36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 190
CONTENTS
Friday, March 5, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Third reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1005
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1025
1030
| Mr. David Iftody |
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BRUCE WYLIE
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1100
| NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| THE FAMILY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| BUSINESS LEADERS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1105
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| THE LATE GERHARD HERZBERG
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| LUC PLAMONDON
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1110
| GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| SOCIAL TRANSFERS
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| NORTEL NETWORKS INSTITUTE
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| SHRIMP FISHERY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1115
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| CENTRE D'INSÉMINATION ARTIFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1120
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1125
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| THE SENATE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1130
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1135
| GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1140
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FAMILY TRUSTS
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1145
| WATER
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1150
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IRVING WHALE
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1155
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1200
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1205
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1998-1999
|
1210
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1215
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A RELATIONSHIP
|
| Bill C-481. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C)
|
| Reference to Standing Committees
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1220
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Third reading
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1225
1230
1235
| Amendment
|
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49. Third reading
|
1240
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1305
1310
1315
| Division deferred
|
1320
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-299. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1325
1330
| Mr. John Harvard |
1335
1340
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1345
1350
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1355
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1400
1405
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1410
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 190
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 5, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-49, an act providing for
the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework
agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time
and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, may I request at the outset
that you allow me to share my time with the parliamentary
secretary for Indian affairs.
1005
I am pleased to rise in debate at third and final reading of
Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.
I have been following this debate very carefully. As a result,
there are a couple of things that I would like to talk about
today.
First, I would like to ensure that the House appreciates the
context in which Bill C-49 finds itself. I want the House to
appreciate how significant—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I am
sorry that I must interrupt the hon. minister, however, on the
first 40 minute time slot we have to have consent to split the
time.
Is there consent that the time on the first 40 minute slot be
split?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize for the
interruption.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank my
colleagues for their consent.
As I said, it is important from my point of view to put into
context the importance of Bill C-49 and the contribution that it
will make to ensuring a commitment which this government has to
work with first nations to build self-reliance and to provide
first nations the opportunity to have the social and economic
control that they need to have to better their lives within the
community and the lives of their community members.
Second, if I have the time I would like to explore some of the
issues that have been raised in the last few days with respect to
Bill C-49. I anticipate that I will be able to do that. If not,
I know my parliamentary secretary will speak to some of those
issues.
First and foremost, let us consider the context in which Bill
C-49 finds itself. In this regard I would like to remind the
House about the fact that the primary relationship that I as
minister of Indian affairs and the Government of Canada has with
first nations is through the Indian Act.
Over the course of the last couple of years, as I have
appreciated my role as minister of Indian affairs, I have found
the Indian Act to be paternalistic, or maternalistic in the sense
that I am the minister currently. The way this legislation
overlays first nations is quite extraordinary. I have the
responsibility to tell first nations how to develop their lands,
what they can do with their reserve lands, these lands which have
been set aside for them. I have to approve whether there can be
economic development, who can build where, what conservation
opportunities can be implemented.
In the Indian Act I am the one who decides and approves the will
of individual first nations. I am the one, in providing funds to
first nations, who says “Yes, you can have so much money for
this particular undertaking. You can have so much money for
that. You can have so much money for this”. The minister of
Indian affairs has considerable and complete control over the
activities that occur on first nations.
To me it is inappropriate. It is antiquated. It is not
allowing the communities to use the resources that are truly
theirs for the benefit of the people in those communities.
We have to ask: Why do we not change the Indian Act? I remind
the House that my predecessor attempted to do that. He attempted
to amend the Indian Act in a very substantive way. But first
nations resisted. They resisted it as a unilateral action made
on the part of the crown to interfere with the existing
relationship, despite the fact that they knew the Indian Act was
so controlling.
If we explore why that was the reaction, we come to understand
that first nations see the Indian Act really as their structural
relationship, which goes back to the fundamental issue of
aboriginal rights. All in this House appreciate, I know, that in
section 35 of our Constitution, the highest law of our land,
aboriginal rights are identified and protected. These are rights
that are not better than yours or mine as non-aboriginal people,
but they are different and fundamentally go back to our belief
that the first people of this nation have rights that are theirs
by virtue of the fact that they predated us in this great
country.
For first nations they see that connection to those rights
which, quite frankly, we have resisted, over and over again over
the course of our relationship, in clarifying or at least somehow
protecting through the Indian Act, this paternalistic piece of
legislation.
1010
More and more on this side of the House we are explaining and
encouraging our support for aboriginal rights. We are seeing
those aboriginal rights reconciled in a modern Canada through
such things as the negotiation of the treaty in the Nisga'a lands
in northwestern British Columbia and in other undertakings.
There is an easing and an increasing interest and demand from
first nations to deal with the Indian Act and to find ways and
means of allowing first nations the authority they need to have
as legitimate entities to make decisions in their communities on
behalf of the people of their communities.
Bill C-49 is one tool which allows us to take some small steps
in this regard. Bill C-49 is a product of over 10 years of work.
It has developed into a partnership among 14 first nations and
the Government of Canada to explore, in one particular area of
the Indian Act, the aspect of land management, how we could
restore jurisdiction to first nations. Working together, those
14 first nations and the Government of Canada have prepared
legislation that will allow me to relinquish the authorities that
I have under the Indian Act to control the lands of those 14
first nations and to give it to them in a legitimate, organized
and controlled fashion. It is called Bill C-49 and it is
tremendously important.
In the context of Bill C-49, 14 first nations in the provinces
of British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick will
have the authority to make decisions on how their land is
developed, how their land is conserved, how their land is
protected, how their land is used and how their land is
administered at the community level. For those people who say
that government should get out of the face of the people, what is
wrong with having decisions made locally, within a community, in
the context and the milieu in which the community finds itself?
I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
Bill C-49 is a step in that direction, a step which allows us,
at least for those 14 first nations, to start to break apart this
paternalistic relationship, not in a holus-bolus, free wheeling
way, but in a controlled way as outlined in the bill, which will
take us a certain degree and allow us the opportunity to test
this. We have to review the bill after four years to see how
progress is being made before we can extend it to other first
nations which also want to be considered. It is a legitimate
step that will help us make progress. To me this is fundamental
in the commitment that I have to work with first nations and to
find ways and means of allowing them the opportunity they need to
really do what is most important, and that is to change the
social reality of their demographics.
It is the Indian Act that has created and sustained that
cyclical welfare relationship, that one way relationship that has
kept aboriginal people from engaging fully in the wealth,
resources and strength that we know to be ours in Canada. I
encourage and ask hon. members to consider this bill in the
context of that and to see that these are important first steps
which will truly make a difference.
I want to speak to some of the specific issues that have been
raised over the course of the last few days. Let us look at the
issue of matrimonial property. Yes, we are talking about lands.
Yes, women have to have an opportunity to have access to those
lands after a marital breakdown. I remind the House that Bill
C-75 which was presented previously in this parliament was the
first nations land management act. That bill did not pass. When
I became Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
women came to talk to me about the importance of including
matrimonial property. I believed they were right. I would
remind the House that there is nothing in the Indian Act which
accommodates matrimonial property.
In Bill C-49 we have included the requirement that the land
codes must include the opportunity and the reality in the
provisions for matrimonial property to implemented.
This will happen in consultation within the communities. The
code has to be developed in consultation. It has to be ratified
and verified before it can be proclaimed. There is a system.
1015
This gives the first opportunity for women at least in those 14
first nations to have access to legislation that will allow for
matrimonial property to be considered. Women would like that to
be more broadly spread, for us to deal with it in the context of
the Indian Act. In addition, what we have said we will do is
appoint a fact finder to talk with interested parties, make
recommendations to myself, to first nations and to the women of
first nations about how we might be able to include in the
broader context of the Indian Act ways and means of providing for
property in the unfortunate circumstance of marital breakdown.
As a result of this bill, in those 14 first nations women will
have provisions for property at the point of a marital breakdown.
They also have my commitment to work with them to explore ways to
broadly deal with that issue in the context of other first
nations and the Indian Act.
Another issue that has been drawn to our attention is this tool
that all governments have when managing lands, called
expropriation. It is very unfortunate that in the mainstream
press people are talking about the sweeping expropriation
authorities. They are not sweeping at all. They are not any
different than the authorities which exist now in my power as the
minister of Indian affairs for action in first nations. In fact
there is more control than the expropriation powers that exist
for municipalities, provincial governments, hospitals and
schools.
Expropriation is a tool that all legitimate governments need to
have at their disposal. It cannot be used without great care. In
this bill it cannot be used without a significant process being
undertaken. This includes the identification of the need for
expropriation only for community based interests such as schools,
roads and hospitals, and that compensation be paid if indeed
expropriation must occur in the context of the federal
Expropriation Act which is referenced in the bill. The code of
implementation has to be verified externally.
There is nothing here that is sweeping and broad. There is
nothing here that is not offered to any other legitimate
government. I cannot see how we can exclude this tool from use
by first nations. It is just common sense to provide it but to
provide it in a very controlled and regulated context, which is
what happens in this bill.
The third area is the issue of consultation. We have heard
particularly from British Columbia that the municipalities want
to ensure that their neighbouring first nations will consult with
them as they decide how to manage their lands. The first nations
will do that. In fact consultation has already begun with the
Union of British Columbia Municipalities to develop a reciprocal
agreement, a protocol, on how first nations and municipalities
will consult, share information and proceed in the area of land
development.
There are those who say that the provisions in the bill must be
more specific, that the legislation must require that
consultation will occur. I am not sure one can legislate quality
consultation. If we legislate it we might get a letter, but if
we build the partnership between a first nation and its
surrounding municipalities, we build a community, a
neighbourhood. We build a partnership where both communities can
benefit. That is the focus here.
That is why I have been so impressed by my colleague, the member
from Coquitlam who has said, “I am going to go out there and
bring the municipalities and the first nations together to make
sure that they are communicating, connecting and building that
partnership”. As one community thrives, so does another. That
is how we build a strong British Columbia and a strong Canada.
It has been my experience that across Canada too many times we
find instances where municipalities and first nations who are
neighbours and use the same resources, the same water and the
same community services, do not know each other.
The mayor and council do not know the chief and council. When
there are issues, they do not know who to turn to, or who to talk
to.
1020
There is a tremendously important role for members of parliament
to play in bringing those communities together and ensuring that
their constituents, whether they be first nations or not, know
each other and work together. That is a challenge we have right
across the country.
In my own community that was the circumstance with the largest
first nation in Canada, Six Nations. The chief and council did
not know the mayor and council. The process engaged in was one
that was dysfunctional. If the city decided to do something and
the first nations did not like it, there were protests and
roadblocks. That is not how this country should work.
Once we brought the communities together and a protocol was
written, because of mutual interests, mutual respect and
recognition and a commitment to strengthen that part of
southwestern Ontario which is broadly populated by both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike, we have got a
tremendously exciting circumstance happening. Communications are
going back and forth. The mayor and council are inviting the
chief and council to events in the city and vice-versa. Economic
development which is happening in one community or the other is
being shared by both.
I believe that is the right approach. It is fair. It is open.
It is democratic. It builds on the traditional and real values
of Canada which are that we are a diverse country. We celebrate
our diversity and we appreciate the strength it gives us as a
nation.
The first people of this country have every right to be part of
this nation, to have the authorities that the rest of us have to
build our communities at the local level without the imposed
wisdom or lack of it that I might provide as the current Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
To me, all this is part and parcel of Bill C-49. The issues
that have been raised can be responded to. The responses exist
within the bill and with the commitment of the chiefs of those 14
first nations, all of them and specifically those who have worked
so long and hard on this as members of the First Nations Land
Management Board. I congratulate them for their courage, for
their energy and for the commitment to their communities.
In my mind it is in the best interests of all members of the
House to support them. They show the leadership that we know we
need to have in the 21st century if we are going to ensure that
as we stand up as proud Canadians and say we live in the best
country in the world, that we know it is true for all Canadians,
and especially for our first nations.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have had the privilege of the minister making comments here
today which speak to the very core of the concerns that people
have with this bill. As she is here in the House, I would seek
the unanimous consent of the House to have a short period of
questions and comments for the minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the House knows,
the first two slots are without questions and comments, but it is
obvious that we can ask for unanimous consent to have a specified
period. Does the hon. member wish to specify a specific
timeframe?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, whatever the House would
agree to, but I think 10 minutes would be sufficient.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Skeena has requested that the House give its unanimous consent in
this instance for the minister to respond to questions for five
minutes. A change has been made to five minutes.
Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for
five minutes of questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will
have five minutes of questions and comments to the minister. We
will start with the hon. member and if anyone else rises we will
try to get to them.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
House for agreeing to this.
The minister spoke about two of the areas of serious concern
with Bill C-49. One is the disposition of marital property in
the event of a marital breakdown.
She has indicated her willingness and her concern in this area.
1025
If the minister is so concerned, why are the provisions not in
the legislation to provide that protection for aboriginal women?
Many aboriginal women have contacted not only the official
opposition but also the minister and government members to
express those concerns. Why are those provisions not in the
legislation? Why did the government choose not to support Bloc
amendments which would have gone a long way toward providing
that?
The minister said that the expropriation provisions are not as
sweeping and as broad as some have painted them to be. How would
the minister respond to a real estate agent's letter to a client
in Vancouver where he advised his client to take his property
which is currently located on the Musqueam reserve off the market
because Bill C-49 is hanging as a sword over the property owner's
head? There is absolutely no possibility of marketing the
property on leased land which a couple of years ago was valued at
$700,000. That does not square with what the minister is saying
at all. This is an independent, unbiased real estate agent's
expressed opinion.
I direct those two questions to the minister and ask her to
respond.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.
Let us look first at the issue of matrimonial property. Let me
convey again how significant it is that the recognition that the
14 chiefs, which include women I would point out, have agreed
that it is highly important for them in their land codes to
include provisions for matrimonial property or the disposition of
property that effectively recognizes the impact on women,
particularly at the point of marital breakdown.
To my mind, as we look across the provincial jurisdictions which
have authorities in the area of matrimonial property, we have
seen different approaches province by province. It is my
expectation that the strength of these provisions will be
developed in the context of the community in which they are
found.
The challenge we have in providing services to citizens and
responding to their needs is best met in the context of
recognizing legitimacy in this particular case of the first
nations government to work with its community in order to find
the provisions that work for them. Those provisions and those
land codes have to be developed in consultation with the
community. They have to be ratified by the community. They have
to be verified by an external verifier who looks at all the
aspects and the intentions to ensure that they are legitimate and
will provide what the community wants and what is required.
This gives us the first tangible opportunity to say to women who
live in first nations communities that they will be part of this
undertaking. They will for the first time have the opportunity
to have this very important and essential aspect of their lives,
the issue of property, managed effectively in the context of
legislation and their land codes.
The second question raised by the hon. member was on the issue
of expropriation. I would first say that that real estate agent
should look carefully at the bill. I am afraid he is giving his
client an opinion that is not based on fact. In a very
unfortunate way it serves to escalate, heighten and encourage
difficult relationships between and among people in that
particular part of Canada.
There never has been and never will be the intention that lands
can be expropriated willy-nilly. In this context lands can only
be expropriated in the way in which lands can be expropriated
through any other legitimate government, for the purposes of
specific benefits to the community. That is absolutely clear and
so this what I view to be a red herring on the issue of
expropriation is an inappropriate one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided by
unanimous consent for questions and comments has expired.
1030
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are really privileged to have the minister in the House today.
I am sure she would like to remain for a little while longer to
clear up some of the many questions for all Canadians.
I would like to once again ask for unanimous consent so that
maybe we could extend the question and comment period a little
more so some of the very important questions could be asked and
the minister could have a great opportunity to respond. I am
sure she would go along with that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Prince George—Bulkley Valley have a specific period of time
in mind?
Mr. Dick Harris: Ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked that the time for
questions and comments be extended a further 10 minutes. Is
there unanimous consent?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would be in agreement, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to respect custom and proceed in
the usual way, that is speaking for ten minutes. We have
already used up five, and I think another five could be allowed,
perhaps. We would agree with that, but we would not want the
Reform member jumping up each time and having everything go
until noon.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The suggestion was
for 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will have opportunities in questions and answers throughout
the day to debate parts of the bill.
Bill C-49 was introduced on June 11 in the House. During
parliamentary debate and review by standing committee the
government has continued to put forward the benefits of the bill.
However, the official opposition has repeatedly tried to seek to
scuttle the bill, even today. It has continually tried to
misrepresent the real intentions of the first nations by way of
misinformation and fearmongering, as evidenced today by the
comments with respect to real estate agents making very unhelpful
comments to the leaseholders.
