the governor in
council has the authority to remove good behaviour appointees
from office for cause, as is already the case in most statutes.
The expression ``during good behaviour'' in itself does not
clearly authorize the government to remove the office holder whom
it has appointed and who appears to have breached that standard.
As the law stands now, the government will likely have to seek
assistance from a court.
In order to provide the government clear authority to act on its
own, some further legislative provision is needed. Therefore when
Parliament states that a public office holder serves during good
behaviour, the practice has developed to go on to say that the
government can remove him or her for cause. This formula is not
new. It can be traced back to the 1903 provisions that created the
first federal administrative tribunal, the Board of Railway
Commissioners.
Viewed in this context, the reference to the governor in council's
authority to remove for cause should not be taken to add any new
grounds of removal beyond those already included in the concept
of good behaviour. Nor does it allow the government to avoid its
duty to act fairly in exercising the removal power.
The changes do not prevent and office holder from securing
redress in a court if he or she had been wrongfully dismissed.
(1645)
As the final report of the agency review noted, it is important for
the government to have the authority necessary to match its
accountability for managing federal bodies. The bill standardizes
the appointment provisions of seven organizations so that they are
consistent with normal practice. For example, the National Arts
Centre Act is being amended so that the governor in council rather
than the board of trustees appoints the director of the centre. This
is important because the government is accountable for the
performance of the organization.
The provisions of Bill C-49 wind up seven agencies that are no
longer necessary. They range from the Petroleum Monitoring
Agency with one governor in council position to the Veterans Land
Administration with 32. In all, 49 governor in council
appointments will be eliminated.
The bill also restructures or downsizes 13 agencies for a further
reduction of 222 governor in council appointments. For example,
the Canadian Polar Commission will be reduced from 12 to 7
members. The positions of 50 citizenship court judges will be
eliminated. Members of the advisory committee of the Freshwater
Fish Marketing Corporation will be elected rather than appointed
by the governor in council.
Bill C-49 standardizes remuneration provisions to clarify that
full time board members of 13 organizations are entitled to be
reimbursed for travel expenses only when they are absent from
their place of work. It also changes the word ``salary'' to
``remuneration'' for 13 agencies to allow consistent interpretation.
The bill standardizes workers' compensation coverage for
governor in council appointees in 19 agencies. Currently these
appointees are not covered by the Government Employees
Compensation Act in case of injury or disease arising out of their
employment. Nor are they covered by the Aeronautics Act in case
of flight injury or death as a direct result of a flight undertaken in
the course of their duties.
To conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and to be consistent with the Immigration Act, the bill amends the
provisions of acts affecting nine organizations to permit the
appointment of permanent residents as well as Canadian citizens.
Limits preventing people over a certain age from serving as
appointees are removed from these statutes.
The bill eliminates references to the masculine in the English
version of some acts, replacing the term such as ``chairman'' with
the gender neutral term in this case ``chairperson''.
Bill C-49 introduces other changes for the better management of
several agencies. For example, the mandate and financial
accountability regime of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation
will be clarified. Provision will be made for the Immigration and
Refugee Board to hear cases with one member panels. The
governor in council will no longer be required to approve salaries
of senior officials of the National Film Board.
All these changes, major or minor, reflect the commitment to
provide Canadians with good government. Bill C-49 makes
sensible changes in a reasonable way, which is the hallmark of our
approach to renewing the federal government.
5499
The passage of the second omnibus bill is an important step in
achieving agency review goals of eliminating over 800 governor
in council positions and saving the Canadian taxpayers about $10
million each and every year. I invite all hon. members to join me
in assuring speedy passage of this much needed legislation.
(1650)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary
measures in relation to members of certain administrative
tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to
make consequential amendments to other Acts.
This bill was tabled last June 14 by the President of the Treasury
Board and would rationalize federal organizations, boards,
commissions and advisory bodies. It affects 46 agencies, of which
7 will be dissolved and 39 restructured or modified.
Bill C-49 provides for major changes in the operation of
administrative tribunals. These tribunals, which are often less well
known than superior courts, nonetheless have a major impact on
the daily lives of Canadians and of Quebecers.
These tribunals often hand down more rulings than superior
courts. In addition, their rulings often have very important
consequences for citizens and for the Canadian government. In
fact, there is no longer any doubt about the importance
administrative tribunals have acquired in recent years. They are
regularly the site of battles between the government and private
citizens seeking rulings on the respect of their rights.
There is currently a bill to reform administrative tribunals before
the Quebec national assembly. Questions as important as the
independence and impartiality of administrative tribunal judges are
now being discussed.
This same problem can also be found at the federal level. Bill
C-49 could have provided a solution to the fundamental problem of
partisan appointments to administrative tribunals. The Liberals
would rather stick their heads in the sand.
In an era when the public is so cynical about politicians, the
President of the Treasury Board would have shown honourable
courage in tackling the question of political appointments to
administrative tribunals. Instead, he introduces even more partisan
rules, increasing the control of the political arm over
administrative tribunals.
Certain provisions in the bill are of particular interest to me. The
bill contains a new mechanism for removing from office persons
appointed by the Governor in Council to administrative tribunals.
Those appointed may, after certain procedures have been followed,
be removed from their duties for just cause, by the governor in
council.
The process set out in the Bill can be initiated by the chairperson
of the administrative tribunal by asking the minister concerned
whether the members of the tribunal in question ought to be
subjected to disciplinary or corrective measures. The chairperson
must cite one of the following reasons: incapacity, misconduct,
failure to properly execute the office, or incompatibility.
After the request is received, the minister may take one or more
of the following steps, at his discretion: obtain information
himself, refer the matter for mediation, request an inquiry, and/or
take no further measures. In the case of an inquiry, the governor in
council may appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the
inquiry.
Then, only after a inquiry report has been submitted, can the
minister recommend that the member be removed from office or
suspended without pay, or impose any other disciplinary measure
or any remedial measure.
(1655)
The Minister's recommendations are totally at his discretion,
regardless of the content of the report.
The bill standardizes the appointment of chairpersons of
administrative tribunals. All will henceforth be designated rather
than appointed. Such a major modification makes the chairperson
highly vulnerable to political pressures from the government,
which can quite simply designate a new one, any time it sees fit. I
shall speak later of the specific situation of the Immigration and
Refugee Board, which is, as we know, the most important
administrative tribunal in Canada.
These new measures are likely to undermine the credibility of
administrative tribunals still further and, particularly, to make them
still more dependent upon political power. Without an in-depth
reform of appointments to administrative tribunals, measures that
seriously hamper the independence and impartiality of these
tribunals should not be introduced.
As we all know, the President of the Treasury Board refuses to
deal with this important issue, because he does not want to give up
the sacrosanct powers of ministers to appoint the members of
administrative tribunals. Any reform of or change to administrative
tribunals must tackle the arbitrary way in which administrative
tribunal judges are appointed and their mandates renewed. Political
patronage in a quasi-judicial process should have no place in a
modern democracy like ours.
The Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien defines
administrative tribunal as follows: ``a generally autonomous and
independent body, which the government has empowered to settle
disputes between itself and its citizens''.
5500
In 1995, the President of the Quebec Bar Association clearly
stated in this regard: ``The lack of job security may have
unexpected psychological impact on the decisions of a person who
may be more concerned about pleasing the government than
rendering a fair judgment''.
Administrative tribunal members may even be reluctant to set
legal precedents favouring citizens at the expense of the
government.
I would now like to analyze some provisions of this bill which
deal with the Immigration and Refugee Board.
On March 2, 1995, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
announced the introduction of a bill aimed at reducing from two to
one the membership of the refugee status determination tribunal of
the IRB.
