1993-03-11

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONFLICT OF INTERESTS OF PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDERS ACT


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-116, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of public office holders, to establish a Conflict of Interests Commission, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
M. Andre (for the Prime Minister) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, once again it is an honour and a privilege to present petitions this morning on behalf of the residents of the Clearwater, British Columbia region. They have a very elaborate petition pointing out basically that they are concerned about the proposal in British Columbia by a firm with business relations with American firms to divert the North Thompson River near Valemount in order to sell one million acre feet of fresh water to California purchasers.
They say this would result in a 35 per cent reduction in the river flow at the point of diversion. They suggest that this seems to be part of the proposal of the Ralph M. Parsons Company of Pasadena, California called the North America Water and Power Alliance Project.
They are simply asking with the North America free trade agreement which is before us that the Government of Canada take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that water is exempt from any provisions attached to NAFTA.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon -Souris):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians, some of whom reside in my constituency of Brandon-Souris.
The petitioners note that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, have been sentenced to 28 years in a Brazilian prison. They have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination of sentencing and parole. There have been riots in the compounds in the prisons. The only relief from such severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Prime Minister to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada in accordance with Brazilian law.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-73, an act amending the Canada Post Corporation Act.
I have followed this issue for some time, having been the postal critic for the New Democratic Party for the first two years of my sitting as a member of Parliament in this House of Commons.
I represent a constituency with approximately 50 postal operations, 50 rural post offices and an urban post office in the city of North Battleford. I have always considered the postal operation to be a very significant part of the rural economy that allows services and people to work in our communities. Of course agriculture is the key that drives the constituency I represent but the post office is a representation of federal services in rural and agricultural Saskatchewan.
This bill before us is a significant change in the way Canada Post operates. It is a significant change in the way in which the public can perceive the operations of Canada Post. Members of Parliament in this Chamber today, the people of Canada, including those watching on their TV screens, should understand what the government is doing with Canada Post through an amendment to this act. It is providing us with a corporation that is moving toward a private sector operation and away from the service-oriented corporation that Parliament created on behalf of the people of Canada back in 1981.
It will be remembered quite clearly that the original mandate that was set up and that this Parliament established to govern Canada Post was one that put service first. The mandate said very clearly that postal service was the number one priority of the people of Canada in having a communication network at Canada Post.
The minister was quick to tell us on many occasions that the mandate also said that this Parliament gave Canada Post the mandate to be self-sufficient. I cannot disagree with that. I agree that the post office was working toward and should operate on a self-sufficient basis.
In rural communities there are times when the taxpayers' only visible return from the federal government is the operation of the post office in their community.
This government has allowed Canada Post to operate beyond self-sufficiency. Nowhere in this mandate is Canada Post required to turn a profit. There is nothing in this mandate that says Canada Post is supposed to return 16, 17, 18 per cent on investment which is one of the goals that Canada Post Corporation management has placed for itself. Certainly a return on investment of 16, 17, 18 per cent above a break-even point is creating an additional tax on Canadians to run a service that in a sense they are already paying for.
I am quite concerned about some of the directions Canada Post has been taking.
This amendment today moves us clearly into the area of privatization of Canada Post. Specifically this bill will make 10 per cent of Canada Post's non-voting shares available for purchase by Canada Post employees on a voluntary basis.
March 11, 1993

Essentially Canada Post is saying that it wants to relieve labour-management tensions by allowing Canada Post employees to put some of their wages back into the corporation without any input. These are non-voting shares. In putting part of their wages back into the corporation by purchasing these shares they would feel as if they were contributing to the operations of Canada Post. I do not understand it.
It is the beginning of the process of establishing a share structure in Canada Post that will eventually allow for the sale of shares that go beyond 10 per cent. If there is a 10 per cent share offering to employees today, what is to prevent a simple amendment to this act to allow for another 10 per cent to be offered to the rail lines, or another 10 per cent to be offered to the book publishers or the newspapers, or an additional 10 per cent to be offered to the banks for mailing out their bills to everybody in the country? It would be a fine thing to see the banks having a share in the operations of Canada Post some time down the road.
If the objective of the government is to relieve the tension and stress between the employees and the management of Canada Post, there are many different ways to achieve the relief of that tension than to simply ask the employees to put their wages into a share offering.
It is clear that Canada Post employees, those who are members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in any case, have rejected the idea that they should be asked to pay to help relieve the stress in the work place.
Canada Post should provide the people who work within the corporation with a real say in how that corporation works. It is the only way the employees are going to feel a much greater part of their work place.
I have a number of things to say in this regard that I will get to in a minute. However, the very best share offering that Canada Post could offer its employees is a good contract, one that provides good wages and job security for all who work there.
Some time ago just prior to my giving up the position of postal critic for the New Democratic Party and moving at the request of my leader into environmental protection areas of expertise, after significant study of Canada
Government Orders
Post operations I wrote a report on the future of the national postal system.
At that time I recognized clearly the problems between management and employees at Canada Post. I offered many recommendations to the government and to Canada Post on how to better run the corporation. Among those recommendations were a number that dealt specifically with how to make Canada Post a better place for the people who work there. It would then be a better place for the consumers of Canada Post, the people who receive the services.
I want to go back and quote from the recommendations that I made in my report, recommendations that the government and Canada Post have so far chosen to ignore. These recommendations are as follows.
First, technological change in the work place should occur only after evaluation of health and safety factors and should be introduced and operated with agreement of the unions affected by the change.
Second, in order to develop a more efficient, healthy, safe and productive work place, the employees' unions should play a greater role in the decision-making process within all levels of Canada Post.
Third, the Canada Post Corporation should end its harassment of sick and other employees and its intimidation of employees in the work place and at home.
I travelled the country the first two years I served as a member of Parliament talking to postal workers from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia, and in every single community and work place that I visited the people talked to me about the harassment of sick and injured workers, to get them back into the work place and get them working at reduced rates. Clearly it was an attempt to force them out of that work place so that they could bring in junior and lower paid employees.
When I talk about Canada Post Corporation, the best share offering it could make is a contract with good wages and job security. Canada Post is asking its members to buy shares. The only way in which these shares are going to produce any return for the employees, and the employees know this, is if the corporation continues making profits, by cutting services and cutting jobs.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
When employees buy into this share offering they are in fact buying into a plan that will eventually eliminate jobs, perhaps even the job of the person who has purchased those shares.
Fourth, the corporation should provide the time, personnel, authority to and finances for health and safety committees which would be able to make recommendations and monitor the development of changes aimed at transferring Canada Post into a healthy and safe work environment, paying special attention to addressing the root causes of repetitive strain and other frequently occurring injuries.
Fifth, the corporation should address absenteeism from the perspective of recognizing a healthy, safe and creative work place with reasonable demands in compensation as the best way to ensure productivity increases and absenteeism decreases.
Sixth, the corporation should develop a management strategy aimed at addressing the preponderance and promulgation of the number in management at all levels both in the context of cost and efficient and responsible decision making.
Every single employee of Canada Post knows, especially the employees who work in the rural parts of Canada, that the management levels of Canada Post have grown five times in the last four to five years while the service sector part of Canada Post has felt decreases in employment.
Seventh, the corporation should improve its work scheduling to ensure that all work possible is contracted in and performed by full-time well-trained employees.
Some of the things that the Canadian people recognize first when they talk with Canada Post employees is that some of the people they are talking to are not very well trained and not very well versed in the matters they are addressing.
For the most part those people are the contracted out employees, the employees that are brought in to do part-time or casual work. They are put on the front line to deal with public concerns and complaints in the post office and elsewhere. We need full-time, well-trained people at Canada Post and it is a first responsibility of the corporation.
When I put this report together the one element I noticed that was really missing was that the government refuses to be accountable for the operations of Canada Post. It is simply allowing the management to do what they wish to do. I recognize that is a result of the government agreeing with what Canada Post has been doing, moving toward the privatization of the corporation.
However, the government is accountable and somehow we have to find a way to make the government accountable to the people of Canada for the operations of this Crown corporation, Canada Post.
The very first recommendation I made after my two years of work and study in this area-and I want to remind the House I raised this on many occasions as the post office critic-was that a permanent, full-time Canada Post commission should be established to oversee its operations. The prime function of this commission should be to ensure the corporation adheres to its mandate in the context of placing accessible, quality service for all Canadians as its first priority.
The commission would be directed by a board composed of equitable representation from rural organizations, consumer organizations, the postal unions, small and big business, including the major mail users because I realize that the major mail users are a significant contributor to the financial operations of the corporation. Seniors, the disabled, environmental and native Canadian representatives would also be a part of this board because they are all directly affected, as all Canadians are, by the operations of Canada Post, the one real means of communicating by paper we have.
The board should ensure that there is equitable regional, provincial and territorial representation among its members. I asked that the Canada Post commission have the power to interpret the actions and policies of the corporation in the context of the corporation's mandate and enforce adherence to that mandate, that mandate being service as number one.
This corporation has made profits in two of the last three years and intends to make profits this year again at the expense of service, particularly in the rural areas, but service is being affected now in the urban areas with the consolidation of postal areas.
March 11. 1993

Input from the public should form a significant part of the operations and decision-making of the commission.
Madam Speaker, you will remember the Marchment commission. The government recognized that the public had something to say about Canada Post and a few years ago established the Marchment commission to look at its operations. The Marchment commission came back and told the government that there were significant deficiencies in the operation of Canada Post, that the service mandate was being ignored and, more important, that rural post offices were being closed when they did not have to be closed. The response of this government was not to listen to the report of the commission but rather to shut the commission down, fire the people who worked for it and then carry on with its operations, having said: "We listened to the Canadian people," and that was the end of it.
Finally, the Canada Post commission, as I see it, should have the authority to receive from Canada Post whatever information the commission deems necessary for its deliberations. I say that because we found Canada Post to be one of the most secretive of the Crown corporations. When you need something from Canada Post, likely what you get is not what you want, not what you have asked for and not what you have needed but something else, something that completely alters the way in which you want to respond to some of the information that is available.
I am appalled with the way in which Canada Post has been treating some of the people in Canada. This goes back to the closing of rural post offices, the increasing of postal rates and the working with Communications Canada to eliminate the postal rate subsidy for community newspapers.
We continue to see Canada Post tramping on the needs of Canadians. We found this horrible situation a month ago where Canada Post now says that if it delivers a letter to the wrong address, then the person who gets that letter has to pay to have that letter sent to the right address. Of all the crazy things to have to do.
When a letter is supposed to be going to one person and it goes to someone else, it may end up getting thrown in the garbage because that person is not going to go out and buy 43 cents worth of stamps, or whatever it
Government Orders
costs now plus GST, to send that letter to the right addressee. It is a crazy situation. Why is Canada Post doing this? It says to save money within the corporation.
As my colleague from Chambly just said, it is a move to punish Canadians. I agree entirely. Canadians right across the country have been punished by Canada Post enough and it is time it was stopped.
I also want to take a few minutes to put on the record a couple of other conclusions I reached in looking at the operations of Canada Post. These relate to the operations of rural post offices because they make up the bulk of service to the large rural and remote areas in this country.
After having talked to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, there is no question; Canada Post has to halt the closure of rural post offices, the divestment of its property and, as a result, the withdrawal of the presence of Canada Post in rural Canada. There is no way that a post office sign on the side of a convenience store or a gas bar or even an elevator in rural Saskatchewan is a presence in rural Canada.
All too often we have seen a situation where on one street you have the building which used to be the post office standing with windows boarded up and a "for sale" sign on the front door and right next door you have a drugstore with a little wee sign in the corner that says "stamps for sale here". That is not the presence the federal government or Canada Post should have in rural Canada.
These matters can be addressed in many ways by this government. Bill C-73 is taking us in completely the opposite direction that Canadians would have us go. Find a way to return by contract, good wages and job security to the people who work for Canada Post and provide a service to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and we will have a country where we have good postal service and a public that will respond appropriately. The government that is held accountable for that action would be held in a lot better repute than it is today.


Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, this Canada Post bill is very important for all Canadians. My hon. colleague has raised issues which I think are pertinent and important for all Canadians. Canada Post touches everyone. Every person in Canada who writes a letter, for instance, is going to be affected by the move to pay for redirected mail.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
It is totally unforgivable and totally unacceptable in a time of high unemployment and a time when people have to be mobile to seek employment elsewhere that they have to be punished. In fact, I see this move of having to pay the additional 43 cents for a stamp for people who are out looking for jobs elsewhere as another tax on the poor and on the unemployed.
I would like to ask the hon. member who spoke this. How does he believe the government can justify such a move when, I believe, Canada Post is one of the Crown corporations that is doing very well? In fact, I have heard this mentioned numerous times in different debates and different speeches made by ministers of the Crown, as well as members of Parliament and the public at large who have concerns regarding Canada Post.
How can it justify this move and other moves that it has made while there are still reams of people who are not getting the proper service and when it is able to turn over a profit, when it is able to have revenues? How can it justify a move like that to pay for redirected mail when this Crown corporation is reputed to be doing so well? Why is it being so greedy? Why is it mismanaging those revenues so that it again has to tax and punish the unemployed and the poor of this country?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question. The issue that the member raised concerning redirected mail is one that has been bothering me since I first heard about it on February 17.
As my friend from Chambly mentioned, it is a matter that punishes Canadians in a way that no government should even attempt. Forty-three cents does not sound like much. The government and Canada Post-I do not think we should distinguish between the two as they are virtually one and the same when we look at the bottom line-are asking a simple thing of Canadians, they think: If people get a letter that is not theirs and they have to drop it back in the mailbox with another address on it then they must put a new stamp on it.
That does not sound unreasonable except when we consider that people may not want to send the letter on.
They do not want to walk down to the post office and buy that 43-cent stamp for this person who they might not even know. That letter may end up in a person's mailbox and it might contain a letter from Revenue Canada that says the recipient of the letter is supposed to pay some big bill or get stiffed with further penalties from the government. It might be a letter advising of a refund, or it might be a letter advising of the passing of a relative and the notice of the reading of the will and the estate. There could be any number of important things that go beyond the simple 43 cents.
It is not just a matter of somebody trying to rip off the system, and this is another case in which the victim is being blamed by this government, that there may be people who try to take advantage of the situation by moving and asking their relatives to readdress their mail for them rather than paying the fee for redirecting their mail. It goes much beyond this situation.
The member's question was: How can I justify this? I cannot and I will not justify what this government is trying to do on this matter which I do not agree with at all.
In trying to justify this the minister responsible for Canada Post the day after, February 18, said in this House that it was justified because it could save millions of dollars within the corporation. When the corporation is expecting to earn a profit of $130 million or more this year, this is not the time for the corporation to be looking at trying to increase those millions of dollars, especially when the mandate of the corporation is quite simply to provide a service and provide self-sufficiency, which in my book means breaking even. If it collects the same amount of money that it spends then that is the bottom line. If it makes money over and above that then it has gone beyond the line.
Ask the employees of Air Canada who purchased shares in their corporation what they think about employee share offerings. The employees of Air Canada today are seeing that the shares they purchased are down in the dumps.
March 11, 1993

If this government continues to operate Canada Post the way it is operating it the employees who do take an opportunity and a chance to purchase the shares in their corporation will regret it some time down the line.
Canada Post will continue to operate after this share offering, after this act is put in place and the share offering is made, without any employee involvement in policy decision making in any case.
This act will do nothing to enhance employer-labour relations or to provide better service for Canadians. Therefore one can only conclude that since the act will not do what the government says it will do, it will do something else, and that is simply the beginning of the end of the post office as a public corporation. It is the privatization of Canada Post.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague one question but first I have a very short preamble.
I am not surprised by what is happening at Canada Post when we consider that the former president of Chrysler Canada was put into Canada Post and if we consider what he did to Chrysler Canada. I remember when working as a consumer advocate that during the tenure of this gentleman as president of Chrysler Canada we had some of the worst warranty claim experiences with Chrysler that we ever had over a ten-year period.
When we take a look at what this gentleman is doing as head of Canada Post, actually punishing Canadians because of misdirected mail, I can only come to the conclusion that this is only going be an incentive for mistakes to be made. It is a disincentive for Canada Post to improve the way it directs mail.
In the final analysis Canadians will be paying for the mistakes of Canada Post. If Canadians want to direct misdirected mail to the right place and put it back into the system then they will have to pay. They will be penalized 43 cents. Where is the incentive?
My question to my colleague is: Where is the incentive for Canada Post to improve service to Canadians if it realizes that every time it makes a mistake with misdirected mail, and it is already making many millions of dollars in surplus right now, it is going to make the
Government Orders
passive receiver of that misdirected mail, that mistake, pay for Canada Post's mistake. Where is the justice in that? Where is the incentive for Canada Post to direct mail to the correct address in the first place?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the lack of time. What the hon. member for Chambly points out is a very important part of the future of Canada Post and its service to Canadians.
We have to find a way to ensure that the good work the employees of Canada Post are already doing, which is being hindered by technology and harassment in the work place and other things and is affecting the way in which mail is being delivered at the moment, continues.
I want to strongly support those employees who are working at Canada Post today. They are struggling against very difficult circumstances in the work place and a management that is doing its best to ensure that the work that is being done on the floor is not being respected because of the policy decisions that are being taken that in fact lead to the problems out there on the street and in the local mailboxes.
When we have good contracts and job security then the public will fully recognize the good work that is being done by the people who work for Canada Post.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
And the division bells having rung:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government Whip to defer the vote until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until the ordinary time of daily adjournment on Monday, when the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


SASKATCHEWAN TREATY LAND ENTITLEMENT ACT
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-104, an act respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 22, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Keeseekoose, Muskowekwan, Ochapowace, Okanese, Piapot, Star Blanket, Yellowquill, Beardy's & Okemasis, Flying Dust, Little Pine, Moosomin, Mosquito Grizzly Bear's Head, Muskeg Lake, One Arrow, Pelican Lake, Red Pheasant, Saulteaux, Sweetgrass, Thunderchild, Witchekan Lake, Canoe Lake and English River bands, and respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 23, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Nekaneet band, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to address the House on Bill C-104, the Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement act.
This bill will provide for the implementation of two historic agreements signed on September 22 and September 23, 1992. The first is the Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement framework agreement and the second
is the Nekaneet treaty land entitlement settlement agreement.
Together these agreements will bring to an end more than 100 years of uncertainty, frustration and missed opportunities for 27 First Nations bands in the province of Saskatchewan. The legislation before the House today is technical in nature. It essentially provides a legislative framework for implementing certain elements of the treaty land entitlement agreements.
However the historic, social and economic significance of Bill C-104 must not be underestimated. I want to use my time today to put that significance in a proper perspective.
This is truly a major achievement for the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan but it is most important for the 27 remaining bands in the province of Saskatchewan which have had the shortfall in their treaty land entitlement validated and accepted by the two governments but never fulfilled. It now falls to us, through this legislation, to complete those undertakings made in solemn treaties many decades ago.
Hon. members may recall that more than two years ago, on September 24, 1990, the Prime Minister stood in this House and outlined an ambitious program to create a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. A principal element of this native agenda was a commitment to accelerate the settlement of specific and comprehensive land claims and treaty land entitlements.
Over the past 24 months remarkable progress has been made toward achieving this important goal. Among other things, this government has introduced a new initiative to ensure that specific claims are dealt with more quickly and equitably.
The results speak for themselves. Dozens of specific claims have now been settled using the new process and many more are being actively negotiated. Under that initiative the government proceeded to establish a specific claims commission to provide, independent of the prerogatives of the government, of my department and the Department of Justice, a means of independently reviewing specific claims under an independent commission to determine if all measures of fairness were being applied.
March 11, 1993

Progress has been equally exciting on the comprehensive claims front. In November of last year the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic region voted in favour of ratifying their settlement agreement, the Nunavut land claim agreement, which will be, upon passage by this House, the largest land claim settlement in Canadian history.
As well, the Governments of Canada and British Columbia and the First Nations summit chiefs, comprising most of the chiefs of First Nations in the province of British Columbia, have agreed to establish a British Columbia treaty commission to facilitate the settlement of some 20 comprehensive claims in that province, to enter into treaties which probably should have been negotiated and settled over a century ago in that province.
The Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of the province and aboriginal leaders on September 21 last year signed an historic agreement at the Squamish Indian Nation to initiate the treaty commission. Within days the members of that treaty commission will be named by the governments and First Nation leadership.
Today this House has the opportunity and, in my mind, the obligation to take action on a third very distinctive kind of land claim described as treaty land entitlement. In simplicity, this means living up to the promises that were made when the numbered treaties were signed many decades ago.
By supporting Bill C-104 we will provide long overdue justice to the 27 Saskatchewan First Nations which have been denied land that was promised to them in those numbered treaties in the late 19th century and early part of this century.
To put this issue in perspective I think it is important for hon. members to be aware of the historical record. Between 1871 and 1910 Canada sent treaty parties across the west to negotiate a series of treaties with First Nations in the prairie provinces, the so-called numbered treaties. Among other things, these treaties provided for the establishment of reserves for the various bands which were surrendering their aboriginal title to the vast lands that were wanted for settlement and for the development of a new nation.
The size of each reserve was determined according to a very simple formula; by multiplying the band population
Government Orders
at the time the reserve was surveyed by either 32 or 128 acres, depending on the treaty. The later treaties granted one square mile or one section of land for every family of five persons which amounted to 128 acres per person.
While the majority of bands in those times received their full land entitlement when they signed the treaty, about 60 First Nations across the prairies did not receive their full entitlement. There were a number of reasons for this. Around the turn of the century many bands in the prairies still followed a nomadic way of life. They did not have year-round, permanently located communities or village sites. The concept of settling in permanent villages was alien to them. Some bands postponed a dramatic change in lifestyle to settle down and perhaps to live a lifestyle more of our concept, but this was alien to many of them. In some cases these bands took several decades to find a location and to lay claim to particular pieces of land on the prairies.
When these bands did decide to choose their lands, it was inevitable that some individuals were missed during the band population count. It was also apparent that the population of these bands had changed in many cases and had increased significantly from the populations of those earlier days when the treaties were signed. It is worth noting, therefore, that bands did not always select all the land that was due to them. However, in more recent decades another problem developed. It appeared that much land had been deeded and developed, particularly after the passage of the National Resource Transfer Act, and deeded to other interests. It has become a major difficulty that First Nations have not been able to share in the development of those vast Crown lands of the prairies.
In recent years successive federal governments have endeavoured from time to time to add new parcels of land to the original reserves of entitlement bands. Unfortunately, these efforts have achieved only limited success and it has been a rather ad hoc process, not producing a great deal of satisfaction to the respective First Nations. The end result is that today we can confirm that at least 27 bands in Saskatchewan alone have not received all the land promised to them under the various treaties, a situation that is no longer tolerable and that this bill proceeds to correct.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
The government has tackled the treaty land entitlement issue with a renewed commitment and vigour. Although the matter appears to be simple on the surface, it is in fact an extremely complex and difficult issue that has repercussions not only for the governments and First Nations people, but for non-aboriginal residents of Saskatchewan, whether they be farmers or city dwellers, in terms of the changes that will evolve from this agreement.
In recognition of these complexities and of the need to address the entitlement issues once and for all, my immediate predecessor took the action to establish an office of Treaty Commissioner for Saskatchewan in June 1989. The idea was to insert into this confused and unsatisfactory situation an independent commissioner, the former mayor of the city of Saskatoon, Commissioner Cliff Wright. An office was established and he was appointed to work in consultation with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the two governments, federal and provincial, to find a solution to this problem.
The agreements that were signed in September, which I spoke of in my opening remarks, are a direct product of the excellent work of Commissioner Cliff Wright. Also, I want to pay a very important and generous compliment to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, in particular to Chief Roland Crowe, who headed up and pursued the successful resolution of this problem for several years and to his senior officers and officials, Vice-Chief Dan Bellegarde, Lester Hemy and others. The FSIN played a fundamentally important role on behalf of the 27 entitlement nations in bringing us to this historic moment.
Treaty Commissioner Cliff Wright came to my office in Ottawa in May 1990, not long after he had received his mandate and presented a comprehensive and analytical report, in fact a formula for solving the treaty land entitlement problem in the province of Saskatchewan. He did this after extensive consultations with Indian people, interested parties and residents of the province.
We will not have the opportunity in the House today to examine the genius of his proposal. I could say that in a rather creative way he was able to account for the shortfall of something in excess of one million acres,
approaching a million and a half acres of land, to establish a value for those lands and, in agreement with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, moneys would be paid out appropriate to the value of those lands and to account for the increase in population and the appropriate equity that must be realized in dealing with the modern day populations of those communities, while maintaining fairness with other First Nations which had accepted their treaty land entitlement generations ago.
This was a horrendous and challenging task but it was one very well done and I want again to compliment the commissioner for his leadership there.
That led to a prolonged period of negotiation with the former government of the province of Saskatchewan under Premier Devine's leadership, leading to an agreement which was signed in September 1991 for cost sharing the cost of settling this treaty land entitlement matter.
The reason for Saskatchewan's involvement is quite clear. Since 1930 Saskatchewan has had an obligation under the natural resources transfer agreement to provide to Canada lands adequate to fulfil treaty land entitlement obligations and to provide for expanding aboriginal populations in terms of the reserve requirements.
We were able to negotiate with the previous Government of Saskatchewan a cost-sharing agreement whereby Saskatchewan would provide 49 per cent of the cost of purchasing lands which would be purchased by funds put in a special account, a special treaty land acquisition account, and those lands would be purchased by the respective bands to be held in trust on their behalf in perpetuity; 51 per cent of the funding to be provided by the federal government and 49 per cent by the province of Saskatchewan.
It took several more months to conclude the framework agreement which is attached as schedule II to Bill C-104. The framework agreement deals with a wide range of issues which I will take a few moments to elaborate upon. This framework agreement was finally concluded during the summer of 1992 and signed. I think it was a very rewarding and emotional moment for the 26 treaty land entitlement bands which participated in the signing ceremony at the Wanuskewin Heritage Park just north of Saskatoon on September 22, 1992.
March 11, 1993