They have tried to confuse the citizenry of the country by
trying to raise the fears of average Canadians with respect to
the development of first nations and their legitimate desire to
take control over their lands and to manage those that are held
in trust.
At this time I would like to set the record straight on these
matters. I am sure that when I am finished the real story will
be before the House and all Canadians.
The minister has expounded quite well on questions of
expropriation, but let me reiterate some of the most important
points of this portion of the bill.
Members of the official opposition would like everyone to
believe that this power is an extreme power in the hands of first
nations and one which they believe would be abused to the
detriment of existing interest holders on first nations land.
There are supreme court decisions which make this impossible to
happen. This is nothing more than fearmongering.
As members of the House know, the power of expropriation is a
power available to all levels of government and one which all
governments take seriously with care and great caution. It must
be first noted that the exercise of this power by any of the
first nations is optional. In other words, although the bill
would provide the power to expropriate, the community would have
to decide whether to exercise that legitimate power. It is a
community decision, as I said, one that is not taken lightly. In
their codes these first nations must decide whether or not they
wish to include the power of expropriation.
As parliament knows, three first nations have already ratified
their codes. Of these, two have opted not to exercise this
expropriation power. The third, the Muskoday First Nation, has
spelled out in detail the extent to which it will exercise those
expropriation powers. It was done with care and proper due
diligence to its neighbours and indeed to the community itself.
The member for North Vancouver specifically referenced the
Muskoday land code in his remarks of the other day as being a
model for other first nations to follow. Of the three land codes
now in preparation in the communities, one wishes not to exercise
expropriation powers and the other two are following the Muskoday
model.
1035
In the exercise of this power the first nations must establish
the rules and procedures. In addition, these are based on rules
and procedures found in the Canadian Expropriation Act.
Indian reserve lands are currently subject to expropriation by
British Columbia with the consent of the governor in council.
There are at least 19 statutes where expropriation powers might
be exercised in the lower mainland of British Columbia today. Any
expropriation power that the first nations in B.C. may wish to
exercise is not unique.
I would like to respond to specific concerns raised in debates
concerning the matter of the 30 day expropriation time limit.
This has been raised a number of times in debate as a threat to
the security of interest holders on first nations land. It
should be noted that this period is similar to the time set out
in the 19 statutes to which I just referred. Under these sample
statutes, the 19 B.C. statutes, the timeframe can be as little as
10 days or, in limited situations, no notice. The Railway Act
statute is an example.
Consultation has again been repeatedly raised. Apparently some
members of the House would like us to believe that the 14
signatory first nations to the bill do not talk to their
neighbours. In fact, it has been implied that no first nations
consult with their non-aboriginal neighbours. This is completely
and categorically false and strongly needs to be addressed.
In direct relation to Bill C-49, the five first nations from
B.C. have entered into a consultation process with the Union of
British Columbia Municipalities to establish a consultation
protocol with all the affected municipal governments. In fact, in
British Columbia alone there are over 100 service agreements
between first nations and their non-aboriginal neighbours.
I would also like to refer to a letter that was tabled by the
chair of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities aboriginal
affairs committee. The letter supports the discussion paper on a
consultative protocol with the five B.C. first nations and touts
the benefits of working in a partnership with first nations.
The letter says:
I believe that entering into preliminary dialogue with the (five
B.C. first nations) on principles for reciprocal consultation as
set out in the attached discussion paper at this time is what the
UBCM has been working towards in consultation with first nations
over the past two years and may pay back dividends in the future.
Furthermore, at a regular meeting of the district of Squamish
held on February 15, 1999, the council passed the following
motion:
That council support the amended draft discussion paper on
reciprocal consultation between first nations governments and
municipalities on land use planning and related issues.
There is another point that I would like to address. Numerous
members opposite have continually raised the notion that
municipalities must consult with first nations. In their
discussions they cite the B.C. municipal act as setting out a
mandatory consultation process which first nations would be
legislated to follow.
The truth is that the so-called requirement for B.C.
municipalities to consult with first nations is not a requirement
at all that is imposed on the municipalities. It does not apply
when the land and other developments are proposed in those
municipalities.
The argument that the B.C. municipal act imposes the requirement
to consult with first nations is spurious and categorically
inaccurate. It is a myth. It does not exist as a requirement in
the B.C. municipal act.
In fact there is no statutory requirement for municipalities in
B.C. to consult with first nations with respect to land
development. The municipal act provisions for consultations only
arises when a regional district board proposes a development
strategy.
Therefore the cities of west and north Vancouver, which are not
the district board, have no obligation to consult with first
nations. There are no laws in the other five provinces where
nine of the fourteen land management first nations are located
that make any provision at all for consultation with first
nations in respect of land development or servicing.
1040
The chief of the Squamish nation has written to me and has
indicated other examples of how the member for North Vancouver
has misinformed the residents of British Columbia. I would like
to quote from the chief's letter when he says that he would like
to formally go on the record to say that the comments of the
member for North Vancouver are outright fabrications and,
further, that he should have to resign his position as a Reform
Party representative from British Columbia.
In addition, certain members opposite would have us believe that
the municipalities would automatically have to provide services
to the first nations. The truth is that if the first nations
want municipal services provided the two parties must negotiate
those agreements.
We strongly believe that the bill and the framework agreement
will pave the way for a better understanding of partnerships
between the first nations and their municipalities. I think it
is worth mentioning that 500 of these service agreements now
exist across the country, with 100 existing in British Columbia.
Let me quote excerpts from the Snake Island Cottagers
Association located in southern Ontario which represents a few
hundred cottage owners, if I am not mistaken, who feel that Bill
C-49 is a way for them to protect their relationship with the
first nations people:
We strongly support the Chippewas Band's quest for
self-government and feel that the swift passage of Bill C-49 will
facilitate a new leasing arrangement between our members and the
Chippewas band. SICA and the Chippewas Band have over the years
developed a friendly working relationship and we look forward to
dealing directly with the Band. The time for self-government is
now. Please do not delay the passage of Bill C-49 any longer.
The minister spoke extensively and very well and thoroughly to
the question of matrimonial property, but I will touch on it very
briefly to reinforce and reiterate what she has just said.
This is a very complex issue because the provincial land laws
respecting the division of matrimonial property upon marital
breakdown do not apply on reserves. That is clear. Why? Reserve
lands are unique because they are held by Her Majesty for the use
and benefit of the band, not by or for individuals. In other
words, it is communal land. Provincial laws cannot be replicated
in their entirety to reserve lands.
As the House is aware, the 14 first nations that signed the
agreement are anxious to spell out these rules. As the minister
said, many of the signatories of those 14 bands are women chiefs,
elected ostensibly by the men in their communities as well.
The bill before us and the agreement spell out that the
signatories must establish a community process. It is also
important to put on record that the equality section of the
charter of rights and freedoms will apply, that there will be no
discrimination based on sex under sections 28 and 35 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to the bill before us the legislation requires that
first nations solicit the input of all on and off reserve members
of their communities, including aboriginal women. Nothing
precludes a community from addressing the issue at the beginning
of the land code development process. The important point here
is that the community decides.
Federal officials through our minister are now working to
establish the fact finding process. Letters of invitation have
been sent to the aboriginal partners to participate in a meeting
where the terms of reference for the fact finding process will be
discussed. The minister will make further announcements on this
initiative in the near future.
Finally, during the recent debates I have raised a number of
comments of which the hon. member for Skeena challenged the
accuracy. I would like at this time to respond to this challenge
with some important facts.
1045
First, the Musqueam tenants were indeed approach by the Musqueam
Nation regarding prepaid leases. I am reading from a copy of a
letter dated May 14, 1980, sent to all the tenants:
Your lease is based on fixed rental payments until June 7, 1995
with reviews of rental for the three succeeding twenty year periods
and one final nine year period. For a number of reasons, we see
merit in considering “conversion” to a prepaid basis for this
lease.
We make it absolutely clear that participation in the prepaid
rental proposal will be entirely your own choice. Having said
this we have to also mentioned that the perhaps obvious fact
that, unless at least half of you show positive interest, there
will be no point in going ahead. If at least half of you do show
positive interest in the proposal, it is our intention to retain
a professional appraiser to advise us upon the present value of
the right to receive the flow of income provided for in your
lease. Once that is finalized, we will face the task of agreement
with you a mutually satisfactory prepayment figure.
I would like to give the House the results of this offer of the
Musqueam band for the sake of the member for Skeena. A total of
38 of the 76 tenants were required to respond positively for this
to proceed. The response was as follows. Ten were in favour,
nine were undecided and required more information and eight were
opposed to a new lease agreement. The possible 19 in favour was
far short of the required 38 or 50% and I would like to inform
the House that approximately 40% of the tenants residing at
Musqueam today were residents at the time of this letter in 1980.
These are important facts, along with the other fact that was
raised as an inaccuracy about arrears. I am told by the band and
through its documents that 15% of the leaseholders are still in
arrears to the tune of $334,000. I say this to clear up the
record because I did receive a letter from the member for Skeena
addressed to me with very strong and somewhat personalized
language. I feel it is my obligation to respond to that letter
and to the House with the facts of the case.
I say this in concluding my comments with all due respect to the
leaseholders of the Musqueam leasehold land who have had a very
difficult and trying time over the past number of months. I say
to them it is the wish of the first nations, it is the wish of
the government and I believe the House on vote on concurrence of
171 to 35 just the other evening on this bill that we as
Canadians, the House of Commons and our first nations people work
together to resolve these issues in a compassionate, fair and
equitable way so that our communities can live together.
This is my wish. I know is the expressed wish of the minister
in her role as minister responsible for first nations people. She
has advocated for that repeatedly and this is one that we
support.
I think this is a good bill. It is a great opportunity to move
forward in a new relationship where first nations people have the
opportunity to seize control of their own lands, to do business
with other first nations people or non-aboriginal people if they
wish, to proceed beyond the 100 years, beyond the dark past of
subjugation where first nations people were unable to leave their
small plots of land on reserve in which they find themselves able
to participate more broadly in Canadian society. This is what
they have asked for. This is what we are trying to accomplish
within the framework and broad underlying principles of this
bill.
It is not to drive a wedge between Canadian people and first
nations people, that we have disruptions and we become the
international embarrassment that Canada is viewed in the United
Nations and globally as treating unfairly its most vulnerable
citizens.
1050
This is an attempt to pull those parties together and I believe
we do that in the bill. The first nations believe we do that in
the bill and Canadians, as represented by the majority of members
of parliament in the House of Commons who have supported it,
believe that as well.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
share my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Once again we will
need the consent of the House. The hon. member for Skeena has
requested that his 40 minute slot be split in two and shared. Is
there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, if time is allowed for questions,
it must be of the same length. Let us do as we usually do, so
parties other than Reform can have the opportunity to respond.
Five minutes is not, therefore, sufficient. We would need ten
minutes or none at all.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the first two
debate slots there is no provision for questions and comments. We
had questions and comments through unanimous consent. We will now
resume debate on the split time for 20 minutes if there is
consent. I am not sure if there was consent. I will therefore ask
again. Is there consent to split the time?
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I would agree on the
member's splitting his time as he was kind enough to allow the
minister and I to split our time. I have no difficulty with
this. I was unclear whether you had agreed to the Bloc proposal
of 10 minutes of questions and answers and what precisely we were
agreeing to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was pointing out
that in the first two debate periods in this debate there is no
provision for questions and comments. On the minister's debate,
through unanimous consent, there was a provision for a five
minute extension. All we are asking to do is split time, not to
extend debate. There are no questions and comments in this
period. We have requested a splitting of time for the member for
Skeena.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
accommodate the request to split the time. We hope the
opposition will be equally accommodating to agree to consent to
five minutes for questions and comments at the end of the speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is up to the
House. Someone at the end of the speech will have to ask for
questions and comments. We are now into debate with the member
for Skeena for 20 minutes if there is consent.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like
to address some comments with respect to the issue the
parliamentary secretary raised and his comments in the House of
Commons a couple of weeks ago in debate which not only elicited a
strong response from me, as he pointed out, but I am aware of a
very strong response from a lot of residents on the Musqueam
reserve, leasehold residents.
The parliamentary secretary made statements that were erroneous
and not based on facts. He was challenged to come outside the
House and make those same statements. That would have been the
democratic test of whether the veracity of what he said was there
but the parliamentary secretary chose not to do so. He has
chosen not to apologize to the Musqueam residents and has chosen
to ignore my letter.
I think it is really unfortunate because when he talks about
driving a wedge between people, I can assure him that his
comments served nothing more than to drive a wedge between
Musqueam residents, the Musqueam band and the Government of
Canada. I can assure him that was the effect of his comments. It
is really unfortunate that he sees fit not to apologize for
those.
I will go on to address some of the issues the minister raised.
1055
She rightly identifies the Indian Act as a major obstacle for
aboriginal people in Canada to get ahead. In that regard we
agree with her completely. We also agree with the principle and
the notion of decentralizing decision making especially with
respect to reserve based land. As the minister knows and as
members in the House know, reserve land does not even belong to
the band. It belongs to the crown in right of the Queen.
Obviously this is wrong and it needs to be addressed.
We thought we were in the process of having an arrangement
whereby we could support Bill C-49 earlier in the year and late
last year. That was based on agreement to have some amendments
made to provide for property rights for aboriginal women, to
provide for consultation between municipalities and to provide
for expropriation provisions that would be seen to be fair to
leaseholders on reserve land.
I might add that on the issue of leaseholders we are focused
right now on the Musqueam because there is an obvious problem.
What is not yet widely known across Canada is that there are some
60,000 leaseholders on reserve land in Ontario. There are some
20,000 leaseholders on reserve land in British Columbia. There
are tens of thousands of leasehold interests on other reserves
across Canada. We think that this is a sign of progress and that
this is a good thing. We do not say it is bad. What we are
saying is in the government's attempt to decentralize decision
making some principles have to be followed like the principle
that we do not take tens of thousands of people who have a
leasehold interest on reserve land and let them twist in the
wind. There must be provisions to protect those interests built
into the legislation.
It is beyond me why the minister is not willing to consider
those amendments. For the minister's benefit I point out that
the member for Vancouver Quadra, a Liberal, was recently quoted
in the Vancouver Sun saying: “The bill in my view needs
corrections and I want them made”. This is a very well
respected Liberal member of parliament. He is a lawyer and is
recognized as a constitutional expert. He goes on to say a
number of other things. He says Bill C-49 was poorly drafted.
He supports concerns expressed by another Liberal member of
parliament and B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who say that
the expropriation rights for Indian bands are excessive.
This is the very point the minister was addressing and she said
they were not excessive. Her colleague who is a recognized
constitutional and legal expert says they are. He cites the
bill's lack of protection for native women who often loose the
right to marital property after a divorce and the omission of any
mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities
on development matters.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but he will have 15 minutes left in
his dissertation when we get back to debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BRUCE WYLIE
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following his historic radio addresses of the second world war,
Winston Churchill often commented that he was never comfortable
with the notion that he inspired his nation. He conceded that he
might have been their voice, but the people provided the heart.
Throughout the ice storm of 1998 the people of Leeds—Grenville
were updated, counselled and inspired through our local radio
station CFJR, and in particular the voice of Leeds—Grenville,
broadcaster Bruce Wylie.
Yesterday at the Canadian Music Week Media Awards, Bruce Wylie
was awarded the Ontario Association of Broadcasters Broadcaster
of the Year Award.
His work on behalf of our community makes him a legend in our
area. Now the rest of Canada gets a glimpse of the valuable and
professional manner in which he carries out his work.
1100
True to form, Bruce and his tuxedo were delayed by the snow
storm and he was not able to attend the presentation.
I sincerely want to congratulate Bruce, his wife Eileen, his
sons Ben, Dan and Tom, as well as the staff and management of
CFJR and the River, as the prestige of this award is a tribute to
them all.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I am pleased
to announce to the House that March is national nutrition month.
This year's theme is “Make nutrition come alive—it's all about
you”.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Canadian Dietetic Association and Health Canada on their efforts
to promote national nutrition month, which has incidentally
given us the opportunity to review food labelling policies.
* * *
[English]
THE FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Liberal government continues to erode the power of
parliament.
Parliament must be supreme. It must oversee the activities of
the courts, the bureaucracy and cabinet.
Public and legal policy should respect the foundations of
Canadian society like marriage and spouse that serve to bring
appropriate consistency to the application of the law.
Currently Bill C-63 before the House contains a clause proposing
to give cabinet the sole power to define what a spouse is and
what constitutes a family.