The bill amends section 69.1 in the Immigration Act. This
provision provides that two members are usually needed to
constitute a quorum at hearings on refugee claims. Except in three
particular cases, any split decision by a two-member tribunal is
deemed to favour the claimant. Consequently, the claimant needs
to convince only one member of the validity of his claim to be
recognized as a refugee under the Geneva convention.
This bill will modify this system so that all refugee claims can be
heard by a one-commissioner tribunal, except in complex cases in
which the chair may assign more than one member.
(1700)
Let us take a historical look at the make-up of this board. In
1985, at the government's request, Rabbi Gunther Plaut tabled a
report on refugee status determination in Canada. The basic
condition of this new system was that a high quality hearing be held
before a decision maker. Three models were suggested, one of
which provided for a hearing before a one-member board, except
where a negative determination were made, in which case the board
would be made up of three members. It also provided for an appeal,
where authorized, to the Federal Court.
In the fall of 1985, the Standing Committee on Labour,
Employment and Immigration reviewed the Plaut report. The
committee did not approve any of the three suggested models and
decided on a two-member board hearing. In the case of a split
decision, the claim would be approved. It would also be possible to
appeal a decision before the Federal Court, if the court agreed to
hear the appeal.
The committee felt it was desirable for decisions to be made by
two persons. Its rationale was the following: the issue of credibility
is paramount in processing refugee status claims, as claimants
generally cannot present oral or written evidence in support of their
claims. That is why it is better to have two persons determine
whether or not the claimant is truthful.
The committee also suggested that a divided decision be viewed
as a favourable decision, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt to
the claimant, which is in keeping with the policy of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, provided of course that
the claimant's story is credible.
This can be a controversial issue. For some, particularly refugee
advocacy groups, the current system, which requires a favourable
decision by one member only, greatly reduces the risk of a bad
decision being made. It also appears that a number of members
prefer to share the onus of the decision and thus develop a certain
collegiality.
With all due respect for these organizations, I believe that a
tribunal made up of only one member will cost less, be easier to set
up and, more importantly, will allow the IRB to hear a greater
number of cases. This, however, is based on the assumption that the
board will have more hearing rooms available.
It is to be noted that the delays and the backlog in the processing
of IRB files are considerable and in fact unacceptable. It should
also be pointed out that no other tribunal in Canada has an initial
decision process similar to the IRB's, not even those hearing
criminal cases, where the consequences may be very serious for the
accused.
A one-person tribunal may have the effect of making the
member more responsible. If the member proved to be unable to
make decisions alone, he would not deserve to keep his job. In any
case, there should be a review process, in case the member makes
an erroneous decision.
When the member for York West was the Liberal Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, he was strongly in favour of an
internal review system at the IRB. In November 1993, he said he
wanted to amend the refugee determination process, so that
unfavourable decisions could be appealed within the Board. The
former minister even said that the lack of an appeal process was a
flaw.
While I agree with the idea of having one instead of two
members hearing a claim, I wonder about the qualifications of
some members appointed by this government. The Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am a
vice-chairperson, reviewed several appointments and
reappointments.
(1705)
In many cases, the appointments are exclusively partisan. In
fact, there is only one way to become an IRB commissioner, and
that is to have worked at some time or other for the Liberal Party of
Canada, or to have friends in the party. And the salary is very
interesting: $86,000 and up annually. The length of service to the
party also determines the length of the appointment: one year, two
years, three years or four years.
5501
I would like to give a few examples of the patronage
appointments of this Liberal government. It should be noted that
in the 1993 election campaign the Liberals condemned the
political patronage of the Conservatives of the time. The Liberal
Party of Canada was going to be a strong advocate of honesty and
integrity in government if elected, or so it told us.
But now Mr. Interjit Bal has been made an IRB commissioner.
His previous experience included working for the Prime Minister
during his leadership campaign and for the Liberal Party of Canada
during the 1993 election. He was also chair of the ethno-cultural
committee of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was forced to admit
to the standing committee examining his appointment that he came
into Canada illegally. He was therefore obliged to step down from
his duties as commissioner.
I will mention other partisan appointments to the IRB. Auguste
Choquette, former Liberal member; Raymonde Folco, former
Liberal candidate in the riding of Laval East; Patricia Davey,
married to an assistant to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau;
Milagos Eustaquoi, former Liberal Party candidate; Janet Susan
Rowsell, who worked for the Minister of Justice.
I was an Unemployment Insurance Commission referee from the
union movement. During the Conservative reign, I often criticized
the partisan appointments handed out by Brian Mulroney. The
present government continues to appoint faithful Liberals, often
very incompetent ones, to chair arbitration boards. The same
situation can be found in the Bank of Canada, the Senate, the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Pension Commission,
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and so on.
It is very important that the initial hearing of a refugee claim be
of the utmost quality, as I have said here in the past. The board
members must, therefore, be competent and well informed.
On March 3, 1995, in response to accusations of patronage, the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the creation of
an advisory committee composed of a chairperson and four
members. I have, however, been extremely disappointed with the
outcome, for the committee continues to appoint incompetent
board members. It is a known fact that there has been no
improvement over the way things were before, under the
Conservatives.
In closing, I would like to invite the Standing Committee on
Government Operations to have the part relating to the IRB
examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration, since this is a highly technical matter and our
committee has something to say on this. There are organizations
which want to come and testify before the committee, and the
chairperson of the Standing Committee on Government Operations
gave us the particular opportunity to contribute our opinion on Bill
C-49.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my
20 minute time and my question or comment time with the member
for Broadview-Greenwood.
I am extremely pleased to speak on a bill that some might
otherwise think is of a technical nature and that is perhaps not as
stimulating in its subject matter as some others that are vigorously
debated on the floor of this place.
This bill is exceptionally important for a couple of reasons. First,
it shows that when this government makes a commitment with
respect to what it wants to do once given the mantle of power by the
Canadian public, that it is prepared, even if it is not the sexiest or
the most flamboyant piece of legislation, to put its money where its
mouth is. We are prepared to go forward and do what we told
Canadians we would do prior to the last election, rationalize the
way the federal government acts in all aspects of its responsibilities
between the provinces, the municipalities and, more important,
between our boards and our agencies and the people of Canada.
(1710)
When the Liberals ran in the last election we made a number of
commitments and the member for St. Albert from the Reform Party
wanted to speak about that. He was trying to speak in an off-handed
way about the commitments that this party has made in the red
book.
We had a departure at the beginning of the campaign last time in
1993. We said that rather than have different people as
spokespersons for our party going around the country saying
different things to different audiences, we were going to put it in
writing. As the Prime Minister said at the time and again the other
day, you do not have to read my lips, read my record, read my red
book.
In the red book we made certain commitments. The member for
St. Albert did not want to hear this today but later this week with
the great Liberal Party, the party that has crafted this fabulous
country of ours for most of the last 130 years, at the convention this
weekend there will be a book that will probably be put forward. It
will indicate the successes and the commitments that we have made
and we have kept through the red book on behalf of the people of
Canada.
When we deal with restructuring government, we have to
recognize that over the past number of years, many times when we
thought that we had more resources than what we had, it was okay
for governments because traditionally they had a program in a
particular area to hold it close and not even want to review it to see
5502
whether there was any modern reason for us to continue with those
responsibilities or those programs.
We said to the Canadian public, after those disastrous two terms
of the Tory government, the previous administration, that we
understood that Canadians wanted a parliamentary system, a
Parliament, a legislative body, that was modern, that was
responsive, that said what it was going to do and then did it. That is
exactly what the Liberal Party has proven over the last three years.