At that ceremony the Prime Minister, Premier Roma-now of Saskatchewan, Chief Roland Crowe and several hundred witnesses and representatives of the entitlement bands participated in the signing ceremony upon which this legislation and this agreement is based.
I should indicate that Bill C-104 encompasses a second specific agreement entered into with the Nekaneet First Nation which preceded in its negotiation the framework agreement which was signed and concluded one day after the framework signing.
Included in these agreements are undertakings by the Government of Canada and Saskatchewan to provide close to $500 million over the next 12 years to resolve the treaty land entitlement issue.
The agreements allow First Nations to acquire land as soon as possible. The federal government has agreed to accelerate its payments to add additional amounts or value to the payments in the first two years in order to allow early purchase of lands which the entitlement bands will select.
As well the agreement provides for some $50 million to be paid in the form of funding, a revolving fund to rural municipalities and school divisions to compensate them for the loss of tax revenue as a result of treaty land entitlement settlements. This means that when new lands are added to reserves and services are provided by the First Nations within that expanded land base there will be less requirement to draw services from local school districts or local rural municipalities for road maintenance, hospital, library, the provision of schooling and other kinds of services. As those services are withdrawn it would represent a capital cost to municipalities and school districts that is being offset by a special compensation fund contained in this agreement.
In order for the federal government to satisfy a number of undertakings it made in the treaty land entitlement agreements certain legislative authorities and clarifications are needed. That is the purpose of Bill C-104. I want to outline some of those authorities and clarifications today.
Over the next few years hundreds of real estate transactions are expected to occur in Saskatchewan as a direct result of these two agreements. In due course the lands purchased by entitlement bands will be transferred to the federal Crown as those parcels are purchased, to
Government Orders
be held in trust pending the creation of new reserves or extensions to existing reserves. The bands will have the complete freedom to select land either from existing Crown reserves or through the private purchase of lands to expand their reserves in this way.
While entitlement land is held by the Crown revenues accruing to the band as a result of leases, royalty agreements or other contracts will be collected by the federal government on behalf of each band. For example, there may be oil or gas leases, potash, uranium and other minerals being extracted, or timber rights. Any third party interests or activities which produce revenue will result in a payment of royalties or revenues that will be collected by the federal government on behalf of each band.
Bill C-104 authorizes the Government of Canada to transfer these revenues to the entitlement bands, something that is not provided for under the Indian Act as it presently exists. The earnings of these funds can be transferred through a special means set out within the Consolidated Revenue Fund so that these funds will be managed in trust by the federal government but paid to the respective bands.
Bill C-104 will authorize the federal government as well to collect and transfer to Saskatchewan mineral revenue payments for certain entitlement lands where the province has an interest in the mineral rights. The government has undertaken to do this so that bands will not have to repay mineral revenues to the province in the form of royalties in order to obtain all subsurface rights to land before it can be transferred to the Crown.
Bill C-104 will also permit a surrender to take place before entitlement lands are transferred to reserve status. Generally entitlement lands must be free and clear of all existing third party interests before they will be accepted by the government for reserve creation. However, if there are third party interests, for example small parcels owned by private parties, and if the entitlement band in each case agreed with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that established third party interests should prevail and be protected, they could agree to protect those third party interests through a lawful surrender by the First Nation of interest in that third party right within the area of the entitlement lands. This legislation provides means of securing that surrender in a way other than that provided within the Indian Act.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
Another objective of Bill C-104 is to release the province of Saskatchewan from its obligation, the one I spoke of earlier, to provide unoccupied provincial Crown land to the federal government for the creation of reserves. As I said this is a constitutional obligation contained within the natural resources transfer agreement of 1930. As a consequential element of this legislation there will be an amendment to the natural resources transfer agreement.
Bill C-104 will also establish a legislative basis for the co-management agreements that are contemplated between entitlement bands in the province of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. Saskatchewan wanted to ensure that its ability to manage bodies of water, rivers, reservoirs, et cetera, and its authority to manage those waters would not be fettered by way of those waters coming within the boundaries of entitlement lands that would be added to reserve holdings.
Entitlement bands by way of this agreement will also be able to enter into binding agreements with urban and northern municipalities and school divisions on the provision of services. This too is provided for within Bill C-104.
A legislated provision is also required to ensure that moneys paid under the treaty land entitlement agreements are not to be defined as Indian moneys under the terms of the Indian Act because there are very stringent conditions associated with aboriginal communities having access to those funds for their own purposes. The legislative provision with respect to moneys provides a special account to be established to collect the moneys, the proceeds from the settlement under this agreement, and the earnings of those proceeds. This special account will enable the collecting of interest on moneys paid into the treaty land entitlement Saskatchewan fund, to be administered for the benefit of the entitlement bands and in joint consultation with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Finally, the framework agreement acknowledges there may be other Saskatchewan bands without standing treaty land entitlements. Bill C-104 includes a provision
to accommodate these bands, any which may have additional land entitlement accepted and validated, under the provisions of this framework agreement, under the same terms and conditions that applied to the original 27 entitlement bands.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that Bill C-104 was an extremely technical piece of legislation. Hon. members can now appreciate what I meant in saying that. I hope I have not confused the House unduly. In endeavouring to understand the legal mechanisms this mechanism will put in place, I urge members not to lose sight of its primary objective which is to continue to address past commitments to the aboriginal people of Canada and to honour them.
Bill C-104 is concrete evidence that this government is committed to living up to its historical and contemporary obligations to First Nations. It is a major step forward in achieving our native agenda commitment to resolving treaty land entitlements.
Hon. members should know that work is also under way on resolving related treaty land entitlements in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. We have already settled some five TLE shortfalls in the province of Alberta and we are negotiating another five at the present time. We are commencing negotiations with entitlement bands in the province of Manitoba as well. I am sure that the speedy conclusion of the agreements in the adjacent prairie provinces will be facilitated by the work already done and by the principles set out in this framework agreement with the entitlement bands of Saskatchewan.
For the 27 entitlement bands in Saskatchewan the framework, Nekaneet agreements and this supporting legislation will end decades of uncertainty and enable them to recover what has always been theirs. It will dramatically improve their prospects for self-sufficiency by expanding their reserve land base and providing new opportunities for economic development.
The Government of Saskatchewan will also benefit, as will all the people of Saskatchewan. The treaty land entitlement agreements will end decades of acrimony, create certainty about future land use and provide a significant financial injection into the provincial economy on the scale of a half billion dollars.
March 11. 1993

Bands are expected to begin almost immediately to purchase land and to inject money into the economy. Once that land has been transferred to reserve status we can be assured that bands will be aggressively pursuing development opportunities. In other words this is a good news scenario for all the players and for all Canadians. As we proceed through the stages of this legislation I urge my hon. colleagues to endorse Bill C-104 so the First Nations of Saskatchewan can build for a more prosperous future.
It was my understanding that this legislation was to be referred to a special legislative committee. However, more recently I gather that talks have been held among the parties and I think Your Honour will find consent to do all stages of Bill C-104 today including referral to Committee of the Whole in order that we might complete consideration of this important legislation in one sitting.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with all stages of this bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms.   Ethel@: Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak in the House this morning on Bill C-104, the treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan.
For over 100 years at least 27 First Nations did not have the full use and benefits of the land stipulated under treaties with Canada. First Nations people referred to this unfulfilled obligation as treaty land entitlement.
On September 22, 1992 a modern day settlement of this historic land debt was reached. This settlement has been secured through the process of mutual discussions and negotiations rather than confrontation. This is the preferred route for many land negotiations.
The purpose of Bill C-104 will help to facilitate the implementation of the Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement framework agreement based on certain undertakings given by the Government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan during two and a half years of negotiations.
Once legislation is passed-and we have all agreed to go the whole route today on this bill-Bill C-104 will
Government Orders
enable 27 First Nations bands in Saskatchewan to begin acquiring land, resources and improvements which Canada undertakes to grant with reserve status. This is badly needed in a time when we are experiencing a major downturn and Saskatchewan is having its fair share of problems. As we know only too well, in economically depressed times we find certain groups at the bottom rung of the economy. Those groups are generally aboriginal peoples, women and children.
This legislation is highly appropriate and much needed. Appropriate provincial legislation is also being drafted to facilitate this process. It is always the struggle of the federal government and the claimants to reach an agreement with provincial and territorial governments on any land resolutions. Most important, this piece of legislation will create a special account or a consolidated revenue fund for both the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan to make payments with interest to the settlement bands. It is estimated that the framework agreement and the accompanying legislation will add approximately $450 million in interest.
I have consulted with the parties who will be affected by Bill C-104. I have written to the treaty land entitlement bands affected by Bill C-104: the Minister of Indian and Metis Affairs, the hon. Robert Mitchell; Lynda Haverstock, the leader of the Liberal Party and MLA from Saskatchewan; the Assembly of First Nations land rights co-ordinator, Mr. Rolland Pangowish; Mr. Harry Laforme of the Indian Claims Commission; and Vice-Chief Dan Bellegarde of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Bill C-104 has and is still being studied by the party. From the responses I have received, I believe there is a strong sense of support for the passage of this bill immediately. In fact the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is very anxious for this legislation to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
However there are concerns. I have received a few questions regarding concern over the taxation of settlement money. In relation to that, it should be known by all First Nations that on March 29 there will be a major conference held on taxation in Ottawa with all of the chiefs across the nation.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
In relation to this, the treaty's First Nations in Saskatchewan support Bill C-104 but concern has been raised about possible tax liability of the principal and interest earned on money held in the treaty land entitlement fund and possible tax liability once the money is transferred to the trust accounts of the First Nations.
If First Nations are assessed by Revenue Canada they would have to go through a process of proving that these funds are exempt from taxation pursuant to the framework agreement. We intend to have this question raised in other venues, in fact in the committee that I work in, to determine whether it is possible to include express wording or perhaps a consideration by the minister and his staff to look at the whole issue of taxation, acknowledging that the money appropriated by Parliament pursuant to an agreement to fulfil understanding land treaty entitlement obligations are therefore deemed to be the personal property of the First Nations on reserve pursuant to the Indian Act. This would ensure that the money will not be subject to taxation.
This is a major consideration for all First Nations. Taxation is a major issue that arises in the dealings of all land questions and all of the agreements, be they specific or comprehensive or treaty land entitlements. Taxation is a major issue that comes to the forefront in that it has a great deal of impact on what happens to the revenues that are accrued from any kind of activities that the bands and the various reserves of First Nations undertake with the compensation money they receive from the government under these claims.
The second issue is on riparian rights. To date we have not heard any concerns about the provisions in the framework of agreement whereby the First Nations in certain circumstances waived their riparian rights to try to prevent a provincial water project.
Section 7 of Bill C-104 confirms the riparian rights provision of the framework agreement. It is our understanding that the bands will retain their common law riparian rights to water bodies adjacent to a reserve to ensure that water quality and quantity are maintained.
However the bands will not be able to assert their riparian rights to stop a provincial water project as long as the band has been given six months' notice and is allowed to participate in the decision to approve the project.
The most that the band can sue for is damages. It cannot use the courts to try and stop the project. If any
bands have concerns about the riparian rights provision of the framework agreement which is confirmed by Bill C-104, these will have to be taken up with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or senior staff so assigned.
At this time I would like to extend my personal congratulations and best wishes on behalf of my Liberal colleagues to all of the treaty land entitlement bands. In particular I believe that when you undergo a process to engage in negotiations which are sometimes very difficult, there is the opportunity for much conflict and confrontation.
There is also an opportunity for co-operation and diplomacy. Bearing those words in mind it brings to mind the leadership that is required to undertake these negotiations to come to a resolution as we have today and for the speedy passage of Bill C-104, the treaty land entitlements act.
I would like to say that there are individuals who have expressed leadership and negotiating skills. In particular I would like to congratulate Chief Roland Crowe of the FSIN and all of the chiefs of the entitlement bands who have made a tremendous effort to achieve this historical agreement.
It is truly historic that these people, because of their ability to negotiate, their ability to set goals for their people within the framework of this country and within the boundaries of Saskatchewan, have managed to come up with a plan of action that they feel will work for their people. They are to be congratulated. In a sense it not only sets a political precedent, a legal precedent, it also sets an example for the citizenry of Canada that aboriginal people, given the opportunity, can show the ingenuity to come forward with the goals and the plans that work best for them.
They identify the goals. These are the options they prefer and these are the ones they have advanced, so I would like to congratulate them.
In doing that, it is always so important to recognize that behind Chief Roland Crowe we have a number of chiefs, 27 in particular. Since it is such an historical event that I would like to take the time to reflect on some of these bands and their chiefs. In the true treaty making process and in the fulfilment of those outstanding obligations or debts I would like to say that it has always been known that the chiefs get the front seats and that they should be named.
March 11, 1993

We have from Muskowekwan, Chief Albert Pinacie; from Ochapowace, Chief Denton George; from Neka-neet, Chief Gordon Oakes; from Okanese, Chief Ma-rie-Anne Day Walker; from Cowessess, Chief Terrance Lavalee; from Keeseekoose, Chief Albert Musqua; from Piapot, Chief Arthur Kaiswatum; from Starblanket, Chief Irvin Starblanket; from One Arrow, Chief Richard John; from Beardy's & Okenasis, Chief Richard Gamble; from Pelican Lake, Chief Edward Bill; from Witchekan Lake, Chief Mike Fineday; from Muskeg Lake, Chief Harry Lafond; from Peter Ballantyne, Chief Ronald Michel; and, from Yellowquill, Chief Hank Neapetung.
The are the individuals who have been involved. We also have Chief Louis George from English River; Chief Joseph Waskewitch from Onion Lake; Chief Gabriel Gopher from Saulteaux; Chief Richard Gladue from Flying Dust; Chief Johnson Kakum from Little Pine; Chief Clarence Louis from Moosomin; Chief Blaine Favel from Poundmaker; Chief Edward Standinghorn from Sweetgrass; Chief J. Guy Lariviere from Canoe Lake; Chief Clarence Stone from Mosquito Grizzly Bears Head; Chief Michael Baptiste, Red Pheasant; and, Chief Winston Weekusk from Thunderchild Band.
These are all of the chiefs that have been involved along with Chief Roland Crowe. I would like to congratulate them. They will have to forgive me because Cree and some of the other aboriginal languages from Saskatchewan are not my first language. I have attempted to do justice by naming all of the chiefs. I would like to congratulate them once again. I approve going through all readings of the bill for speedy passage.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on Bill C-104, an act respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlements in Saskatchewan. There is no question that this is a matter that is long overdue for consideration by this House and by the people of Canada.
It is a great credit to all of those who have been involved in this process that we have achieved the conclusion we are seeing today. Before I begin my remarks, I want to indicate that there are unresolved
Government Orders
issues remaining which will require the continued concentration of this government and the people of Canada with the aboriginal people in our province to adequately resolve issues, some of which I will discuss shortly.
Essentially what we have here today is an approval of a process which ratifies a tripartite framework agreement involving the Government of Canada, the government of the province of Saskatchewan and Indian bands in the province in Saskatchewan. It provides the basis for individual negotiations designed to fulfil outstanding constitutional obligations to provide treaty land.
The bill ratifies the federal-provincial First Nation's framework agreement which will be followed by individual negotiations and agreements to take place in the near future.
I stress that it is important for everyone to recognize that this is a negotiated agreement that will be ratified by referendum process by the bands themselves. It is a process that I very much agree with and as a non-Indian person I find most acceptable in reaching agreement on a matter of such significance.
As a result I am very happy today to be able to say that we also want to see the speedy passage of this legislation because it allows us to put behind us one part of an ongoing and difficult matter and process and carry on with the significant other matters which must be dealt with.
I recognize through my involvement with this process for quite some time that there are conflicting interests throughout the aboriginal community as well as through the non-aboriginal community which must be discussed in response to all the matters which are in front of us today.
The bands in Saskatchewan have played a very important role in the process leading to the conclusion of the agreement. The bands in Saskatchewan have worked long and hard, and have sat down to discuss with the province of Saskatchewan and with the Government of Canada through some difficult times and reached an agreement. They are now dealing with members of their own bands again through some difficult times. But they will reach agreement. It is important for members of this House today to recognize that this is a negotiated process which we are concluding today.

Government Orders
As a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan representing a large rural constituency, I have had a very important interest in this matter since my election in 1988. I have discussed this entire agreement with a number of the chiefs in my own constituency. I have attended a number of the meetings in which the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has discussed this at open forums.
.(1135)
I have recognized the significant contribution of each of those who have participated in this process. Of the 27 bands referred to in the land entitlement process, the majority reside on reserves in my constituency: Canoe Lake Band, Chief Guy Lariviere; Flying Dust Band, Chief Richard Gladue; Joseph Bighead Band, Chief Ernest Sundown; Little Pine Band, Chief Johnson Ka-kum; Moosomin Band, now Chief Clarence Louis; Muskeg Lake Band, Chief Harry Lafond; Pelican Lake Band, Chief Edward Bill; Saulteaux Band, Chief Gabriel Gopher; Thunderchild Band, now Chief Winston Weekusk; Witchekan Lake Band, Chief Mike Fineday; Mosquito/ Grizzly Bear's Head/Lean Man Band, now Chief Clarence Stone; Onion Lake Band, Chief Joe Waskewitch; Red Pheasant Band, Chief Mike Baptiste. These are all bands within my federal constituency. These are bands that have actively participated throughout this process and have done a tremendous service to their people and to the people of Saskatchewan.
We will recall, as the minister of Indian affairs noted in his remarks, that the framework agreement was signed on September 22, 1992 by the premier of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister of Canada and the chiefs of the entitlement bands at a ceremony at Wanuskewin Heritage Park, north of Saskatoon. I attended it as a member of the audience. It was a very proud moment for all the chiefs in attendance.
The agreement makes funding available from Saskatchewan and the federal government to the entitlement bands to assist them in the purchase of private and Crown lands to fulfil the outstanding treaty land entitlements.
Just to review this for all present in the House and for those who are watching, five treaties were signed by
Canada with Saskatchewan Indian bands between 1874 and 1906. The bands were promised reserve land based on their population. In 1992, when the framework agreement was signed, 27 bands in the province still had not received all the land owed to them under the treaties. The entitlement framework agreement provides the way to rectify this situation.
I must stress once again that this has been a long time in coming. In 1976 the then New Democratic Party government led by Allan Blakeney reached a conclusion that now forms the basis of the agreement that has been reached by the bands, the province of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada today. The 1976 formula was the basis on which Treaty Commissioner Cliff Wright established the final package.
Under the framework agreement that we are dealing with the bands can purchase a minimum of 421,000 acres and are eligible to buy up to a maximum of 1.693 million acres for reserve status. All land purchases will be on a willing seller-willing buyer basis.
Bands are able to purchase private lands as well as federal and provincial Crown lands. Before the sale of Crown land the interest in the land of any occupants or other third parties must be satisfactorily addressed. In the case of private land, third party interests must be suitably dealt with as a part of the purchase and reserve creation process.
This is part of the agreement because the Indian people throughout Saskatchewan have recognized very clearly that there are other people currently utilizing the land base they have claimed. They want to ensure that there is a continuation of the good rapport of people who share the land in that particular area. Indian and non-Indian people alike will be living and working together in the same areas.
The framework agreement provides bands with approximately $450 million, spread over 12 years, to purchase the land. Once a band's minimum reserve acreage is obtained any remaining money can be used for other band purposes.
March 11, 1993