If the government is considering fundamental policy changes, it
should present its rationale and justifications and demonstrate
how the public interest is served. Then we should debate it and
allow a free vote.
The Reform Party defines marriage to be the union of a man and a
woman as recognized by the state. Anything less than an open
democratic process will only serve to undermine the credibility
of the House.
* * *
EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
linkage between the quality of early childhood care and the
physical, mental and social health outcome of children is well
established.
As the finance minister has stated, good fiscal policy makes
good social policy and good social policy makes good fiscal
policy.
Investments in early childhood development will provide
beneficial social dividends.
Families have diverse circumstances. As a consequence, parents
must be given the flexibility, options and choices to provide the
best possible care for their children.
The government has responded and will continue to respond.
Consider the Canada child tax benefit, the community action
program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.
Consider also the Canada millennium scholarship, the youth
employment strategy and registered education savings plans for
older children. Consider the spousal tax credit for single
income families. Consider a balanced budget that gives us the
freedom to provide broad based tax relief so that all parents
have more money.
Let us work together to help all parents, those who work outside
the home and those who work so hard at home, give their children
the best future possible.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS LEADERS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to
a survey carried out in January, 42% of respondents reported
that they had complete, or considerable, trust in business
leaders.
Three quarters of them felt business leaders ought to be
actively involved in major societal debates. The economic role
played by business leaders plays a determining role in the
economy of Quebec.
Instead of using all manner of approaches for promoting the
separation of Quebec, the sovereignists should devote that same
amount of resources and energy to the political stability of
Canada and of Quebec, and thus gain the confidence of those who
have a definite impact on our lives.
The separatist government should build bridges for collaborative
efforts, instead of driving away potential investors by
attempting to sell them on this option of separating Quebec from
the rest of Canada.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Wednesday the U.S. trade representative imposed 100% duties on
imports from Europe to the United States.
If the international trade and heritage ministers doubted the
United States would follow through on retaliation because of Bill
C-55 they should now be true believers.
What will the finance minister say to wool suit makers in
Montreal when the U.S. retaliates against textiles?
What will the international trade minister say to pharmaceutical
workers in Toronto when they lose their jobs because he would not
take action?
What will the heritage minister say to Hamilton steel workers in
her own riding when their jobs disappear because of trade
retaliation?
How will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians that he allowed
Canada to bear the brunt of a $1 billion retaliation?
* * *
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
long and proud history of supporting international peace and
security was again honoured on October 8, 1998 with our election
to a two year term on the United Nations Security Council.
1105
Since taking its seat on January 1, Canada will have an
opportunity to lead the UN and the world into the next
millennium.
Canada was one of the charter members of the UN and our active
involvement in this organization is a cornerstone of our foreign
policy.
It is my hope that during this term we will continue to lead on
issues of human security, democratic development, human rights
and fundamental freedoms, and the rules of law and good
governance.
But it is also important to initiate a fundamental change to the
way the UN Security Council functions. Canada's influence will
make resolutions more transparent, effective and responsive to
the needs of UN members. For example, when a Security Council
resolution is passed, we must ensure its prompt implementation.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently I received
a letter from a participant in the Katimivak program from my
riding, inviting me to attend a gala. Nothing out of the
ordinary so far, except that this letter by the Katimivak
co-ordinator on behalf of my constituent, who comes from Quebec,
was in English only.
According to the person responsible, the decision was that the
letter was to be sent in English only because most MPs
are English speaking.
This exemplifies a flagrant lack of respect for a very large
number of young people who come to Quebec to take part in this
activity.
We have proof yet again that French and the situation of Quebec
are being ignored in favour of the anglophone majority. And all
this is taking place within an organization that, since its
inception, has received considerable federal funding.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE GERHARD HERZBERG
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the flag on the Peace Tower flies at half mast today in
memory of a great Canadian who brought much honour to our country
and much enlightenment to human understanding of the world in
which we live.
Dr. Gerhard Herzberg came to Canada from Germany in 1935. He
regarded Saskatoon, his first home in Canada, as his Canadian
birthplace, although he lived much of his life in Ottawa and did
most of his work here at the National Research Council.
Although he was an astrophysicist, he nonetheless became
Canada's first Nobel Laureate for chemistry. He made his latest
major discovery of triatomic hydrogen when he was nearly 80. He
continued his active research at the NRC until the age of 90 and
he was a lifelong ardent advocate of research in Canada.
Canada and the world owe Dr. Herzberg much for his life's work
and we extend our gratitude and sympathy to his family.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week Chris Taylor, head of the western division of the
immigration department, came down hard on the RCMP officer who
works on the very serious problem of Honduran refugee claimants
who deal drugs on the streets of Vancouver. At committee this
week the minister of immigration fully supported the actions her
minister took against the RCMP.
Incredibly, instead of attacking the problem, the minister and
her department have chosen to attack the RCMP officer who has
spoken out about the problem. Immigration officials have
launched a formal complaint against the RCMP officer involved,
when all he did was tell the truth about the problems in
immigration law and in the enforcement of those immigration laws.
Why does the minister not focus her efforts on attacking the
problems in her department rather than attacking the RCMP for
speaking out about these problems?
* * *
[Translation]
LUC PLAMONDON
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute to Quebec composer Luc Plamandon, who
will be inducted into the Canadian music hall of fame as part of
the Juno Awards night.
He will join other greats, including Oscar Peterson, Paul Anka
and Glenn Gould, among others.
This recognition of the talent of Luc Plamondon speaks of
perseverance and hard work over many years and demonstrates
eloquently that a Quebec product compares favourably with the
best internationally in both artistic and cultural terms.
In making this statement, I particularly please my daughter
Jordana, a devoted fan of the work of Luc Plamondon.
There are a number of other artists to watch for on Sunday. I
wish them all good luck and want them to know I am proud of them
as a Quebecker and a Canadian.
* * *
1110
[English]
GENETICALLY ALTERED FOODS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to raise the issue of the consumer's right to know.
This forms a basic right in any democracy. We have a right to
decide and to make a choice.
In the recent budget the Liberal government claims that Canada
is a leader in biotechnology, but it is also a leader in removing
the right to know.
Genetically altered foods are not being labelled in this
country and any promotion for the liability of mistakes made in
terms of genetically altered foods and products in the world is
not ensured.
In Cartagena, Colombia, the Liberal government scuttled the
United Nations biosafety protocol. The government refused to
address the international concerns on biotechnology liability.
When will this government legislate genetically altered food
labelling? It is a leader in financing these foods and products.
It also has an equal moral responsibility to all consumers.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL TRANSFERS
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
upon a time there was an ogre named Canadosaurus. He shared his
cave with ten dwarfs who were bound in servitude to him. The
fattest was called Ontariette, and the prettiest, Québequine.
To reward them for their loyalty, the ogre gave each of them 100
crowns a year to help them feed their children. He called these
social transfers.
One day, in order to pay off his debts, the ogre decided to
reduce their annual stipend from 100 to 50 crowns each.
Soon forced to feed her children nothing but bread and water,
Québequine made known her indignation, but her sisters submitted
without complaint. That, of course, was because they loved the
ogre.
One day, tired of the protests of Québequine, the ogre announced
that the dwarfs' stipend would now be 70 crowns. “See how kind
I am”, he said, trying to look sincere. “Seventy crowns?”,
exclaimed Québequine. “You are a thief and a robber. I want my
100 crowns”. “Ungrateful wretch”, shouted the ogre. “I give
you an extra 20 crowns and you cannot even say thank you”.
* * *
[English]
NORTEL NETWORKS INSTITUTE
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have great news of an event taking place right now in
my constituency of Kitchener—Waterloo. If I was not here, I
would be there.
Dr. James Downey, president of the University of Waterloo, is
hosting a media conference. Keith Powell, senior vice-president
of Nortel Networks, will announce the establishment of the $10.3
million Nortel Networks Institute for Advanced Information
Technology at the University of Waterloo.
This institute will fund student scholarships, faculty research
chairs and will increase enrolment in advanced technology
disciplines through a collaboration of business, education and
government.
This partnership is great news. It will be of great benefit to
my community, Ontario and Canada. I join with the rest of the
House in congratulating all of the parties involved in this
exemplary collaborative partnership.
* * *
SHRIMP FISHERY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express concern regarding the future
of the shrimp fishery in Nova Scotia. Seafreez Foods Inc. has
requested, along with the Canso Trawlerman's Association, an
immediate increase in shrimp stock quotas off the Strait of
Canso, Nova Scotia. A similar request was made by the ACS plant
in Mulgrave. Both have made straightforward requests for help.
After meeting with the minister and bringing this matter to his
attention several times over the past few months, I am confident
that he too understands the importance and significance of the
much needed quota for the small fishing communities of Canso and
Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. Given the dire situation that these
communities find themselves in, such proposals make absolute
sense.
I urge the minister to review these proposals with fairness and
equity and answer favourably the plea for quota. These two
communities are among the most economically stricken areas of the
country.
The hardships experienced since the downturn of the fishery have
been staggering. If the requests are denied, as was the case
with the turbot quota, devastation to the people in these
communities is guaranteed. The premier of Nova Scotia has proven
to be an ineffective voice for these communities.
As the minister is well aware, the fishing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Oakville.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year the theme for International Women's Day will be “Going
Strong—Celebrating Older Women”. This theme was chosen to
coincide with the International Year of Older Persons as declared
by the United Nations for 1999.
Secretary General Koffi Annan has said “As we reflect on a half
century of human rights advocacy, and as we resolve to do better
where we have failed or fallen short, the situation of older
women warrants special attention”.
Women make up a large share of our senior population and, while
many are active and independent, older women are among the
poorest people in Canada.
Without the resources and support they need, these women are
faced with significant obstacles to independence, health and the
ability to remain active members of society.
1115
As we prepare together to celebrate International Women's Day
next Monday, March 8, let us rededicate this House and ourselves
to the challenge of promoting fairness, equity and respect for
older women in Canada.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, members of parliament are accountable to the public and
last year they received a 2% increase in their office budgets.
Members of the senate who are not accountable to the public gave
themselves a 6% increase this year on top of the 10% increase
they gave themselves last year for a total of 16%.
The Senate has it so good that it has decided not only—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Louis-Hébert.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRE D'INSÉMINATION ARTIFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is good
news in Quebec's agricultural sector: the Fédération des
producteurs de lait du Québec, the Conseil québécois des races
laitières and the Conseil provincial des cercles d'amélioration
du bétail have bought the Centre d'insémination artificielle du
Québec, or CIAQ.
This artificial insemination centre is a strategic tool for the
development of Quebec's cattle industry. For 50 years, it has
been a loyal partner, helping to promote the evolution of dairy
farms in Quebec by supplying quality products and striving to
bring about genetic improvement.
The new limited partnership can point to universally recognized
achievements. The reputation of the now celebrated bull,
Starbuck, whose descendants number over 450,000, is well known.
One of his offspring, Rodolphe, continues to supply the CIAQ and
could well leave behind even more progeny than his father.
The CIAQ controls over 80% of Quebec's artificial insemination
market and 45% of the Canadian market.
We wish all Quebec's dairy cattle farmers and the 125 employees
of the CIAQ a very successful future.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for a week now we have been asking a basic question. Why
do single income, two parent families pay considerably more tax
than two income families? The government's responses fall into
three categories. Either the Liberals avoid the question and
puff up what little they have done for families, they avoid the
question and attack any Reformers who dare ask it, or they avoid
the question and attack and insult stay at home parents.
I invite the finance minister to answer the question. Why is he
allowing this clear discrimination to continue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately the preamble to the hon. member's question
simply does not bear any relationship to reality. What we have
done is certainly outline the number of measures which we have
taken to help those families raising children, whether it be the
child tax credit, the community action program for children or
the prenatal nutrition program.
What has happened in every case is that we have pointed out to
the Reform Party that despite its rhetoric in the House it has
voted against every one of those issues which will help children.
That is the basic debate, how to help children, how to help
families raising children.
This government has brought forth a series of measures and the
question is why does the reality of the Reform Party's votes
contradict its rhetoric?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess that falls into the category of avoid the
question and attack the questioner. The minister knows very well
that the measures he is speaking of to help families were
embedded in a budget where taxes on families were jacked up time
and time again. Of course we did not support his budgets and we
will not until there is tax fairness in them.
Again, will the minister even acknowledge that there is systemic
discrimination in his own budgets against two parent families
with only one income?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the hon. member simply does not seem to get it. In
the last budget by raising the threshold by $675 and the $300
million that went into the child tax benefit, the tax burden on
Canadian families was substantially reduced.
The basic issue is the Reform Party is saying, and if not would
the hon. member explain the contradiction, that it would tax
somebody at $25,000 at a higher rate than it would tax somebody
at $50,000. That simply does not make any sense. That is why we
have a progressive tax—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
1120
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this problem will never be fixed if the minister will
not even acknowledge it.
The fact is, and he knows this very well being the finance
minister, that single income, two parent families pay about
$4,000 more in taxes even though they have less net income. They
have a difficult time under this minister's budget. What will the
minister do to address this problem?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that, just as we have brought
in through previous budgets measures to help families, we would
like to see the House of Commons finance committee look at the
whole issue as to how best government can help Canadian families
raise their children. We have already said that.
The issue we are debating here is whether the Reform Party is in
favour of progressive taxation. Is the Reform Party in favour of
individual taxation versus family taxation? If it is, how does
it gibe its approval of that with its questions? The real fact
of the matter is that the Reform Party is against progressive
taxation. It is against individual taxation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all this bafflegab about progressive taxation is really quite
galling from a minister who brought in a clawback on his much
vaunted child tax benefit of 70% for low income families. The
C.D. Howe Institute calculates that families between $25,000 and
$35,000 in income are facing as high as 70% marginal rates.
When the minister talks about progressivity our objection to the
inequities for single income families relates to the child care
tax deduction which they cannot claim if they raise their
children at home.
How can the minister defend the continued discriminatory effect
of the child care tax deduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said this matter should be referred to the House
of Commons finance committee. Now that we are in a surplus
position it makes an enormous amount of sense to us to look at
one of the beneficial ways we can improve the tax code to benefit
Canadian families. The hon. member ought to be prepared to
participate in that process on a constructive basis.
The real issue is why the hon. member is arguing against
individual taxation. Why does he believe that higher income
Canadians should be taxed at a lower rate than lower income
Canadians? That is the issue. Why does he not answer the
question?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister wants to talk about progressive taxation then he
has to explain to $30,000 income families why they are facing a
70% marginal rate with his vicious clawback of the renamed family
allowance.
I look at the figures in his own budget which say that a family
with $35,000 with a single earner is paying $1,700 in taxes,
$2,200 more than what a dual earner family would play. That is a
low income family.
Studies are fine. Talk is cheap. When will the government act?
When will it address the concerns of single income families and
provide the kind of equity they have been demanding for years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the example the member raised was a $30,000 family. The
fact is we did act. We increased the child tax benefit and as a
result that family will now pay no federal income tax.
* * *
[Translation]
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, during the television program Le Point, the CBC said
that Canada is, in the eyes of criminal smugglers, the one
country where it is easiest to bypass immigration laws.
That alarm has also been raised by the Canadian security
intelligence service since 1997 in its annual reports, where it
points out that the smuggling of illegal immigrants has been
increasing because of the relatively minor penalties imposed on
those found guilty of that offence.
Will the government admit that, as things now stand, our
Canadian laws are totally powerless to eliminate the smuggling
of illegal immigrants, and that this is shameful?
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question that Canada has one of the best immigration and refugee
policies in the world.
I reject categorically any claim that the government is not
acting or that we are ineffective in our actions. We are very
forceful through CIC officials, the RCMP and all arms of the
federal government to ensure that our immigration laws are being
followed and adhered to.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
study on organized crime sponsored last year by the Solicitor
General of Canada revealed that 8,000 illegal immigrants arrive
in Canada every year, and that this situation costs taxpayers
between $120 million and $400 million.
Why has this government not taken action since?
1125
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is acting. We are very active internationally on the
whole issue of the international smuggling of people. We are at
the forefront of this effort.
I really would caution the hon. member from the Bloc to not
start taking on the characteristics of the Reform Party in trying
to victimize some people who come to this country in a legal
fashion. In any country with any law there will be some
illegality but that is just a small percentage.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the magnitude of the illegal immigrant network was clearly shown
in the television report prepared by Normand Lester.
Worse still, in that same report, Immigration Canada admitted
that it does not know the actual number of illegal immigrants.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the
government admit that the current mess regarding illegal
immigrants in Canada is the direct result of the ineffectiveness
of the immigration and refugee board which, on average, takes
three years to issue its rulings?