We started off by coming in and we looked at program review;
things that were not always easy but things that nevertheless had to
be done. We were saddled with an enormous debt and deficit and a
government out of control when it came to spending the public
purse. That was a right wing Conservative party at the time,
subsequently replaced by a smattering of Reform Party MPs who
sit across here and natter at us from time to time.
What we set about to do was put a plan in place. We wanted to
ensure the Canadian public had confidence, that when the Prime
Minister, the ministers at the front bench or the Minister of Finance
stood in this place and said these are the programs and these are the
targets, they did it with credibility, that the Canadian public and the
business community would know that when we said we were going
to do something we did it.
The Minister of Finance was appointed by the Prime Minister. In
successive budgets we have shown ourselves capable not just in
articulating the targets and the programs to reach those targets but
in surpassing those targets each and every time that we have been
put up to the measure of the test of the public of Canada.
Indeed we have had to do some very difficult things. We have
had to go about reinventing government. We had to look at what
made sense in the modern context and where the federal
government should be, where its programs and responsibilities
should be. Perhaps it would be better placed either with the private
sector or with other levels of government.
We set out in an unprecedented fashion under the minister
responsible for government reorganization and government
operations. We set about an unprecedented task of program review.
During that program review we looked at each and every area of
program delivery of the federal government. Where it made sense
we said we will keep it, enhance it. Where it made no sense we
decided to look to see first if we should be in that business and
second if there was another level of government or another
participant in society, the private sector, that could do it better.
We had to shrink the federal public service and that was not an
easy thing to do. We had to do it in order to put some fiscal sanity
back into the way we conduct our business as a nation. We did
some things that were easier to do. We rationalized things.
We saw, for instance, that we had a number of fleets plying the
oceans of this great maritime nation. We had a coast guard fleet.
Then we had a fisheries and oceans fleet. I am on the harbour in
Halifax. In my riding we had a coast guard base with a fleet and we
had a fisheries and oceans base with another fleet.
(1715 )
However, through program review we saw what made sense and
consolidated both of the fleets together. It made more sense
operationally, and being good guardians of the public purse, it is
what we told Canadians we would do if we were given a mandate in
1993. We said we would try to put this country back on the road to
fiscal sanity.
We have done a number of other things. We looked at the
transportation sector. The former minister of transportation, the
Minister of National Defence, had a look at that big monster called
the Department of Transport and walked in with a critical view. He
asked what the Department of Transport did and why do we
continue to do it.
At the end of the day it made sense to get rid of the bureaucracy
at the air transport sector. It made sense to allow local airport
authorities to be established to make the local decisions so that
those airports, the wonderful infrastructure that can create real
sustainable jobs, was put in the hands of local authorities who
would know best how to manage them.
We went even further than that and looked at some of the
subsidies that had been in place for far too long in the
transportation sector. Where they did not make sense any longer we
eliminated them.
The other thing was to deal with Canada's marine policy. There
is a bill currently before a House committee dealing in a
wholesome and holistic fashion with every aspect of Canada's
national marine transportation policy. For example, the port of
Halifax has been saddled for years by a heavy bureaucracy that
does not allow it to do what it can do best, which is to use its
location to its advantage, to be competitive and create jobs. The
government is going to unleash that yoke from around its neck. It is
going to ensure that places like the port of Halifax, the port of
Vancouver and the port of Montreal are able to do what they do best
which is to operate under private sector principles. The government
is disengaging and disentangling itself from those operations. That
is what we told Canadians we would do.
The substance of this bill is important. A lot of boards and
agencies are established by the governor in council. Not only do
they give advice but in many cases as in the case of a tribunal, hand
down major decisions that have a substantial impact on the lives of
many Canadians.
5503
Rather than sit back and say that there are 800 or 1,000
appointments that can be made by governor in council and we are
going to keep them because they are there, as was the way it was
done in the past, in 1994 we set out to do a complete review of
these agencies and boards with the same critical eye that we did
program review. We found out which ones made sense, which ones
we continue to need in the interest of public policy and which ones
should we keep or perhaps streamline or downsize so that they
are less of a drag on the taxpayers' wallets.
As a result of that, this bill will wind up seven federal
organizations. It will restructure or downsize 13 other
organizations. Other amendments relating to accountability and
some housekeeping measures will affect 34 other organizations.
This bill will eliminate over 271 governor in council appointments
and will save the Canadian taxpayer over $10 million annually.
In the broader course of large federal government expenditures
this may not seem like a lot but it was a commitment we made in
our campaign leading up to the 1993 election. We are a party that is
committed to the details of the promises that we give to our
electorate. Indeed, we have come through and we now have a more
streamlined system of boards, agencies and tribunals than we have
ever had before.
My Reform Party friend from St. Albert stood up and started to
list by name individuals, good, solid Canadians who have given up
their time to serve on public boards, agencies and tribunals to
ensure that there is public input and that we do not have
governments administering programs in a vacuum. He mocked
those individuals on the floor of the House of Commons. He
alluded to whether or not they were Liberals.
The hon. member would do his party a far greater service,
instead of taking cheap political shots at individuals who have had
the good sense to allow their names to stand and to serve on these
agencies and boards, if he would concentrate his efforts on looking
at the high calibre of individuals that the government has been able
to attract and appoint to those agencies and boards for the greatness
of Canada to ensure that the public policy of these boards, agencies
and tribunals is executed by those of the highest integrity.
(1720 )
In conclusion, I wish the bill speedy passage. I hope that my
friends in the official opposition and in the Reform Party finally
recognize that sometimes as a government we have to appoint
Liberals. After all, 60 per cent of Canadians claim to support our
party.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House of
Commons this afternoon on this bill.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that my
colleague from Dartmouth has been doing over the last few months
as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International
Trade. Most Canadians will realize that our export numbers have
never been this high in Canadian history in terms of percentage
increases. All too often Canadians do not realize that members,
such as the member for Dartmouth, when they are not here sitting
in the House of Commons doing their work, are busy working with
small, medium and large industries in all regions of the country,
assisting them and signing contracts that lead to the export of
Canadian goods and services. The member should be celebrated for
the work he has been doing on international trade.
When I listened to the President of the Treasury Board speak
earlier in the debate today, I could not argue with him when he
spoke about the notion that we must have a smaller, modernized
government, and that we must make sure that the overall financial
objectives are kept in mind when we are going through the whole
program review, or as some people have described it, reinventing
government.
In principle, I support all of those objectives. I certainly would
support the bill today which is tidying up some agencies and
reducing orders in council which will make government more
efficient.
However, I am concerned that the pathway of reinventing
government is going too fast and in many cases is too dramatic.
First is the overall objective of trying to reduce the deficit in a rapid
fashion. I have a concern that in the process of doing this we will be
dismantling aspects of the Government of Canada that we will live
to regret in the not too distant future.
The member for Dartmouth talked about the port of Halifax. In
my city of Toronto, the port of Toronto is something that not only
serves as an agent for industrial building and policy making, but is
also a large symbol of the presence of the Government of Canada in
the major market of Toronto.
Fortunately, the bill relating to the harbours of Canada has the
flexibility that if in certain regions you want to exempt certain
harbours and still have them in the jurisdiction of the Government
of Canada, then with enough support it can be done. But my
concern is the fact that as we cut, dismantle and offload, we will
eventually get to a point where the levers that the government
needs from time to time to activate industrial policy will be
weakened to a point where they will not be effective.
(1725 )
Even though we are on the right pathway, we had better make
sure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face because some
of these instruments are going to be very important for us in the
future, especially in the whole area of national unity. The presence
of the Government of Canada in every province is something that I
5504
personally believe should be maintained in a very vibrant and
active way.