Many of the bands are currently examining economic development avenues, which will lead to better utilization of the land and the return of additional revenues for use by the aboriginal people themselves for purposes that are very important to the development and continuation of those aboriginal communities.
The minister mentioned it but I thought I should as well and that is: Why is Saskatchewan a party to this agreement? Why do we single out Saskatchewan in this case and not all Indian people?
In 1930 the federal government transferred the bulk of the Crown land and resources in Saskatchewan to the Saskatchewan government. The federal government was aware at that time that more land might be required in the future to supply the number of reserve acres promised in the treaties.
The natural resources transfer agreement of 1930, which transferred the Crown land to Saskatchewan, enables Canada to request the province to provide unoccupied Crown land to fulfil outstanding treaty land entitlements. This is the basis for the Government of Saskatchewan's involvement in the treaty land entitlement process at this time.
Past efforts to settle treaty land entitlement with Crown land alone have met with only limited success. Most Crown land has interests of various types associated with it. Without funding to provide compensation it has been difficult to satisfy the interest holders on Crown land. This was a matter that Treaty Commissioner Wright tried to address, and addressed quite well.
The treaty land entitlement framework agreement provides a new and more promising approach that will work to all parties' advantage. Bands will have more choice in the land they acquire and will have the option of purchasing private land from parties that want to sell.
Entitlement bands will now perhaps be able to obtain more productive land than they have in the past and as a result can possibly become more economically self-sufficient in the future.
Certain categories of provincial Crown land, such as parks, heritage properties, highways and ecological reserves, are only available for purchase under this agreement under very exceptional circumstances. Other categories of Crown land will generally be available for purchase, with the sale decision depending on specific circumstances.
Government Orders
One of the important parts of this whole process is that bands can buy private land that is for sale anywhere in the province just as any other purchaser could.
Crown land in urban areas, as elsewhere in Saskatchewan, may also be available to bands for purchase. Therefore we can see that urban land, economic development land, and industrial land is eligible for purchase under these agreements. The establishment of urban aboriginal industrial economic communities is most viable under this process.
When lands gain reserve status, and this is important to all the rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, it is no longer subject to municipal or school taxation. Recognizing this fact the governments have agreed to compensate for this tax loss in the rural areas. Two $25 million compensation funds have been established, one for rural municipality tax loss and one for school division tax loss.
The rural municipality fund will be administered by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. The school division fund will be administered by the Saskatchewan department of education in consultation with the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association. They are moves that both groups have accepted and agreed will provide for their interests.
After signing or adhering to the framework agreement a band must also conclude a specific agreement, a trust agreement, with Canada before receiving funding for the land purchases.
The length of time taken to conclude these may vary from band to band but the process need not be long. Depending 'on how quickly these agreements can be finalized, many of the bands will be in the marketplace quickly. We have to recognize that a number of bands have already taken these steps and are currently in the marketplace.
One of the problems inherent in this process is the resources available to the bands to ensure that members of each reserve, of each band, are adequately informed about what is in the agreement. Many of the chiefs and the councillors involved in this process from the very beginning understood this agreement inside and out and can quote it chapter and verse. Many of the ordinary people living on the reserves have not been part of the process. They have questions. They are sceptical about what it means for their future and about what it means for the future of their children. They are trying to find a way to get as much information as possible.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
The entitlement process requires a referendum of band members before any of the bands can finalize and reach individual agreements. The framework agreement understands that this is important and has agreed to provide reasonable funds for the holding of public meetings and the contacting of band members, some of whom may not live on the reserve but have chosen to live in an urban centre at some distance from the reserve.
The government has agreed to provide reasonable funds to ensure this referendum process is carried out and the people are adequately informed. I have been informed by a number of chiefs involved in the process that the government's interpretation of what reasonable means is different from what is actually necessary to get the message out to these bands.
I urge the government today in my remarks on this important bill to interpret the section about reasonable costs more liberally than it has been doing and to ensure that the flexibility exists for the chief and the council who understand their band membership better than anyone in Ottawa possibly could to interpret the adequate resources required to ensure the referendum process is carried out by a knowledgeable membership. I ask the Minister of Indian Affair and Northern Development to take this back, discuss it with his officials, and ensure that the chiefs and councils have the adequate resources they need to conduct a fair and knowledgeable referendum on each of their reserves.
We are asked a question about the treaty land entitlement framework agreement settling all land claims in the province of Saskatchewan. We all recognize this is not the end of the process. Treaty land entitlement is land that a band is owed under the terms of the treaties but which has not yet been received. Some bands have other claims with a different legal basis. These other specific claims often arise because reserve land was improperly taken away by the federal government in the past. Specific claims by some of the bands have recently been settled by the federal government, but there are other specific claims outstanding. Those specific claims will be advanced by the bands for negotiation and the government has made clear that it will negotiate on these specific claims issues.
What we have here is simply a framework agreement to provide the basis for the settlement of outstanding entitlements on these 27 bands stemming from the treaties. Specific claims are not being addressed by this particular bill.
The framework agreement costs are shared by the federal and provincial governments with the framework agreement requiring the province of Saskatchewan to cost share land purchase money and purchase money for minerals and to honour payments, for example the reductions in the 1976 formula and the municipal school tax loss compensation. The funding, as I understand it at the moment, is shared 30 per cent provincially and 70 per cent federally. Canada and Saskatchewan have agreed that the province will experience savings as we move along and that Saskatchewan will eventually reimburse Canada an additional amount up to perhaps 19 per cent of the agreement cost based on actual savings over 15 years following the signing of the framework agreement. I am told that Saskatchewan's total cost to be paid out over 12 years is projected to be about $247 million.
This is an important matter that I could spend a tremendous amount of time speaking about. I simply want to thank the House for the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation and I look forward to the conclusion of this important process.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before I read this motion I should first apologize to all the bands whose names I am sure to mispronounce. I will attempt to do my best.


An hon. member:: Could we dispense?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, we could dispense, but I think it is important for all to know that they are part of this bill.
Mr. Siddon, seconded by Mr. Loiselle, moved:
That Bill C-104, an act respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 22, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Keeseekoose, Muskowekwan, Ochapowance, Okanese, Piapot, Star Blanket, Yellowquill, Beardy's & Okemasis, Flying Dust, Little Pine, Moosomin, Mosquito Grizzly Bear's Head, Muskeg Lake, One Arrow, Pelican Lake, Red Pheasant, Saulteaux, Sweetgrass, Thunderchild, Witchekan Lake, Canoe Lake and English River bands, and respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 23, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Nekaneet band, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
March 11, 1993

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-104, an act respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 22, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Keeseekoose, Muskowek-wan, Ochapowance, Okanese, Piapot, Star Blanket, Yellowquill, Beardy's & Okemasis, Flying Dust, Little Pine, Moosomin, Mosquito Grizzly Bear's Head, Muskeg Lake, One Arrow, Pelican Lake, Red Pheasant, Saulteaux, Sweetgrass, Thunderchild, Witchekan Lake, Canoe Lake and English River bands, and respecting an agreement regarding treaty land entitlement in Saskatchewan entered into on September 23, 1992 among Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Saskatchewan and the Nekaneet band.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to all members for bringing Bill C-104 quickly to this stage. I also want to give notice that we will be proposing minor technical amendments to five clauses of the bill that have been totally endorsed by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations on behalf of the entitlement bands and the province of Saskatchewan. As I say they are technical and not substantive amendments. They have been prediscussed with and approved by the opposition parties.
Government Orders
proceed smoothly. I will introduce these amendments clause by clause as they arise.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Chairman, I wonder if I might just ask the minister some questions. It is so seldom we get the land claims issue before the House of Commons that I want to be able to use this opportunity.
I congratulate all parties involved in the process for bringing the measure before the House today. It is an important step forward for the aboriginal people of Saskatchewan. I congratulate them and the two levels of government on the comprehensive agreement that has been reached and the important measure before the House. I want to say in that context that this is a very important issue, one of the most important issues in the country. That is why I want to take a few minutes to reflect on it.
We have before us a measure on behalf of the aboriginal people of Saskatchewan. The minister may be able to confirm this point, but there are something like 600 land claims across the country, all of which are in various stages of being addressed at this time. There is a limited budget on the part of the Government of Canada. Obviously there is a process to be followed. There is an order of precedence. There is a long list of people.
First, how does the minister intend after today to set up a process whereby we can see a speedy resolution of the rest of the land claims across the country?
It is important we are taking this measure today. It is very important for the people of Saskatchewan and they should be congratulated. However there are many other instances across the country where land claims are pressing issues.
As well there are minor but important corrections to yye talked in the House of Commons yesterday about the French translation of the schedules. In schedule II the rampant symptoms of alcoholism, substance abuse, and schedule III of the bill there will be four amend- sexual abuse and child abuse. We have heard of those ments to the French translation to improve the accuracy symptoms and we deplore them. We carry our own of the translation which was not available at the time the responsibility on both sides of the House that this sort of schedules were originally signed with the original treaty thing is happening. It underscores the importance of land entitlements agreement. With that, I hope we can speeding up the land claims process.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
Second, would the minister take some time to reflect on how he intends to do that and what process he intends to use to speed up the settlement of land claims across the country?
I also want to ask him a supplementary question and in so doing read to him a news account of what happened in St. John's, Newfoundland, within the past two days. As he knows, the news report I have before me says that at a news conference on Tuesday at the Hotel Newfoundland, Labrador Inuit Association President William Andersen III presented Premier Clyde Wells with a thick black binder containing what he said he hoped was the future of the Inuit in Labrador. Federal officials were absent from the ceremony. The article says that the federal government pulled out of the land claims process in June 1992 when it was unable to reach an agreement with the province on sharing the cost of any settlement reached.
Now that we have the Labrador Inuit land claims on track, now that we have a preliminary proposal on paper, not a total proposal but a preliminary proposal on paper, now that there is a time track agreed to for a response from the province within three months, and now that there is the undertaking to speedily resolve this particular land claim, does the minister see his way clear to overcoming whatever obstacles were there in the past between the two governments to study this document carefully, to consider it carefully in a comprehensive way, in dialogue with the province and with the Inuit of northern Labrador? Does he think it is possible for all three parties, without preconditions, to go back to the table to study and consult in a serious way with a view to resolving this land claim as quickly as possible?
The other supplementary question I should like to ask him, because it is a pressing issue too, concerns the land claim of the Innu nation in Labrador and in Quebec as well. I do not have to mention it to the minister. He knows as well as I do and as well as all members of the House and all Canadians do the serious and tragic events that took place recently in Davis Inlet.
As I said in the House yesterday, now that the camera has moved away from Davis Inlet and has focused on
other places, it is important that we not forget our responsibilities to that particular community, but we have to see that in the context of a settlement of land claims.
I know this is not completely on topic, but I think the people of Canada, the House and you, Madam Chairman, understand it is so seldom we have the opportunity to put these serious and important questions that I wanted to take the opportunity to do so today.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, I say to my hon. colleague that I appreciate the questions. While we do hope to conclude consideration of this piece of legislation today, and I am sure there is other pressing House business, I certainly welcome the opportunity to take a few minutes to respond to his questions.
First, on the question of moving more quickly toward the settlement of land claims I would like to suggest that is a commitment I have taken very seriously in the last three years as minister. Shortly after my appointment I had the privilege of concluding and initialling an umbrella final agreement with the Council of Yukon Indians, of initialling the Dene-Metis final settlement agreement in the western Arctic within a week, and within a month, on April 30, 1990, of having signed the agreement in principle with the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut which will lead to the ultimate conclusion of the land claim agreement of the Inuit of eastern Arctic.
The Prime Minister gave a speech in the House on September 24, 1990 as part of a comprehensive set of accelerated initiatives on behalf of Canada's aboriginal people. He said that we would give high priority to moving land claims to completion and that both in the area of specific claims and comprehensive claims we would hope to achieve major progress, if not to settle all those claims by the end of the decade, by the turn of the century.
It is important to realize that in the area of land claims there are three categories. The first one is those areas where we made treaty commitments and did not keep them. Today's bill is an example of fulfilling that commitment in Saskatchewan to treaty land allocations that were promised in those early numbered treaties across the prairies.
March 11, 1993

I indicated in my remarks at second reading that in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta we were also trying to emulate the process that led to this framework agreement embodied in today's legislation, although it would take a somewhat different form in Manitoba and Alberta. I also indicated that we had already concluded treaty land entitlement agreements with five Alberta First Nations and that we were negotiating with another five. I believe we have in the last three years made more progress on treaty land entitlement than has been made in this entire century in fulfilling those commitments.
Second is the area of a large number of claims called specific claims. The hon. member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake indicated that specific claims were areas wherein certain legal commitments were made or were thought to have been made by bands at some point in the past and never honoured. A specific claim deals with a particular parcel of land and a particular decision-making process at some time in the past which led to an undertaking, usually in writing, supported and recognized by the band council, usually through a band council resolution wherein it was argued that we did not live up to that commitment.
It had been a sad truth that our budget of $15 million a year had not allowed us to move rapidly in the settlement of specific claims. As a result of the new initiative, the budget for a specific claim settlement was increased from $15 million to approximately $75 million a year, a quintupling, a fivefold increase in funding.
Whereas we had been able to settle only two or three claims a year prior to 1991, in the first year with the increased funding and by certain technical measures which allow us to fast track the settlement of specific claims, in the most recent year we have now settled between 25 and 30 specific claims across Canada.
With specific claims there is also often a dispute as to whether we have a legal obligation or a lawful obligation or not. Perhaps the Department of Justice says the federal government does not have an obligation, that it is not a legitimate specific claim. First Nations have often been very frustrated because they believe there is a claim.
Government Orders
The traditional position of government was to say take us to court because the Department of Justice believes we will win in court. We have now created a separate commission under the provisions for commissions of inquiry called a Specific Claims Commission, chaired by Mr. Harry Laforme, the chief commissioner, and six other commissioners. It is dealing with these myriad of specific claims across the country where the claimant, the First Nation, believes we have unfairly rejected its claim. We have great hope that the Specific Claims Commission will produce further justice on behalf of those First Nations when they do not feel the Department of Justice is doing justice to their claim.
The third area we call comprehensive claims. Comprehensive claims arise in a territory where the jurisdiction has never been ceded or surrendered or determined by way of a treaty between a population of First Nations people who believe that it was always their traditional territory and the federal and provincial governments that established a legal regime and developed and dispersed land under land titles processed without regard for the aboriginal title or aboriginal interest in those lands.
The major number of remaining comprehensive claims are to be found in British Columbia where we have at least 28 and perhaps more separate comprehensive claims where there were no treaties. There are other cases with the Labrador Inuit and the Innu of Labrador where there were not treaties. In the province of Ontario there is one comprehensive claim which we have agreed to negotiate with the Golden Lake Algonquin people who in fact claim a good part of eastern Ontario under their comprehensive claim.
We have agreed to no longer limit the number of comprehensive claims to five at any one time, which was an earlier policy, and to facilitate as rapidly as we can all of the comprehensive claims in parallel within the financial limitations of Parliament's capacity to settle, but to facilitate negotiations in good faith and not stall people because of the artificial barriers of inadequate financial resources or other legal arguments which may in the past have been convenient ways of delaying the process.
In response to the first question of the hon. member for Labrador I want to say that we are sincerely committed to accelerating claims in all three categories.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
With respect to the two Labrador claims-and I will focus on the one with the Labrador Inuit in particular- we have been engaged in a process of setting the stage for negotiations going back to at least 1989 and perhaps earlier in the case of the Labrador Inuit Association. I was able to travel to Nain in Labrador and sign a framework agreement, I believe in November 1990, which set the stage for negotiating what was then called the agreement in principle. Our policy is that when we are going to negotiate an agreement in principle we have to know that the provincial government, within whose jurisdiction this claim is to be settled, must be a partner in those negotiations. To be a partner we have to know what its role and responsibility is going to be and how it intends to share in all of the elements of settlement-dollars, land, mineral rights, timber rights, water resources, et cetera.
It is not fair to sit down at the table with a First Nation such as the Labrador Inuit Association and go through the process of trying to negotiate a land claim settlement if the province is not a committed partner. We need commitments of the jurisdictions the province is prepared to cede, the land it is prepared to make available and the financial burden that it is prepared to bear.
In our policy we require a cost-sharing agreement before we get into the agreement in principle stage. The agreement in principle negotiation encompasses the global magnitude of the land claim settlement, how much land, how many mineral rights, how many dollars.
We told the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we needed a cost-sharing agreement but we agreed to take 18 more months, until June 1992, to achieve it. I am sorry to say that we have not made the kind of progress we should have made because the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has not been prepared to quantify what it will accept as its role, its responsibility and its share of the financial and material burden of settlement.
It is not correct to suggest that the federal government has not tried to advance the Labrador Inuit claim, nor the claim that we have agreed to negotiate with the Innu
Nation, which I accepted I believe a year and a half ago. In both cases we need to have a clear statement of the commitment of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador toward its share of the obligation to settle. It will have to cede jurisdiction in certain areas, and particularly if we get into discussing self-government in the context of the claim, it will have to give up land rights and forestry rights and water rights, et cetera.
That is the reason why we have not been able to move to the next stage of concluding agreements in principle with the Innu Nation or the Labrador Inuit Association. I commend the LIA for the proposal it presented to the province a week ago in St. John's because it shows its recognition that the province, the premier and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador have to be at the table and to participate. We will review that proposal very thoroughly. We are prepared to continue negotiations but there has to be a clear understanding of the role and responsibility and the degree of commitment from the provincial government.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Chairman-


Andrée  Champagne: I will recognize the hon. member. I do have to remind the hon. member and the minister that getting into the very important question of Labrador takes us somewhat outside the scope of the bill in front of the Flouse right now.
I will recognize the hon. member from the New Democratic Party and I will come back to the member.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Chairman, I do appreciate that ruling very much. In the limited time we have available there are some important matters specific to this bill that should be addressed.
I have a couple of questions. I will put one and hopefully I can be recognized again on another question.
I am interested in knowing specifically about some of the negotiations that the minister may be involved in concerning the trusts. I am told that under this bill the department and the bands are actively engaged in trying to settle a Revenue Canada issue related to the trusts. I wonder if the minister could tell us where this matter is now.
March 11, 1993


Thomas Edward Siddon: If I am correct in anticipating the substance of the member's question, Madam Chair, it has to do with whether the earnings of the trust will be subject to taxation.
Let me say first of all that there is a schedule of payments associated with this agreement whereby the individual bands which complete band specific agreements will receive payments over the next 12 years. There will be a larger payment in the initial two years because the federal government has essentially doubled its payment in those first two years.
Those payments will be deposited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a special treaty land entitlement fund that Treasury Board has agreed to create so that it will not be subject to the usual conditions that apply to Indian or aboriginal trusts.
In this fund there will be a number of drawers which will hold money each year until there is a band specific agreement and the band is ready to draw out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund the payments due to them.
Those payments, while they are being held in this special fund within the CRF, will capture interest according to the usual Treasury Board formula. The question is, when they are drawn out, will the earnings on those funds be subject to taxation? I am advised that the provisions of this legislation are such that they are neutral on that question because it is presently before the Department of Finance and national aboriginal leadership as it pertains to all aboriginal trust accounts.
From one perspective I am sure First Nations would argue that if that money is earned on reserve as a result of the investment of the assets of the reserve, then it should not be subject to taxation. If it is earned off reserve, the policy of the government is that it is not then subject to immunity from taxation. That matter has to be resolved. It will be resolved on a level beyond this particular agreement but the agreement in no way precludes a determination that it not be subject to taxation. I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance in that matter. Is that an adequate explanation?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Yes, Madam Chairman, and I thank the minister.
My subsequent question is one that I raised in my remarks at second reading and relates to the adequacy of resources for the referendum process.
Government Orders
As I indicated in my remarks, the bands must hold a referendum to ratify the terms of the agreement. The agreement allows for reasonable costs to be covered. A number of the chiefs have indicated to me that the department's interpretation of reasonable costs is actually inadequate to meet the needs of informing their membership; some of the band membership live some distance from the reserve but also have a stake in the settlement of this agreement and are included in the referendum process.
I wonder if the minister can tell me if the department is considering allowing for flexibility in this reasonable cost element, ensuring that there are adequate resources available for the conducting of the referendum.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, the department over the last three years that I have been associated with this process has attempted on every occasion to provide adequate funding for the necessary research on the public information process. Any time that Chief Roland Crowe of the FSIN sat down and said he needed some assistance for some aspect of ensuring the bands are fully informed and committed to this process, I tried to be as helpful as I could.
It is a credit to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations that it provided a co-ordination of all the bands so that it could collectively bring us to this day where we can I think finally see a solution to this problem.
In that process I am told the FSIN has discussed with the various claimant bands a means of preparing each band for the referendum which is required in order to ratify its band specific agreement.
I understand there were negotiations and a formula was established whereby funding would be made available for this process on a formula basis, which I am told at least the majority of the Saskatchewan First Nations claimant bands agreed to, and that $2.5 million has been set aside for this purpose. Individual bands then will be able to draw their share, I would say, of approximately $100,000. If the funds were not adequate or there was the need for some flexibility, as I said at the outset, I would like to try to be flexible but we also have to respect the role of the FSIN in co-ordinating this process. That can be pursued further through it and directly with the individual bands.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Chairman, if I could indulge for one more moment. As I indicated in the preface to my remarks earlier and also at second reading, I talked about this being the important conclusion of a process but said that there are other matters that have to be dealt with.
The FSIN and the individual bands, on the settlement of the land entitlement agreement here, will be turning their attention to matters such as that addressed in the recent standing committee report on housing about the inadequacy of housing on reserves. I am wondering if the minister and his department, on the successful conclusion of this agreement, will begin to turn their attention toward dealing with matters relating to the unanimous report of the standing committee on housing and address some of these other major concerns on reserves.


Thomas Edward Siddon: In danger of getting into a prolonged response as I did with the hon. member for Labrador, I would say that the hon. member should be assured that it is not a matter of turning our attention from one important issue to another. Somehow I am expected to maintain my commitment and concern for a large number of files all at the same time.
The question of the adequacy of our housing program has been extensively reviewed over the last three years. Funds have been constrained, as the hon. member knows. This year I was able to ensure that the funding for aboriginal housing was not reduced, but it has not yet been increased.
As a result of consultations with First Nations' leadership, focused through the AFN in particular, and many discussions with bands and regional organizations we have developed a housing policy proposal, I and my colleague the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We trust it will involve adequate funding, significant additional funding, but also elements to ensure that housing will last on Indian reserves.
There will be more training, more responsibility for the financing, maintenance and upgrading of housing, and planning of the housing requirements of individual First Nations. I hope to be able to bring these initiatives forward in the next couple of months. I am certainly hoping that we can have a new housing policy before the end of June. That is a priority with me.