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer
is no, no, no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am a little worried.
Since 1989 all the Quebec ministers of Immigration have asked
for an in-depth review of the process concerning political asylum
claims. Will the government pledge today to introduce a bill to
that effect by the end of the current session?
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows that the government has produced a white paper on
immigration. The committee on citizenship and immigration will
be reviewing the whole legislation and the member knows that her
party and all other parties in the House will be in a position to
give input.
There is no activity of government that is totally fault free
but in the vast majority of cases this government in immigration
and citizenship is doing a great job.
* * *
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. I want
to ask him what the government considers to be a motion of
confidence. It pertains of course to the request of the Senate
for a 6% increase in its budget this year after a 10% increase
last year.
According to parliamentary procedure a vote against the Senate
estimates is not a vote of non-confidence unless the government
deems it to be so.
I have a copy of a memo that went out to all Liberal MPs
yesterday that appears to be deeming this vote a motion of
non-confidence. My question is very simple to the minister.
Will the government be considering the vote on the estimates
coming from the Senate for its increase of 6% a matter of
confidence in the government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discover this
new found interest in the upper chamber by the hon. member.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he received his candidacy
with enthusiasm last week.
The estimates of the other place, as with the estimates of this
House, particularly the component having to do with the
compensation package, were voted on by both houses of parliament
and surely the member would not ask us to undo a bill which he
voted on unanimously.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has not answered the question. I will ask
him once again. I have a lot of respect for many government
backbenchers in the House. I hope the minister has the same
respect for his backbenchers as I have.
Will the vote on the estimates coming from the Senate where it
wants an extra 6% this year on top of 10% last year be considered
an issue of confidence in the Government of Canada? Answer that
question directly. Will it be a confidence vote or not? We have
to know that. Are members free to vote their own minds?
1130
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been around
the House even longer than I have, which is a very long time, and
knows the institution of responsible government. He also knows
that parliament functions when both Houses function to pass
legislation that is enacted and that we do so on behalf of the
people of Canada.
That is what parliament will continue to do now and in the
future.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Apart from the public squabbling between the finance minister
and his close personal friend, Brian Tobin, there is the question
of the fundamental principles underlying the per capita
equalization payments. It is an undeniable fact that the scheme
to calculate transfers on a per capita basis would be devastating
to Newfoundland and Labrador, a province which has lost 30,000
people in three years. Equality of transfers per person simply
does not translate into equality of available services.
Will the minister guarantee us today that the additional funding
will be made available to ensure the principles of the Canada
Health Act are available for all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member understands that social transfers and
equalization operate hand in hand. What we have done is reverse
a discrimination against other provinces on a per capita basis so
that all Canadian citizens, whether they live in Newfoundland,
Ontario or British Columbia, are treated equally under the
federal provision of health care.
At the same time we have improved substantially the equalization
program. There are much larger amounts of money that will be
transferred. That has been recognized by the Premier of
Newfoundland.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is obviously quite pleased with himself, but his
former colleague and close personal friend, Mr. Tobin with whom
we know he has so much in common, is not wearing the same grin.
The Liberal finance minister in Newfoundland might be smiling
for another reason. He calls this government's claims laughable.
The Liberal health minister in the province has said outright
that it creates a two tier health care system, one for
Newfoundland and one for the rest of Canada.
For the sake of those caught in the middle in Newfoundland and
Labrador and for Canadians everywhere who care about health care,
will the minister tell us which group of Liberals are we suppose
to believe in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is a little out of date. The fact is
that the Government of Newfoundland and the federal government
are speaking with one voice. That one voice says that in fact
there is very large scale funding going from the federal
government to the province of Newfoundland in both the CHST and
equalization, money which I know full well the Government of
Newfoundland will put into the health care system because its
interests are ours, and that is to have the best health care
system right across the country.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, dictatorship is alive and well in the Liberal Party.
Yesterday the Prime Minister ordered his own MPs to vote once
again like sheep in favour of supporting the 16% two year raise
for senators. He also had the gall to say “The Senate is doing
its job and doing it well”.
I would like to ask the government exactly what the Senate is
doing such a good job at. Is it taking Mexican holidays or is it
not showing up for work? Which one does it accomplish best?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across and some
of his colleagues are in no position to talk about attendance in
this House.
The raise for senators was 2% for subsequent years and 1.25% in
the first year. The hon. member who asked me this question voted
for it. How can he now claim the opposite of that which he voted
on himself?
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in parliamentary committee the member for
Calgary West asked the committee to call a senator to come before
the committee to explain exactly where all the money was being
spent. Under the Prime Minister's direct orders, the Liberal
members voted against calling an accountability.
What is the government trying to hide in this Senate money
spending? What kind of embarrassment is it trying to avoid? What
is it that troubles the government about the way senators spend
money?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing is hidden. The full
estimates were tabled last Monday. The supplementary estimates
will be tabled today before all members of the House. Copies are
supplied to all members of parliament and all members of the
other place.
The hon. member knows the breakdown of every item spent by both
houses of parliament. As it pertains to the compensation
package, he voted for it himself.
* * *
1135
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Since the government has recently converted to the principle of
a per capita breakdown of public expenditures, can the minister
tell us what proportion of the Canada Information Office's
propaganda spending is in Quebec?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not
involved with any propaganda.
We do inform Canadians from coast to coast on what the
government is doing. All programs are created for the benefit
of Canadians. In Quebec, as in the other provinces, our
information programs are equitable.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs declared that the leaders
of the Conservative Party and the Reform Party are more
dangerous to Canadian unity than Quebec sovereignists. Last
year, two-thirds of Canada Day funding was spent in Quebec.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not think that a
greater proportion of government propaganda spending ought to be
focussed on the west where, according to his colleague, it would
be better spent and would correct another injustice?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Government of Canada, we
take part in all Canadian activities and festivals.
Celebrations are held throughout the country, and we have a
presence there, whether for Canada Day, Labour Day, or some
other event.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Minister of Labour what is with the
government's aversion to saving taxpayers money.
A departmental study recommending the amalgamation of the Canada
Labour Relations Board, the Artists Tribunal and the Public
Service Staff Relations Board was ignored despite projected
savings of $3 million to $4 million. Instead the government
changed the name of one board and shelved the study.
What is the government opposed to, greater efficiency or the
proposed saving of $3 million to $4 million a year?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have reviewed the agencies, boards and commissions. In that
process we abolished hundreds and hundreds of positions. We
amalgamated or got rid of up to 70 of these agencies, boards and
commissions.
In the process we saved the government a lot of money. All
these decisions were done in the interest of Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, then
perhaps there is a willingness on the part of the government to
go the next step. The budget for the Artists Tribunal alone last
year was $1.7 million yet it only completed 11 cases.
Why will the minister not combine these bureaucracies? Is it
because he does not want to save the taxpayers $3 million to $4
million, or is the government saving these boards as nice little
patronage plumbs for its political friends?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, we have done that review. There is a continuing
review of all these agencies, boards and commissions.
Our purpose is to be able to give good government at the lowest
possible cost. I think we showed it. We abolished hundreds of
positions. We saved millions of dollars and we intend to
continue to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
In 1995-96, Atomic Energy Canada, the Business Development Bank
of Canada and Canada Post, the latter now headed by a former
Liberal minister, contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada
campaign fund.
Does the minister think it appropriate for these organizations
to contribute public money to his party's election fund?
Some hon. members: Shameful.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, crown
corporations—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Individuals, perhaps, employees of the
corporations can contribute to any political party they wish,
but the corporation itself, I am not aware of that.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so, I
ask the minister to consult his party's list of contributions.
1140
Our figures show that a given Canadian's chances of
being awarded a contract by the Canada information office are 125
times greater if he has contributed to the Liberal Party coffers.
Businesses' chances of being awarded a contract by the CIO are
40 times greater if they have contributed to the Liberal Party.
Does the minister not think that this situation, even though he
may not be aware of it, undermines public confidence in public
institutions?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the member's
allegations, which are totally unfounded.
Since August, nearly 70% of the calls for tender by the Canada
information office have been open to the public, and all those
who got contracts have been required to apply through a public
tender process.
Therefore, I totally reject these allegations.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The government is ramming Bill C-49 through the House and
counting on the Senate to fix it up or tidy it up later.
Why will the minister not fix the bill in the House where it
ought to be done rather than shirk her responsibility and count
on an unelected, unaccountable Senate to fix it later?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned we
have a very good bill. I would note that the hon. member
opposite voted fully in support of the bill after second reading.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the government shuts down debate on Bill C-49. The
government has refused to address the issue of the disposition of
family homes in divorce, choosing to instead to leave it up to
individual bands to create laws.
Mr. Stanley Cuthand, an academic elder at the Saskatchewan
Indian Federated College, has stated that the problem with
entrusting band councils to develop divorce laws is that
traditional customs are vague.
Does the minister think that this statement by a respected elder
has merit? If so, why is she ramming the legislation through so
quickly?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation is not being
rammed through. In fact, we have had 50 speakers address this
bill in the House. That does not include the interventions that
were made at committee. I would clarify that the hon. member for
Skeena supported it at second reading in committee.
The issue of matrimonial property is important. The bill gives
us the first opportunity to deal with the provision of
recognition of matrimonial property in first nations. I
encourage hon. members opposite to understand that and join all
other parties in the House to unanimously support Bill C-49.
* * *
[Translation]
FAMILY TRUSTS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, George Harris of
Winnipeg is asking the courts to get to the bottom of the family
trust scandal, where $2 billion were allowed to leave Canada
tax-free in 1991, but the Liberals are going to appeal the
ruling, which allows Mr. Harris's request.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that all the
government's fears have been laid to rest in the Muldoon ruling,
can the Minister of Finance tell us why it is stubbornly
blocking an investigation into the family trust scandal? What
is he hiding from Quebeckers and Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is well aware that this matter is before the courts and
that I am not in a position to comment.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights has recommended that Canada establish an official poverty
line to accurately measure poverty and to enhance the
accountability of our progress.
Does the Ministry of Human Resources Development accept this
recommendation and, if so, when will it be implemented?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the
current time there is no agreement in this country about how to
appropriately measure poverty.
Some groups think that the LICO measure is too high. Some think
it is not high enough. What most people seem to agree on is that
we need to broaden our understanding of poverty to better address
the situation of low income Canadians. That is why we are
working with the provinces to develop a market based basket
measure which takes into account the cost of people's essential
needs.
Any new measure that is developed would supplement, not replace,
the current measure like the low income cutoff.
* * *
1145
WATER
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, control of one of our great national treasures, water,
is under threat in a precedent setting case before NAFTA, the Sun
Belt bulk water export case. At any moment now this case and
Canada's control over water might be subject to a NAFTA panel.
What is the government doing to ensure that Canada continues to
retain sovereignty over its water? What is it doing to make sure
we keep bulk water out of NAFTA?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member was but a
few days ago, my colleagues the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of the Environment offered the solution to that very
question on two tracks.
The first one is with respect to the boundary waters with the
United States and the federal government takes leadership and has
full sovereignty. On the question of bulk water extraction, we
have been in touch with the provincial governments and have
agreed to move on a national policy basis to eliminate bulk
extraction and to also have a moratorium. Both tracks work in
the best interests of Canadians in this very important issue in
terms of water supplies.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber deal is killing a number
of Canadian businesses. This deal expires in two years, yet 86
out of 146 companies replying to my recent questionnaire have
little or no trust in this government to spell out a better
agreement.
How will this government regain the trust of these companies in
order to give confidence back to the industry?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when the two governments
entered into this agreement, it had the virtual unanimous
blessing of the national industry. It also had the virtual
unanimous blessing of the provincial governments involved.
Clearly it was very much a private sector solution that led to
the agreement my predecessor worked on.
We met with the industry some weeks ago. We are beginning the
process of determining now rather than later how this agreement
is working, whether we want it to continue and if not, what
changes can be brought to it.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our public
broadcaster is in crisis. This government has gutted its funding
and the cuts have resulted in labour strife. There are also
repeated examples of government interference with CBC operations,
from Bill C-44 to the logo fiasco to interference in the APEC
coverage.
Will the government restore funding to allow the CBC to pay its
employees a fair industry wage and restore job security? And
will the minister admit this government's financial actions and
partisan appointments have caused the current crisis?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has
guaranteed stable funding to the CBC and Société Radio-Canada
until the year 2003. My hon. colleague could verify from the
estimates that that has been increased by $60 million this year,
some of it for operational costs and a good chunk of it for
technical investments. The government remains committed to this
very important institution, that is, CBC and Radio-Canada.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
fairness of military justice is under scrutiny worldwide.
Military justice in Canada is under scrutiny.
In light of the legitimate safety concerns and serious questions
raised around the Anthrax vaccine, is there any indication that
the director of military prosecutions will use his discretionary
power to withdraw the charge against Mike Kipling, a father and
husband who faithfully devoted over 25 years of his life in the
service of his country? The Department of National Defence has
accepted Mike Kipling's resignation. Why not allow this family
man and loyal Canadian to retire in peace and dignity?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the
specifics of the case. The individual deserves to have a fair
trial. The matter will proceed to a court martial. Cohesion and
discipline in the military are very important. Someone is
alleged to have disobeyed an order in terms of a major offence.
On that basis the court martial will proceed.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance should step in to the real world and see that
climate change is for real and so is the Kyoto challenge.
1150
The truth of the matter is that we are 25% behind our goal and
environmental issues continue to be a low priority for this
Liberal government.
Another Liberal budget has just passed and so has another
opportunity for the minister to take concrete action to combat
climate change.
When will this government put an end to its paltry environmental
record and announce new and significant economic instruments so
Canadians can meet their Kyoto target?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that work is already under way in two important
respects.
First, in the budget of 1998 we introduced the climate change
action fund. This is $150 million in new money to support the
ongoing process with the provinces, to support the work on
science, to support the work on technology transfer and on
engaging the Canadian public. We have a very open and transparent
process with 450 Canadian experts working together to develop a
long term strategy. The process is very well along in its
development.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, is the
finance minister for real? The science on climate change
certainly is and our international Kyoto obligation is as well.
As a former environment critic, the Minister of Finance should be
ashamed.
Last spring the auditor general pointed out that this government
lacked the political will to implement international agreements.
We should not be surprised because this government is in the
sixth year of its mandate and it has yet to pass one piece of
environmental legislation, except for the MMT bill which cost
Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million.
Will the minister commit today to provide industry with the
necessary economic instruments to begin to combat climate change?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I point out to the hon. member that the 1998
budget added $150 million to the process. That brings this
government's investment in climate change solutions on an annual
basis to over $200 million per year.
In addition, there were a number of technical measures in this
budget having to do with gas flaring, having to do with support
to municipalities, and having to do with wind experiments in the
Atlantic provinces which will continue to move the momentum
along.
The government is moving on the file and we intend to meet our
targets.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. We
have heard that Canadian forces personnel are well trained to
meet a variety of situations. Does the minister have any
information about a flight crew in the Canary Islands who saved a
woman's life?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four members of an air crew from CFB
Trenton on their way home from the Central African Republic were
on a one night stopover in the Canary Islands on February 24.
During the crew's rest period, they noticed a man struggling to
pull an elderly woman from a hotel pool. The crew members pulled
the woman from the water. They applied CPR and cleared her
lungs. Within a few minutes, she was breathing again. I am
pleased to report that she is doing fine, thanks to the fine
efforts of Master Corporals Frank Bessette, John Kolontouros,
Jordie Larson and Dawn Garvin.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one of my constituents in Surrey was promoted but taxes demoted
his family's standard of living. As his child tax benefits
shrink, CPP and bracket creep eat away at his paycheque, leaving
his family worse off. He pays $4,000 more in taxes than the
family next door where both parents work.
Will this government stop discriminating against families where
one parent stays at home to raise children?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that what the government would like to do is to
have the whole question of how the state can help families raise
children and what our responsibilities are looked at by the House
of Commons finance committee. I would ask the Reform Party to
join in a constructive effort to take a look at this.
This is one of the great benefits of having balanced the books.
Now that we have balanced the books, the Government of Canada is
in even a greater position.
I would remind the hon. member that in this year's budget, $300
million more went into the child tax benefit. I would ask him to
look at what the government did regarding prenatal nutrition,
what we did in a whole series of measures over a whole series of
budgets.
The question is, why does the Reform Party vote against those
things that help children?