There is another thing I want to mention when we are talking
about this bill of reinventing or renewing government. I would like
to see the government as it goes through its program review take on
the challenge of reviewing the work of the Governor of the Bank of
Canada. That was a governor in council agency that many years
ago was offloaded from the Government of Canada. It is almost an
independent body, other than the fact that the Governor of the Bank
of Canada is appointed by the governor in council, the Prime
Minister. Of course the Governor of the Bank of Canada routinely
meets with the Minister of Finance.
For all intents and purposes the Bank of Canada works almost in
an independent fashion from this Parliament. I believe as we are
going through program review it would be an interesting exercise if
we took a look at just how the Bank of Canada operates.
I for one believe that the relationship between the Bank of
Canada and the chartered banks of Canada, the financial
institutions of Canada, is an area that needs intense scrutiny,
intense review. As we move forward on this pathway of deficit and
ultimately debt reduction, if we are not careful we are going to have
a repeat of what happened from 1987 to 1988 and the first part of
1992 where the governor, John Crow, essentially put a ratchet on
inflation to the point where he just broke the confidence of
Canadians. He broke the confidence of small and medium sized
businessmen and women in this country. He created a factor of fear
that essentially tilted the economy. It is very important that this
agency of government be put under the microscope of program
review by the Government of Canada.
I want to conclude by saying, as the member for Dartmouth said,
there are many good men and women who over the years have
served these crown corporations, these agencies of government in a
very productive way. When the Conservatives are in power it is a
normal natural process that they would promote the friends that
helped them get their government elected. It is not any different for
a Liberal government or a Reform government or whoever it might
be that is given the trust of the people.
Obviously you choose the people to put into strategic and
sensitive positions who reflect the views that you have been
mandated to implement. It would be a pretty silly experience to put
somebody in that did not share your views. With the nature of the
human being these people might be tempted from time to time to
sabotage your policy objectives.
By and large these people have served these agencies well. I do
not think anyone in the community or in the country should feel
that these reductions in orders in council or the dismantling of
these agencies have anything to do with the quality of service that
these men and women have provided on behalf of Canadians over
the last number of years.
I am happy to conclude on this note. It is very important, as we
continue to go through this program review, because we have been
going so hard and so fast, that we not dismantle this place to the
point where the national government no longer has instruments that
allow it to serve, produce, create or provide the type of role that it
needs to make sure of the economy and service to the public that
this place has to provide from time to time. Do not shut it down to
the point where we lose our effectiveness.
(1730)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood for raising
the perspective of the angle of policy implementation.
I would like him to comment on competence and accountability,
particularly in these senior roles. This was not mentioned by the
Reform Party. There were the appointments of Perrin Beatty to the
CBC and the Right Hon. Kim Campbell as Consul General to Los
Angeles. There have been other examples of non-partisan
appointments. The competence and the accountability of those
people and their track records are certainly very important. I
wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Mississauga South for his question.
I have a problem with the appointment to the CBC. I do not have
a problem with the individual. I have known Perrin Beatty for
many years. He has served Parliament and this country well. I am
one of his biggest fans. However, I have a problem with the fact
that he would be more sympathetic with the general pathway of
cuts that we are on with the CBC. For me, as someone who has
been a traditional supporter of the CBC, especially in the outlying
regions of Canada, I probably would have lobbied to put somebody
in charge of the corporation who held a more traditional view of
what the CBC is all about.
I applaud Perrin Beatty as an individual. I believe that as
someone who would be sensitive, of course, but sympathetic to a
reduction in the presence of the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, the government could not have chosen a better
person.
That is the balancing act that it has to go through. I wish my
colleague from Mississauga South had not mentioned the CBC.
That is an example of the point which I was trying to make in my
remarks.
In a major market like Toronto one could argue that there are so
many options in terms of private sector radio and television, et
cetera, that maybe we could let the private sector do it. However,
remember how this country was built. This country was built by
ensuring that the outer regions had a shot at the same quality of
service, in all sectors of the economy, as the people in major
5505
markets. One area where the CBC has done a terrific job is in the
outlying regions.
I do not know how the CBC will be dismantled. However, we
must ensure that we do not begin the process of weakening the
galvanizing forces which held all regions of the country together.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-49. It has been
mentioned that what started out as a kind of dry, stuffy, sterile
debate about patronage appointments, administrative tribunals, the
shuffling of papers and so on has evolved into a more serious
debate about a vision of Canada.
(1735)
I have been listening to the speeches from across the way. They
are right to applaud the reduction in the number of patronage
appointments that this bill allows for, the reduction of 271
positions. That is good.
We like that part of this bill. It is a good start on a messy
problem. I like that part of the bill as far as it goes. That is good.
As we get talking about these positions and what they represent,
it becomes really a statement of what type of country we are
looking for. Is it a country, as the hon. member mentioned earlier,
that demands a stronger federal government and stronger federal
institutions, large tax dollars that go with it, big government
programs that must be administered from a central government in
order to keep the government together? That is one argument, for
example, the argument of the CBC and the patronage appointment
that goes with that.
The hon. member mentioned earlier that he did not like the trend
that is happening with the CBC. I think it is fair to say it does not
seem to be following on Liberal red book promises. I can see there
are some dicey problems there for some Liberal members.
Really the vision is the two visions of Canada. One is the way to
keep the country together, the way to keep Canadians happy and the
way to give Canadians what they deserve from their federal
government is that whole package of a billion dollars for the CBC,
a billion dollars for Canadian heritage, a billion dollars for ACOA,
a billion dollars for WED, a billion dollars here, a billion dollars
there. Pretty soon we are talking real change.
The reason the Reform Party has come out with its fresh start
vision of Canada-the debate could be entered into here I would
hope-is that we are trying to show a different vision of where the
country could go.
The Liberal-Tory vision, whether Perrin Beatty or whoever it
is-it does not really much matter because I kind of lump them
together-is one vision of Canada that is lots of money, big
programs. I could go down the list. The best way to look after
children is a national daycare plan, a red book promise to expand
and spend more money.
The Reform Party's vision is that is not the best way. The best
way is to leave money in the hands of families to make their own
child rearing decisions and leave it with them. Give them
considerably more resources, increase their personal exemption,
increase the tax credit available for raising children and let parents
make the decision on how to raise their children.
We have one vision, a Liberal-Tory vision, and a Reform Party
vision. On the CBC, we say when the original mandate of the CBC
came through it served a very useful purpose. It was basically the
only national communications tool. The only way someone could
get from Frobisher Bay to Vancouver Island and points in between
was through the CBC. That was all there was. It was basically CBC
radio to start. Then it expanded.
We say again now is the time to check the vision of the country.
We say that CBC radio is still serving a national unifying force. It is
not that expensive. It is very well received by Canadians as is
something like CBC ``Newsworld''. It is relatively cheap and
provides a service from coast to coast.
We are saying that right now in Canada with telecommunications
being what they are, changing over the last 50 years, we are looking
at a different vision. We are saying privatize CBC television. Let it
do the job that B.C. TV does, that CTV does and CKBU and all the
other channels that compete on the multichannel universe and turn
a profit.
In other words, all these things start to sift out the different
vision of Canada. I have spoken to members of the Liberal caucus
about this. They say, for example, that the way to keep Quebec in
the fold, a happy member of the federation, is to have a stronger
federal government.
That way it would have so much influence in the country, so
much buying power, so much spending power, so much influence
on programming and so on that Quebecers just cannot leave.