Andrée  Champagne: As we are on clause 2 I would like to put to the House the amendments which the minister has brought to this clause.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That clause 2 of Bill C-104 be amended
(a)	by striking out line 19 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"September 22, 1992, pursuant to which Canada's outstanding treaty land entitlement obligations are to be fulfilled in respect of those bands that are parties to that Agreement, certain provisions of"
(b)	by striking out line 26 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"1992, pursuant to which Canada's outstanding treaty land entitlement obligations are fulfilled in respect of the Nekaneet band, certain provisions of which are set"


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Chairman, this is a prime opportunity to be specific and true to the claimants who are dealing with this treaty land entitlement. In doing so I think there is a broader picture and the minister has the expertise to deal with these questions.
First of all, we know that on September 22, 1992 federal, provincial and Indian representatives signed the treaty land entitlement framework agreement. This is a very specific and defined process, geared only for full and final settlements. It makes everything so much easier, or so it should. The down side in the bigger picture is that-not specific to this, this is the bright side I would say-this agreement also represents significant progress on only one of at least last nine different kinds of claims in Saskatchewan, numbering at last count 105 individual claims.
Given that outstanding treaty land entitlement has now been dealt with, the question then becomes which of the remaining eight categories of claims is our next priority and how do we deal with it. To answer that question it is necessary to review the history of claims in Saskatchewan and to survey the current Saskatchewan Indian environment.
However, before talking history and environment let us review the nine different kinds of claims. I would like to ask the minister, once I list those nine claims, what his next priority is. First, I will just list them and not go into the details because, as the minister will know, one of the opportunities we have as members of Parliament and they have as ministers of the Crown is to enlighten Canada on the specificity of these very complicated claims, be they specific or comprehensive. The basis on which land questions come about is so interesting and so complex that we take the opportunity to inform people.
March 11, 1993

Having said that, I will list the different kinds of claims: first, the outstanding treaty land entitlement; second, the outstanding supplementary treaty land entitlements; third, invalid treaty land surrenders and expropriations; fourth, invalid supplementary treaty land surrenders and expropriations; fifth, misappropriated treaty territory resources; sixth, unfulfilled terms of treaty, and this is the grand-daddy of them all because it includes on a regional and national scale claims related to the government's unwillingness to live up to rights and guarantees concerning self-government, education, health, and taxation; seventh, fraudulent and unlawful acts; eighth, intrusions on to sacred territories; and ninth, unpunished criminal acts.
I do not know how many instances of the last category there are or are likely to be but one that immediately comes to mind because it is so specific and so graphic is the 1873 massacre involving the Carry the Kettle Band. Another one is the 1885 point-blank shooting of a blind elderly Cree at the Steele Narrows, and yet another involves several cases in which smallpox and other infectious diseases were deliberately spread throughout a band or group of bands. Since these incidents involve very serious charges it is important that we not just come out and clearly judge these cases, but rather report that they do exist and are out there in the minds of Saskatchewan people.
Having covered environment and history, I would like to ask the minister: We have covered one very successfully, this particular TLE. I would like to know which of the other eight is a priority and where most of the resources and the effort would go.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chair, first of all in regard to the first amendment that the Chair has put before the House I should indicate that this amendment, and I do not know that the question bears directly upon the amendment, was put forth and requested by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations because it adds language which ties the settlement agreement, the TLE legislation, more closely to what the Saskatchewan First Nations believe to be our treaty obligations. It wanted
Government Orders
that clearly specified. I trust this amendment will be approved without further discussion.
With regard to the question about which priority I would give to the various categories of claims the hon. member has listed, without diminishing the importance of any of those issues I think this initiative has had to be a priority of this government, as it has been of previous governments. I am very pleased at the co-operation we are getting as we move toward concluding this matter.
It in no way reduces the importance I attach to all of the issues that might be considered under the classification that the hon. member has listed. I do not know where that comes from and if she wants to give me the document she is reading from I would like to take a look at it. I am told it is not a classification that exists within the Department of Indian Affairs.
We categorize claims as unfulfilled treaty obligations, which we are dealing with today, comprehensive claims, on which there were no previous treaties or any negotiations with a particular First Nation, and specific claims.
Specific claims can encompass a broad range of grievances such as those that have been listed under the nine categories that were given. In each case, if there is a lawful obligation which can be argued to the satisfaction of the Department of Justice as a default, malfeasance or error on the part of past governments or this government then we will accept that as a specific claim without ranking it as to priority and we will fund the research and prepare for negotiation of a settlement of that claim.
If the government, on the advice of our Crown legal adviser, says there is no provable lawful obligation then the remedy is normally through the courts. For First Nations that are not satisfied with going to the courts, which entails considerable cost, we have created a specific claims commission for external recourse to an impartial third body to give the government advice as to whether we are getting valid advice from the Department of Justice.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
I would respond in that way and indicate to the hon. member that when specific matters arise in the province of Saskatchewan or elsewhere which I can deal with, and which are often brought to my attention, I try to move forward as quickly as I can.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Account to be established
Thomas Edward Siddon: That clause 4 of Bill C-104 be amended by striking out lines 4 to 14
on page 3 and substituting the following:
"(a) credited to the Treaty Land Entitlement (Saskatchewan) Fund the balance remaining of all amounts that were paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, prior to the coming into force of this act, as contributions by Her Majesty in right of Saskatchewan pursuant to section 3.07 of the Framework Agreement, together with any interest credited to those amounts by Her Majesty in right of Canada pursuant to subsection 3.07(c) of that agreement;
(b)	paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and credited to the Treaty Land Entitlement (Saskatchewan) Fund all amounts that are contributed, after the coming into the force of this act, by Her Majesty in right of Saskatchewan pursuant to section 3.07 of the Framework Agreement; and
(c)	credited to the Treaty Land Entitle-"
He said: Madam Chair, this is a technical amendment to allow for the correct establishment of a sub-fund, the Treaty Land Entitlement Fund, within the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is something that Treasury Board has requested and that has been discussed and agreed to by the other parties, the FSIN and the Government of Saskatchewan. It is purely technical so I trust that members will support it.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Chairman, I would not want to miss the opportunity to once again bring up the issue of treaty exemption. Maybe I can ask the minister why there was no consideration given to looking at some kind of mechanism for recognizing treaty land entitlement obligations and I quote: "moneys appropriated by Parliament pursuant to an agreement to fulfil outstanding treaty land entitlement obligations and are, therefore, deemed to be personal property of First Nations on reserve, pursuant to the
Indian Act". This would have ensured that moneys would not have been subject to taxation. Why was an appropriate additional amendment not sought in this area or this particular amendment not further fortified to give maximum economic or financial leverage to FSIN and other First Nations of Saskatchewan involved in this TLE so they could benefit from it?
I support the amendment but I wish we could have found a way to do that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I am told, Madam Chair, that the first amendment to clause 2, which the FSIN requested, which was to clearly tie this agreement to our treaty obligations, was the comfort it needed to accept the language of this agreement insofar as the handling and treatment of funds deposited to the special treaty land entitlement fund were concerned.
I indicated in an earlier response that the bill is purposely neutral on a question which has much larger implications. I stand corrected. It is not the Department of Finance but Revenue Canada which is engaged in a major national discussion which will lead to a decision about the tax treatment of trust accounts and their earnings. It was not felt necessary to pre-empt that or create a precedent for a decision in this agreement by the First Nations of Saskatchewan. They understand this is a difficult issue which will be resolved in due course.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Perhaps it should be considered by First Nations that Revenue Canada, with its policy move to change the status quo of tax exemption for First Nations, is essentially putting a stranglehold and a very limiting factor on land questions that are to be resolved in terms of what happens to the money First Nations receive in full payment from consolidated revenue. Perhaps it is more a comment than a question. Perhaps that should be in the minds of all people who go for a specific or comprehensive land claim. They should note that Revenue Canada is essentially putting a restriction on exactly what the maximization of these funds would be by not allowing for the exemption to be maintained.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
March 11, 1993
[Stage Direction]
On Clause 5-Amounts not Indian moneys
Thomas Edward Siddon: That Clause 5 of Bill C-103 be amended by striking out line 38 on
page 3 and substituting the following:
wan) Fund pursuant to the framework agreement; and


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 11 -Application of Act to Indian bands that have not signed the Framework Agreement
Thomas Edward Siddon: That Clause 11 of Bill C-104 be amended (a) by striking out lines
35 and 36 on page 5 and substituting the following:
Canada Gazette confirming that this Act applies to
(b) by striking out lines 38 to 42 on page 5.
He said: Amendment 2 was requested by the province of Saskatchewan and does not have any substantive effect on the recognition of future claims by other entitlement bands.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
as amended, agreed to.
Andrée  Champagne: When we get to the schedule, as hon. members can see, the department has presented some amendments to schedules I, II and III. Beauchesne's tells us that when a bill is introduced, to give effect to an agreement or confirm a scheme, the text of which is contained in a schedule to the bill as an independent origin and status of which is described in the introductory provision of the bill, amendments cannot be made to the schedule.
If members look very closely at what the amendments do propose, it is really a technical amendment in the translation. It was really an error of translation and not a change in the schedule itself which is why we have agreed to make those changes.
In schedule I, the amendment has the effect of adding the date only.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Andrée  Champagne: Shall schedule I carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Schedule I, as amended, agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall schedule II, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Schedule II, as amended, agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall schedule III, as amended, carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Schedule III, as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Chairman, just for further clarification, the amendments to the French language text were there for accuracy in terms of assuring consistency between the two versions. I presume we have carried them as well with the schedules.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will not proceed to read the title of the bill again to name and compliment each of the individual entitlement bands that have helped bring us to this historic day.
I just want to thank members of the House, particularly the critics of the opposition parties, for facilitating the swift passage of this very important piece of legislation.
It is a very complex matter designed for accountants and lawyers, but it has very significant meaning to the thousands of members of the 26 entitlement bands who will benefit from this legislation.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
I compliment the treaty commissioner, Mr. Cliff Wright, the chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, all those who worked for the various jurisdictions who are parties to this agreement and I thank you, Madam Speaker, for facilitating the passage of this legislation.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have just a few words in conclusion on this important bill.
It has been brought to my attention that despite the fact that I had the list in front of me, I inadvertently missed naming two of the chiefs who have been important to the conclusion of this process and reside within the boundaries of the constituency I represent. Chief Wayne Standinghom from the Sweetgrass band and Chief Blaine Favel from the Poundmaker band have also been very active chiefs with their councils in the development of this process.
It has also occurred to me that because this process has been a long one, there are numerous individuals who have represented their band members, either as councillors or chiefs through this process, who are no longer directly associated with their councils.
Some chiefs have chosen not to run in new elections. Some members of council have chosen not to run, or have been asked by their respective bands to have a bit of a holiday as it is sometimes referred to in this place.
I want to pay my respects to those chiefs and council members who are no longer currently serving their bands in elective capacities but have played significant roles in bringing their bands and band memberships into this process. Their contributions are as great as any of those who are still in office.
At the same time I do want to indicate that I am aware there are conflicts within some of the bands. I am aware some of the bands are anxious to resolve other significant issues such as housing, which I mentioned earlier. I am very anxious to see that issue resolved and I commit myself to work with the bands, chiefs, councils and band members to help resolve some of these outstanding issues in the weeks, months and perhaps years to come.
Tkxation is a major issue that I am personally committed to. A tremendous amount of work has been done in the past that has been allowed to drift somewhat with regard to aboriginal people living on reserve with disabilities. These people face challenges that many of us will never be able to fully understand or appreciate. We must meet the needs of the physically challenged who live on reserve and commit resources that will be of greater assistance to them.
I am pleased that this process has concluded here today and I thank the minister and members of the House for all the work they have contributed to the process.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, it has been my pleasure to work on the passage of this important piece of legislation, Bill C-104. There is a clear indication of a commitment to land resources and jurisdiction. To me those three elements are fundamental to people becoming self-determining. They are the foundation for self-government. I just want to congratulate all those people and wish them the best in their future endeavours.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if it would be in the interest of the House to call it one o'clock and begin the debate on Bill C-103 immediately following Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion by the hon. member.
Is there consent to call it one o'clock?


Mr. Reid:: Madam Speaker, I think we are prepared to call it one o'clock. I think the bill that has been passed this morning is very important. I think Bill C-103 will pass with somewhat the same sense of decency and urgency. We are intending to refer it to committee, so I think the intent is that each party will have one speaker and we will go on so we can move into orders of the day.
March 11, 1993

I am more than happy to agree.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m. I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 12.53 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron -Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Huron-Bruce and Saint-Jean and all Canadians, my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, and I would like to convey our best wishes and congratulations to Lloyd Eisler, from Seaforth, Ontario, and Isabelle Brasseur, from St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, on their winning performance in pairs figure skating at the World Championships in Prague.
After seven years as a team they have proven to be the best in the world at their sport. Their sense of accomplishment is matched by the pride Canadians feel for the world class excellence they both have achieved. They have demonstrated the spirit and determination that characterizes all Canadian athletes.
I ask my colleagues in the House of Commons to join us in congratulating these two great Canadians on winning the gold medal.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


FORESTRY
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, it was more than one year ago that I rose in this House and asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration what action this government intended to take vis-a-vis the crisis in the forestry industry, and specifically the situation in my riding of Restigouche- Chaleur.

In response to this crisis, a number of committees were formed to examine the problems facing the forestry sector. Although the committees have done valuable work, the Atholville mill is still closed and the Dalhousie mill is operating only two of its four machines. The study has now been going on for more than a year, but thousands of people are still looking for work and are fed up with the federal government's failure to act.

I call upon the government to stop running from its responsibilities. The local committees, the provincial government, the municipalities and the laid-off workers have all done their part in addressing this crisis. It is time for the federal government to live up to its responsibilities and to act on this urgent matter.


NATIONAL SOCIAL WORK WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this March the Canadian Association of Social Workers celebrated the third annual National Social Work Week.
Social work is a proud profession with a long history of commitment to improving the well-being of people in society, particularly the disadvantaged. Today social workers are involved in direct practice, teaching, policy analysis and research as well as community organization, planning and program administration. They may work directly with individuals, groups and communities, or on their behalf through research, social policy and planning.
The 13,500 members of the Canadian Association of Social Workers should be recognized for their contribution to the betterment of society. We wish them every success in the celebration of National Social Work Week.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, International Women's Day, the minister granted landing to Ferdousi Bhuyian, a 28-year old battered wife from Bangladesh. She was one of 14 women for whom NAC is pleading that this government allow them to remain in Canada.

March 11, 1993
Now three women from Eritrea, living in London, are subject to removal to the United States, one on Friday, tomorrow. They are all pleading for Canada's mercy.
There is no guarantee that the United States will not send these women, and all such people, back to Eritrea or whatever country forces them to leave.
1 call on the minister to review the cases of the 13 women presented by NAC and the cases of Ms. Tebletz Bahlebi-Tedia, Ms. Simret and Ms. Seghid under the new guidelines announced by the IRB on March 9 so as to consider allowing all these women to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
I also call on him to immediately place a moratorium on removal of rejected refugee women claimants to the U.S. or other countries so as to review all pending cases in the same way.


CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative family caucus has recently concluded a study on child sexual abuse and has made 11 significant recommendations to the government.
Some of these recommendations are: first, to establish a national child abuse register to enable screening of those seeking paid or volunteer positions of responsibility for children; second, to amend existing dangerous offenders provisions in the Criminal Code for anyone convicted of sexual offences against children; third, to amend the Criminal Code to include the depiction of children in a sexual manner in the definition of obscene and to create a separate indictable offence with greater penalties for the distribution of obscene material to children; and fourth, to amend the Criminal Records Act to prohibit pardons for those convicted of sexual offences involving children.
The committee also recommends the prohibition of the killer cards, the serial killer board game and similar objects directed at young people.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post condones advertising 1-900 fantasy phone numbers. Canada Post has authorized delivery of unaddressed postcards advertising female names and phone numbers.
During this age of heightened awareness of sexual exploitation this Canada Post practice is objectionable and offensive. Despite complaints from citizens and postal employees Canada Post maintains that the postcards are not pornographic.
In fact, Canada Post managers suggest that if people think it is objectionable their recourse is to call the sender. Imagine encouraging the use of a 1-900 number, at a cost of $10 per call, to complain.
I implore Canada Post to show some moral judgment and common sense. Let us not sacrifice basic values in the pursuit of profits.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the sweeping changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, which were passed by the House two weeks ago.
At the legislative committee I pressed for significant improvements to Bill C-99 and a number were made. Others which also surfaced at report stage were the innovative provisions seeking to free up working capital for our small businesses.
Under the bill, retroactive financing of up to 180 days will now be available. The value of an asset for financing will be increased to 100 per cent of the purchase cost. Personal guarantees by borrowers will also be kept at 25 per cent of the loan.
I support these changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act in that they seek to facilitate better access to start-up cash and expansion of capital for our small businesses. At committee, the Canadian Bankers' Association publicly made that commitment.
March 11, 1993

I have noted the work, enthusiasm and optimism of the Minister of State for Small Businesses about the changes to the SBLA. I will be watching with great interest to see whether the members of our financial community can emulate that enthusiasm and support.


TAXATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, a number of retailers and distributors in the food business in my riding phoned me last week about the financial problems they are facing as a result of widespread cigarette smuggling.
The Tory government's decision to raise taxes on tobacco products has not only harmed Quebec's economy but has actually created an underground distribution network. What was intended as an incentive to cut back on cigarette consumption, which would reduce the harmful effects on health, has become a nightmare for retailers and many workers in the retail sector. Since January 1991, Quebec has lost 5,900 jobs, and distributors and retailers lost more than $150 million in revenue in 1992. This means that federal and provincial governments have lost about $500 million in revenue and taxes, while there has been an increase in cigarette-related thefts and more money has been spent on helping the unemployed as a result of plant closings.
Considering this disastrous ripple effect, I want to ask the government to review excessive taxation of tobacco products in the next federal budget.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, last month I had the pleasure of participating in a forum on the Young Offenders Act in my riding. Also participating was a young offender, a youth court judge, a defence attorney, a crown attorney, a police officer and two individuals who work with young offenders in the detention facilities.
This forum was very informative and provided the almost 100 participants with a good opportunity to have a dialogue on the problems and strengths of the Young Offenders Act. We also heard about the resources available to rehabilitate young offenders.
Suggested changes to the Young Offenders Act include: the release of more information about young offenders, reducing the age for which it applies, and adding the option of conditional discharges and suspended sentences.
I want to thank Pat Fowler of Ajax for organizing this very informative forum, Archbishop Dennis O'Connor High School for its facilities, and the many citizens of Ajax for their participation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 Du Pont of Canada established a policy to phase out CFC production as soon as possible. Alternative technologies have now been developed and adequate supplies of alternatives to CFCs are available. The CFC phase out and transition to alternatives is well under way around the world. We support all activities that accelerate this transition.
Du Pont of Canada announced last week that it has ceased production of CFCs at its Maitland site in my riding. As the ozone layer over Canada shrunk last week to the lowest levels ever, Canadians everywhere will applaud last week's announcement by Du Pont of Canada to cease production of CFCs at its Maitland site and further concentrate on producing alternative products.
I commend Du Pont of Canada for not only meeting but exceeding the Montreal protocol as it relates to the production of CFCs. The thinning of the ozone layer is one of the major causes of skin cancer. Du Pont of Canada has responded with its latest announcement and I am sure all Canadians wish Du Pont well as it develops alternatives to CFCs.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the encouraging news about the economy just keeps rolling in.
Last week I reported 1992's record-breaking exports, totalling over $150 billion. This week the good news is in the retail sales sector with an increase of 3.4 per cent over last year for the month of January. The statistics also indicate a rise in the help wanted index, up 4.5 per cent in February. This is an early indicator of labour demand.

March 11, 1993
Combined, these numbers indicate a growing consumer confidence which can only mean one thing: more jobs and more opportunities for all Canadians.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's plans for student aid keep getting worse and worse. Last year it was the introduction of a 3 per cent tax on student loans. Earlier this year it was the elimination of the six-month period of breathing room that students enjoyed after graduation before the interest began accumulating on their debt.
Now to add insult to injury after injury, the government will no longer guarantee student loans. Instead it will pay a 5 per cent risk premium to whatever bank it decides will have a monopoly on those loans. That lucky bank is going to take as little risk as it possibly can. How? It will do so by taking on as few risky students as it can get away with. Who are the risky students? They are the ones who cannot afford an education in the first place, the ones who are already paying the price for 20 per cent youth unemployment in a Tory recession.
These students deserve better. They deserve a student loan system designed to help them get an education and an economy strong enough to ensure that they can pay back what they owe.
Under Clinton the Americans propose doing better. Why can we not?


POVERTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada produces the low income cut-offs which count Canadians falling below an income level at which 58.5 per cent of their income is the average amount all Canadians spend on food, clothing and shelter. Income includes business losses and taxes but excludes loans, savings and in-kind benefits.
These statistics were never intended to be a poverty line and certainly do not tell us which Canadians suffer hardship or whether government income supplementation or job creation programs help the most needy.
If the House of Commons wants to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 we need achievable goals, not a moving target that gallops off with every step forward we take.
Progressive Conservatives want to take real action to combat child poverty and assure every child in Canada an opportunity to thrive, but not through a scatter-gun approach that misses the target.


MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the lack-lustre coronation campaign almost got off the ground when a declaration speech by the minister of defence was leaked.
Rather than admitting that a member of her team had mischievously leaked the speech, the minister without foundation placed blame on young Liberals, among others. Her accusations are irresponsible. Furthermore, why is the minister who is trying to sell herself as a new and fresh face showing such contempt for the ideals of Canadian youth?
I would remind her that it was not young Liberals who made her flip-flop on aboriginal student funding when she was minister of Indian affairs, nor on gun control when she was Minister of Justice, nor now on the $5.8 billion purchase of helicopters.
Instead of denigrating Canadian youth, why does the minister not accept responsibility for her own actions rather than sounding like her old boss?
The first draft of her infamous speech claimed that she was not a traditional politician. Well, she may have packed halibut and worked on the mayonnaise line. However, today her allegations are not only fishy, but the attempts of her spin doctors to portray her as the northern Clinton are really piling the mayo on just a little too thick for Canadians' taste.


GASOLINE TAXES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday's edition of The Vancouver Sun contained a front page article on a Peat Marwick report which studied the costs of different methods of transportation in the greater Vancouver region.
March 11, 1993

The study concluded that each year, lower mainland motorists are undercharged by $2,600 for the actual costs incurred by their driving activities. The report went on to say that if drivers were held accountable for all costs associated with driving, the price of gas would rise by $1.60 per litre.
I seriously hope the B.C. government will think twice before raising taxes as this report suggests.
As an MP for a riding adjacent to the United States, I also know that increased gas taxes will cause more people to go south to purchase their gas. Once there, they will also do some other shopping. Over the past year, as the Canadian dollar has increased in value and Canadian stores have become more competitive, we have seen a steady decrease in the number of crossborder shoppers.
Additional gasoline taxes in British Columbia would put a stop to the improving cross-border shopping picture and hurt our recovering economy at the same time. I urge the premier and the B.C. New Democrats to think again before taking this short-sighted step.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I said I will be taking this under advisement.\nMarch 11, 1993']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Last December when the Minister of Finance made his economic statement he promised a budget in the month of February. When 1993 arrived he said that there was to be a budget but not in February, probably in March.
Last week his press secretary said that the Minister of Finance would not run for the leadership of his party because he was extremely busy preparing the budget.
Yesterday we heard there will probably be no budget at all. Will the Prime Minister tell us what is the most important thing: the future of the Conservative Party or jobs for Canadians? We need jobs very badly.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have tried to do in the last
Oral Questions
eight or nine years is to introduce budgets on a fairly regular cycle. They have been preceded by budgetary consultations with the budget usually presented in the first quarter of the year, or thereabouts.
It is helpful for provincial governments and for others who have to go into the market. We have found that to be quite a helpful national issue.
Because of the referendum, that was slightly changed inasmuch as the government felt it appropriate to bring in a major economic statement on December 2.
The Minister of Finance is presently evaluating the impact of this and is continuing this very day his pre-budget consultations across the country. When the Minister of Finance returns from his consultations he will meet with cabinet and recommend a course of action in regard to a budget or an appropriate economic statement.
I will wait for him to return and listen to his advice. Cabinet will make a decision at the earliest possible moment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the point made by the Prime Minister.
However there was another point made yesterday by the Minister of Finance when he said he might not have a budget because there is a Tory convention going on and the candidates do not want to have a budget too close to the leadership convention of the Conservative Party.
I ask the Prime Minister what is important in Canada, the leadership of the Tories or the economy for Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows of course that the Minister of Finance did not say what my hon. friend has just ascribed to him. That is a complete distortion of what the Minister of Finance said.
I point out to my hon. friend that the Minister of Finance and his predecessor the Minister for International Trade have brought in policies that have resulted in the interest rates today which are the lowest in 20 years and the inflation rate which is the lowest in 30 years. Economic growth is strong. We will be leading the IMF countries next year. Employment growth will be the highest of the OECD countries.