* * *
[Translation]
IRVING WHALE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent
report to the Minister of the Environment on restoration of the
site where the Irving Whale went down proposes various ways of
dealing with the problem of the PCB contaminated sediments left
behind after the barge was refloated in 1996.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us whether her
government is going to remove the contaminated sediment from the
Irving Whale site and bill the Irving company?
1155
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's
question under advisement and get back to her at a later date.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there was further proof last Monday that this
government's policy in fishery matters favours the corporate
destructive sector over the small inshore fishery. Last Monday
High Liner Foods reported an increase of a 50% allocation
increase catch on their quota for 1998 while at the same time
this government announced a 10,000 tonne further reduction of the
quota for groundfish for inshore fishermen.
Why does this government continue to destroy the hopes and
dreams of thousands of inshore fishermen, their families and
their coastal communities?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that
the New Democratic Party member is not suggesting that the
companies in Atlantic Canada, in particular Nova Scotia, not be
profitable. There is a convention in Nova Scotia tonight that
perhaps he should go to. The Liberals are going to be talking
about building business and industry in Nova Scotia.
The fact is large fish companies and small fish companies are
trying to restore profitability in Atlantic Canada and to the
fishery. This government is working with them to do that both at
the fishery level and the company level.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is famous for his promises. He promised to scrap the
Pearson airport deal and it cost Canadians $650 million. He
promised to scrap the EH-101 and it cost Canadians a bunch of
money and more importantly and more recently eight lives, airmen
based out of Greenwood, Nova Scotia. He promised in 1972 to
provide a reserve for the Caldwell Indian band in southern
Ontario. I would like to know the price of that promise both for
aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding
obligation to the landless Caldwell First Nation that stems from
from the 1790 treaty where they along with others surrendered a
huge amount of land in return for reserve land. That is the
promise. This government is going to do all it can to ensure
that we make good on that almost 200-year old commitment.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
This morning the media is reporting that the federal government
is stocking up on satellite phones because of millennium bug
fears. Canadian telephone companies have informed the industry
committee that they are confident that they are well prepared for
January 1, 2000. Has something changed that is causing the
government to take these precautions?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we get closer to the turn of the millennium of course
the government is taking all the precautions necessary to make
sure that we are prepared for any contingency.
I can tell the hon. member, and again it was confirmed in the
last few days by a United States Senate report, that Canada is
one of the leading nations in the world in Y2K preparedness.
Second, I can say with respect to the telephone system that the
hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean and I visited the Stentor
labs a few weeks ago. They demonstrated to us their testing of
Y2K. They turned their clocks forward and demonstrated that the
tests worked. We are assured that throughout Canada, both the
electrical and telephone systems are well on the way to being
fully prepared for the change in calendar date.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
United States has just announced 100% duties against the European
Union for failing to comply with the World Trade Organization's
ruling on bananas.
I would like to pose a very important question. If this trade
dispute somehow ends up disrupting Canada's supply of imported
bananas, how is the Prime Minister going to control his caucus
next Wednesday?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the problem is really more for the Reform Party.
Obviously its members have been starved of bananas for far too
long. We will do our best through our very capable Minister for
International Trade to make sure that the Reform Party not only
gets the bananas it needs, but all the other foods to enable its
members to do their job, because they need all the help they can
get.
* * *
1200
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government has harmonized its taxation of the film
and television production industry with measures introduced by
the Government of Quebec.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not want to do
the same for the shipbuilding industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
explained yesterday that there are already tax shelters for the
shipbuilding industry. They have been around for a long time.
There are also other programs to help this industry.
It is not true that we have a system to reduce the benefits made
available by the Province of Quebec. If other provinces wish to
offer benefits, as Nova Scotia has done, they are free to do so.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one
of the most unfair things about the EI legislation is the
clawback provision where if one makes $39,000 a year or more one
has to pay back any EI benefits collected. Just ask the auto
workers in Windsor, Ontario what they think of the $39,000
clawback. It seems almost custom written to target them
personally and to pick their pockets of benefits that they pay
for and deserve.
When will the government call a byelection in Windsor—St. Clair
and let the people tell it at the ballot box what they think of
the $39,000 clawback rip-off?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the byelection will be called very soon. In
spite of the efforts of the hon. member to start the campaign
early I am positive that his party will be swept aside and there
will be a strong Liberal victory led by Rick Limoges, our
outstanding candidate. Thanks for the endorsement of Mr.
Limoges. We will see and hear very soon and he will be doing a
terrific job for the people of Windsor and the people of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to a
point of order, during Standing Order 31 statements I was
premature in cutting off the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I
jumped the gun. We owe you one.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
question period the minister of Indian affairs indicated to the
House and to people watching across Canada that the Reform Party
indeed supported Bill C-49 at second reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, that is
not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period the House leader of the
government was completely in error in an assertion he made that I
supported the 16% raise senators are now asking for.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is also not a
point of order. It is a point of debate.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent
to table the voting record taken on December 1, 1998 on Bill C-49
for the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have unanimous
consent to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would also ask for unanimous consent to table a memo
entitled “Talking points on the spending estimates for the
Senate”. This is a memo sent to all Liberal MPs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
proceedings of the in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources and Government Operations looking into a
proposal to invite a member of the Senate's board of internal
economy to appear before the committee to defend the Senate's
increases in spending has been deliberately revealed to the
media.
1205
I deliberately revealed the contents of the meeting. The
contents of the meetings have been revealed in the Ottawa
Citizen, the National Post and others.
Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 57 reads:
The House has in the past regarded the publication of the
proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera to
be a breach of privilege.
While this is a clear contempt of the House, I feel it is a
justifiable contempt since the principle of accountability is, in
my opinion, greater than the principle of secrecy of an in camera
meeting.
A request to have a representative from the Senate defend its
estimates before a House of Commons committee is an attempt to
bring some accountability to the Senate. The decision by the
Liberal majority on the natural resources and government
operations committee to consider this proposal in secret confirms
the government's policy that the Senate need not be accountable
for its thirst to spend taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of
privilege I am prepared to move the following motion: That the
deliberate disclosure of the March 4, 1999 in camera proceedings
of the committee on natural resources and government operations
concerning the proposal to invite a member of the Senate's board
of internal economy to appear before committee to defend its
increase in spending be referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest
to the hon. member's raising a question of privilege against
himself. I found it very interesting. His confession to the
House and the apology inherent in it are duly accepted by all
members on this side of the House.
Having heard that confession and apology, I am fully willing to
accept them right now. There is no need to refer it to any
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This question of
privilege will be dealt with by the Speaker. I will resolve to
ensure that the Speaker is made well aware of both the form and
the context of the point of privilege. In due course the Speaker
will rule on this point of privilege.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I made no
apology for what I have done.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the
honour to lay upon the table the report on plans and priorities
in relation to the main estimates for the House of Commons.
* * *
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1998-1999
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting
supplementary estimates (C) of sums required for the public
service of Canada in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 was
presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the
Speaker of the House.
* * *
1210
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of
the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group, the seventh annual
meeting of the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum which took place
in Lima, Peru January 11 to 14 this year.
Under the chairmanship of the hon. Yasuhiro Nakasone, former
prime minister of Japan, parliamentarians from 24 countries
gathered to consider an agenda centred on economic matters in the
Asia-Pacific region, political and security issues in the
Asia-Pacific region and regional co-operation, including
environmental issues and money laundering.
The Canadian delegation was successful in having its two
resolutions adopted by the assembly, namely measures to
strengthen the national financial sectors and control of small
arms.
Canada was also elected to serve on the executive committee of
the APPF. The influence of this important international body
cannot be neglected. The Canadian section is very pleased with
its accomplishments and wishes to thank the Departments of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of
Finance for their assistance in meeting its objectives.
We also wish to note the excellent work of our ambassador Graeme
Clark and his team in Peru.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to
the House a report, in both official languages, of the
Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association concerning
the inaugural visit to Belfast and London, United Kingdom, which
took place from January 24 to 30, 1999.
It was a very productive delegation which included discussions
with our own General John de Chastelain on the progress of the
Belfast agreement and subsequently with representatives from five
parties of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the peace process.
We also met with a representative of the Monaghan and Portadown
project which takes Catholic and Protestant youths together for
classes at Confederation College in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Subsequently we met extensively with members of the parliament
of Westminster on Canada-U.K. areas of concern. Much was
accomplished by the delegation and we are very appreciative of
the parliament allowing this opportunity.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
request unanimous consent of the House to table the third report
of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Association
concerning a recent delegation to Taiwan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, last April a delegation of
parliamentarians representing all parties in the Senate visited
Taiwan on an official visit to discuss bilateral trade issues,
agricultural issues as well as immigration and visa issues. Their
report has been presented back to us. It will be reviewed by the
membership of the friendship group and recommendations as
appropriate will be directed to the ministries involved.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, February 15, 1999,
the committee has considered Bill C-65, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
I also take this opportunity to thank all members of the
committee for their unanimous support of Bill C-65 and for
participating in the finance committee hearings. We had over 160
meetings and members on both sides of the House demonstrated a
great deal of commitment to making sure that the finance
committee reflects the views and opinions of Canadians from coast
to coast to coast.
1215
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
pertaining to the order in council appointment of the
Commissioner of Agriculture.
I would say, with the exception of one committee member, that
all members of the committee were most impressed with the
appointment of Mr. Yves Bastien.
* * *
[Translation]
EQUAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS COHABITING IN A RELATIONSHIP
SIMILAR TO A CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-481, an act providing for equal treatment for
persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal
relationship.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I reintroduce
a bill to recognize same sex partners and to amend 70 statutes
accordingly in order to give equal treatment to all those in
such relationships. I am hopeful about getting the full support
of this House, including that of the member for
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C)
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the year ending March
31, 1999, laid upon the table on March 5, 1999, be referred to
the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Since the list is rather lengthy I would ask that it be printed
in Hansard at this point without being read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1c, 5c, 7c, 8c,
15c, 30c and 35c
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1c, 5c, 11c, 15c and 20c
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1c, 5c, 20c, 25c, 30c, 50c, 55c, 60c,
65c, 70c, 75c, 80c, 85c, 90c, 100c, 105c, 110c, 120c, 125c and
135c
Privy Council, Vote 26c
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 20c 21c, 22c, 25c, L30c
and 40c
Health, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c and 25c
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Human Resources Development, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 20c, 25c and
35c
Industry, Votes 1c, 5c, 25c, 40c, 45c, 55c, 60c, 65c, 70c, 75c,
80c, 85c, 90c, 95c, 100c, 105c and 110c
Justice, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 25c, 30c, 40c and 50c
Privy Council, Vote 40c
Solicitor General, Votes 1c, 15c, 25c, 35c and 50c
Canadian Heritage, Vote 130c
Governor General, Vote 1c
Natural Resources, Votes 10c and 30c
Parliament, Vote 1c
Privy Council, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c and 35c
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1c, 5c, 6c, 7c, 8c,
9c, 11c, 12c and 13c
Treasury Board, Vote 1c
Privy Council, Vote 15c
Transport, Votes 25c, 28c, L29c, 30c and 35c
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition from
hundreds of concerned Canadians regarding the critical state of
the health care system in Canada today.
The petitioners call upon this government to preserve and
enforce the Canada Health Act, which they call the foundation of
medicare. They call upon this government to maintain and enforce
the five principles of medicare.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the individuals
involved in presenting this petition and particularly mention
the work of the save medicare committee, and in particular the
work of one individual, Russ Rak, who is with the Retired
Workers' Chapter of Local 222 of the CAW in Oshawa.
It is with great honour that I present this petition which calls
upon this government to move quickly to preserve and strengthen
medicare in this country.
1220
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents of Ontario which requests
that the House of Commons ask the Government of Canada to amend
the Divorce Act to make a provision for grandparents who, as a
consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their
children, are often denied access to their grandchildren by
guardians. The petitioners ask the government to implement a
provision which would allow them to have access to their
grandchildren without having to go to court.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including those from my own
constituency of Mississauga South, on the issue of human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
violations of human rights continue to be rampant around the
world in countries such as Indonesia.
They also acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized
internationally as a champion of human rights.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to
continue to speak out on behalf of those whose human rights are
being violated and also to seek to bring to justice those
responsible for such violations.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset
of my continuing intervention I must point out, as I tried to do
on a point of order immediately after question period, that the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during
question period, and at other times, incorrectly stated that
members of the Reform Party supported Bill C-49 at second
reading.
For the record, I have a copy of the vote that was taken on
December 1, 1998 when the bill was being voted upon at second
reading. The results of that vote were: yeas, 199; nays, 38,
the 38 comprising all of the Reform members who were present in
the House for the vote that day.
I note that the minister addressed her remarks specifically to
me. I would also point out that I was here for that vote and
that I in fact voted against Bill C-49, which is in direct
contravention to the minister's statement.
I think this goes to the heart of the problem. The government,
the minister and the parliamentary secretary continue to put out
misleading and erroneous information on a regular basis on this
bill. They have, as a result of that, undermined the confidence
of people, particularly in British Columbia but across Canada, as
to the intent of Bill C-49. I suggest they have done themselves
no favours by doing this. The parliamentary secretary was
talking about driving wedges. There is nothing worse in terms of
driving wedges between people than putting out information which
is incorrect, which is deliberately done and which is done to try
to leave people with a false impression of what actually has
taken place.
Prior to Christmas, as a result of lobbying by a number of
different people, including aboriginal leaders who stand to be
affected by Bill C-49, we agreed to sit down to see if there was
a way that we could support Bill C-49 with amendments, because we
certainly agreed with the principle inculcated in the bill, that
decision making should be taken out of Ottawa and put into the
hands of people in local areas.
1225
We were led to believe by the government and by some of the
people we were dealing with that these amendments would be
possible, but it turned out at the end of the day that the
government was not prepared to entertain these amendments. For
that reason, regrettably—and I say regrettably very sincerely—
we could not support Bill C-49. To have done so would have been
to really let down the people across Canada who have been asking
us to stand up for these amendments and to make sure the bill was
fixed prior to being adopted.
I will return to discussing the expropriation powers in the
bill, which is where I left off prior to question period.
The parliamentary secretary and the minister deny that the
expropriation powers in Bill C-49 are broad and sweeping. The
parliamentary secretary said that the federal Expropriation Act
would actually confine aboriginal bands to that particular
legislation.
I point out for the people watching and for the parliamentary
secretary that the bill specifically states that in the event of
a conflict between Bill C-49 and the federal Expropriation Act,
Bill C-49 would take precedence. Clearly that means that the
federal Expropriation Act, in effect, does not have any real
influence over how expropriations might take place on reserve
land in the future. The expropriation powers are not only a
concern to people on leasehold land on reserves across Canada,
they are also very much a concern to band members.
One of the reasons we have had great difficulty in supporting
Bill C-49 is this. I have personally met with some of the chiefs
who have been trying to get this legislation passed and trying to
get Reform's support for it. They indicated that their band
members were in support of it. In fact, in the case of the
Squamish band, regrettably, we found out after the fact that most
of the people on that reserve were not consulted about Bill C-49.
We have a petition signed by some 230 members of the band saying
that they were not consulted, that they are opposed to the bill
and that they want it to be changed. They are very concerned
about their rights as band members. They say very clearly that
up until a very short while ago—the end of January—they were
never consulted and they were not even aware that the band
council was working with the government to have Bill C-49 brought
into effect.
These band members are equally concerned, just as those who have
leasehold interests on reserve land are concerned, about being
expropriated. They feel that the chief and council will have
altogether too much power and too much ability. They do not want
to rely on a land code which may come into effect down the road
to grant the protection they are looking for. They want it to be
enshrined in the legislation.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the government, the
minister and the parliamentary secretary are standing in
opposition to that. I cannot understand why they want to deny
these people having their protection and their rights enshrined
in this legislation. It is not a difficult matter for that to be
accomplished.
The minister said that the concerns about expropriation are
overblown. However, a real estate agent wrote a letter to a
client on the Musqueam reserve, advising him to take his house
off the market because in his professional opinion as a real
estate agent that house currently has no market value. The
parliamentary secretary and the minister can argue with Reform,
but they certainly cannot argue with the marketplace. I can
assure the House that right now—and this is a very clear
situation—the marketability of homes on the Musqueam reserve
is at zero.
They cannot sell their homes. These are homes that were often
valued at several hundred thousand dollars each a couple of short
years ago. Many of the people who are living in them are at or
near retirement and living on fixed incomes.
1230
The fellow who first contacted me about the inability to market
his home, and the letter that he had received from the real
estate agent advising him of that, does not live on the Musqueam
reserve. He in fact lives in Calgary; he has retired to Calgary.