Everything from cradle to grave is covered by the federal
government. The federal government is in every area of their lives
and they have to stay. We are so pervasive.
(1740 )
The Reform Party's argument is that is a lousy way to keep
Quebec and the rest of the country together. We should be
concentrating on the areas we do well in at the federal level. The
leader of the Reform Party mentioned the other day that it boils
down to about 10 or 12 areas that the federal government can focus
its attention on. They are important areas like the Criminal Code,
5506
regulating interprovincial trade, international trade, financial
institutions, national defence, border patrol, customs and so on.
We can focus our energy on what the national government does
best and then for Quebecers, British Columbians and others we
should say that much of what is left is in their bailiwick. If
Quebecers want to promote the French language and culture in
their province because it is a wonderful language, a lovely culture
and something we all appreciate as Canadians-but Quebecers are
naturally most concerned about that-we will not invade that area
of spending. We will leave that with Quebecers. It should be theirs.
They should spend money on that as they see fit and we will not
intrude. We will not muscle in on their political territory. That can
be theirs to manage.
We will not be involved in natural resources. That is a good thing
for the province of Quebec to maintain, as it is for British
Columbia. We will not tell Quebec how to spend money on cultural
events. That is Quebec's bailiwick and other provinces will look
after their own.
In this kind of a bill, although it is a small thing, we see the two
different visions of Canada. We see one vision that there will be
2,225 patronage appointments left after this bill. And who will they
be filled by? They will be filled by good loyal Liberals. There is the
odd exception. There is the Perrin Beatty exception and so on, but
let us face the facts.
The facts are the longer you are a pedigree in the Liberal Party
the more likely you are to be appointed to a good position. As the
member for Broadview-Greenwood said earlier, that is the way it
has always been done. It does not matter whether it is Liberals or
Tories, that is just an accepted way. I am not sure how that is
supposed to make Quebecers feel more at home.
I do not know what people from the GTA think about this, but
how can they possibly think that the way to build national unity, the
way to build national cohesiveness is to dole it out to Liberal
hacks?
An hon. member: What are friends for?
Mr. Strahl: A member over there asks what are friends for. Can
they not see what it is doing to national unity, for example?
Imagine the Liberals saying to members of the Bloc Quebecois
that they have 2,225 appointments to make, that some of them are
very technical and require a good deal of expertise, but the
crowning criteria for getting the job will be one's pedigree, not
necessarily as a Quebecer but as a Liberal. When the BQ members
go home imagine what they will do with that. They will say here is
the list of appointments.
It is in the latest edition of the Hill Times, the paper from
Parliament Hill, for members' information. I am sure they have
seen it. There is now a Conservative who is tracking all the
appointments. She has a list of about 200 names of people who are
long time paid up Liberal members. I am sure Bloc members take
that newspaper and say here is the latest dollop of appointments.
They rip that page out and back they go to Quebec saying: ``This
is what your tax dollars are going for. Your tax dollars are going to
supply Liberals with jobs''. If you were a voter in Quebec-listen
up because when you are a voter in British Columbia the reaction is
somewhat the same-you would say: ``I thought these were
appointments based on merit. I thought this person who was
appointed was put there because they are the best person for the
job''.
I thought that someone who runs Canada Post would have
extensive experience in the delivery of mail or delivery services.
But who is the head of Canada Post but the former minister of
foreign affairs. How did he get that job? Did he fill out the
meritorious ``I am the best qualified for Canada Post''? No, of
course not. He just said: ``I have a long pedigree of service to the
Liberal Party. What I need is a job within the federal civil service
based on my pedigree as a Liberal''.
(1745)
Why was there a furore over the appointment of our current
Governor General? The Governor General plays a good role in our
community. He lends some stability, some long term historic
reference and so on. The problem was that the job was given
because of his extensive Liberal pedigree: ``I have a long, long list
of things I have done for the Prime Minister. I raised money for the
Prime Minister. I was part of his campaign for the Liberal Party
leadership. I was his buddy''. His buddy is the one who gets
appointed.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): What is wrong with that?
Mr. Strahl: What is wrong with it is the respect for the
institution. Out in British Columbia the most respected lieutenant
governor we have ever had was David Lam. David Lam was
respected because he did not have a long political pedigree. He was
revered in British Columbia because he was exactly what this
government does not understand. He was just a servant of the
people, not a servant of the party.
If the Liberals followed that example, they would raise the
esteem in all of these positions. Instead what they are doing is
unfortunately dragging patronage down through the mud and
casting that kind of stuff on to a position which should be above
patronage. That is what is unfortunate.
It starts at the top. One of the very top patronage appointments is
to the Senate. In 1990 the current Prime Minister said that within
two years of the election of a Liberal government, the senators
would be elected. That is what the current Prime Minister said in
5507
1990. Of course he was in opposition so it was cheap talk I guess.
That is what he promised.
Since the election of the Prime Minister there have been 18 to 20
Liberals appointed to the Senate in a row, one after the other. These
were based not on their election to the Senate which was promised,
based not on their willingness to represent their regional interests,
but based totally on their ties to the Liberal Party.
When I went to the PC convention as an observer what did I
find? The same thing as I would think I am going to find this
weekend at the Liberal convention when I go as an observer. I like
to observe this stuff. The chief fundraiser for the PC party is a
senator. The chief campaign manager is a senator. The bagmen for
the campaign are senators. The regional co-ordinators for the
campaign are all senators. What does this mean? Those who have
enough friends in the Senate can run their campaign teams on
taxpayers' money which is exactly what they are doing. That is the
Tories.
It will be interesting to see what is coming up here at the Liberal
convention but it will be the same. This has been going on for so
long that they know no other way to run a campaign but to appoint
somebody who is their chief fundraiser, in this last case, from
Quebec.
What does this do for national unity? The Bloc Quebecois look
at that appointment and go back home and say to their constituents:
``Look at this. This latest appointment is going to cost you several
hundred thousand dollars a year. Who do you think it is? A Liberal
hack appointed to the Senate''. The people ask: ``What were his or
her qualifications? Is he or she going to represent Quebec?'' The
Bloc say: ``Absolutely not. They represent the Liberal Party of
Canada''. It is no wonder the people of Quebec get mad. They have
had enough of that. It has been going on for over 100 years and
enough is enough. It is time to change the system of patronage
appointments.
Just to follow up on another quote or two, the Prime Minister in a
speech to the House of Commons in 1991 said: ``To meet the hopes
and dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a
reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected,
effective and equitable''. I sat here in the House and listened to the
Prime Minister say: ``I will put people in the Senate who represent
the Liberal Party of Canada''. He said that right from his chair, now
that he is in power. It is no wonder that people find patronage
appointments to be such a cynical display of government power.
(1750)
The key appointment of them all from the government side is the
person in charge of patronage appointments. When I tell people
that, they cannot believe there is someone in charge of patronage
appointments.
Penny Collenette is in charge of patronage appointments. She is
a very capable woman. She is probably very capable at everything
she does but the job is kind of odious. Her job is to find the over
2,200 patronage appointments that are available. Then she is to
scour the country for every single available Liberal she can find to
put them in there. That is the job. In other words, it is not to scour
the country for the most capable person, it is to scour the country
for the most Liberal of the Liberals and put them in a place. That is
Penny Collenette's job.
I do not know how that is to build confidence in the government
or the confidence from regions of the country that are looking to be
represented by what they think are democratic means by fair and
democratic systems. People find out instead that all the key
positions go on people's pedigrees, their heritage, their political
ties.
In Jeffrey Simpson's book about patronage he says: ``The long
march towards responsible government in British North America
was largely the story of the elected representatives' struggle to
wrest the right to dispense patronage from the British governors''.