March 11, 1993
Oral Questions
We want to maintain those policies on behalf of all Canadians. I look forward to the recommendations of the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend can be absolutely certain that his budget and/or his economic statement will contain policies fully consistent with those that have provided such sound economic management for Canada in the past.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I find the Prime Minister's answer quite incredible. It was reported in The Financial Post this morning that the minister said he did not want a budget now because of his party's leadership race.
I would therefore like to know from the Prime Minister if we will have a budget at this time, when reports from all over say that the deficit will be even worse than predicted in December and since the Minister of Finance in December categorically promised a budget for February. Will the government keep its word to the Canadian people and tell us what the future holds for the Canadian economy, instead of being preoccupied with the whims of the conservative Party?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in fact, from 1984 to 1991, employment grew at an annual rate of 1.7 per cent, the highest in all the G-7 countries. Inflation is now at 1.5 per cent in Canada, the lowest rate in the last 30 years. Interest rates are at their lowest in 20 years; the growth rate forecast for next year will be the highest of the G-7 countries.
These are economic policies that have brought significant worthwhile results for the country. As we speak, the Minister of Finance is on a pre-budget consultation tour. He will make recommendations to cabinet at the appropriate time. In the near future, the Minister of Finance will be able to advise the House and my friend of his intentions in this area.
But be assured that the policies will be essentially the same as far as the basic principles which have brought the lowest inflation and interest rates in the past 20 years are concerned.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is most crucial for the Minister of Finance to table a budget as soon as possible. Without a budget the Conservative government is hiding the nation's financial situation.
Would the government prefer to tie the hands of the
1.6	million unemployed people, the thousands on welfare and all those taxpayers in financial difficulty instead of presenting a budget that would show the government's true face and tell Canadians the whole truth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter. Furthermore, 161,000 full-time jobs have been created since last August, with 35,000 to 57,000 new jobs every month in the last few months. Exports reached the record level of $157.5 billion in 1992, 11 per cent more than in 1991. Deliveries of manufactured goods in the fourth quarter were up 13.2 per cent on average over the third quarter. Productivity rose 1.9 per cent and all this will no doubt be confirmed in a budget or financial statement by the finance minister as soon as possible.
There will be good news, my friend. You lose nothing by waiting. I know that is bad news for the Liberals, but wait, it will do you good.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, it is a question of credibility, Mr. Speaker. Nobody believes that. Let us have a budget then if he is so sure of himself.
We are now getting the suggestion that we may have an economic statement or we may get a budget, who knows? Last week we were told by the Minister of Finance that he was too busy writing a budget to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. This week it does not seem to matter very much to him. He is out there doing something else, apparently working on some budget.


Mr. McDermid:: Be careful, he might run.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
March 11, 1993


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going to manage his campaign?
I ask the Prime Minister what has changed? Are these Tories so ashamed of telling Canadians what the budgetary position of the government is, or is it that the Minister of Finance changed his mind? If so, for what did he change his mind?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend makes a good point. Maybe it would be a great and significant day for the nation. I will talk to the Minister of Finance about his idea of bringing forward a budget if on the same day my hon. friend can convince the Leader of the Opposition to tell us and the country where he stands on the GST.
I do not want to be unkind or difficult but they are talking about economic credibility. What could go more to the heart of economic credibility than the Leader of the Opposition finally having the gumption to stand up and tell Canadians once on a major issue what he stands for. Either he is for it or against it.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
We understand that pre-budget consultations are going on in Ottawa today. The Minister of Finance may or may not bring in a budget. He has been quoted as saying to the effect that he would not want to saddle a new Tory leader with a five-year budget. Well, Canadians have been saddled with Tory budgets for the last nine years and it would be wonderful to have a change.
Obviously it would be good news not to have another Conservative budget but I think that Canadians deserve to know what this government's priorities are. That is done through a budget.
I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to look at a change of course, to look at relief for the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed, to bring in a budget now that will be based on a full employment strategy for Canada. Will he give Canadians that kind of hope?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take the views of my hon. friend and convey them to the Minister of Finance who is indeed consulting Canadians in regard to pre-budget possibilities for Canada.
Oral Questions
My hon. friend says that it is good news not to have another Conservative budget. She asks for a Conservative budget and then says it is good news not to have one.
I cannot guarantee what the Minister of Finance will say or whether there will be another Mazankowski budget. However, I can guarantee there will not be a Rae budget.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.
I find that the refuge of the government when it cannot support its own policies is to talk about another government's policies. It would be really interesting to hear the government talk about its own policies for a change. I would suggest that the Prime Minister might have wanted to listen to the second part of my question.
While it would be bad news to get another Conservative budget, the government has the responsibility to tell Canadians what it will do, to speak to the the 3.8 million Canadians who are still on welfare, the 1.5 million Canadians who cannot find work, the 4.2 million Canadians who still live in poverty.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, is the government going to spend the next three months only concentrating on one job and abandoning the millions of Canadians with no jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is no. We will continue to work at keeping inflation very low.
We are working at programs that enhance our productivity which has already increased significantly. We are looking at ways to further lower our unit costs which are down by 6.6 per cent compared with the United States. This explains in large part our record exports to the United States and around the world. We are looking at the kinds of policies that create durable jobs in the private sector.
My hon. friend I think perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. She took umbrage at the fact that I appeared to be criticizing NDP policies in Ontario. I was not doing that. I was just agreeing with the auto workers in Oshawa.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

March 11, 1993
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it will be the first time that this government ever stood up for labour in this country if the Prime Minister says he stands up for the auto workers. I will say that.

Mr. Speaker, this government is no longer acting like a government. It is once again ignoring its responsibility to ordinary Canadians in order to concentrate on the leadership campaign. There are plenty of crisis situations that require immediate action. For instance, 60 per cent of single parent families led by women are living in poverty.
What is the government going to do for these families? Will they have to wait until the government has time to deal with this problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend raises an extremely important question. All governments have an obligation to look at lasting solutions, despite an international recession that has affected all western economies, including Great Britain, France, and now Germany.
This is being done by creating new job opportunities, keeping inflation in check-which we have done by lowering interest rates-introducing policies for economic reform, opening up new markets for Canada through the free trade agreement with Mexico, and controlling government spending. These are all policies that were opposed by my NDP friend. Perhaps she would consider changing her position and support government policies that have achieved quite impressive results.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that the issue that has been raised today is a serious one. The primary purpose of Parliament is to hold the government responsible and accountable for its economic policy. It is not a joking matter to suggest the government is not sure whether there will or will not be a budget, whether a Conservative leadership convention takes precedence over a budget.
The Prime Minister has said that there has been no suggestion by the Minister of Finance that the budget, the need to stimulate the economy, the need to create jobs, the need to combat poverty is being held secondary to a Conservative leadership convention.
I want to quote the Minister of Finance from today's Financial Post: "'Obviously, with the leadership issue, that has to be taken into consideration. There will be a new Prime Minister in June', says Minister of Finance in suggesting he may delay the budget," which is now overdue.
I want to ask the Prime Minister which takes priority, the economy of Canada, creating jobs, combating poverty or playing partisan political games with the lives of Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend of course knows the answer to that question, as he would in regard to any political party that had the privilege of forming the Government of Canada.
Leadership conventions will go on from time to time but the primary obligation of Parliament, the primary obligation of the Government of Canada is to look after the national interest.
The Minister of Finance is presently meeting with Canadians across the country. I think he is in Winnipeg later today and then in western Canada after a meeting earlier today in Ottawa. The object of the exercise is to pursue policies that keep inflation down around 1.5 per cent, which is the lowest in 30 years, to keep interest rates down, to stimulate economic growth, to encourage the private sector so that new jobs can be created.
This is the foundation on which we have sought to build growing prosperity and this is the foundation on which we will continue to build.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said a week ago that he intended to deliver a tough new budget. Those are the minister's words.
The minister said the budget was required because of a shortfall in revenue projections. The minister also said he wanted to calm jitters in the international financial committee. If those reasons were valid a week ago, one would assume that those reasons are valid today. Will the Prime Minister make a clear statement today, not just for the international community, but for Canadians, that an economic plan is forthcoming. Will he assure Canadians, that the government has its priorities straight by saying to us today that a $6 billion unnecessary helicopter purchase will be part of that new economic policy and that a budget should be forthcoming any day in this House of Commons?
March 11, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why when he gets to quoting The Financial Post he is so selective. Surely he could have been a little more careful and quoted the relevant part of the statement by the Minister of Finance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Pretty relevant.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Pardon? My hon. friend said pretty relevant. Let me read what the Minister of Finance said which my hon. friend no doubt inadvertently neglected to quote.
The Minister of Finance said: "At the present time I am preparing what is the equivalent of a budget. Cabinet will consider a budget-economic statement". That is exactly what he is going to do. He is consulting, he is preparing a budget, it will be brought to cabinet, cabinet will consider the matter and the House will be fully seized of the plans of the government.
I can assure my hon. friend that it will not deal with matters such as took place when my hon. friends were in government, when interest rates went to 22.75 per cent, when inflation went to 12.9 per cent and unemployment was 11.8 per cent. They devastated Canada with a national energy program. It will never, ever happen again with this government.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We know that the ministers who are seeking the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party all have different views as far as the budget is concerned, but their main concern is for their own jobs, not the jobs of Canadians. However, 1.5 million Canadians are waiting impatiently for a budget that will restore their hope in the future.
I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell the House and Canadians today whether they can expect a federal budget within the next few weeks.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is still the same. As I told the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, considering the importance of these major economic issues, perhaps the hon. member from Hamilton would care to speak to her leader and ask him once again where he stands on the GST. Does he support it. yes or no? Does he support the
Oral Questions
free trade agreement, yes or no? Then, if the Minister of Finance brings down a budget, perhaps for once the Leader of the Opposition will rise in the House and give us a straight answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to put forward a budget. Just tell him to have the guts to call an election.
It is obvious that the Prime Minister is playing politics with the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is obvious that his only interest right now is in crowning his successor as opposed to reaching out to-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. We are getting unnecessarily personal. Would the hon. member lay the basis for her question and put it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do take the fact that there are 1.6 million Canadians looking for work in this country rather personally. I just wish the Prime Minister did.
I want to ask the Prime Minister very directly-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Given that his own Minister of Finance is asking Canadians to tighten their belts, will he tighten his belt and abolish a helicopter program that is going to cost every single Canadian taxpayer $400?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that she takes the unemployment figures personally, as she should. Unemployment today is about a full percentage point lower than where it was when she was a member of the outgoing government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're wrong-


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that I am wrong. The numbers are there. She can check them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wasn't in the outgoing government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You were a supporter of the outgoing government.

March 11, 1993
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister would like to proceed with the answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Hansard did not note the great pride with which the member for Hamilton East said: "I was not a member of the former Liberal government".


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: But her chief was, Chretien was.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be back in the House very soon, when he concludes his consultations. He will be advising the government and the House of his intentions.
So far the economic program of the government has brought about the kinds of fundamental changes that we want with low inflation and low interest rates and so on.
I think my hon. friend can look forward to an occasion of supporting these kinds of policies at probably an early moment. I know she will rise in her place and say on behalf of the unemployed: "The time has come to lower interest rates; the time has come to get inflation down and I, the member for Hamilton East, am going to vote against spending-"


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must move on. The hon. member for Surrey North.



Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
A study by the C. D. Howe Institute has confirmed yet again that the spending cuts by this government and by the previous Trudeau Liberals have jeopardized the availability of health care services to Canadians and are making national standards for health care meaningless.
Can the Prime Minister indicate when the federal freeze on contributions to provincial health plans will be lifted and when his government will stop fighting the deficit by sabotaging medicare across Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I looked with great interest at the report of the C. D. Howe Institute. It is fundamentally flawed.
One of the points it does not take into consideration is the tax points that are transferred to the provinces, but only the cash changes. If the hon. member understood the system, provinces asked some time ago for tax points as opposed to cash. Had those been taken into consideration, the hon. member would have found that total transfers between 1984-85 to 1993-94 increased by some 60 per cent to the provinces from some $25.6 billion to $40.5 billion in this fiscal year 1993-94.
When both the tax points and the cash transfers are taken into account the hon. member would find that we have not off-loaded to the provinces but have been, due to the fiscal situation, very generous with the provinces.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, federal transfer payments to the provinces for health, higher education and social welfare account for only 20 per cent of the federal budget, yet the cuts to these transfers account for over 40 per cent of the total expenditure cuts.
Why is this government singling out health, education and services to women and children to carry out more than twice the reduction to other programs? Why is medicare being sacrificed for helicopters that we do not need or want?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is saying is inaccurate. Only the NDP would say that an average increase of transfers to the province of 5.2 per cent per year over the last nine years was a cut. I do not understand that mathematics and I do not think Canadian people do as well.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Prime Minister told a U.S. television audience that the environmental parallel accord under NAFTA has: "Very little if anything to do with Canada"; it is not important to us. The Americans, however, say that they will pull out of NAFTA unless they get what they want on the environment.


March 11, 1993

Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS
Will the minister take a tough stand similar to that of the Americans on this issue at the negotiations and demand environmental protection for both the Canadian environment and Canadian workers who will lose their jobs because of this deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had been in the House yesterday he would have heard the Prime Minister refute that statement and elaborate on exactly what was said. If he would read Hansard from yesterday he would see that.
Let me make it very clear that we believe the NAFTA as it stands is in the interest of Canada. In addition we have the two side agreements on the environment and on labour which is consistent with the agenda we have been following since February of last year when we proposed similar side agreements.
The outgoing administration did not want to pursue those side agreements. The incoming administration does. We are prepared to sit down with them and negotiate them together with the Mexicans.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, this government is putting at risk the jobs of Canadian workers and the livelihoods of Canadian farmers because it will not deal with these issues.
The government refuses to negotiate a set of subsidy and anti-dumping rules as promised under the free trade deal. Why will Canada not demand a parallel accord on subsidies and anti-dumping which will give Canadian workers the tools they need to compete in a North American market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wish my hon. friend would elaborate on why he said we are putting at risk the livelihood of Canadian farmers. He comes from a farm community. If he asked the farmers in that community they would tell him that the supply managed sectors are specifically exempted from the NAFTA.


An hon. member:: You're selling them out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend has to have a comeback on everything. He will not face the facts of the agreement because he knows the facts support what I have just said.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. On the very day the government introduced conflict of interest legislation I want to ask him about the sale of properties at the airport in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.
There are serious allegations that the properties were not sold by public tender, that the land was not even offered to the previous owners, and that the land was sold to a supporter and friend of the Conservative Party for a fraction of what it was worth.
What will the minister do to restore the integrity of tendering process of this government?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague opposite for whom I have a lot of respect that perhaps he should not be jumping to too many conclusions too fast.
The newspaper report from which I believe he is quoting is somewhat misleading. In fact it mixes up to some extent two separate parcels of property at the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu airport. This property was expropriated in 1963 for runway extension at the time. When it was not proceeded with it was decided in 1988 to sell a portion of the property on the western end. It was in fact sold and the remaining portion at the other end of the runway was recently cleared for disposal by Transport Canada, late last year.
I know my colleague will have a supplementary question so I will respond to that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know very well what the minister is saying, but he has not at all addressed the issue about the properties that were disposed of without public tender.

How can the minister justify not giving the neighbouring owners who wanted to buy back their former land the opportunity to do so? How can he justify going beyond the whole public tendering process and selling to an individual without informing the public? How can he justify that?

March 11, 1993
Oral Questions
[English\


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my colleague on this part of his question as well.
In this particular instance I wrote to a solicitor almost two years ago for one of the people who felt aggrieved because she was a previous owner of part of the property. I said at that time to the solicitor, Marco Gaggino of Stikeman, Elliott, that at the time the federal government decided to negotiate directly with Carriere Bernier Limitee because of circumstances.
I will read the letter exactly: "Because of existing circumstances that company had expressed an interest in buying these properties and it was according to us a realistic buyer because he owned most of the north and south of the federal property. On reflection", and I repeat this to my colleague, "the department should have proceeded with a public tender call which is my intention with the other parcel of land".
I agree with him that in this case there was a departure from good public policy, and I apologize for that.


HIBERNIA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister.
MIL Davie has released a shameful letter from the former minister of energy which indicates that he went cap in hand to the Hibernia consortium begging for Canadian participation in the construction of the supermodules, the contract for which ultimately went to Italy and South Korea. With a 25 per cent tariff forgiveness in hand they told him to forget about it.
Does this not indicate that in fact the government did diddley-squat to ensure that the $3 billion spent on Hibernia would provide the long-term value added benefits to Canadian shipyards that were in fact promised by this government when Hibernia was raised in this House?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I must mention to my colleague on the other side that the contract was made over a year ago by the Hibernia management division. The decision to review was made
by the owners at the highest level. The government has no legal or contractual means by which to force the owners to allow Canadian companies to bid.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. With Canadian taxpayers paying $3 billion for this we would expect long-term industrial benefits.
Why would he consider that anything but the most utter incompetence when those benefits are not coming to Canadians?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, before my colleague blows a gasket maybe he should understand that 80 per cent of the products, to the tune of $800 million, were purchased in Canada so far employing Canadians and giving Canadian firms the opportunity with regard to the purchase of materials.
I think the hon. member is off beat with what he is trying to say.


VIOLENCE
Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of revenue or the minister acting on his behalf.
I do know that the government is looking at how to stop killer cards and related board games from entering Canada. However I do not feel it is moving fast enough.
I cannot help but think of that horrific murder in Liverpool where two ten-year olds abducted and murdered a two-year old child. It would seem that board games that have as a goal the collection of dead babies treat such anti-social behaviour as socially acceptable. Well, it is not. My constituents and I want to know what progress has been made to block the entry into Canada of these horrid games.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of revenue who is out of the country on important business, I assure my colleague that according to my information all customs officers have been put on full alert. These games are being interdicted as they come to the attention of the department.
March 11, 1993

The Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Justice are fully apprised of the problem. They are taking immediate steps to try to correct it in accordance with every means available to them.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.\

My question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. Despite strong objections from northern residents the Department of the Environment has recently approved a permit for Panarctic Oils to dump as much as 400 tonnes of scrap metal into the Arctic Ocean.
The people of the north are sick and tired of northern lands and waters being used as dumping grounds for other people's garbage.
Will the minister tell the House why her department has approved the use of the Arctic Ocean as a garbage dump and why Panarctic was not asked instead to completely remove its garbage from the north?


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, like all colleagues I am working very hard to ensure that environmental standards are maintained. Every effort is to ensure that anywhere garbage or refuse is to be brought has to come within our standards.
The particular situation my hon. colleague refers to obviously must be addressed. I will provide further information to him on it.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, this proposed dumping is simply not acceptable to the people of the north who live in this area and who depend on the resources of the ocean for their food. Will the minister agree today to put an immediate stop to this proposed dumping?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of that particular
Oral Questions
situation. I will certainly take it under advisement and get back to the hon. member.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: My question is for the Minister of Labour.
The strike at Giant Yellowknife mine is in its ninth month. Nine lives have already been lost. It has been the most divisive, destructive labour dispute in Canadian labour history.
The minister responsible has not exercised his jurisdiction to the fullest on this matter. What contingency plans does he have to deal with the aftermath of the decision of the disputes inquiry?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be most inappropriate for me to answer the question as put by my hon. friend when now in Yellowknife an industry inquiry is under way. The CLRB, the Canadian Labour Relations Board, is there. To ask me now what I will do when the decision is made is totally inappropriate, and I cannot answer that question.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the minister. What is inappropriate is his not spending as much time in the cold and the snow with the rest of us in Yellowknife as he does basking on the beaches in southern climes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may wish to put a question. Please put it.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the economic and community structures of the city of Yellowknife are falling apart as a result of this strike. Businesses are faltering. Some have even gone under. Families and friendships have been destroyed through the violence.
When will the minister take direct action and set up a contingency plan-it is also inappropriate to be unprepared in the event that this fails-to end this destructive situation? What plans does he have?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have a tan is probably because I spend a lot of time in the House of Commons with these lights, more than the hon. member does.
The issue raised by my hon. friend is a most serious one and of course the government recognizes it.

March 11, 1993
Privilege
I must tell my hon. friend that I met with the parties in this dispute a number of times. I suggested to them that the best way to end this dispute would be for the parties to agree to binding arbitration.
The parties have refused. As a result, we appointed what we felt were the best mediators possible in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, Mr. Munroe and Mr. Reddy. They met with the parties. They prepared the report. After that was unsuccessful, I then went ahead with the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission which is now sitting. On top of that, there has been an additional request by a new union which has asked to be accredited. The Canadian Labour Relations Board is looking into that.
Therefore, labour department has done everything that is possible. I hope that after the recommendations of the industrial inquiry commission we will get a peaceful resolution of this dispute.
-k -k -k


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
Over the last 18 months, there has been a great concern among retailers and tourist people in Canada over cross-border shopping. However it would appear that this problem is easing off somewhat.
Could the minister give us the current statistics on this problem? Could he also tell us what his department is doing to further remedy the situation?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to tell my hon. friend that confidence in our economy is up. The Ernst Young report tabled today said 60 per cent of entrepreneurs are optimistic about the future.
StatsCan reports that same day auto travel to the U.S. moderated in December 1992 from the previous month. Auto trips of one or more nights have dropped 6 per cent from month to month. Also, cross-border shopping is down 20 per cent over two years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins-Cha-pleau on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege concerning the decision by the majority of the committee studying Bill C-113, which includes proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, to expunge the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the committee yesterday.
The censorship of this testimony raises a number of important questions for the functioning of this place on both procedural and substantive grounds.
This is a matter which affects the functioning of this committee but also affects the functioning of all committees of this House. If this decision is allowed to stand it unleashes the spectre of direct censorship of witnesses based on nothing more than the whim of the majority of the committee.
The majority of members on a committee have a number of options in accordance with the rules and traditions of this place. However, they do not have the right to expunge the verbatim reports of the proceedings of the committee.
In Beauchesne's sixth edition citation 106 clearly states:
Committee reports and the verbatim transcripts of committee
hearings are documents published under the authority of the House
and are entitled to the same absolute privilege as House documents.
If there is to be censorship of the evidence tendered before a committee of this House, history will have no record of the testimony on which the recommendations of the committee were based.
A member who wishes to dissent from a majority report would have no record of the testimony except for his or her own notes or recollection. How would that member or any other member at some later date be able to cite the testimony of a witness with whom the majority of the committee disagreed and whose testimony was expunged? This is clearly an infringement on the privileges of all members.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 827 states that a committee has the power to print a document entitled Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence for each meeting. Citation 827(3) goes on to state that "the evidence is a verbatim record of the debate of the committee".
March 11. 1993