He wants to sell his home to get his equity out it. The sale of
his home was a big part of what he was counting on to retire.
We can see how people have been dramatically affected by not
only Bill C-49 but by other moves the government has been making
with respect to the disposition of lands on reserves.
A large part of the problem on the Musqueam reserve arose
because federal governments over a long period of time have made
changes without disclosing to the people who lived on those
reserves that they had made those changes.
In 1980 the Liberal minister of Indian affairs, John Munro,
signed a discretionary letter that he was authorized to sign
under section 53 of the Indian Act, transferring his authority to
the Musqueam Band Council in terms of dealing with the leases.
That was done without any notice and without any consultation
with the people who live in those houses, the leaseholders. They
had absolutely no knowledge that this had taken place.
Furthermore, in 1991 another minister of Indian affairs, Tom
Siddon, signed a further agreement which gave the band taxation
authority over those leaseholders. This was contrary to what the
people had been led to believe when they entered into the leases
in 1965 through 1973. The deal at that point was that the city
of Vancouver would be providing the services and would be
collecting the property taxes.
Incidentally, once that transfer was done the property taxes
rose dramatically, two to three times. A large portion of those
property taxes have been for school taxes because we know that in
Canada property taxes are levied in most municipalities for
municipal services and there is a separate component for schools.
The band has collected, according to news reports, about $6
million in school taxes since 1991. Yet not one penny has
actually gone toward school or education. Not one penny was
transferred to the provincial government in aid of education.
There has been absolutely no school services provided by the
Musqueam band to the leaseholders that have been paying these
taxes.
Those are the kinds of flaws which leave people very uncertain
and very concerned about the kinds of sweeping changes Bill C-49
contemplates. For the life of me, I do not understand why the
government and the minister are not prepared, if they want to get
the bill passed, to look at amendments that would provide
protection and give people a level of comfort so that they would
be willing to move forward.
We know that by and large Canadians are decent, fair minded
people. I have met personally with virtually all the Musqueam
residents. I know they are decent, fair minded people. I know
they are not opposed to the aspirations of the band. They just
want to be treated fairly. At the present time they feel they
have been treated extremely unfairly, not only by the band but
also by the government because the government has chosen to
proceed with major changes without any consultation and without
any notice to the leaseholders.
Going further and talking about marital property rights, in the
minister's intervention she talked about the fact that she as
minister and previous ministers for the past 130-odd years had
been making decisions on behalf of bands for the disposition of
reserve lands.
I certainly agree with her that it is completely inappropriate
that these decisions be made in Ottawa. We certainly agree with
the principle of devolving that decision making power.
However, where the government is in error and where the minister
is in error goes back to the whole notion of collective property
rights.
1235
I live in a municipality and the municipality does not own the
land I have my house on. Why would people living on a reserve
want the band council to own the land that their houses are on?
Why is there no provision for private property rights? Why is
there no provision for the property rights that all other
Canadians enjoy, and in particular that all other Canadian women
enjoy on the disposition of a marital home in the event of a
marriage breakdown?
It is not rocket science. It is not difficult if we have people
who are willing to examine that issue and provide those
protections, but we see no inclination in that regard whatsoever.
Now what we find is that the government is intending to send the
bill to the Senate to have the Senate fix it up because it has
finally come to understand and recognize that there are problems
with it.
In conclusion, I would like to propose the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after
“Management” and substituting the following therefor:
I would ask that the House adopt the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order.
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
BILL C-55—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the
hon. member while he was speaking, but now that he has completed
his speech I want to take this occasion to indicate to the House
the following.
I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with
respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-55,
an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be
moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a
specified number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at these stages.
* * *
[English]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an
act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect
of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be
read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
1240
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the First Nation Land
Management Act.
Originally the kings of Britain owned and taxed everything. The
nobles got fed up with that and forced the king to back off on
what he had previously owned. He had been able to tax and to
decide who could use land, when and how. The nobles forced some
changes. After the nobles finally had their say for a number of
years, the commoners stepped in and had their say.
We do not yet have full ownership of land. We have something
called an estate in land and the estate most Canadians have is an
estate in fee simple. Fee common is not as common as one might
think. It has finally come to the stage where Canada's Indians
will perhaps get a stab at having an interest in land which the
government does not control.
The evolution of ownership has been accompanied by armies of
lawyers and consultants who have taken fees for their opinions.
If we follow it all the way through, we get to Bill C-49 which
purports to allow first nations to manage their lands.
Anybody watching the debate is aware that the official
opposition has some very grave concerns about Bill C-49. It is
not only our concerns. These concerns have been raised by a
number of people.
Petitions have been filed. People have called talk shows and
written letters to editors. Personal representations have been
made to members of parliament, particularly from the west coast.
Now they are coming in from the east coast where people are
concerned about what Bill C-49 will do, what powers band councils
will have and what will be the limits of their powers.
While the B.C. Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra has not
spoken in the House in opposition to the bill, he has expressed
opposition as reported in the Vancouver Sun on March 3.
The article indicated that he “voted with the government Monday
but said he is working behind the scenes to ensure there is a
thorough Senate committee study, including public hearings and
possible amendments”. It went on to indicate:
“No, I don't” support the bill, the MP for Vancouver Quadra
said on Tuesday.
“Some concerns that had been felt by B.C. MPs on the fast track
procedure are being resolved by what's emerging as an
understanding that the Senate will study and hold public hearings
and will possibly consider amendments and changes for the House.
“The details will be worked out in the next few days”.
It further indicated that the member said:
—the bill, along with media coverage of a 7,000% rent increase
imposed on non-natives living in Musqueam Park in Vancouver, is
fuelling more public concern over broader and more crucial native
issues such as the $490 million Nisga'a treaty.
That treaty is also under attack because it is perceived to be
granting far more power and lack of accountability.
The member for Vancouver Quadra has stated that Bill C-49 was
poorly drafted. He supported concerns expressed by others who
said that expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive.
There is a lack of protection for native women who often use
their right to marital property after divorce and the omission of
any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding
municipalities on development matters. He said “The public's
concern is correctly focused on it”.
Another government member plans to vote against Bill C-49. He
said the bill was excessive and criticized the government for
imposing closure to limit debate in the House of Commons. He
accused the minister of intentionally trying to avoid public
consultation on land claims and self-government matters across
Canada. He stated that their position was to keep the dummies in
the dark.
1245
When government members raise those kinds of concerns, the
government should be listening. It is not just us.
Today I asked a question about the government shutting down
debate on Bill C-49. I am going to quote what a respected
academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College said,
“The problem with entrusting band councils to help develop
divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague”.
The government has refused to deal with an issue that is going
to create a mosaic of rights across Canada as bands write their
own laws in respect to divorce. Does it seem fair when a woman
from one reserve marries a man from another reserve and finds out
that she has a different set of rights than she was born with?
This is Canada, one country. Surely this country will respect
equality at least between men and women. This is not too much to
expect at all.
I would like to speak for a moment on the expropriation
provisions in this bill. Clause 28 of the bill, a very short
section, talks about expropriation which allows a band to write
its own expropriate act. Subclause 5 states:
A first nation shall pay fair compensation to the holder of an
expropriated interest and, in determining that compensation, the
first nation shall take into account the rules set out in the
Expropriation Act.
Taking into account is not the same as being bound by. I am not
a lawyer and do not claim to understand all the legalese, but I
am sure that we are going to see judges beginning the process,
after this bill is passed, if it is passed unamended here or by
the Senate, of determining what it would mean to take into
account the provisions of the Expropriation Act which is a
federal act. The federal act lays out in very clear stages what
the mechanisms and timelines are for recourse with respect to
dispute resolution at arbitration in the event there is a
conflict over expropriation.
As I said earlier on in the debate, getting control over land is
a process that has taken centuries. It has gone from the kings
to the nobles to the commoners and it is finally getting down to
the Indian bands. However, let us not leave out the people who
are affected by it. It is not always the leaders. It is the
people who are governed by the leaders. We want to ensure that
they are not unfairly left out.
The expropriation does not necessarily have to be natives over
non-natives. It can be natives over natives. Whoever owns an
interest can have that interest ended by expropriation.
A municipal expropriation act will talk about the compensation
proposed. It might talk about the description of the land, what
is the extent of the land required, the reasons for doing it and
those types of things. If people do not agree, they have
recourse. Provincial legislation sets up all of the conciliation
and arbitration boards to determine how compensation is paid. It
is always in the interest of a municipality to have a mechanism
to obtain land for public purposes but the owner of the interest
has to be protected. We certainly do not want the courts to be
involved early on in every dispute.
I am sure that introducing a simple motion calling for the
clauses in the federal Expropriation Act to be binding is not too
much. We want to see development on Indian land, but if people
are concerned that they may not have their interests safely held,
we will not find people investing. One thing investors look for
is certainty of profit and certainty of a continuing profit and
that it will not end.
If people own a home they want to ensure that they hold it now
and in the future. They do not want it taken away without proper
compensation.
1250
The bill is deficient in that way. It is in the interest of the
signatory bands to put those amendments in place. It is not in
our interest. It does not matter to me. I do not live on band
land. I have a home that is held in fee simple in the town of
Nipawin. Consequently, I have nothing to gain in this but the
bands have something to gain and those who hold interest in the
land have something to gain.
Perhaps I do have something to gain. When the Reform Party
forms the next government, I do not want to be back here having
to deal with Bill C-49. I want to be able to move on to new
legislation the government will have on its agenda at that time.
Those are all good reasons that we should not rush ahead on this
bill. It is the government's role to write legislation and to
get it right the first time. If the government does not do this,
it has to be willing to make the necessary amendments.
It is not our role to write the legislation but to ensure it
goes through the House in correct form. It is our role to make
it perfectly clear to the public that a bill is deficient and
that the government will have to do something about it. That is
what we are doing. I hate to think we are going to send a bill
that originated here to the Senate of all places asking that it
make the amendments we refused to make. That is a ridiculous
thing to expect.
What can we say about the matrimonial home? The children live
in the home, the mother lives in the home, the father should be
staying in the home. We want to see the family as a unit but
realistically, families break down. The B.C. Native Women's
Society has raised a concern as have native women across Canada
and the national native women's organizations. Why has that not
rung a bell with the government? Why is the minister simply
saying that they are consulting? Why not get the consultation
done first and then come to the House with a bill that is
complete in its current form?
I read earlier about Mr. Cuthand, a respected elder who was a
priest in the Anglican church. Why are the concerns of men like
him not listened to? The government has rushed ahead and allowed
this to go on the back burner for who knows how long. There will
surely be court cases, payouts and domestic tragedies because the
government has refused to accept that it has a responsibility not
only to chiefs and councils but to the people they govern as
well.
Let us talk about the issue of ratepayers on reserves which I do
not believe has been raised today. They have no vote. Prior to
the American revolution some protesters dressed up as Indians and
threw a load of tea overboard from a ship docked in Boston
harbour. Why? Because they did not want to be taxed without
representation. What we have here is taxation without
representation. Many cottage owners have raised the concern that
they are going to be taxed but they are not going to be
represented. Does the government consider this fair?
Indians have been kept down in the past but overwaiting is not
any better. It still creates conflict and hardship. It is a
major concern to everyone.
The lack of public knowledge about this bill is coming to light.
There is a newspaper article that talks about women from the
Saint Mary's reserve near Fredericton. A woman in the article is
demanding equality, an honest and responsible government, and she
is against the mismanagement of funds. She is concerned about
Bill C-49. She says that it will give up control over management
of reserve land.
1255
I do not think that every reserve has a government that is
irresponsible and unresponsive, but they are there. Certainly we
want people to have the power to hold the members of the council
to account. We do not see that with Bill C-49 going through in
its current form.
I am asking the government to vote in favour of the amendment my
colleague from Skeena put forward today. Send the bill back to
committee to address these valid concerns and then bring the bill
back to the House, not so that anybody's rights are diminished,
not that what they intend is diminished, but that the bill be
made sufficient and not be passed in this deficient form.
We heard convincing arguments earlier that there existed a high
level of support for the bill by members of the reserves and all
the communities surrounding them, but in January events overtook
that testimony. Concerns were expressed, as I said before, in
letters to the editor, talk shows and letters to MPs, all of
these things. Municipal councils raised concerns. Constituents
raised their concerns. They all stated that they had concerns
with Bill C-49 in its current form. Consequently we are required
as members of parliament to bring these concerns to parliament.
Aboriginal women and children living on reserves do not enjoy
the protection of property division laws that are available to
every other Canadian woman. There is no protection whatsoever
regarding the use, occupation and possession of land when a
marriage breaks down with each band devising its own land code.
A band of 200 people here, a band of 200 members over there, a
band of 1,000 people over here, what kind of legislation will
result from individual bands as different pressure groups push to
have their interests represented? Why not do it here in our
national parliament where all sides of the debate from all
reserves can be heard. We can come up with a fair and equitable
law allowing for the division of the matrimonial home and other
property. It just is not right to do it the way it is being
done.
We know that the band councils probably wish the best, but do
they know what is best? Do they know the laws? Do they have
access to the expertise to write these codes? Do they have the
expertise to write property division acts? Do they have the
expertise on expropriation?
We are not talking about Bill C-49, which has been developed by
the Government of Canada. We are going back to the individual
reserves, many of which are already under stress where their
finances are concerned. They are being asked to put more money
into developing parts of a land code that could be adopted right
here in the House of Commons. They could simply apply it. Judges
could take it and understand it. Then one judgment where there
was possible alternative application would be binding rather than
having every band's land code subject to judicial interpretation.
It just does not make any sense.
I will end with a clear call to the government to reconsider
forcing this legislation through. It is denying the legitimate
expressed concerns of band members, municipalities and other
interested persons. Not only have they said it to the official
opposition, but we know they have expressed these concerns to the
government as well. They want us to get the bill right in the
House the first time so that we do not see all kinds of
amendments going through at the Senate study of the bill. We
know it is going to come back for amendment.
1300
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have had discussions with the House leader of the Bloc
Quebecois. I believe that for the purposes of expediency and to
make sure with the 30 minutes we have remaining that both the NDP
and PC parties have an opportunity to get on the record, that the
member currently speaking for the Bloc Quebecois will speak not
longer than 20 minutes. We can begin another session with the PC
party speaking first and the NDP without questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We may have to go
back to the drawing board. The information I have is that debate
will terminate in 14 minutes. We can by unanimous consent extend
the time to 1.30 p.m.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to give
other parties an opportunity to speak by extending the time from
1.15 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
at the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean
and Bloc Quebecois critic on aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to
speak to Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the
bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation
land management.
I would like to draw attention to the excellent work done by our
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, who was unable to be
here today. He has done excellent work on aboriginal issues
since 1993, first of all by lending an attentive ear to the
first nations, and also by raising awareness of the aboriginal
reality in Quebec and in the rest of the country.
This framework agreement was signed by 14 chiefs of Canada's
first nations, and the federal government, in February 1996.
The bill was introduced just before the dissolution of
parliament in June 1997, as Bill C-75, dying on the Order Paper
when the election was called.
Aboriginal groups concerned by this bill worked very hard to get
it back on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. They did
an excellent job of lobbying the government and opposition
critics.
The Bloc Quebecois lent them a hand in getting the bill back on
the legislative agenda as soon as possible. I should point out
that the 14 signatory first nations are dispersed throughout
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and
New Brunswick.
The British Columbia first nations concerned are the Westbank,
the Musqueam, the Squamish, the Lheidli T'enneh and the
N'Quatqua.
I ask any aboriginal people listening to excuse my
pronunciation. I lack my colleague from St-Jean's familiarity
with these names.
The signatory in Alberta is the Siksika, while there are two
first nations signatories in Saskatchewan, the Cowessess and the
Muskoday.
1305
In Manitoba, they are the Opaskwayak Cree; in Ontario, the
Nipissing, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Chippewas of
Mnjikaning, and the Chippewas of Georgina Island. Finally, in
New Brunswick, it is the first nation of Saint Mary's.
One of the key objectives of this bill for the 14 first nations
is to allow them to establish their own system for administering
their land and natural resources. It will allow them to manage
the land and natural resources on their reserves.
Land management will no longer come under the Indian Act. The
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will
therefore no longer have discretionary powers in this regard.
The bill makes provision for the 14 first nations to draw up a
land code through a process of community approval. This land
code will be used to resolve issues such as the use, possession
and occupation of lands. Provision should also be made for the
division of matrimonial property in the case of marriage
breakdown.
The Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the bill's underlying
principles.
My colleague, the critic for native affairs, has said in the
House and in committee that he supports the spirit of the bill,
which gives the 14 first nations the necessary tools to control
their lands and thus ensure their economic development.