This fight has been going on a long time. It is always the people at
the top saying: ``We know best and we know who to appoint and
we, the benevolent dictators of the day, know what you deserve,
you common folk, better than you know yourselves''.
At one time every job in the country was a patronage job. Even
the local postmaster was a patronage job. Everything was a
patronage job because that is the way the system was run.
Thankfully we have moved away from that and you can no longer
get a job as a postmaster, I do not think or at least I hope not,
because of your ties to the Liberal Party. But at the top where the
example is being set, thousands of these jobs are still available.
I was in the maritimes during a couple of the byelections. I went
door to door in Labrador. There is a separatism movement quite
alive and well in Labrador right now. It is not separation from
Canada that they want but separation from Newfoundland. They
are fed up with the way Mr. Tobin is running things. There is quite a
vibrant separatist movement and you try to calm them down and
ask them to be part of Canada, to stay here as part of Canada. It is
the same story we give the separatists in Quebec. Canada can be
fixed. It can be better.
They would say that they would vote for us and some would give
money, but they were afraid to put a sign on their lawn because the
patronage system is so insidious in some of these towns that if they
put a sign up they would go broke.
An hon. member: That is not true.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, they say this is not true but listen to
what happened.
5508
A month ago the member for St. John's West reportedly
demanded of the town council of Placentia, Newfoundland that
they had to sell their fire trucks as she told them to for $5,000
or she would make sure that they did not get a $350,000 ACOA
grant. That was in the papers. That was her communication to the
people.
In other words, it is all arm's length, it is all done on merit, it is
all above board except that this Liberal says that you do as you are
told. I am not making this up. It was in the paper. It is all true:
``Either do as you are told or we will make sure doggone it you do
not get the $350,000 grant''.
Only two councillors showed up for that meeting and the
member for St. John's West felt very badly. She reportedly said that
there would be serious repercussions for the town and in her
position of MP she deserved more courtesy than was shown to her
and doggone it, they were in a heap of trouble. Why? Because they
were not Liberal bootlickers. They were told to do as they were
told, to jump through the hoops-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): That is disgusting.
Mr. Strahl: It is true. It was in the paper. It is absolutely true:
``Either you do this, sell them for this amount, or else. That is the
law. Those are the rules''.
(1755)
I heard from across the way that it was necessary that this system
continue, that it would not matter. It would be necessary that Mr.
Mulroney's example of appointing his wife's hairdresser to the
board of the FBDB, that kind of stuff must continue. I do not think
so. It was said that the number of appointees while shrinking, it is
still necessary to continue. I do not think so.
An ethical standard should be made and the argument has been
made here today on two things: a different vision of Canada or it
does not have to be this way. This bill is not the answer to fix a
patronage system which I think Canadians find offensive.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will begin by saying to the member for Fraser Valley
East that I believe in patronage. I have always believed in it and I
am not going to change.
The whole notion by the member from the Reform Party is
gimmick politics. He was quoting Jeffrey Simpson. Can anyone
imagine Jeffrey Simpson writing for the Toronto Star?
We have to understand that the member is suggesting to
Canadians that when someone is hired in business or the media that
there is no sensitivity as to whether or not that person shares the
same values, the same vision, the same policy objectives. The
notion that when an employer is hiring someone who is anything
other than sensitive to the direction the employer is heading is just
crazy. It is like that in life.
This is a beautiful opportunity to talk about issues in a
substantive way. In my earlier remarks I tried to engage the
member in a debate on the whole notion of a program review of
what goes on with the Bank of Canada. Members of the Reform
Party are always talking about a billion dollars here and a billion
dollars there. There are a few of us who still believe that we should
spend this money to hold the country together.
Why not have a debate on who prints the money. What is
money? Who is managing it? Who decides how much is printed?
Who decides on its distribution? I wish the Reform Party members
would get involved in that debate, then we could really have some
excitement around here.
The whole notion of patronage is going to go on as long as man
is living, as long as we are social beings.
Does the member not think it would be a worthwhile exercise for
all members in the House to engage in a total program review on
how the Bank of Canada operates and its links to the financial
institutions of this country and the way it controls the flow of
currency which is so badly needed in the marketplace today? How
about that as a way of reforming or reinventing government?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I
always feel a little bad for the member that we generally do not
have a committee of the whole. I have always enjoyed the
member's ability to debate. He scores some good points. If we
could get past some of the stifled formalities in the regular debating
system, we could actually have a good debate. The system as it is
set up does not lend itself to that very well.
Will patronage be around as long as people are social creatures?
To a certain degree I agree with the member. There are roles for
patronage appointments that the member I think is trying to
advocate and which I would agree with. However, he would also
agree for example that the privy council is not one of those places.
The privy council raises a group of professional government
managers that they select early in the process. I hope it is not on
their political pedigree. I do not believe it is in any event. They
identify them early in the process. They bring them into the privy
council and train them. I have talked to the head of the privy
council and this is my understanding. The privy council office
trains them, they go back out into another department in another
role, they come back into the privy council and train some more.
They select these people and find the best that they can get, the best
in the system and they rise to the top to become deputy ministers,
ADMs and so on.
(1800)
That is as it should be. It is based on merit. It is based on
experience. It is based on a professional civil service that bypasses
patronage. There is no room in there for patronage. Otherwise we
5509
would get our civil service working at cross purposes to the
government and that system just would not work in a democracy.
Where patronage is necessary and where it does make sense is in
political roles. I would not ask the member opposite or the
government to find a neutral or an NDP member from some place
to write the red book. The government needs people who are
politically astute in what they believe in to take that and put it on
paper or into television commercials and what have you, try to sell
it, get their advertising people. Those are all patronage
appointments that are necessary because patronage is for the
political process.
I do not mind when a minister or member would naturally have a
researcher in their department. I certainly have someone who
believes in what I believe in. That is the system that has to work.
That is for the political realm.
However, to run a department should not be a political role. As
Brian Mulroney did, one should not appoint Mila's hairdresser to
the board of FBDB.
An hon. member: He made a great contribution there.
Mr. Strahl: He made a great contribution. He appointed his
chauffeur to another patronage position and so on. That should not
be why one gets the job. One should get the job because of one's
qualifications.
These are two separate things. There is patronage, if we want to
call it that. I am talking about the political positions that all
political parties have to have. There are researchers, there are
communicators and so on who need to be political and necessarily
partisan. Why would the member think that would extend to the
head of Canada Post, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission?
Those are technical jobs that should be outside partisanship.
I agree with the member that there could be a really good
discussion on the Canada banking system but, goodness gracious,
he is a part of the government. During the review of Canadian
financial institutions by all means we should study that. Why not?
Let us open it up.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood knows that it is not an
easy thing to get his members to agree. He could ask the
parliamentary secretary who spent about a bizillion years in and
among that feted swamp why he does not encourage that debate
here in the House of Commons.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member's speech was a very partisan speech. The role of the
opposition is to deliver blows that would tenderize a turtle and this
member has delivered blows that would probably tenderize a can of
Spam.
In any event, it is unfortunate that the discussion on the bill has
reverted to partisanship. I think he has painted all members of
Parliament with the same brush. I would like to suggest to him that
we all get opportunities to refer people who want jobs.
As one member of Parliament I can say I do not endorse anyone
who wants to apply for any kind of an appointment for one very
simple reason. If I do not know that person personally, if I do not
have the credentials down to make a reference I will not make that
reference because it will be a reflection on me.
I would like the member at least to acknowledge that the
performance and the accountability of those people is the most
important thing and that to give references is a risk to all members
of Parliament that should not be given.