Beauchesne's sixth edition further discusses what changes are allowed to be made to these verbatim transcripts. Again Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 828, notes:
Minor corrections can be made to the Evidence by informing the clerk of the committee who causes to have printed an Erratum to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence.
More importantly it states that:
Corrections of an important nature can only be made by the adoption of a motion in the committee.
The key point is the use of the word correction. The dictionary definition of the verb correct means to amend, set right or make free of errors. In no way could the word correct used in this context imply the complete expunging of the record of the testimony of a witness. It is my respectful submission that in passing the motion to expunge the testimony of the International Association of the Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the committee exceeded its jurisdiction. This makes the question of privilege a matter for the House and for you, Mr. Speaker.
This is made even clearer by the fact committee and the Chair have other means of dealing with the witnesses who are unruly, defamatory or otherwise disrupt the workings of the committee. Beauchesne's outlines several of these options, none of which were followed in the committee last night. Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Citation 820 (1) notes that:
The Chairman of the committee is responsible for order and decorum in the committee.
There are a number of ways the committee chair can preserve order, ranging from cautioning the witness to having the witness removed from the committee hearing.
The chairman did not caution the witness during the testimony but allowed the testimony to be given in full. Only after the testimony was placed on the verbatim record was a motion presented to expel the witness and wipe out the testimony unless the witness withdrew certain remarks. The witness refused and was expelled on the verbatim and the verbatim record expunged.
Privilege
This, too, is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. Again, Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 820, states that:
Disobedience to the orders of a committee, provided those orders are within the scope of the committee's authority, is a contempt of the House -
As I have already outlined, those orders were clearly outside the scope of the committee's authority. However, even if it were within the authority of the committee, Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 820 (2) states:
A committee has no authority to punish one of its members or other persons for an alleged offence committed against it. Only the House can decide that an offence has been committed.
The fact that these steps such as adjournment or cautioning the witness were not taken should indicate that the committee members and the chairman did not find the testimony disruptive, defamatory or otherwise interfering with the work of the committee.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 109, clearly states that:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege and freedom of speech as Members.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 75 states that:
The privilege of freedom of speech is both the least questioned and most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.
Although I have outlined a number of serious, in fact fatal procedural flaws in the proceedings of the committee last night, the essence of my point of privilege is that the witness before a committee of this House has been effectively silenced by the government majority on that committee. It is vital that you deal with this very serious breach of privilege with the utmost dispatch.
The remedies I seek are as follows. First, the motion to expunge the verbatim record be declared void.
Second, the testimony of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers be restored to the verbatim record of the committee. In the alternative, if the record has already been destroyed that the committee be required to rehear the entire testimony of the witness from that union.
Third, a declaration be issued in the clearest terms possible to all members that the destruction or expunging of a record of a committee is unacceptable, unparlia-

March 11, 1993
Privilege
mentary and a breach of our privileges as Members of Parliament.
Fourth, the conduct of certain members of the legislative committee be referred to the appropriate committee of this House for the proper disciplinary action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for the Liberal Party, the loyal opposition and then I will recognize the chairman of the committee and the mover of the motion. I think that will be sufficient.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this legislative committee, I want to fully support the question of privilege just raised by my colleague from Timmins.
In all my years in Parliament I have never seen such action as was taken by that legislative committee last evening, which I believe to be totally unprecedented. The majority of the members on the committee who represent the government side were so upset by the testimony of the witness-the witness we invited to the committee, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers-that not only did they vote to expel the witness from the committee, but to totally expunge all the testimony the witness from the union had given up until that time.
One might understand, as in this House, if the witness before the committee had made one statement or phrase that was unacceptable or unparliamentary, which he was asked to retract. But that was not the case. The committee voted to expunge not simply that statement which seemed to offend them, but the entire testimony of the committee as it took place last evening.
I want to fully support this question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague. If we accept that kind of procedure in a committee or in this House, as a matter of fact, where if we simply do not like the tone of debate or what is said we can expunge the entire proceedings, then we end up in a situation which is totally unparliamentary, totally contrary to our democratic procedures.
I think at the very least, Mr. Speaker, you should accept this question of privilege and rule that the testimony must be accepted. If there is one particular
phrase in the testimony that is unparliamentary then perhaps that might be deleted from the testimony.
One certainly must accept that the great bulk of the testimony, which included questions and remarks by members of the committee and the chairman as well, should remain for the historical basis of the committee. Many very good, telling points were made by the union, which was a witness before the committee.
There were other requests made by the hon. member in his question of privilege which I think have to be looked at as well. I have never witnessed, in my experience as a committee member, the expulsion of witnesses from a committee because we did not like the tone or substance of what they were saying. I think that is uncalled for as well.
This is a very serious matter and if we allow this sort of precedent to stand in our committees, I think we are going on a long road toward destroying our committee and parliamentary system.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rose in this place on February 26 to explain why I abstained from voting on the two motions on this bill. I implied that it was an honour your office was giving me to chair this committee. A number of people laughed and said I was going to find it was not much of an honour. It has indeed proven to be an interesting experience.
To help in your deliberations, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give you my recitation of the events of yesterday afternoon as I recall them without my notes in front of me.
To begin with, during the testimony there were a number of references which, in my judgment, I perhaps could have called the individual making the presentation to task on. I chose not to. Had they occurred in this House, the Speaker would have ruled them out of order and called them to point at that time. However, because the witnesses were not members of this House, I allowed a fair degree of latitude in their comments.
They concluded their remarks with one extremely inflammatory and accusatory statement about government members to which a member of the government side of the committee took exception and, on a point of order, asked to have it withdrawn. At that point I asked the witnesses if they would be good enough to withdraw
March 11, 1993

their remark so we could carry on with questioning. They refused.
Subsequently, the government members indicated they were going to introduce a motion asking for all the testimony to be struck if they did not withdraw the testimony. At that point I again asked if they would not please remove the offending remarks so we could carry on with the questioning. Again they refused.
At that point the government members gave me the written motion insisting that the testimony be struck from the record and we adjourn the committee. The hon. member who brought up the point of order then offered an intervention and also asked the witnesses to withdraw the remarks so we could carrying on with questioning. They refused. The Liberal member in response to the motion in the committee made a very eloquent intervention. He too asked if they would not withdraw the remark. They refused.
At that point we then read the motion as presented by the government members. For a third time I asked the individual witness if he would not please remove his remark. He looked at me and said to call the question. I put the question and the motion carried. At that point the committee asked the witnesses to leave and adjourn the hearing until the next witnesses showed up half an hour later.
To the best of my knowledge that is an accurate summary of the events of yesterday afternoon. I hope that helps in your deliberations, Mr. Speaker.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I too want to want to speak on this question of privilege.
I believe that the privileges of the House and the privileges of all members of this House were being protected when I put that motion yesterday in committee.
In fact, the recollection the chairman of the committee has presented today is very close to the recollection I have. The only addition I would make is that the Liberal member who indicated he had never seen such action did not in fact see it last night either.
Privilege
The fact of the matter is that this committee has been functioning under the Standing Orders and under Standing Order 116 which states:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable.
I refer to Standing Order 117 which says:
The Chairman of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee;
In fact there was a motion put. That motion was put to protect the interests of all members of Parliament. I would refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 33 under "Privileges of the House" which states:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them.
Citation 34 says:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.
I would suggest that is exactly what happened yesterday with the witness who appeared before the committee.
I refer as well to citation 77 of Beauchesne's relating to freedom of speech because the member, as the chairman of the committee has pointed out, made some rather inflammatory comments about members of Parliament. Citation 77 clearly states:
Freedom of speech does not mean that Members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of Members-
Having asked that member to limit his comments, he so refused on numerous occasions including requests that I extended. If it goes any further than that, extensions of privileges within committees is dealt with on page 27 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. Citation 106 states:
Many of the privileges of the House extend also to its committees. They may exclude the public from their meetings and commonly do so, particularly while considering their reports to the House.
I suggest that although we were not considering a report to the House, we had every right by that section to exclude the evidence and the witness who had presented.
I also refer to citation 107 which states:
Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee.

March 11, 1993
Privilege
I note you have not as yet received a report from our committee. Further, concerning witnesses citation section 109 states:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege of freedom
of speech as Members.
On more than one occasion in this House the Speaker has risen to challenge the words, the insults and the accusations thrown by one member of Parliament against another and has immediately demanded a retraction.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest you will find that is exactly what I did because in the concluding comments of the witness who appeared before us that member cast an aspersion on all members of this House. I immediately raised a point of order asking the member to withdraw. He refused on more than one occasion as has been clearly indicated by the chairman. I think the steps we took were most appropriate. We defended the privileges of all members of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member for Kamloops have something else to add to the arguments?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would not be standing up if I did not, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that if I felt that all the points had been made adequately I would not have asked for recognition, Mr. Speaker.
I have listened carefully to the words of my hon. friend. I believe that the emphasis of this discussion so far has eliminated or ignored perhaps the most crucial part. That is that the majority of the members of the committee decided they would remove the record of what had been discussed including not only the alleged offensive comments but the entire presentation itself.
We get into extremely dangerous territory when a government majority on a committee or perhaps even in the House of Commons if we want to extend this, on a simple motion can decide that the record of that committee or the record of the House of Commons can be eliminated and what was said will no longer be stated on the record.
Mr. Speaker, this surely has to be one of the critical aspects that you must now consider before you make your judgment. That is because once it was decided, if
your judgment were to go this way, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the committee could simply eliminate for all intents and purposes all of the transcript of remarks from that committee, where would that lead us in the future? In other words, whenever there were critical comments being made of course the majority of them would have a clear indication of what option may be available to them.
I just simply wanted to emphasize that there are two aspects to this. One is that yes, we can expel witnesses, but whether or not we can eliminate the record is another question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Chair has had enough testimony from all members. I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Timmins-Cha-pleau, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Ontario.
I will take this under advisement and will come back with a ruling on it.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: I just want to correct the record, Mr. Speaker.
The member for Red Deer indicated that I encouraged the withdrawal of the comment that was made by the witnesses. Just for the record I want to clarify that I was not asking them to because I felt that in the theme of freedom of speech they had the right to express themselves and if we cannot take the heat-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will take that into consideration also.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to let this go because the arguments have been made. However, as I understand the facts, some outrageous, slanderous and libellous comments were made and they were withdrawn and withdrawal was asked for. If any member in this House refused to withdraw those remarks they would be turfed out as has happened before.
I find it offensive that the hon. member should defend such actions by some witnesses before-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I said I will be taking this under advisement.
March 11, 1993


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I would like to ask the House business question to the hon. government House leader. Could he tell us what will be the business for the rest of this week and for next week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will do second reading of Bill C-103, the Land Titles Repeal Act, after which we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-72, an act to establish a national round table on the environment. Tomorrow we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-112, the Excise Tax Act as well as second reading of Bill C-102, the Customs Tariff Act.
Monday will likely be an opposition day. On Tuesday we hope to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-95, the Farm Credit Corporation Act as well as second reading of Bill S-17, the intellectual property act.
I will of course carry on discussions with House leaders of the opposition parties in terms of business for the remainder of next week.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we had some understanding and were expecting a budget to be introduced perhaps later this month or early in April or perhaps an economic statement.
Can the government House leader give some clarification? Are we still anticipating that there will be at least an economic statement made either at the end of this month or sometime in mid-April?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is most of Question Period was spent answering that question and I think the answers are on the record.
[English \


LAND TITLES REPEAL ACT
Harvie Andre: that Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the government to Bill C-103, the repeal of the Land Titles Act.
This morning I was very pleased to see Bill C-104 which deals with the situation in Saskatchewan move ahead after some very good consideration and certainly agreement among members of this House.
I will speak briefly as I expect other members will. I want merely to explain what Bill C-103, the repeal of the Land Titles Act in fact does.
First it should be recognized that the whole question of land titles and registration is a provincial responsibility. This legislation transfers to the territorial governments that same responsibility in accordance with the government's policies of devolution. I do not think there would be anybody in this House who would disagree with the principles of devolution. I am sure the territorial governments and legislatures have the responsibility comparable to the provinces in a number of these areas.
This transfer will have no effect on land claims. What we are merely doing is ensuring there is a system in place for the registering of title and other interests, such as easements.
There is however some minor effect on other pieces of legislation, for instance the Navigable Waters Protection Act and certainly the Northwest Territories Act, the Yukon Act and the Territorial Lands Act. Both cases are

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
mechanical amendments and involve for instance the depositing of plans and clarifying authority in some cases.
Obviously there would be some concern about the implementation of transferring responsibility from the federal government to the territorial government. That happens in all cases and there is no doubt that those questions might arise. Elowever, it is important to recognize that Bill C-103 provides some protection for the federal interest and therefore for those who deal in this system.
First of all it has been agreed that the territorial legislation which we have put in place will be based on the Torrens system. Territorial legislation will provide that the new system will be similar to the current system and that is a logical progression.
Further it will provide the title can be issued to the Crown for the registration of statutory easements. It will prohibit the registration of caveats against unpatented Crown land.
A question which I am sure will also arise is that of the financial implications and there are some. They are not particularly substantial.
One will provide for an assurance fund that will guarantee the accuracy of documents in the registry that will be transferred to the two territorial governments. That is particularly important for anybody who is going to depend on the accuracy of those documents. That involves about $900,000 to the government in Yellowknife and about $760,000 to the government in Whitehorse. Any revenue that is generated from this system will be deducted from the transfers. However, the funds from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development A base that are now used to support these operations will be added to the territorial government's revenue base. It is about $21,000 for the Northwest Territories and about $10,000 for the Yukon.
It is important to note that both territories have prepared the appropriate legislation that will come into effect once this legislation is enacted or this federal legislation is replaced by an order of the Governor in Council. Certainly every effort is being made to ensure a smooth transfer, which I think one would expect, which will come from the co-operation of both levels of government.
One of the questions that many will ask is what has been the nature of the consultation. That is a legitimate
question. The Government of the Northwest Territories, because territorial governments have been responsible for consultation, have canvassed twice by letter the Inuit, Dene and Metis. Concerns have been raised by one band and the officials of the territorial government have been advised of those concerns. There was a meeting held with the Inuvialuit. That discussion focused mainly on the assurance fund and making sure that the fund was maintained.
In the Yukon, the federal territorial and CYI group met twice to discuss the issue of land titles. The issues have been resolved. There was some discussion about separate systems and I think there is now an agreement on the best way to proceed.
It is important to reiterate that the transfer will not affect land claims. It simply is an administrative system to record land titles similar to those operating in the province. By agreement the system will be similar to the one that is in place now. A system that in its transfer and therefore its adaptation will take into account the necessity for a smooth change in style and a smooth change in system.
I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think you will find in this House consent to amend the motion for second reading on Bill C-103, the proposed Land Titles Repeal Act, to refer the bill to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope rather than the Departmental envelope.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto. This bill's short title is the Land Titles Repeal Act.
Bill C-103 will repeal the existing federal Land Titles Act which was originally passed in 1894. The original act has been amended from time to time and most recently in 1991 as part of the Federal Real Property Act.
The federal Land Titles Act provides a legal and administrative framework under which all land owners in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon may register their interests in land. The act is strictly a system of registration and thus does not grant any powers to administer land.
Both territorial governments have been administering provisions of this act on behalf of the federal government for the past several years. The Government of the Northwest Territories assumed administrative responsibility for the NWT land titles office in 1967 and the Yukon assumed this responsibility in 1975.
March 11, 1993

In 1986 both territorial governments formally asked the federal government to transfer the legislative responsibility for land titles to them. They subsequently passed their own land titles legislation which will replace the federal Land Titles Act in their respective territories. Their legislation, however, cannot come into force until the federal government formally transfers its responsibility in the field of land titles registration in the territories. Bill C-103 is enabling legislation. It will repeal the federal Land Titles Act and transfer the legislative responsibility for land titles registration in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to the two territorial governments.
It will allow the territorial government's own land titles legislation to come into force. The territorial governments, after passage of this bill, will gain legislative authority for powers they are exercising now as an administrative delegation from the federal government.
Bill C-103 makes consequential amendments to other federal legislation such as the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Yukon Act and the Territorial Lands Act. Through this bill the federal cabinet will receive specific authority to transfer federal public lands in the territories to the commissioners. This bill also authorizes the retransfer by the commissioners to the federal government of lands administered by the commissioners.
The government has included this matter in Bill C-103 to clarify the authority of the federal cabinet to transfer lands to the commissioners and to clarify the authority for the retransfer of lands to the federal government by the commissioners. Apparently federal ministers, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now lack specific statutory authority to recommend to cabinet the transfer of land under a minister's administration to a commissioner. The commissioners' authority to retransfer lands to Canada also lacks a specific statutory authority. Through Bill C-103 the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act will be amended to provide these specific authorities.
Government Orders
Land issues are extremely sensitive and emotional issues in the north. I could easily get into a lengthy debate about who has the right to claim title to the lands in the north where aboriginal land rights have not been dealt with. I have expressed my views on aboriginal title and land rights on many previous occasions, both within and outside this House, and I am sure there will be further opportunities. For the moment, however, I will restrict myself to the more narrow focus of this bill.
The government says this bill is only devolving to the territories a power which they are already administering on behalf of the federal government, namely, the power to register land titles. This transfer of federal responsibility is a natural one in the sense that land titles registration is a provincial responsibility in the rest of Canada. I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House support the principle of northerners having more control over matters that affect them. The federal policy of devolution of powers was, after all, begun by the Liberal government.
We also want to examine this bill closely to ensure that it does not negatively affect the rights of aboriginal people in the territories.
The minister has said that the settlement of land claims in the territories is unaffected by this bill because the authority for the administration of Crown lands remains the responsibility of the federal government. The minister has also stated that northern aboriginal residents have been consulted about the transfer and that the federal government is satisfied this transfer of powers will not impede the land claim settlement process.
I am sure the minister understands that we have an obligation to Parliament and to the people of the north to assure ourselves that this is in fact the case.
We have therefore sought the views of northern governments, aboriginal organizations and other interested parties. Both the Yukon and NWT governments have expressed support for this bill and have further expressed a desire to have it passed in the current session. The response of the aboriginal organizations we have contacted, however, has not been as clear. Some

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
concerns have been expressed which require further clarification.
It may well be that satisfactory assurances can be provided in short order, but to ensure that this bill receives the attention it deserves and is well understood by all affected parties, we believe it merits some time in committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words at second reading of Bill C-103, an act to provide for repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto.
At this stage we are discussing the principles of the bill and the major objectives we hope to accomplish by its passage. The main objectives that are being presented here are threefold. One would be repeal of the federal Land Titles Act which will be replaced by territorial legislation and make consequential amendments to existing federal legislation in relation thereto.
My hon. friend who has just spoken indicated that all actions which will give more control of the north to northerners is something we want to encourage and support.
Also, an objective would be to provide for the transfer of legislative responsibility for land titles registration in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory to the respective territorial governments which will provide legislative authority for what they are currently administering. This by and large is an updating of a process that has been under way now for some time. This seems to be the appropriate conclusion of that process.
As well, I should indicate that another objective would be to specifically authorize the transfer of public lands in the territories to the commissioners by the Governor in Council and that the retransfer by the commissioners to Canada of lands administered by the commissioners as well.
For background, I simply want to say that the Land T itles Act, originally passed in 1894, almost 100 years ago and amended from time to time, is a federal statute applicable to both the Yukon and Northwest Territories and provides a fundamental legal and administrative system under which all land owners may register their interest in the land.
In 1986 the territorial governments requested in a formal way the transfer of the legislative responsibility for land titles to enable them to update the legislation
affecting their respective jurisdictions. Certain paragraphs of the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act provide for the authority for the commissioners in council to make ordinances for property and civil rights and generally all matters of merely a local or private nature. The system of land registration is perceived to be a matter of local concern which is obvious to anyone who has examined and studied the north or particularly spent time in the north.
Once the federal government divests its interest in the field of land titles registration, the territorial governments will then assume complete legislative responsibility in this field.
The proposed transfer of legislative jurisdiction of land titles is certainly consistent with the devolution component of the present government's northern political and economic framework policy which was approved by the cabinet, if my memory serves me, back in June 1987. Of course, this would also transfer provincial type programs to northerners consistent with their ability and readiness to absorb new responsibilities. In light of recent developments that is virtually total now. This particular transfer of responsibilities, which was begun some 20 years ago, completes this process.
The authority of the Governor in Council to transfer lands to the commissioners and the authority of the retransfer of lands to Canada by the commissioners requires some clarification. This issue arises from the lack of any specific statutory authority for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other ministers to recommend to the Governor in Council a transfer of land under a minister's administration to a commissioner. The commissioner's authority to retransfer lands to Canada lacks unfortunately a similar specific statutory authority. The Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act are being amended to provide that specific authority and we want to applaud that particular action.
The Land Titles Act controls the registration of land titles under a Torrens system. The Torrens system as we know is one where each transaction concerning a piece of land is submitted for registration. It is then carefully examined and approved before being recorded against the title of that property. All outstanding interests are up to date as recorded on the certificate of title and certified by the land titles office. The government then guarantees the accuracy of this title as shown on the appropriate record. This is what we refer to as the Torrens system.
March 11, 1993

The act is simply a system of registration and does not grant any powers to administer lands. Land titles are a provincial responsibility in the rest of Canada. The administrative responsibilities of the land titles offices in both Yellowknife and Whitehorse were assumed by the territorial governments back in 1967 and 1975 respectively-
I simply want to say we will support the passage of Bill C-103 at second reading because we certainly agree enthusiastically with the principle of this bill. However, I do feel it would be inappropriate if I did not mention a serious concern we have. Hopefully, we can have this clarified before this goes to committee.
In our discussions with the principals involved, we believe not enough attention was paid during the consultation process. I think my hon. friend referred to this in his comments as well. The department claims that consultations were conducted and various groups chose not to respond. It nevertheless feels the matter has been satisfied to its purposes while I think my view would be quite different.
What prompted that view was the receipt of a copy of a letter from the Yellowknife Dene band which pointed out it was informed through a news release of this very important gesture. Now whether that is true or not, and I understand there is some question whether it is, I think the important thing is that there are groups of people in the north who have not been adequately apprised of this. Perhaps there were opportunities in the past. I understand many years ago when this was first noted they had a chance to respond. But the reality of this world is that a simple letter going out three or four years ago may not have elicited the appropriate response for something we are dealing with today.
We all recognize that some further consultation and discussion is now required. I urge the government to do this prior to any serious deliberations in committee so we can have adequate input from all stakeholders in this particular decision.
Government Orders
I think that indicates our intent to support this bill at second reading. Again, any initiative that would empower northerners to take control their future through decision-making is appropriate and should be encouraged. But we do have this particular concern in terms of the major stakeholders at this point not being adequately consulted. They should be consulted either before or certainly during the committee process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I put the question, I believe the hon. member for St. John's East said the bill would be referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Could I call upon the hon. member for St. John's East.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, anything to help you along here.
I suggested that I thought you might find consent in the House to refer it to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope instead of referring it to a legislative committee based on the department. That consent has been sought and I think received. That was merely the intent of my comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say there have been adequate consultations in this case, the suggestion is an excellent one and we will certainly support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
[Stage Direction]
March 11, 1993
Government Orders