This bill is therefore one more step towards greater native
autonomy. This principle of autonomy is consistent, moreover,
with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples. Bill C-49 will therefore give the 14 first nations
greater control over their lands and their economy.
In fact, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development has been studying the economic development
of the first nations since last year.
The members of the standing committee are trying to identify the
obstacles to aboriginals' economic development, and there are
many such obstacles, of which the worst is the Indian Act.
This legislation is paternalistic. It treats aboriginals like
children and is a major impediment to their economic
participation in their communities. This bill will mean that
the 14 first nations can break free of the paternalistic clauses
in the Indian Act and finally develop economically. The chiefs
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development on December 3 all spoke of this
economic impact of Bill C-49 on their communities.
According to Robert Louie, head of the transitional land
management commission, Bill C-49 will give first nations control
over their resources and lands. They will be able to assume the
responsibilities inherent in this control.
It is a way of putting an end to the archaic and paternalistic
attitude of the Indian Act and the federal government's power to
administer their lands.
Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday first nation of British
Columbia told the members of the standing committee at this same
session that his community, and many others, had missed out on
opportunities for economic development because of the
restrictive and paternalistic nature of the Indian Act.
He spoke about an American manufacturing company that had shown
an interest in locating in their community. When told of the
procedure that had to be followed, obtaining the approval of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and going through all manner of red
tape, their response was that they did not have time for that;
it was too slow.
At the present time, the Muskoday first nation is also seeking
to develop its tourism potential in partnership with others. If
there is one thing Chief Austin Bear does not want, it is to
miss out again on an opportunity to do business with an
interested partner because the Indian Act deprives them of
control over their resources and land.
We are very much aware that aboriginal people have a different
concept than us about community, land and resources. The Bloc
Quebecois aboriginal affairs critic has referred to this on more
than one occasion here in the House.
Chief William McCue of the Georgina Island first nation in
Ontario also touched briefly on the economic issues relating to
this bill when he appeared before the standing committee on
aboriginal affairs on December 3.
1310
The Georgina Island community is located on three islands in
Lake Simcoe, 60 miles north of Toronto. Its main source of
revenue is the rental of 500 cottages, and the leases of most of
these terminate on March 31, 1999.
This represents $1 million in revenue, which is used to finance
various programs, including housing and community maintenance
and infrastructures. Cottage rentals are therefore a source of
operating income for the community, and create and maintain a
number of jobs.
Chief William McCue raised one interesting point about the
economic dynamics in his community.
Most of those responsible for leases and therefore the
management of the cottages on Georgina Island are women.
Despite these positive aspects of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois
not only had reservations, it presented amendments. The Bloc
Quebecois believes the native women will not have legal
protection during the transition period leading to the signing
of the land code in the reserve in the case of marriage
breakdown.
To better understand the sense of the Bloc Quebecois amendments,
we must recall the legal context of native women. Currently,
they face a legal void, because the Indian Act contains no
provision for distributing matrimonial property in the event of
the breakdown of marriages between native men and women.
Native women cannot claim the same rights as Canadian women, who
are governed by provincial laws.
This situation causes concern to associations of native women in
Canada and Quebec.
I refer specifically to the British Columbia Native Women's
Society, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the
Association des femmes auchtotones du Québec, which have made
representations to the native affairs critic and the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois expressing their concerns in this regard.
They convinced us to introduce amendments to protect native
women legally during the transition period, the 12 months in
which the land code comes into effect.
I must say that at the start of Bill C-49's parliamentary
journey, the Bloc Quebecois put a lot of stock in the
independent inquiry initiated by the minister of Indian affairs
at first reading of Bill C-49 last June.
The purpose of this inquiry was to find solutions to the legal
vacuum in which native women find themselves. But since the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been
dragging her feet, the inquiry has not even begun. The Bloc
Quebecois had no choice but to move amendments concerning the
claims of the native women of Quebec and of Canada.
An inquiry is a good way to examine the problem of the legal
status of native women generally, for, in our view, the problem
goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-49.
In fact, what is required is a complete overhaul of the Indian
Act, an outmoded piece of legislation from the last century,
which completely ignores gender dynamics on the reserves.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that this reform is necessary
so that legislation such as Bill C-49 can be enacted quickly,
with prejudice to no one. In this case, it is native women who
are affected.
I would add, however, that this reform of the Indian Act should
not take place unless there is genuine consultation with all
native groups in Canada. Only then would the legislation truly
reflect native concerns.
Because the inquiry into the legal status of native women is
stalled, the Bloc Quebecois has moved four amendments at report
stage.
These amendments are necessary because of the foot-dragging of
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this
issue, for which she was strongly criticized by the native
affairs critic at the time the amendments were moved.
All these amendments are therefore based on the provision in the
bill on environmental protection.
In fact, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that there are
minimal standards for the protection of aboriginal women with
respect to matrimonial property in the case of marriage
breakdown. This protection is based on the existing legislation
in this regard, that is, provincial statutes.
The amendments, which were rejected, amended clauses 17 and 20
in order to establish the minimal protection necessary during
the transition period of 12 months following the taking effect
of the land code, in which the 14 first nations are asked to
include general rules and procedures, and I quote:
This was taken from clause 17.(1).
1315
There is another clause I would like to deal with, if you will
allow, Mr. Speaker. I will only need in seconds.
This is clause 7, which was based on British Columbia's family
heritage legislation. We hoped it would apply until general
rules had been incorporated into the land code. We are very
surprised—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
member.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the NDP to
speak in support of Bill C-49.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would be perfectly
agreeable to doing that but the member's proposition did not set
a time to it. If we could agree on say 15 or 20 minutes, of
course we would agree to that on our side at least but not
without a time limit, obviously.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it was the government that
invoked time allocation on this legislation. It should have
thought about being so generous with the time allocation before
it brought in time allocation. Further, we have already dealt
with this point of order and unanimous consent was refused.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Monday, March 1, it is my duty to
interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary
to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
March 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House would
be agreeable to calling it 1.30 p.m. so we could move right away
to Private Members' Business.
1320
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) moved that Bill
C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997
(premiums and Employment Insurance Account) be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-299, an act
to amend the Employment Insurance Act as regards the premium
rate setting and the employment insurance account, which was
tabled in this House in December 1997.
Let me first remind members of the context in which this bill
was introduced, along with five other bills on employment
insurance that were introduced by Bloc Quebecois members, namely
the hon. members for Frontenac—Mégantic, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
Québec, Repentigny, and Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques.
Since 1990, the federal government has imposed four employment
insurance reforms to fight the deficit. The federal obsession
with the elimination of the deficit at any cost was prevalent
under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. With each of
these reforms, the government changed the rules with the obvious
goals of excluding claimants, of reducing the amount of
benefits, and of shortening the period during which these
benefits are paid.
It can, therefore, be stated clearly and unequivocally that the
deficit is being overcome at the expense of the unemployed.
Even if the federal budget is balanced, moreover, the government
is sticking with the same policies and showing no hesitation in
o misappropriating the surplus in the fund for its own use.
Ten years ago, in 1989 before these reforms were introduced,
four out of five unemployed people were entitled to benefits. A
drop from 80% to 20% may well be impressive, but mostly it is
disgusting, that now two out of five unemployed people draw
benefits. At the same time, the government is getting its hands
on the sizeable surplus in the employment insurance fund. At
the moment, this surplus is estimated at close to $20 billion,
and it is expected to exceed $25 billion by the end of 1999. I
will come back to the matter of the surplus later on in my
speech.
Bill C-299 was therefore introduced in December of 1997, in order
to improve two aspects of employment insurance, the setting of
contribution rates and the employment insurance account. The
first clause therefore addresses the way decisions are made on
premium levels. At present, it is the governor in council who
does so, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Judging from past experience, hon. members will agree with me
that this is not very reassuring.
1325
Going back over the events of last fall, we had to keep on
asking questions of the two ministers until December, before
finding out what would be happening to the contribution rate in
the coming year.
How is it the government has so much power to determine
contribution levels, when, since 1990, it has not contributed a
cent to the employment insurance fund?
The money in this fund comes entirely from workers and
employers. It is absurd that they have no say in contribution
levels and have no choice but to pay, without a word, but
smiling all the while.
Therefore the amendment we propose to clause 1 of our bill is
intended to give full powers to the Employment Insurance
Commission to establish contributions. It must be said that
this commission is tripartite and comprises representatives of
employers, workers and the government. Initially, the
commission would have the power to establish levels of
contributions.
To make the process more transparent, since at the moment it is
particularly obscure, Bill C-299 provides that every two years
the Commission will hold at least one session to hear the
observations of parties interested in making their opinions on
the establishment of contribution levels known.
Within 60 days of the session, the commission must publish an
opinion in at least five major francophone papers and five major
anglophone papers.
This bill therefore makes the process much
more transparent and much more democratic, because it will
enable interested members of the public and organizations to
have their observations on contribution rates heard.
This provision gives power back to those who should have it: the
contributors, employees and employers.
This is all the more important because the government is using
the premiums as it pleases.
The premiums paid by workers are currently set at $2.55 per
$100, while those paid by the employers are at $3.57. Of that
$6.12, the government is spending $1.28 for purposes not related
to employment insurance.
This looks a lot more like a tax on employment than an insurance
in case of a loss of employment. The government is deliberately
altering the basic purpose of the employment insurance fund.
This type of behaviour is not acceptable in a country that
prides itself on being the best in the world.
The second part of the bill seeks to separate the employment
insurance account from the government operations account.
This is why clause 2 of Bill C-299 provides that:
—on September 1, in each and every, there shall be credited to
the employment insurance account and charged to the consolidated
revenue fund an amount equal to the amount calculated in
accordance with the following formula:
A - B
Members will no doubt want to know what A and B stand for.
—where A represents all amounts paid into the consolidated
revenue fund or obtained by it pursuant to this act in the
preceding financial year; and
B represents the total amounts
used by the consolidated revenue fund to meet its obligations
under this act that have been credited to the employment
insurance account in the preceding financial year.
1330
The result of this amendment would be that, on September 1 of
each year, we would know exactly where we stood with the EI
fund.
Right now, even though these surpluses are close to $20
billion for 1998, they could be said to be virtual, because they
are part of the consolidated revenue fund.
Amending the legislation in this manner would create a separate
account for the EI fund. This surplus should obviously be used
exclusively for the purpose of administering the EI regime.
What is so shocking right now is that the EI surplus is melting
away like snow on a warm day, particularly when we recall the
repeated assurances of the Minister of Finance that the EI
surpluses were a good thing because they represented a hedge
against periods of lower employment.
The discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance says and
what he does is very troubling. In 1997, 64% of premiums paid
into the EI fund went towards paying benefits to unemployed
workers. The remaining 36%, approximately $7 billion, was used
by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit, pay down
the debt and finance the federal government's forays onto
provincial turf. According to the 1999 budget, the Minister of
Finance will be helping himself to $5 billion from the fund.
Since 1993, employers and employees, the only contributors to
this fund, have paid the government's share, have wiped out the
$6 billion deficit in the fund, and have built up the surplus of
$20 billion. It is clear that the government does not want to
change the rules of the game one iota, because the employment
insurance fund is a real milk cow for the Minister of Finance.
He has done away with the deficit with the money of the workers
and employers, and has started to pay down the debt. He is also
using these funds to interfere in education via the millennium
scholarships, which have been criticized by Quebec, and is using
it as well to interfere in the health system of Quebec and the
other provinces. These costly duplications have been funded
with this money.
This, then, is the context that justifies Bill C-299.
The employment insurance program is based on a consensus among
the population that everyone needs to be assured of a decent
income when temporarily out of work. This is the very purpose
of having such a program.
As we have seen, however, the Liberal government has completely
altered the nature of this plan by tightening up the rules for
eligibility so that a large number of people are excluded,
particularly women, youth and seasonal workers.
The present government is using the fund as if it were an
employment tax, as if it were deficit insurance. The employment
insurance fund no longer serves workers; it is there to serve
the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular.
The purpose of Bill C-299 is, therefore, to give more power to
contributors as far as setting premium levels is concerned, and
to differentiate between the employment insurance fund and the
Treasury. These amendments would add transparency to the
program.
I hope, therefore, that all parties in this House will support
the bill.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
Bill C-299, which was introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Bill C-299 would give the Employment Insurance Commission the
sole authority to determine the rate of premiums for employers
and workers.
1335
The commission would be required to hold hearings every two
years as the basis for establishing the rates and it would credit
any surplus of premiums over benefits to the EI account and
presumably leave that money there.
This proposal is seriously flawed, however, and would not at all
serve the interests of workers or the general Canadian public.
Let me explain why.
First of all, a totally independent commission would be
accountable only to its constituents, in this case workers and
employers. As it now stands, the commission makes
recommendations to the government which is accountable to all
Canadians.
It is precisely because the government is accountable to all
Canadians that we have taken steps to ensure that employment
insurance offers unemployed Canadians more than just income
support.
Under the current system, EI provides for $2.1 billion a year in
active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians get the
skills and experience needed to find work.
Under the Bloc's proposed amendments to the act, there would be
no assurance that such an active system would have been
established or would be maintained by the proposed commission.
Further, neither Bill C-299 nor the later Bloc proposal states
whether the proposed commission would be given responsibility for
establishing EI benefit levels or for policy and regulation of
benefits.
During a recession, increased numbers of unemployed could place
greater demands on the fund, necessitating higher premium rates.
This would happen at the very time when sound fiscal policy would
keep premiums stable rather than raising them.
Surely only a single body responsible for both premiums and
benefits and accountable to all Canadians could effectively deal
with such a situation.
The fact is that the Employment Insurance Act is set up the way
it is for very good reasons. The act sets out the process for
determining premium rates and the existing commission is bound by
that process.
The commission includes one representative for workers, one for
employers and the deputy minister and associate deputy minister
of Human Resources Development Canada. It sets premium rates
which the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Finance recommend to the governor in council.
Since 1986 the EI account has been integrated with the accounts
of Canada on the advice of the auditor general because it is,
after all, the Government of Canada which establishes EI policy
and legislation and it is the Government of Canada which makes up
any deficit in the account.
Under the current system, accumulated surpluses are used
temporarily by the government which credits interest to the
account.
Also under the current system, premium rates are set at a level
that responds to the needs of workers and employers, but they are
also established with the broader perspective of the account's
role as an economic stabilizer. In fact, our government has
reduced premium rates in each of the past five years from $3.07
per $100 earned in 1994 to $2.55 in 1999.
Our intention is to continue to reduce rates at a gradual pace
as long as economic conditions permit.
In the final analysis, the greatest flaw of Bill C-299 lies in
what it does not address. The bill is largely beside the point
in that it completely ignores the conditions that led up to
redesigning the old unemployment insurance program in the first
place.
The current employment insurance program is a response to the
very different labour market we have today compared to when
unemployment insurance was first introduced. Certainly we still
need a sound income support program to assist people who find
themselves temporarily out of work. However, nowadays we need
much more than that.
Indeed, one of the objectives of the new employment insurance
program is to reduce regular dependence on EI by giving people
the tools they need to get back to work. In today's labour
market very few people start a job straight out of high school
and keep at it for a lifetime.
They now change jobs quite often. Many work short term or on
contract. Many are self-employed. Many young people juggle
several part time or short term jobs to gain experience and the
skills they need to get a job. Many people need different types
of help: people with disabilities, young people trying to get
their first job, aboriginal people and others trying to adjust to
changing working conditions.
1340
Giving people a little income support while keeping them on the
economic sidelines will never make a real improvement in their
lives. What we have to do is give them the tools they need to
get and keep good jobs. That is the purpose of part II of the
employment insurance regime, an array of active measures beyond
mere income support. Those measures fit into a much broader plan
of action.
As I mentioned earlier, through the EI system Canadians invest
$2.1 billion a year in active measures to help unemployed
Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find
employment, be it through wage subsidies, job partnerships,
self-employment assistance or earning supplements. Every year
hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians benefit from these
measures paid through the EI account to get the experience they
need to get good jobs. Furthermore, much of these measures are
delivered by the provinces and territories in an effort to ensure
that they are tailored to meet the needs of Canadians wherever
they live and work.
These are the ways in which we can really help the unemployed,
ways that work and can address the problems of the unemployed.
But it is unclear if such efforts could be maintained through the
EI account if parliament adopted the legislation proposed by the
hon. member across the way.
So far the new system seems to be working as it should. It is
too soon to tell if further amendments to the EI program are
required.