(1805 )
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will concede points in a debate. The
hon. member makes a good point. Some Liberal members of
Parliament are not keen on patronage appointments. For example,
when the list is drawn up of who should be appointed to positions in
Elections Canada, they do not submit a name. They do not submit
the name of their campaign manager or someone they have known
for a long time. They say: ``I am not going to get into that. That is a
neutral position. It should not be partisan''.
I share the member's concern. I do not put forward names for
enumerators. I do not put forward names for appointments to
Elections Canada.
As a matter of fact, when Mr. Kingsley was before the procedure
and House affairs committee I asked him a question. We give
advice to countries around the world on how to run fair elections. I
asked Mr. Kingsley: ``When we go to other countries to help them
run their election campaigns, for example, do we tell them that the
government should appoint all of the returning officers or should it
be a neutral process?'' His response was: ``When we are overseas
we do not want the government involved because the government
has to be at arm's length from the elections''. I thought that was a
good idea. If we could follow that in Canada we would be much
better off.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for York North.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Fraser Valley
East. The Reform Party has moved this debate along quite a ways
today. We started off with the hon. member for St. Albert saying
that the 271 governor in council appointments were a poor choice
and in fact do not exist. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East
said it was a good thing. We can see that there is a great dichotomy
within the Reform Party itself.
The member talked about his fresh start campaign. I was
shocked to watch this unfold on television the other day. My
campaign buttons and material in the last federal election said we
were the fresh start team. In fact, everybody was met at the door for
the fresh start campaign in 1993. That gives us an idea of what kind
of imagination the Reform Party has. It thrashes out old ideas. We
5510
are on the fresh start team. This is the fresh start team on this side
of the House.
The member for Fraser Valley East talked about their vision of
Canada. There has been debate going back and forth this evening
on that subject. The conclusion is the Reform Party would like to
lead us into a cheque book government. In other words, up here in
Ottawa all we would do is collect money and send cheques to the
provinces. That would leave us with some limited responsibilities
in international trade, the coast guard and so forth, but not much of
a government. That is not a vision, that is a fragmentation of the
country. It would lead us into a country of ten separate
governments.
I had a discussion late last week with pharmaceutical companies
which told me that Canada is very much like the European Union.
Drugs must be approved by the federal government and then it
takes another three years to have them approved by the provinces.
There is a cost to the consumers of Canada. It is one of the reasons
drug costs are so high.
Under the Reform Party's administration we would continue to
have ten strong decentralized governments, creating ten
duplications across the nation. We should be moving in the other
direction.
Bill C-49 basically attempts to standardize remedial and
disciplinary measures in certain tribunals of Canada and to
standardize chairpersons in administration tribunals. It also winds
up seven organizations and downsizes another 13 organizations.
The object of the exercise is not to make the government smaller,
although that is one of the results of some of our downsizing
efforts; the object of the exercise is to do two things, to make
government more efficient and to make government more
affordable to the taxpayers of Canada.
(1810)
The taxpayers of Canada are telling us in no uncertain terms that
government is too big. It is too big and unresponsive to their needs
and concerns.
This bill is a focus on how our government is reacting to the very
real concern of the average Canadian. It does reduce certain
tribunals but, more important, it begs one question. The question is
who are the customers. Are the customers the bureaucracy or the
public?
The bottom line is by also dealing with the concept of remedial
and disciplinary action, the government is addressing a very real
and important issue. People want to see that governments are
responsive. They do not want them responsive to bureaucrats but
instead to their concerns.
The current issue with tribunals is that it is very difficult to
remove people from tribunals for wrongdoing. Indeed, it takes a
legal process and it also has to go before the exchequer court of
Canada. This bill will make that system a lot easier.
There is nothing worse than having a tribunal with people on it,
possibly giving erroneous advice and making erroneous decisions.
We want the ability of government to be able to replace those
people. It is that issue that this bill is addressing.
That is very important because throughout government people
are asking how government is responding to people. There is a
great parallel to this, small and medium size businesses.
Small and medium size businesses have had to learn to work
smarter. They have had to learn that the customer is very important.
We have to satisfy the needs of the customer. To not recognize that
is basically not to be in business at all.
Governments in some ways, while not a business, have to act a
little more like them. They have to be more responsive to the needs
of people. Let me give an example.
In my riding I have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
When I first got elected I went around visiting all the federal
institutions in my riding and those that service my riding to see
what they were doing.
I was surprised that a lot of them did not have Canadian flags and
we are working to make sure they now have. One organization
struck me in particular, Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
It had just implemented a total quality management system. This
was totally unlike most other parts of government because it
required a response time. If somebody phoned, it had to return that
call within so many minutes.
If it was an application for a mortgage loan, it had to be
answered within a certain timeframe. There were timeframes for
everything it did. The people were very rejuvenated about what it
was doing. It was very happy and very focused on executing
programs that people liked. It recognized that the customer was the
general public.
I have been very happy to work with those people in delivering
some of their programs to some of the people in my riding. The
point I am trying to make is that Bill C-49 addresses that issue. It
allows the government through its various boards and directives to
replace people if they are not in sync with best interests of people
generally.
This gets us back to accountability in government. Generally
speaking, people want the government to be accountable to them.
They are asking for a more clear, transparent system of
government.
5511
Once again, this legislation deals with that issue. Remember
that one of the things we are doing here is reducing the cost of
government by upwards of $5 million per year. That may seem
like a small amount of money but it is part of the process.
We are doing two things. We are reducing the cost of
government and making it more efficient. Just because we are
making government smaller does not mean we are making it worse.
The bottom line is that we can deliver these programs a lot more
efficiently using technological advances that we have before us and
at a lower cost.
The services that governments once did can continue at a lower
cost and with fewer individuals involved in the process.
(1815 )
I notice from time to time the opposition has said that we have
not done anything in terms of cost reduction. Forty-five thousand
civil servants have been shed from this process. CN is no longer a
federal government owned organization. Some of my colleagues
mentioned the CBC. All of these are real things that affect people.
People are demanding better service at less cost.
I say to the Reform members and others that we are reducing the
cost of government but at the same time making our program
delivery more efficient.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Oshawa. He
mentioned something that I want to ensure I understood correctly.
He talked about the notion that the pharmaceutical industry felt
that the inefficiencies related to getting their drug systems
approved were costing it a lot of money, and the fact that it had to
go through all these regions was a negative situation.
Is the member promoting a more reinforced Government of
Canada national standards for these program approvals? Is that
what I understood him to say?
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, to be honest with the member, yes
it would be.
One of the big problems in this country is duplication and
overlap. However it takes two to duplicate so we are talking about
provincial and federal jurisdictions.
We have to analyse those areas where the federal government
can be more efficient. It makes sense in the area of drug
certification that one government, the federal government, should
provide that service. I have heard some of my Bloc colleagues talk
about how important it is. I do not think the afflictions that affect
human beings stop at borders.
The bottom line is that from a national perspective we should set
national standards. We have been all too lax at not doing that and
letting these things slip away from us. That is part of the reason
why this country is slipping away from us as well.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
debates like today's debate on Bill C-49 give Canadian viewers an
opportunity to really distinguish between the two visions that exist
in this House. The vision proposed by the Reform Party sees
government and governance in its most evil way. The vision
espoused by Liberals is that government and its agencies can be a
source of positive change for the good of the collective. It is really
important to note that because it makes people understand the
difference between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party.
As a member of the greater Toronto Liberal caucus I am quite
happy today to see that Fortune magazine named the greater
Toronto area as the number one international best city for work and
family. I am proud of that achievement because in the Toronto area
since the 1993 election of the federal Liberal government, there has
been greater co-operation between all stakeholders in various
communities.