Hon. Gerry Weiner (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources envelope.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
I simply want to say we have waited some time for this opportunity and I am pleased it is happening today. I think this is an excellent initiative. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the round table has essentially been constituted and this will really give it the formal acknowledgement and recognition it so justly deserves.
I know there are others who wish to share their comments on this so I will keep my comments extremely brief.
We have some concerns in terms of this particular bill. It may give the impression that the government is very serious in terms of dealing with some significant environmental issues confronting the country. I think it may be that, but we hope it is much more. We hope it can set the stage for a much greater set of initiatives in the future. When we look around Canada today and consider the commitment, or lack of commitment to environmental assessments on some of the critical major resource projects in the country, we wonder just how serious the government is.
At this point I want to say we support Bill C-72 with some enthusiasm. I look forward to the discussions that will occur later once this gets to committee.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not be quite so brief. We have a number of things to say concerning the bill. However we reiterate our general support for the bill and in particular our support for the work of the round table.
At the same time we must express some concerns, which we will be raising in committee, about the independence of the round table now that it is to be established in legislation. We have seen a number of situations where other independent bodies that were set up to provide independent advice to Canadians, government and Parliament were jeopardized in their independence. In some cases they were in fact eliminated when the government was not entirely happy to have the advice it was getting from such bodies as the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada and numerous others that we have debated in this House at length.
As I said, I do want to pay tribute to the round table for some of the excellent work that has been done. It has played a co-ordinating role with respect to the provincial round tables to ensure the bringing together across Canada of environmental, business and labour organizations and numerous interests in Canadian society, to address this all-encompassing and urgent issue of sustainable development. This work of the round table has been extremely valuable and has laid a good foundation for its future work.
It has produced some excellent reports and is in the process of producing more. The report that was done on the road to Brazil concerning the earth summit and Canada's role with respect to the earth summit was significant in the contribution that private organizations, government and parliamentarians were able to make at the earth summit.
I note as well its significant work on greening agriculture and keeping an eye on trade developments as they affect the environment and our objectives of sustainable development. There has been ongoing work on trade, the environment and competitiveness and I think one of their more recent reports was on the tax aspects of ecologically sensitive lands.
Globally, it is looking at opportunities for government action to require and impose protection of the environment. At the same time it is looking at those things in the system that can actually punish people who do what we really want them to do.
The role of the round table is fundamental to changes we need to make in how we function as a society and a government. We must ensure we have the resources for a sustainable future so we can enjoy prosperity and
March 11, 1993

preserve the very fragile ecosystem upon which we depend for life.
To do that, it is not enough for governments to act. It requires the full participation of all citizens of all interests in Canadian society. In a sense, that is the process the round table has begun and will continue. We see a great need to bring together the many different forces at work to try to implement what we have recently started to understand, that how we operate as human beings in this world, especially when it comes to economic activity, is devastating our very ability to survive on this earth.
We have a number of different actors in the field and there is going to be a very important need in the next short while to ensure that all those forces are working together toward the same objective.
We came away from Rio knowing that transparency, doing things openly, publicly and with the participation of all sectors of our communities is essential to solving some very fundamental problems. I believe one of the challenges facing the round table is how to bring the public into the dialogue. How do we ensure that the very valuable work it has done and continues to do gets the kind of public dissemination that leads to real action at all levels?
At the same time we must ensure that the process is participatory. The public should be involved in the dialogue as issues are addressed. It should not merely be presented with recommendations as to what needs to be done and then expected to come on board. What is needed above all is political will on all sides of this House, at all levels of government and in all areas of human activity. There is no pure environmental issue anymore. On the other side of that statement, there is no issue that is not environmental.
I want to review a few of the issues that have become urgent with respect to the environment and to perhaps demonstrate how far short we are of where we need to be. I want to deal with some specific areas of public policy that I feel have been inadequately addressed.
Public policy must be consistent with the mandate being given to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the tremendous job it and all other organizations in Canada have ahead of them to
Government Orders
start truly protecting this world for our children and our grandchildren.
Let me talk about the green plan. This is a good example where words are not enough. The green plan was tabled with great fanfare and great expectation in 1990. Since then we have seen a pretty steady whittling away of the commitment to the green plan. We saw almost immediately a budget that was supposed to be $3 billion over five years transformed into a $3 billion budget over six years. That translated into better than a 20 per cent cut in the very first year of the green plan. There were cuts in last year's budget and we saw further reductions. The same thing happened again this year.
What initially was supposed to be an expenditure of over $550 million in this year on the green plan was reduced to $415 million and then further reduced to less than $400 million. In each of the years since the green plan was tabled the resources to actually implement it have been steadily reduced.
The other fundamental thing that we have come to understand about protecting our environment is that it is a very complex issue that goes to the very heart of how we relate to other peoples of the globe.
We know now that environmental degradation will come from growing population, growing demands for prosperity around the world, growing demands for energy. We know that poverty is the greatest destroyer of the environment as people destroy their soil, destroy their forests simply in an attempt to survive.
What that means for countries like Canada with all the resources and with all the wealth we have, is that if we are sincere about saving this globe for future generations then we need to be sincere about saving the people of today from poverty, starvation, rampant disease, unclean water, not just in our own country but around the world.
That is why it is tragic the direction that is now being taken with funding for development aid and withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars from what we provide to help the poorest of the poor in the world. This has been Canada's policy on development aid for well over a decade now. To start taking money away is undermining all that we are asking the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to do. To take money from those who are hungry and give to those who can

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
spend where it will most benefit our trade is nothing short of immoral.
We know that just small amounts of money, well spent on basic health care, on the education of women, will do more to save our environment than building megaprojects, whether it is dams or huge energy facilities. Yet we seem to have trouble learning that very basic lesson, that a small amount of money spent on human development is the most important thing we can do for our world. So we see a shift of money away from those in the world who most need it to where it is going to help us trade better and make more profits.
At home we have not even addressed how we are going to cut our own energy use. We keep taking money out of energy conservation and alternative energy sources and putting it into megaprojects for energy production, encouraging us to be more consumptive and more wasteful. This is exactly the opposite direction to what would be indicated by the kind of work, the kind of onerous responsibility we are asking the national round table to take on and which it has been taking on.
We have not addressed the issues of how our trade affects poverty around the world and the pressures on the environment resulting from that poverty. It is shameful that in 1993 the richest countries of this world take from the poorest $50 billion a year more than we put into them and now we who consider ourselves one of the most progressive nations of the world have just said we are going to put even less into those poorest countries. We are profiting from their poverty and our earth, our air, and our water are the victims of that profit.
We have seen government refusing to take its responsibility and play a leadership role by even looking at its own operations and ensuring we are conducting the business of government in the most environmentally sound way possible. We have ignored our own legislation on environmental assessment to the destruction of the environment and of our own aboriginal people.
We are continuing a world where 20 per cent of the population consumes 80 per cent of its wealth and resources. If we are serious about the job we are now formally and legally giving the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, we have to look first to ourselves in this Chamber, to those who are in the
cabinet room, to heed the lessons and the wisdom that have already come from the round table and to act in ways that are supportive of their mandate, not destructive.
The round table has played a crucial role in bringing many different forces together in creating a focus and a force for change that must keep growing if we are to leave the next generation a world that is even habitable, much less prosperous.
We look forward to supporting this bill, seeing it go to committee and discussing the legislation in particular in committee.


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today in support of an action that is in the interest of all Canadians, and that is Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Canada has a very distinguished history in environmental leadership dating back to early in this century. We are a protector of great natural resources. It has been of interest to Canadians and the establishment of the Commission of Conservation in 1909 was in retrospect a far-sighted action for any government then existing.
In 1972 Canadians supported and played a leadership role in the ground-breaking Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. Then in the 1980s, Canadians led the way in building international consensus and preparing the original world conservation strategy and its recent successor Caring for the Earth.
A few years ago in this Chamber, I think it was in 1987, we had an opportunity to debate at some length the World Commission on Environment and Development. This was a United Nation's report, commonly called the Brundtland commission or Our Common Future. The commission was put forward by the United Nations, chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Madam Gro Brundtland. We had two Canadian representatives. A very distinguished Canadian, Jim McNeill, was the secretary of the Brundtland commission. In the report it had a recommendation that there would be round tables where people from different parts of the community could come together and discuss issues that were important to the environment.
March 11, 1993

Canada's National Task Force on the Environment and Economy prepared the earliest and still the most comprehensive national response to the challenges that were presented by the Brundtland commission. It was not all talk. There have been a lot of reports about the environment, but this was a very significant report. In response to the task force each province and territory in Canada and the federal government established round tables to address the pressing issues of sustainable development. This round table involved people from all sectors of our community coming together, sitting down at a table and building a consensus.
There are now dozens of local round tables across the country. Some municipalities have now established round tables. In my own constituency of Scarborough Centre, we have just recently started the process of getting this round table set up by bringing people together. These round tables are established all across the country in municipal and regional areas to discuss the conflict for the common good of bringing people together. These uniquely Canadian round tables have two things in common.
First, unlike previous associations and interest groups, their members have divergent interests and opinions, but a common interest in resolving problems of environment and economy. Second, they have a remarkable record of achievement, based on open discussion and consensus decision-making. While in 1987 it seemed terribly naive to suggest that Canada would launch dozens of new institutional experiments in democracy in response to a United Nations' report, a task force of industrial leaders, the environment minister, and environmentalists from all parties recommended exactly that and that is exactly what happened. Canadians right across the countiy in every province and the two territories formed an entirely new institution to address the new challenges of this new concept called sustainable development.
This past summer Canada was a very energetic and enthusiastic participant at the unprecedented earth summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June of last year. The delegation from Canada was extensive, made up of members from all the parties in the House of Commons, as well as numerous environmental groups and non-government groups. Many people gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss these issues some 20 years after the
Government Orders
Stockholm conference. It was truly the largest United Nations conference of any proportions and uniquely it was concerning the environment.
The Minister of the Environment led the delegation for that two-week conference in Brazil. Our Prime Minister was there to give an address on behalf of Canada and to sign two very important conventions, the biodiversity convention and the global warming convention. More important, we were leading the way. As other countries were concerned about signing the biodiversity convention, our own Prime Minister said: "We will be the first to sign this convention". Indeed, the Prime Minister did sign on behalf of Canada, the first nation to sign that biodiversity convention to protect the flora and fauna of the earth.
In this regard the process of setting up a round table was a most important aspect of what we were wanting to do in terms of having organizations and people from all different walks of life come together and have this round table as a meeting of the minds.
I might say in response to my colleague who just spoke concerning Canada's green plan, the United Nations Environment Program chairman, Mr. Tolba, stated at the Brazil conference that Canada's green plan was an example for all nations. It was hailed as the example of what Canadians could do together and as a nation come forth with a green plan. In fact nations that participated in that conference were anxious to find out what the green plan was. They wanted us to tell them about the plan, to give them copies of it.
The $3 billion in funds attached to the commitments of the green plan is a very, very substantial commitment on behalf of all Canadians. This year alone there is a 30 per cent increase in the amount of funds attached to the environment programs, initiatives that take place out of that green plan. As we are pressed in terms of our financial resources, our commitment to the environment has been steadfast in the increase of that amount of money.
At a time in history when all of us need some encouragement about our ability to respond to rapid change, we have an opportunity to build on our tradition of forward-looking institutional adaptation in the interests of improving our environmental and economic quality of life.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
The United Nations recently named Canada as the best place in the world in which to live. We are very proud ol that and I believe that Canadians are proud. We want to keep it that way, with our social structure, with our opportunities for people to fulfil their lives, our health care, our educational system. All of those items are very important in terms of our quality of life and the United Nations has recognized that.
The purpose of Bill C-72 is to bring people together to help ensure that Canadians working together will keep it the finest place in the world in which to live. It provides a mechanism for leading thinkers and practitioners from many sectors of Canadian society to work together, to build consensus and help set the standards for a sustainable future. We improve this mechanism successfully dealing with the environmental and economic challenges that face us through this particular piece of legislation. I am very pleased that my colleague from Broadview- Greenwood is nodding his head in agreement to this initiative. We are very pleased for the support of the opposition.
Many developing nations are considering the Canadian round table as a model institution to assist them in designing and implementing policies for more environmentally sustainable forms of development. Several states within the United States are taking a careful look at copying our round table model as a means to address some of their most controversial and pressing environmental and economic challenges.
The round table model is the opportunity for participation and consensus building. Let me say that the greatest challenge of sustainable development is to apply more effectively the full range of human intelligence, knowledge and experience to the problems that we will face in the coming decades.
It is critical for us to increase the opportunity for Canadians to participate in the decisions that affect them all. We have had some outstanding members sitting around the Canadian round table for the last few years. Dr. George Connell, the former president of the University of Toronto is the present chairman of the round table.
This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity of putting this institution into legislative form. Sustainable development will require a democratization of decisionmaking beyond the comfortable status quo.
Compartmentalization of responsibility no longer works. We cannot put everything just in compartments. It is a holistic approach. Cross-sectoral, cross-disciplinary and cross-jurisdictional thinking is a better way to deal with an uncertain future and round tables reflect that reality.
This act will sanction the importance and continuing existence of the national round table. Bill C-72 will validate and encourage the continuing support of the private sector and others for this new form of public involvement.
Passage of Bill C-72 will enable this organization to retain the private sector support so essential to its success. Many sectors of Canadian society and business have made substantial personal commitments and organizational contribution to the work of the national round table.
Now this national round table must have greater autonomy to continue to build partnerships independent of government for the benefit of all Canadians. Providing that independence through Bill C-72 will allow the national round table to maintain its distinctive nature separate from government direction but with the full commitment of government as partner.
By empowering the members of the national round table, government can promote the understanding and trust that leads to a well-considered, honest and direct advice that is grounded in the real world.
The national round table is an important step in the continuing transition to sustainable development in Canada. As an institutional experiment it has a proven track record and has wide international support. Many of the most important groups affecting Canada's environment and economy are involved in support of the work of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
With the consent of the House of Commons, Canadians will look back on this day with pride as the day our nation again took the lead on the long road to a sustainable future.

March 11, 1993


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. minister.
The remarks she made with regard to this legislation and the establishment of the national round table were extremely interesting. I may have been able to make those remarks myself, perhaps with a few more adjectives in them. They could have been made at anytime. Obviously there was some urgency in the creation of the round table.
I have in my hand the "National Round Table Review, Spring 1992". It is almost a year ago that the national round table itself issued this report.
On the front page of the national round table review is a story about the introduction of this legislation. If I might just quote for the hon. minister from the review: "Delivering on a promise made last June"-that would be 1991-"subsequently supported by the Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of the Environment rose in the House of Commons on April 10, 1992 to table for first reading Bill C-72 legislation to make the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a permanent independent body charged with the responsibility of acting as a catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada principles and practices of sustainable development".
The important part of what I just read is that the promise was made in June 1991. The legislation was tabled in April 1992. Here we are almost one year later. We have had this legislation on the table. It is important legislation. It has support of most, if not all, members of this House. Why has it taken this government a full year to implement this very important piece of legislation?


Pauline Browes: When this legislation was tabled in the House of Commons in April of last year, it was after a great deal of consultation with the round table itself as well as with others. It was an important decision to make that we would bring in legislation in order to establish this round table as an entity separate from government and, as I said, in partnership.
We should think back to the sequence of events since April 1992, which is less than a year ago. We have had
Government Orders
the Brazil conference which included people from all walks of life. Hundreds and hundreds of Canadians were involved in the preparation of Canada's presentation to the Rio summit. The round table took very much of a lead on the discussions leading up to its preparation.
In the interim the round table has been very active on the issues it has been dealing with. Economic instruments is an area that the round table has taken some considerable interest in. There is the use of economic instruments as it relates to the environment, environmental indicators, whether we have the use of taxes. There is the various economic experiments we could use in order to deal with the environment and whether there is some way that we can use the economy in terms of getting people to do the right thing.
That has all been part of the discussions of the round table. In fact the round table's work has been instrumental in the discussion paper that is presently out in the Canadian community to get information, suggestions and ideas back on the economic indicators in terms of how we do that.
The round table itself has been extremely active all along under the leadership of Dr. George Connell. I have been to a few of the meetings myself. The members are very dedicated Canadian citizens who spend much of their own time discussing these issues, coming together from all walks of life and building a consensus.
It is now time for us to come forth with this legislation in order to institutionalize this round table that has been working so well over the last few years. It has really been an example to the provinces, an example to the municipalities and regions that have also set up round tables.
We can look very favourably on the work that the round table members have done, the direction they have been able to present, not only on the policy side, but also to really institute and instigate some real action. That has been beneficial not only to us in Canada but it has also been an example for the international community.
I wish to thank my colleagues on the other side of the House from both of the opposition parties for their enthusiastic support for this particular piece of legislation that the Minister of the Environment has set forth. We look forward to early passage of this legislation.

Government Orders


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. At the same time as I put this, I also wish to ask if the order of speaking is out of order because I also wish to enter the debate on this bill this afternoon.
I have had the opportunity to review the estimates that were tabled the other day in the House of Commons. While I very much look forward to the operations of the round table, I notice that there is no mention at all of round table expenditures. However I did notice that grants to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for an Arctic environment strategy were cut by about $2 million in the estimates; about 40 per cent of their budget has been removed.
I noticed that many environmental non-governmental organizations have had their funding cut in the estimates from the Department of the Environment. I noticed that the contributions to the University of Saskatchewan for the Canadian Wildlife Health Centre, particularly the wildlife disease component, have been cut from $380,000 to $200,000. Canadian organizations like the Canadian Environmental Citizenship Program have had their lunding cut by more than 50 per cent in these estimates.
When I do not see the round table mentioned in the estimates and I see these other recent cuts to valuable programs that the Department of the Environment has been supporting I wonder if the minister can tell me what the commitment of the government is toward the maintenance of existing programs and how is the national round table going to fit into the expenses of the 1993-94 year?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should wait until we get this piece of legislation through before expecting to see it showing up as a separate entity in the estimates. The first step is to get this legislation through, which we are hoping to do in very short order.
In terms of some of the selective items the hon. member has mentioned, we need to look at the larger context of what we have been able to do concerning the environment.
The green plan which was set forth in 1991 set forth a plan of some 100 initiatives. It was a very comprehensive plan of 100 initiatives that we wanted to deliver on behalf of Canadians for clean air, clean water and clean soil.
Three billion dollars were set aside for those kinds of initiatives over a seven-year time period. In this year alone, there is a 30 per cent increase in our expenditures and commitments on behalf of all Canadians for our environment. That is a very significant amount of taxpayers' money. We all know how difficult it is, in terms of taxpayers' dollars, to have the best bang for the buck.
In my opinion and in the opinion of our government Canadians want a clean environment. This particular piece of legislation gives the opportunity for Canadians from all walks of life to come together in a consensusbuilding approach. Canadians themselves will be coming forth with ideas and suggestions in order to reach the sustainable development concept that was developed by the Brundtland commission in Our Common Future.
In 1993 we are being a leader once again, as we were 20 years ago in Stockholm. We played an important role on the Brundtland commission. We were an active participant in the Brazil conference and are now leading the way again with the green plan and with this round table being established as it is in this legislation. This is another commitment resulting from the green plan. It will be truly funded when it is passed in order for Canadians to participate to their fullest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Before recognizing the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Grants to Municipalities; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-External Affairs; the hon. member for Halifax West-Westray Mine Disaster; the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair-Industrial Research Assistance Program; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Peacekeeping.
March 11, 1993

[English ]


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-72 because my relationship with the round table is a close one.
1 would like to recall my last campaign in which I made a commitment to my constituents concerning the Don River which Hows through my riding and is the most polluted river in Canada. It is a chemical cauldron filled with toxic and biological waste flowing into Lake Ontario, which is our drinking water.
The commitment I made was that one of the things 1 would do is make sure that we brought the awareness level of the problem with the Don River to the forefront among all people in our community. Hopefully by bringing the problem concerning the Don River to public attention we would then get the support of all levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-to maybe do something about reclaiming the Don River.
One of the things we did to enhance awareness of the problem with the Don River during my first year as an MP was to organize a people's summit on the environment. It was an event that took place at the Ontario Science Centre and over a period of 10 days we hosted close to 42,000 people. There were representatives from over 40 countries and over 100 speakers. The then Minister of the Environment, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, opened the people's summit. It was just a tremendous event. It was a very successful event. All kinds of Canadian artists performed. John Denver flew in from Colorado to perform at this summit. We had the tremendous support of many corporate sponsors.
One of the individuals who worked with me on that event, a young gentleman who used to be on my staff, Dan Donovan, left my office shortly after the people's summit on the environment and joined the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. It was because of that close personal relationship that Dan and I have had over the last three years that I became intimately aware of this very special instrument in support of this country's environmental work.
When I talk about the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy today I want to refer to some of the specific work that it has performed. It is an outstanding effort by very few public servants but many
Government Orders
individuals from all walks of life and from all parts of the country who have come together, many of whom have donated their time. I think of the chairman, George Connell, and many others on his board.
I just have to read a few of the names of people on the board who come here from all over Canada. They include: Jim MacNeill, who is really the godfather of the environment in this country: Jack MacLeod, from Shell Canada; Geraldine Kenney-Wallace, the president and vice-chancellor of McMaster University; and the previous chairman David Johnston. This round table is really a gathering of one of the finest groups in the country.
What I have always liked about the round table is that it has been able to do joint venture work for all of its promotional and communications activities. It is not a question of getting together just using taxpayers' money. It has in nearly every case used a small amount of taxpayers' money and then it has gone to the private sector to sponsor the various projects it has undertaken.
Some of the work it has put out over this period is just amazing. I wish there was a way we could communicate to all people in Canada the work that has been done and some of the material that is available. Trade, Environment and Competitiveness, edited by John Kirton and Sarah Richardson, is a fantastic piece of work that is very important in terms of linking the environment to the economy, especially trade which is the backbone of our country. Some of the authors it has been able to get to participate in this are great and of course it was sponsored by someone on the outside.
It has an incredible list of publications; The National Waste Reduction Handbook, Preserving our World by the late Warner Troyer, On the Road to Brazil, the Earth Summit, A Manager's Handbook on Sustainable Development, and Decision-making Practices for Sustainable Development. The list goes on and on. There is a Small Business Guide to Environmental Management.
What it has been able to do is so unique. So often in government when a department of government wants to organize a communications policy it tends to basically use its own budget while this particular group, the round table, has always gone out and got joint venture sponsors.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
One project that is extremely popular and relevant was a project that happened not too long ago. It was a project launched at the museum of man. I have talked a little bit about its effort in terms of communicating with business but it is also very strong in its ability to communicate with youth. It has developed this video and tape entitled Courage which is available if people write the round table. It is sponsored by Hostess Frito-Lay. It is a song and video written and performed by Molly Johnson and Norman Orenstein of Infidels with special guest star Meryn Cadell. It is an effort through Canadian artists through video to communicate to our youth.
How many departments of government are using these contemporary ideas to communicate public policy? There are not too many and that is another credit to the national round table.
Mr. Speaker, you might think I am trying to take advantage here today but I am not. I have to mention another project it organized. It is with the same company, Hostess Frito-Lay. It has this Environmental Citizenship, Take the Pledge, We did it campaign.
It says that Hostess Frito-Lay is pleased to be working with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to promote sustainable development and environmental citizenship in Canada. They have the citizenship pledge: "We will continue to reduce, reuse and recycle. We will be efficient in the use of our energy resources. We will do our part to conserve, protect and nurture the air we breath, the water we drink and the land on which we live", and on and on.