For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, the House should
oppose the bill proposed by the hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to my colleague's bill,
a private member's bill, brought forward not from the government
or a government department, but from a member of the House. As
such, I have great respect for members who take advantage and
work within this very important opportunity that we as members of
parliament have.
I find myself very impressed by the fact that this bill was
drafted and entered into the system in 1997. That was before the
true magnitude of the concern regarding how government was
misusing the EI surplus became a strong issue. This member was
very far-sighted. She looked ahead and saw a real issue before a
number of other people did and I congratulate her for that.
What she is attempting to do in this bill is, first, to get
government hands off the EI money and, second, to separate this
money to make it more accountable and transparent in the way it
is handled by crediting moneys collected under the Employment
Insurance Act to an employment insurance account.
The first point concerns the employment insurance commission
setting premium rates and generally having a more independent
role in the management of this fund. The government member who
just spoke said that this should not be handled by a commission
accountable to workers and employees, but by the government which
is accountable to all Canadians. Sitting in opposition, I see a
woeful lack of accountability on the part of this government to
Canadians, so I would oppose his arguments.
One of the concerns that workers and employees have is that the
commission is not really accountable to them.
It is a body that is not chosen from workers and employees. It
has a very strong government influence. The strong hand of
government is very evident in the workings of the commission.
Far from this commission being accountable to workers and
employees, in my opinion it needs to be strengthened in that
direction.
1345
If the member wishes to pursue this issue in another bill, since
this one is not votable, I would suggest that strengthening the
accountability of the commission to the people whose money is
involved and who this program is supposed to serve would be
important.
I would remind government members that this is supposed to be
unemployment insurance. If it is really insurance, surely the
insured, the people who pay the premiums and have to live or die
with the benefits, should have a say about how their program
program that they pay for and which they rely on in times of
unemployment should be structured.
For the cabinet to use this program for its own political
purposes is not appropriate. It is definitely not appropriate for
the government to use the premiums of this insurance program for
its own purposes, its own slush fund or pot of money to do with
it as it will. That is the second part of the member's bill. It
attempts to separate the moneys paid into the employment
insurance account from the general revenue of the government. I
think even the member would acknowledge that this provision in
her bill is not as strong as she would like to see it. I would
certainly like to see a stronger provision.
Although it talks about moneys being credited to the employment
insurance account, it does not specify explicitly that this
account would be separate from the general revenue fund and that
government could not spend money from the fund on other purposes.
Clarification and strengthening of that provision in light of
the government's insistence and anxiety to use these moneys for
other purposes would be necessary.
The government speaker talked about the fact that there had been
reductions to EI premiums. I would point out that these are
minuscule reductions. We have had debates on this before in the
House. I do not need to belabour the point.
The chief actuary of the fund says that premiums could be
reduced by fully a third and still leave a very prudent, even a
very generous surplus in the fund against a time when for some
reason there may be more withdrawals from the fund than there
presently are. The fund's own actuary is saying that the
reductions the government has made are minuscule, that they do
not really get the fund to a reasonable level. Of course the
government is using the enormous overpayment from Canadian
workers for other purposes, and particularly to make itself look
good on the deficit side. It is a kind of borrowing from an
insurance fund of Canadians for other purposes. That is not the
way this fund should be run.
The member also talked about skills training. Most members in
the House if not all would agree that with our changing
technology and our changing economic circumstances and the
information boom in recent years, training and retraining are
very important components of workplace effectiveness. These are
things that Canadian workers need. There has not been an
adequate debate about the extent to which the insurance fund, the
insurance against unemployment, should be a legitimate funder of
those programs.
1350
I would be interested if the member proposing this bill is so
inclined, to hear how she feels the fund should be used in this
regard. How would workers and employers themselves feel about
not only paying for some of this training and retraining but then
having those programs overseen by government?
I am sure the member has had people come to her office, as have
I, workers who have taken training or retraining programs under
the EI system which are administered and run by government. They
are very disappointed in many cases. Some programs give virtually
no skills at all. Even though workers diligently perform
everything that has been asked of them, they go back into the
workforce and find that they have not received any substantial
training or benefit, or the training has been for jobs that do
not exist. If there is going to be a retraining effort for
workers, it should be directed much more by what they themselves
feel they need and what the labour force is looking for.
This is a very worthwhile effort on the part of the member. It
is a bill which we all know is needed and which is moving in the
right direction. I applaud the member and support her efforts
wholeheartedly.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-299 presented
by the Bloc Quebecois member for Laval Centre.
Bill C-299 proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act in two
ways. First, it proposes that the Employment Insurance
Commission set the UI premium rates. Second, Bill C-299 would
create a separate UI account to ensure the unemployment insurance
fund is used to help unemployed workers.
One might ask why these measures are necessary. We would think
that the unemployment insurance premiums we all pay are used
exclusively to help unemployed workers while they are looking for
a job. Unfortunately this is not exactly the case.
For the last five years the unemployment insurance fund has been
collecting huge surpluses. That is not necessarily a bad thing,
if the money was being spent to help the unemployed.
Unfortunately these surpluses have been used by the Liberal
government as a slush fund to eliminate the deficit on the backs
of the unemployed.
That is why Bill C-299 is important. By having the Employment
Insurance Commission set the UI premium rates, we are
guaranteeing that political motivations do not become a factor in
setting the premium rates.
The NDP would go even further and create an independent UI
commission. We recommend that this commission be comprised of
one workers representative, one employers representative and a
president who would be chosen following consultations with the
representatives of workers and employers. The commission should
also be comprised of five part time worker commissioners and five
part time employer commissioners. It should be gender balanced
and reflect the regional diversity of the country.
Having the commission set premiums and creating an independent
UI commission are important steps in guaranteeing the integrity
of the UI program.
Bill C-299 also proposes the creation of a separate UI account.
This addresses the concerns of many Canadians who refuse to
accept that the UI fund has become a slush fund for the Liberal
government. Unemployment insurance is a trust fund, not a slush
fund.
I would like to take this opportunity to read a few comments of
working Canadians who oppose the use of the UI surplus for
purposes of other than helping Canada's unemployed. These
comments were gathered by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who
visited 20 cities from coast to coast to coast listening to what
Canadians have to say about the changes in the unemployment
insurance system and the theft of the UI fund by this government.
A worker from the Acadian Peninsula had this to say about the
government's dependence on the UI fund: “The government is
wrong when it says that workers become dependent on unemployment
insurance.
It is rather the Minister of Finance who is dependent on the
unemployment insurance fund, because without it, the deficit
would still be there, and his budget would show a deficit, not a
surplus”.
1355
The government has justified its changes to unemployment
insurance by stating that it wants to prevent dependence. It has
failed. This government has become so dependent on the UI
surplus that it could not have balanced the budget without it.
For all of the Minister of Finance's boasting of having balanced
the budget, he forgets to mention that were it not for Canadian
workers and employers, we would have no budgetary surplus.
Gary White had a very good question when he attended an event
during the NDP's UI tour. Mr. White said “If someone steals
from a store and gets caught, they are arrested and have a
criminal record. How is it that this government can steal the
money from the workers' premiums without being investigated?”
I believe this is an excellent question. How can this
government take the money of workers and employers out of the UI
fund? Since this government clearly has no qualms about
balancing the budget on the backs of the unemployed, we need to
create a separate UI fund to stop this nonsense.
Currently only 32% of unemployed workers qualify for UI
benefits. Over 800,000 unemployed Canadians who have paid into
the UI system are unable to get benefits. Meanwhile there is a
$20 billion surplus in the UI account.
This insanity has to stop. This government is hurting
unemployed Canadians and the small and medium size businesses
that they are no longer able to support.
Women have also been hard hit by the government UI cuts. Fewer
women qualify for maternity benefits. Only 11% of women under 25
who lose their jobs qualify for benefits. Eleven percent. Why is
that? Where is the equity in that?
This government's changes in UI are hurting women, as well as
young people, as well as seasonal workers. The government's
changes in UI are hurting entire communities.
My riding of Dartmouth, for example, has lost $20 million a year
in UI benefit payments. Nova Scotia has lost $716 million
between 1993 and 1997. That is a lot of money taken out of our
economy, taken out of small and medium size businesses and taken
out of unemployed workers' pockets.
The unemployment insurance program needs to be reformed to
respond to the realities of the current labour market. Bill
C-299 is a first step in ensuring that the unemployment insurance
fund addresses the preoccupation of Canadian workers.
I strongly urge members of this House to support this very
important initiative put forward by the member for Laval Centre.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-299.
Payroll taxes are one of the most significant impediments to job
growth in Canada. By directly increasing the cost of labour, we
ultimately decrease the demand for labour. That is one of the
reasons Canada's unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly
high.
This government has stubbornly clung to unrealistically high EI
premiums in order to pay down the deficit. While we laud the
efforts to pay down the deficit, effectively the government
through its policies, by paying down the deficit, by raising and
maintaining unnecessarily high taxes and at the same time cutting
spending on programs like the EI, has put the government in the
black and perversely Canadians in the red.
An hon. member: You cannot pay down the deficit.
Mr. Scott Brison: An hon. member from the Reform Party is
saying that the government has not paid down the deficit.
Perhaps as a member of the House of Commons finance committee he
should consider that there is a difference between deficit and
debt. I think the member means the government has not paid down
the debt. The member does not understand the difference between
deficit and debt, but that is all right. I guess one does not
have to understand economics to be in the House of Commons or on
the finance committee.
1400
The employment insurance issue is fundamental for a number of
reasons. First, labour market flexibility is extraordinarily
important in the new economy. I commend the hon. member for this
piece of legislation. It has the potential by creating a new
independent commission to set rates separate from politics and
separate from the finance minister and the government in power.
Labour and management in small business can set rates which best
reflect the realities of the market in a particular area of the
country at a particular time. That is very important.
Labour market flexibility depends largely on employment
insurance programs and training. One of the failures of the
government in terms of the slashing of EI benefits has been its
complete abdication of responsibility for training. There has
been an offloading to the provinces in the area of training.
It is fundamentally wrong that in order to qualify for training
someone actually has to be on employment insurance and in order
to get employment insurance has to be laid off. Many small and
medium size companies across the country would like to have their
employees participate in training but currently they do not
benefit from it. The training components are failing on a
national level and the cuts to EI have been a significant part of
that.
The commission should have the ability to determine both the
premiums rates and the nature of programs. I feel an autonomous
commission could better determine how premiums could be spent
through the programs.
One of the shifts I would like to see in EI is from almost pure
income support to a focus on training. We could develop a
mandate that recognizes the importance not just of income support
but also of training such that people are able to access the
levers of the new economy and of an economy that will be changing
at an ever-increasing pace in the future.
The issue of seasonal work is another issue the government has
largely ignored. It has punished Canadians who are involved in
seasonal work. Many sectors in Atlantic Canada, including
agriculture, the fisheries and small business, have over a period
of years developed along the lines of seasonal employment. The
government cut EI premiums, particularly challenging those
involved in seasonal employment, without providing any structural
alternative to those programs for those people.
Seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada were hit extraordinarily
hard. I heard the hon. member for Dartmouth say earlier that
there was a $716 million loss to Nova Scotians. I would posit
that loss was largely felt by those involved in seasonal
employment: people working for farms in the Annapolis Valley,
people working in the fisheries, people working for small
business. Small businesses, farms, fish processors and other
employees bore the brunt of those cuts.
Did the government create a new agency or co-ordinating body to
help co-ordinate seasonal work such that seasonal workers like
people involved in agriculture in the summer could potentially
participate in forestry work in the winter? No, it did not do
anything. It effectively cut the money but did not replace it
with vision or with a commitment to new and visionary programs
and better government. Instead it reduced the size of
government.
It is not all about the size of government. Sometimes we have
to talk about the role of government and the effectiveness of
government. One of the areas in which the government could have
played a more active role and could still play a more active role
in is the creation of a pilot program in Atlantic Canada aimed at
creating an agency that effectively co-ordinates seasonal workers
so that those employed in such sectors as agriculture in the
summer could have an opportunity to participate in other types of
seasonal work like the forestry in the winter.
It would be able to effectively take those people who have been
treated shoddily by the draconian cuts to the program and provide
them with a sense of hope and a sense of opportunity by helping
them focus their efforts on participating in the economy.
1405
There are people with mortgages in my constituency who are
trying to raise families, in many cases two or three children.
They have effectively seen their incomes halved by the changes
the government made to EI. They are struggling with $6,000 or
$7,000 per year or less. That is a reality. That exists in many
areas of Canada, not just in inner cities but in poor rural
communities. It is a significant challenge.
We as a party have a fundamental belief in the free market
economy, but a free market economy is not sustainable unless all
members of society have access to the levers of that economy and
equality of opportunity. If the EI program were properly
structured, it could help provide access to those levers.
The creation of a separate commission would be a great step
forward. Ultimately the decision making powers would be with
those people affected most by the EI fund. We would assert that
the employers and the employees are the correct proprietors of
that fund. It would deny governments of any political stripe the
opportunity to use the fund for politically motivated purposes.
At a time when there will be change in the workplace and change
in the economy it would provide, for instance, opportunities for
the EI fund to be focused on new and exciting areas, including
providing Canadians with an opportunity to train and retrain
throughout their lives. Those are the types of changes that are
necessary.
I am not confident the government will make those types of
changes. As long as it keeps EI premiums unnecessarily and
offensively high and reduces benefits significantly without
replacing them with any type of vision for the future, I do not
think the government will ever engage in creative policy
development focused on achieving the full potential of the EI
program.
I would hope all members of the House consider the legislation
very carefully and its potential in the long term. The government
has taken $19 billion from the EI fund over the past several
years to pad its own books. The past is the past. It is hard to
change that now, but we do have an opportunity where we are
emerging into a post-deficit situation where we can focus on
doing the right thing.
Bill C-299 would be one of the first steps toward making the
right decisions in the future to ensure that all Canadians and
employers and employees benefit from the good public policy that
we developed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
brief. The member from the PC Party chided me for not knowing
the difference between debt and deficit. It is my contention
that he is the one who does not understand. He and members on
the Liberal side frequently talk about paying off the deficit.
By definition it cannot be done. The deficit is an amount that
one borrows. The best one can do is to reduce the amount of
borrowing or to stop borrowing. One cannot pay off a deficit
since it is intangible. It is simply the amount borrowed.
I objected to the use of the terminology because many people do
not understand it. It confuses them into thinking that we are
paying off or have paid off the debt which still stands at close
to $600 billion. I just wanted to correct that point.
1410
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
these five minutes are very important to me.
First, I want to express my gratitude that all the parties in
this House considered it worthwhile to intervene on Bill C-299.
The people who had the time to watch us on television saw very
clearly where the heart of this House lies.
When I face you, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it lies to the right
in this House.
I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill who
recognized my perception.
I would like to say to her, and to all the members sharing this
emotion—and most of them are on this side, although I am sure
there are some on the other side too—that it was not hard to be
perceptive. Everyone knows that the past often foretells the
future.
I heard my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia
praise the absolutely extraordinary reductions in contributions.
I would remind him that these reductions boasted about by the
Minister of Finance and so extraordinarily praised by him, came
nowhere near to satisfying employers and workers. They did not
satisfy the auditor general any more. They were not enough.
That money could have been given back to workers and employers
to be reinvested in businesses because, as we know, they need
these funds in the context of globalization. However, that was
not done.
Everyone agrees that the poor were totally ignored in the last
federal budget. The government ignored the unemployed and the
needy. Yesterday, I was sitting on our committee and the
Minister of Human Resources Development came to testify. He had
no choice but to recognize there was nothing in that budget for
handicapped children. Where is the compassion? Where is the
heart? I wonder.
Right now, unemployment is going down somewhat in Canada. This
is great, but that trend does not at all reflect the surge in
the economy. This has been the case for several years. The
economy is doing well, but the unemployment rate has not come
down as much as it should have.
Unemployment is on the decrease and the poor are still with us,
and in some cases their poverty is the direct result of EI cuts.
While 80% of unemployed workers used to qualify for benefits,
now only 40% do. One might well wonder what became of the other
40%.
Were they coddled for all these years? Did they receive
government handouts? I do not think so.
My riding could be described as relatively well off, but even it
has its young people who have no jobs, or who manage to find
only insignificant jobs that will never give them the required
number of hours. It is high time this government gave a signal
to the Canadian public.
I will give it an opportunity. Despite my years, I am still a
bit naïve. I will give it an opportunity.
I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill
C-299 votable. We must show compassion as well as reason.
I therefore call for unanimous consent.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Laval Centre has requested unanimous consent of the House to have
her bill made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)