There has been a greater sense of purpose. Government has not
been standing in the way of business but rather it has been a full
partner in bringing about the type of economic change and
increasing the viability of businesses, in helping with productivity.
I have some examples of positive things the government has
done. There are programs related to technology partnerships
Canada, the Canadian television and cable production fund and the
program for export market development, not to mention the work
of the Federal Business Development Bank and other government
agencies that serve the Canadian public very well.
(1820 )
I would like to return to the Federal Business Development
Bank. I remember a couple of years ago when two of my
constituents, who were around the ages of 20 and 21, came to my
constituency office to ask if they could get some advice on how to
run a business and perhaps access some funding so they could start
a technology based business.
I am very happy to tell the House that a couple of months ago
these constituents came back to my office and expressed a great
deal of gratitude for the advice that I was able to provide to them. I
was happy to find out they were doing quite well. They are brothers
who are now self-employed in the growing technology industry.
They told me that this year they will be recording a profit of
approximately $723,000.
Two years ago these two young Canadians, obviously very bright
and technologically advanced, were part of the unemployment
5512
statistics of this country. The help came from the Federal Business
Development Bank which was able to provide them with the type
of capital required.
Let us look at the function of government in that equation. These
young people knew that they could approach a member of
Parliament who has a constituency office and is there to provide
help in connecting young people or his or her constituents to
government agencies that are there to help them. This is a perfect
example of the positive role the government plays, whether it plays
it in a constituency office or through various departments.
Nevertheless it speaks to the fact that government can play a
positive role in the lives of Canadians.
Therefore, the anti-government and anti-government agency
feelings expressed by the Reform Party are based on a very
simplistic view of the world, not to mention the fact that I do sense
parochialism based on the bottom line. It is not whether these
agencies are producing services that are good for people or
providing young people or small business people with
opportunities. The only thing it wants to do is slash and burn. Once
that is done then the Reform Party will be happy.
I cannot remember the exact title of their booklet, but in this
booklet the Reform Party has now changed its tune and wants to
actually spend more money. The reality is that Canadians have
learned through the years of Liberal government that a more
balanced approach, a two track approach where we are reducing the
deficit, creating jobs and investing in people, is really the route to
go.
Nothing makes me more proud than to be part of a government
that actually hits the targets it sets. We can look at some of its
records and listen to the finance minister's announcement that the
federal deficit for 1995-96 was $28.6 billion. That is $4.1 billion
lower than the $32.7 billion target for the year.
The reason why I am happy and proud to be part of this
government and this caucus is because I remember sitting on the
other side of the House when the Conservative government was in
power. I remember the then minister of finance, Michael Wilson,
never ever hitting a target on the deficit.
(1825 )
The present Minister of Finance has created a great deal of
confidence in the economy of Canada. We are hitting the deficit
targets. The deficit has been lowered. Inflation is low. Consumer
and business confidence is better than it has been for many years.
This is the type of role the government has played in the lives of
Canadians. It speaks to the fact that when a party such as the
Liberal Party comes into power with a plan and sticks to that plan
which was endorsed by the people of Canada, then great results are
achieved.
That is why today we are able to stand before Canadians and say
that the red book plan is working for them. Unemployment
numbers are down. Over 700,000 jobs have been created. We are
investing in our young people more than any previous government.
Beside me is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development who has worked extremely hard to
make sure that the priorities of young people are looked after by the
government. That is why the Minister of Finance was able to
announce an increase in the federal budget by approximately $350
million toward youth programs, for a total of $1 billion for youth
programs. That does not include the $2.5 billion or 57 per cent
increase for Canada student loans which will allow young people to
access education. Since I am talking about our young people, I also
want to remind Canadians from coast to coast about the $165
million invested in education tax credits to further enhance
opportunities for young people.
The bill before us today proposes a style of government that is
efficient and smaller. But unlike members of the Reform Party who
basically think that in order to reach a deficit target you need to
slash and burn, we believe there is a better way, a smarter way to
bring positive change to the lives of Canadians.
As I conclude my remarks, I want to give some practical
examples of how the government has been able to achieve positive
ends for people. For example, interest rates have decreased 18
times over the last 17 months. Between January 1995 and October
1996 short term interest rates fell to 4.75 per cent. The prime
lending rate charged by Canada's chartered banks has fallen to 5.25
per cent, the lowest rate since 1959. I was not even born in 1959.
As a member of Parliament who was born in 1960, I am happy
that happy times are here again and that people can look to the
future with optimism and a sense of confidence that speaks to
developing a nation that is once again prosperous.
Our achievements are far too many to list in this debate. I can
talk about the fact that in my area we have the lowest crime rate
ever, thanks to the measures taken by the Minister of Justice under
the leadership of the Prime Minister. Businesses are looking to the
future with a great deal of optimism because interest rates are low
and consumer confidence is high. People are being equipped with
the skills required to take on the global economy of the 21st
century.
After having heard this morning that the greater Toronto area
was the best place in the world in which to live, I can only say it is
only matched by the fact that I am a part of perhaps the best
government in the history of this country.
5513
[Translation]
The House resumed from October 10, 1996, consideration of Bill
C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act,
as reported with amendments from a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at the report
stage of Bill C-5. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 136)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-32
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
St. Denis
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-146
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
(1855)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I was a little late for the vote but I
would have been voting with the government.
5514
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.) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the
House agrees, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent
that the members who voted on the immediately preceding motion
be recorded as having voted on this motion, with Liberal members
voting yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will be voting
yes unless they have been instructed differently by their
constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote no on the
concurrence motion at report stage.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first vote but I want to
be counted as voting with the government on this vote.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 137)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
St. Denis
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-145
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-35
5515
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
(1900 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 10, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian food
inspection agency and to repeal and amend other acts as a
consequence, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Goodale
on Bill C-60.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I propose that
those members who have voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with the
Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting no unless there is something I do not know about and their
constituents told them otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no on this
motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 138)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-130
5516
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -50
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
Consequently, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from October 10 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, be
now read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the
third reading stage of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of
Canada.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that those members who
have voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on
this motion with the Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will be voting no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 139)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
5517
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed -133
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -47
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
(1905 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 11, 1996, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese-based substances, be read the third time and passed;
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the hon.
member for Laurentides, at the third reading stage of Bill C-29.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if
you would seek it, you would find unanimous consent that the vote
just taken on the motion be applied to the vote now before the
House in reverse.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will
be delighted to vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we accept the deputy whip's motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what to say now but the
New Democrats vote no on this motion in any event.
Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting against this motion, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if I could
have the attention of members. I need some clarification on behalf
of the Reform Party. I wonder if the member for Fraser Valley East
and the Reform Party whip would simply indicate to us would that
be a yea or a nay.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, we were applying the previous motion
in reverse which means that the Reform Party's position was yea.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 140)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
5518
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Loubier
Manning
Mercier
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -47
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rock
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed -133
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51,
an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed
to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-51, an act respecting the water
resources of Nunavut.
[Translation]
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I propose that
those members who have voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with the
Liberal members voting yes.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition
will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: The New Democrats vote yes on this motion, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.
5519
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
the Minister of Health is no longer in his seat and therefore is not
eligible to vote on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 141)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-164
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Cummins
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Manning
Meredith
Ramsay
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -15
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bélanger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Comuzzi
Crête
Cullen
Daviault
Debien
Dumas
Fry
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Jordan
Keyes
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
McGuire
Ménard
Minna
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7.10 p.m., the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.10 p.m.)