An hon. member:: Pass that around.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Okay. Can the pages pass these around to my NDP friends?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That would be very nice, but we will not have it here. Outside the curtain.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is the entrepreneurial marketing background I have. When I see an agency of government that is using private sector techniques of communicating public policy I get excited. When I think of the millions of packages of Hostess Frito Lay potato chips sending out the message of sustainable development, I know many people in this House might think that would probably be a bit of a gimmick in terms of communicating public policy. I happen to believe it is a good approach. I think it is a good approach that we are using Canadian artists on videos to communicate our message.
Mr. Speaker, obviously you can tell I am in full support of this piece of legislation. In one month I find myself supporting the government on the Small Businesses Loans Act and now on an issue related to the environment. I am getting nervous here. I have agreed with the government on two bills in the last three weeks.
At any rate, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy's approach to joint venturing many of its projects and getting private sector support is a very good one. It is a technique that we in government should adopt as we are forced, because of fiscal constraints, to be much more accountable and responsible with taxpayers' money.
We also know of the work it is doing in trade shows across Canada and in schools. We know of the work it is doing when it goes into businesses across the country. I think it is the kind of initiative we must get behind. We must give this department, which will be an agency of government, our full support.
I have declared my relationship with certain members of the round table: Ann Dale, Ron Doering, Dave Baslow and Patti Bacon. These are people who are passionate in their belief and service to the community on this issue. The fact that they are using all these different techniques will go a long way toward exciting and galvanizing the commitment of our country toward this very important and really only issue right now, saving the planet. We have an agency of this government that is going to be committed to using all the contemporary techniques of communication. The members who are sitting at the round table have substantive expertise in helping develop policy for all sectors of the economy with regard to sustainable development. I think it is a great initiative.
March 11, 1993

Despite the fact the legislation might have been a little late in getting to the House the bottom line is they have been doing all this work as if the legislation had been approved.
We co-operated with the minister responsible for small business last week on the Small Businesses Loans Act. I tried to call that office the other day to get some support in communicating this initiative which is a good one for the government. The department said it had not been approved by the Senate and I should not be out there promoting a piece of policy that has not been approved. I was sick when I heard the response from the officials when they said I could not promote something that had not gone through the Senate when we know the government controls the Senate right now.
Here is an agency of the national government that has been working as if it had legislation for the last year and one-half. It has been doing all these things. I have enough books, chips, videos and tapes here I could probably fill a small library.
It has been doing good work and I am happy to stand up here and support this initiative. I hope it will carry on and I know it will continue to use the same spirit and passion to keep spreading its message. We on this side of the House are only too proud to encourage it to continue.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-72, the act which will bring us the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
The first reading was April 10, 1992 almost a year ago. While the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood indicates the committee has been working since then or even before that, the round table was anxious to see this legislation dealt with by this House some time ago. I am quite disappointed it has taken this long for us to get here.
Canadians and particularly environmentalists are quite confused by the federal government's desire to entrench in legislation the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. They are confused first because of this government's embarrassing record of trashing
Government Orders
advisory councils and bodies, particularly those that might offer creative and accurate criticism of this government's policies and practices. The second reason is this government's track record on the environment.
In March of last year in an astounding display of public paranoia and economic mismanagement, the government did away with 46 government agencies in one way or another. The March budget of last year proposed to axe 21 federal government agencies, boards and advisory bodies and merged, privatized or deferred another 25 agencies.
Winding up government agencies and privatizing have been the big business buzz words of this government's efforts to sell out the Canadian people's future at bargain basement prices. Cuts to jobs and services have led to wounds in our environment, which include our economy. For example the Law Reform Commission was axed, the commission that provided independent advice to the Minister of Justice.
It is interesting to note the Law Reform Commission was axed only two months after issuing a report on aboriginal peoples and criminal justice with which the minister disagreed.
The government also ended the Science Council of Canada just when Canada so desperately needed to improve its research as well as core basic scientific research which has been so devastated by this government and the former Liberal government before it. It will set Canada way behind in the international scene of future innovation and development for years to come.
Curiously, the government also wiped out the Economic Council of Canada which had become increasingly critical of this government. In fact it had suggested some courses of action which might have tread however lightly on the toes of the narrow interests of the big multinationals which fund the Conservative and Liberal Parties at election time.
Now even more curiously this government is moving quickly to entrench in legislation a new advisory body, research and public awareness body so similar in purpose to so many done away with by this government. It did away with them in its blind drive to buy back votes from the right wing Conservatives, cranky with the government and eyeing the ultra right Reform Party as a safer haven for destructive economic and social policy.

March 11, 1993
Government Orders
Canadians and environmentalists are asking why the government is moving ahead with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy at this time? Is it because the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been unable to function effectively without the legislation? No, Mr. Speaker. Currently there are functioning round tables, not only at the federal level but also in every province and territory in Canada. Only one is enshrined in legislation. That one, by the way, was legislated when the Yukon had a New Democratic Party government. That legislation made sense as it is one of the many steps taken by a tremendously pro environment government which has also passed Canada's first environmental bill of rights.
Again I ask the question, is it because the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been unable to function without legislation? No. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been able to function without legislation. It has produced publications, several of which I have had the opportunity to read and use in my own work. One, the five book series leading up to the Rio conference entitled The National Round Table Series on Sustainable Development was of particular interest. The Round Table's regular newsletters on issues like biodiversity and other joint products have gone ahead unimpeded by the fact the round table was not enshrined in legislation and has played a useful role.
Can it function without legislation? Sadly, the reasons for the government moving ahead with all this are all too clear. The government has placed the environment way down on its agenda and seeks to put on a greener face by passing such bills as this one while reducing its commitment in other areas. The ones with the truly green faces are the environmentalists and Canadians who have turned a sickly shade of green with nausea over this federal government's inability to protect and preserve the environment for future generations. Canadians are still waiting for legislation to drag environmental assessment out of the 19th century.
Bill C-13 where are you? Perhaps the first act of the newly legislated round table might be to send out a search and rescue team to find out where Bill C-13 is, so extensively rewritten by environmentalists and New Democrats during the process that led up to its passage
in this House during an excellent session of committee hearings.
Maybe this newly entrenched round table can find this piece of legislation which has gone missing somewhere between justice and environment departments in this government's toxic cabinet. If the round table finds the environmental assessment legislation currently missing in action, perhaps it can put it to use in dealing with the Northumberland link in Prince Edward Island, or in fact even dealing with legislation like the North American Free Trade Agreement.
If it can find Bill C-13 and put it into action maybe it can find another missing treasure too. Maybe the round table can find all the funds committed to the environment in the green plan. All Canadians have seen so far is old money being reshuffled over and over again and given a new coat of paint to appear as if the environment is really being made a priority.
The government knows full well that our air, water, land and wildlife are not only threatened, they are sick and dying. Yet this government's green plan to date has offered more disappointment than hope to the growing number of environmentalists from coast to coast. Maybe this round table can find those funds.
What else could the round table do in its research and advisory capacity as outlined in the section dealing with purpose and powers in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill? Does it truly help the environment beyond calling for an election to defeat this noxious government and its economically and socially toxic effluent it calls its policy. Maybe such a newly entrenched body, in fulfilling its proposed mandate to promote principles and practices of sustainable development in all regions of Canada could advise government to move ahead with a bill of rights on the environment. I would like to go beyond just suggesting what this round table and government might do. I am willing to help as well.
As you know, on June 5, 19911 introduced a motion in this House to establish an environmental bill of rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthful environment. This bill of rights would finally enable Canadians to sue polluters, allowing us to truly become caring stewards of our own land. Perhaps in fulfilling its mandate outlined in Bill C-72, the round table could use clauses 4(b) undertaking research and gathering information and analysis on critical issues of sustainable development to
March 11, 1993

deal with global warming. Most of this has already been done. We know global warming continues to worsen.
We know that the ozone has deteriorated to the point that the Minister of Environment has warned children not to play in the sun. We know that the government refuses to clamp down on business.
I see that my time is almost up. I would like to say that energy efficiency, recycling, sewage and water, CFC recycling, reinstituting railway use, major clean-up and ecological renewal initiatives should be sound advice which this round table could provide to the government. Perhaps the most green of of solutions could be that the round table would advise that this government, this toxic government, should resign and call an election so that the next government can have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next time Bill C-72 reaches the Chamber, the hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining in his speech plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 10,1992 consideration of Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag) as reported (with amendment) from the legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent for the following motion.
That the order now before the House be discharged and that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the flag), be referred back to a legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering clause 1, and
that the legislative committee on Bill C-227 be reconstituted for the purpose of this reconsideration.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that we normally at this point proceed to the Adjournment Debate of the House. However I am informed that the participants in that debate, while they have been called, have not yet arrived.
I would propose that if Your Honour approves and the House approves that we might consider suspending until those individuals are available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair, hoping that maybe the parliamentary secretaries and the members who are watching us here in the Chamber will hurry back to the Chamber so that we can perform our duties.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.02 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question which I have asked in the House on a number of occasions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the tragic plight of two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer.
I am sure that members of this House are well aware of the fact that Christine and David were victims of a harsh and quite unfair Brazilian justice system which resulted in sentences of 28 years of imprisonment for each of them.

March 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate
That would be bad enough but in addition, because of the lack of response of the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, their injustice at the hands of the Brazilian system has been compounded by the injustice of their own Canadian government.
I am sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have rallied to speak out in support of Christine and David in their struggle and I really want to pay tribute to those Canadians and in particular to the families of Christine and David who have waged a tireless and energetic campaign on their behalf.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has twice urged the Secretary of State for External Affairs to finally recognize the injustice of the situation and to seek the remedy of expulsion which is provided by the Brazilian constitution. The minister has refused to do so. She wrings her hands and says we are waiting for the transfer of offenders treaty to be ratified. Then she says she is waiting for the appeals to be dealt with and it will be done soon. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for that transfer of offenders treaty. The appeals which were supposed to be heard this week we are now told will be heard some time, maybe next week. The support for Christine and David grows. Meanwhile, the threats to their health and safety are even greater.
I was very pleased to note that recently, just in early January, representatives and leaders of four Canadian churches wrote to the Prime Minister urging that the Prime Minister do the right thing and seek expulsion. The original letter was written by Archbishop Edwin Lackey the day before his sudden death on behalf of Archbishop Marcel Gervais, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa and the chair of the Catholic Conference of Bishops. It was signed by the Moderator of the United Church of Canada and the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Canada as well. They have not even had the courtesy of a reply.
This injustice demands a response from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Brazil has said it does not understand why the Canadian government has not made a request for expulsion. The former minister of justice, a very respected individual, Mr. Harbez Piccarino, recognized the injustices in the case and he has recommended expulsion.
The time that Christine and David have already spent in prison would qualify them for a parole if they were eligible for parole. As foreigners they are not eligible for parole, however. These sentences are cruel and unusual treatment. The original convictions were an appalling injustice.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who apparently is thinking about seeking the leadership, of becoming Prime Minister of Canada, cannot even act on behalf of two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who are entitled to justice. She does not even deserve to be Secretary of State for External Affairs, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada.
I want to again take this opportunity to appeal through you to the government to recognize the injustice of the situation of Christine and David, to heed the unanimous appeal of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and to at last, finally, seek the expulsion of Christine and David from Brazil so they can return home to their loved ones.
These young Canadians are respected individuals. They have no criminal record whatsoever and a terrible injustice has been done. I hope that this government will finally show the leadership it so far has been lacking.


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, who sits with me on the external affairs committee, for his interest in the case of these two young Canadians outside the country who are detained through a miscarriage of justice.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs set out her views on this case in letters dated August 13 and December 8, 1992 to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
It cannot be assumed that if Canada asked for the expulsion of Christine Lamont and David Spencer, it would be granted automatically. While the Brazilian President has the discretionary authority to grant expulsion, it has been emphasized to us that there is a clear distinction between the authority as set out in the Brazilian constitution and the practice according to which the authority is exercised.
March 11, 1993

We have been told that in principle, expulsion would not be granted while appeals are under way or before the convicted prisoner has served his or her sentence.
We have also been told that the Brazilian government would not agree to expulsion in these circumstances because it would amount to unwarranted interference by the executive branch of government in the affairs of the judiciary and would discriminate against the other defendants who would not be released or expelled.
On many occasion, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed concern over the severity of the sentences received by Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer. These sentences, and the convictions themselves, are being appealed in the Brazilian courts.
The Canadian embassy in Brasilia has been working actively to ensure that both the appeal of the convictions and the appeal of the sentences move forward as quickly as possible. The Brazilian courts are now in session. The embassy will continue to do all it can to ensure that the appeal process keeps moving expeditiously.
The embassy's efforts to hasten the ratification of the transfer of offenders treaty between Canada and Brazil which was signed last July 15 have also been achieving some success. The treaty would enable Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer to serve the rest of their sentences in Canadian facilities, where they would be subject to Canadian parole laws. As you know the treaty was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in December and will be considered by the Justice Committee when it reconvenes under a new chairman this month.
The embassy has been assured of support for the treaty both in the justice committee and in the Senate which will consider it following approval in the justice committee.


WESTRAY MINE DISASTER
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, in questioning the Prime Minister on December 1, 1992 I wanted to address some of the concerns that have arisen in Nova Scotia and across Canada with respect to the
Adjournment Debate
tragedy in the Westray coal mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia.
For the record let me express the sympathy shared by all Canadians for the widows, families, and friends of the 26 miners whose lives were ended by the mine explosion that occurred at 5.20 in the morning of May 9, 1992, another tragic day in the bitter history of coal mining in Nova Scotia. These brave men will not be forgotten but their memories will be preserved with those who perished at Springhill, in Cape Breton and elsewhere in mining disasters.
I hope what I will now say will not in any way add to the grief or detract from the hopes for the future of our mining families. Let me begin by stating my concern for and solidarity with these family members and friends who seek a just accounting for the Westray disaster. I am shocked and disturbed by the chain of events that left widows, parents and children asking whether there is any justice for them and the deceased miners.
Even recognizing the needs of people and even realizing that only employment opportunities will satisfy many of these needs, let me say clearly and categorically it is my view that Westray and its parent corporation, Cur-ragh Resources Inc., must be separated totally and completely from government funded mining operations in Pictou County. I can envision no hope whatever that this organization can resolve the problems associated with management of this coal resource and I can see nothing but grief from continuing the involvement of Westray and Curragh.
Let me be very specific. Not one more cent of taxpayers' money, federally or provincially, should be directed to Westray or Curragh. Certainly the $16 million apparently available from insurers should be held for the benefit of the people involved in the mine operation and not the corporate owners. In fact the appropriate government authorities should separate Westray and Curragh from the mine assets and seek recovery of the moneys lost from whatever assets the corporations may have left.
I ask simply: How can a corporate organization cause a taxpayers' loss in the area of $100 million and still claim dominion over a public resource?

March 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Let me state some other points related to the Westray mine disaster that must shock the grieving families and demand public attention.
First, Curragh sought to dispose of the Westray mine in November 1991 according to Maclean's magazine in order to improve its financial position, showing that the corporation had no real commitment to Nova Scotia or its people.
Second, there is mounting evidence that the coal resource cannot be mined economically without real risk to the lives and safety of miners or without further massive government aid that would be better utilized elsewhere.
Third, if there is a determination to mine the coal seam at Plymouth it is clear that the operation should be turned over to an organization with an established record for safety and fair employment practice.
Now let me address what has become the unfortunate politicization of the Westray tragedy. When the explosion occurred the premier of Nova Scotia immediately responded by saying there would be a full and complete public inquiry by way of a royal commission. This action by the premier has proved to be as destructive and demoralizing as the mining tragedy itself. Let me tell the House why.
First, the premier of Nova Scotia must have known that the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act require an immediate investigation of a mine fatality and a report on the apparent cause. Had this statutory process proceeded there would have been a factual and public report that could have been examined and then amplified by subsequent further inquiry.
Second, it is inexcusable that the premier's advisers were not aware of the Supreme Court decision in the Patricia Starr case. This case received national attention and severely restricted public inquiries in circumstances that might produce criminal charges. From the very beginning there was an indication that criminal negligence was involved. The province should have known a broad based inquiry beyond the Coal Mines Regulation Act would be derailed by the courts.
What is left for the grieving families and the public? Over the months an RCMP investigation was announced and charges were laid under provincial safety laws and
later stayed. The over-all impression is one of legal incompetency on the part of ministers and officials. Criminal negligence is a simple charge under the Criminal Code involving only proof of legal duty to act carefully and evidence of wanton or reckless disregard for life in performing the duty.
Here are my recommendations: Get rid of Westray-Curragh, make the case for criminal negligence, find another mine operator. Let me add this. The royal commission, whatever its good intentions, will add nothing to solace the widows and families of the deceased miners and it will not benefit those who follow them.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax West for his question. I would like to commend him for his interest in this issue.
The federal government provided assistance to Westray principally in the form of loan insurance as well as an interest rate buy-down on that same loan. The assistance was provided because the development of the mine, with its potential to create approximately 240 new jobs, was a regional development priority for the government.
Our involvement was strictly financial in nature. The extent of the federal government's jurisdiction with respect to this project was limited and did not include mining regulations or occupational health and safety issues.
The regulation of mines, under the Constitution is a provincial responsibility and pertains to all aspects of mine plan approval and monitoring. The only exceptions are the Cape Breton Development Corporation and uranium mines.
The Government of Nova Scotia established a commission of inquiry with the mandate to examine events leading up to the accident and to establish the cause of the accident. In order to assist the commission the federal government undertook the enormous task of compiling and cataloguing all federal government documents related to the Westray project. This involved
24.000	pages of documents dating back several years.
Prior to the constitutional challenge of the commission
8.000	pages of closing documents had been released. Initially, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that the commission, under its original terms of reference, was unconstitutional.
March 11, 1993

The decision was appealed by both the miners' union and the Nova Scotia government. In the ruling by the appeals division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in January 1993 the status of the commission was confirmed as valid. Once the criminal investigation by the RCMP is complete and any subsequent charges are dealt with the commission will be free to resume hearings.
The federal government will fully co-operate with any agency mandated by the Government of Nova Scotia to find the causes of the accident at the Westray coal mine.


INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AID PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in his financial statement of December 2 the Minister of Finance said the following: "Funding will be increased for the highly successful Industrial Research Assistance Program which provides technology support and financial assistance to businesses".
On February 25 I quoted that to the Minister of Finance and asked him why the estimates showed that the Industrial Research Assistance Program was cut by $1,333 million.
The answer to the question was provided by the Minister of State for Science who said that there had been an increase of $14 million for science and technology. That was a very interesting answer because it did not refer to the Industrial Research Assistance Program at all.
On February 26 I repeated that question quoting again from the December 2, 1992 statement and we got this peculiar answer from the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
I tell my hon. friend that we were both right yesterday. First, S and T funding has gone up considerably over last year. He still did not answer the question about IRAP, but I did point out that if there were in fact a $14 million increase in science and technology in the face of an over-all rate of government expenditures of approximately $5 billion, that really did not amount to very much.
Adjournment Debate
The minister of state came back to answer the question of what happened to the funds that were promised for IRAP and indicated that IRAP spending would be the same or up. "This is a very important program", he says. "I agree with the hon. member. We are defusing technology in an unprecedented way. It is a core part of what we are trying to do under S and T."
He says he is going to somehow backfill IRAP in order to bring it up, if it is going to go up. Moments ago after many calls to the minister's office we got what he was referring to, and what he was referring to was the National Research Council estimates which from the 1992-93 Main Estimates to the 1993-94 estimates indicate about a $14 million increase in grants and contributions.
However, that is not an answer to the question about expenditures in science and technology because if we look at science and technology generally there have been a number of cuts, not the least of which was the revocation of the 4 per cent increases given to the granting councils, in addition to the decrease in IRAP, the $13 million cut in the DIPP, the $4.75 million cut in NSERC-that is beyond the 4 per cent revocation of an increase-and the SSHRC budget was cut by $582,000. If he is talking about science and technology surely the answer he has provided to me today does not answer the question about science and technology.
I really would like somebody to answer the question: How is it the Minister of Finance promised an increase in IRAP but in fact IRAP was cut? I want to know why there is this inconsistency. I do not want another non sequitur as was provided by the Minister for Science. I do not want another non sequitur as was provided to those others in this adjournment debate who have been trying to get clarity in response to their questions.
If the parliamentary secretary is going to do the same to me as he did to them, he can spare his time because it will be a non-answer. We will still not understand why the minister made his promise and failed to meet it.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair for his question. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the government on this important program.

March 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate
There is no doubt the National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program, IRAP, is an outstanding success that we should build upon. Few people in Canadian industry would question IRAP's significant benefits in terms of jobs, exports and new technologies. Although IRAP could clearly do more with increased funding, it is important to note that IRAP has done extremely well during a period of strict restraint in government spending. Not only has it been maintained but it has received increases in its funding. An allocation of the additional $27 million was announced last year.
Additional funding and strengthening of IRAP's role were also among the commitments made by the Minister of Finance in his December economic statement. Although this new funding is not included in the Main Estimates, decisions on the price levels will be made soon and will be announced in due course.
This will be a substantial recognition of our values and potential. Two years ago some concerns were expressed over the new strategic plan on the program. But evidence now shows that the plan was the right way to go.
Our most recent annual report shows a 5 per cent increase in the number of its projects. There is improvement in efficiency and a clear focus on IRAP's premier clientele for small and medium size businesses. IRAP is now in a good position to assume an even stronger role in building national competitiveness.
The government has already committed itself to ensuring that IRAP has the power and the resources it needs.


PEACEKEEPING
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up a question I asked of the Minister of National Defence on peacekeeping. I appreciate that in Question Period there is a very short time for questions and indeed for answers.
I felt it necessary to follow up on this because I have a legitimate concern and whether it trends out or not is to be seen as the history book unfolds. I am not claiming to be any visionary but I do see certain trends that bother
me. I am speaking out tonight because I am not sure there has been a total recognition of the two conflicting trends that bother me.
The first one is on the subject of peacekeeping and the very fact that in the last four years we have seen as many peacekeeping operations take place as we have in the last 40 years. That is an indicator in itself.
There is the very fact that at last count we have 179 countries in the world today. Of these countries, only 10 per cent of them have any homogeneity in their populations. Of that 10 per cent, only half have ethnic groups that account for 75 per cent of the population. In other words, most of these countries have very small, chopped up ethnic groups. We are seeing it in the world today. We are seeing what amounts to tribalism. It is not a question of countries fighting countries; it is a question of tribes fighting tribes. Sometimes they forget why they are fighting.
If you add to this an increasing problem with social intolerance, cultural and ethnic intolerance, I believe you are going to see the requirement for more and more peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Not only will it be more peacekeeping operations but different kinds of peacekeeping operations. We have already seen a deviation from the standard peacekeeping operation like that in Cyprus to now what is certainly the edge of peacemaking, humanitarian support, food control and that kind of thing.
The point I am making is that peacekeeping is increasing and the nature of peacekeeping is increasing.
Another point is that I believe, as this continues to increase, like-minded countries are going to have difficulties coping with this.
We now have roughly 4,500 troops participating in peacekeeping operations. Canada has participated in every single one of them and I think that is great. Our contribution to international peace is laudatory. Soon the time will come, and I believe we are very close to it, closer than we would care to admit, where we will not be able to participate. I believe that for the following reasons.
March 11, 1993

At the time we were preparing for the cold war. This is nobody's fault. You cannot plan for uncertainty and be right all the time. Three years ago we decided to close our bases in Europe. We decided to reduce the army by around 4,000 and we took other measures with respect to equipment.
As the facts show those decisions perhaps in retrospect were not the best ones. The fact remains we did take those decisions. Another decision was the total force concept where we used more reserves to make up the standing army and navy. A good decision. It was a good one and continues to be good.
Right now, because we are short of regular force troops, we have three major army groups deployed right now, 4,700 troops. We had only planned ever to have
2,000	when we had 4,000 more soldiers. That in itself is a very dangerous trend.
We are going to have to have a very close look at the increasing demands on our peacekeepers. We are going to have to have a look at the difficult areas we are getting into with respect to the number of regular force soldiers we have and what level at reserve and militia force should we supplement them.
There is also the equipment. I just came from a defence committee meeting where there was some concern shown by the expert witness on the kind of equipment we have, whether it was the right kind of equipment and whether or not it was deployed in the right manner.
In summary and conclusion of my remarks here this evening, I would like to ask purely and simply and in a non-partisan manner that the Minister of National Defence be cognizant of the increasing trend and the demand on Canadians because of our expertise and record in peacekeeping. She should look at the trend on decisions that were taken which would permit us to less and less be able to contribute to more and more. She should take cognizance of that and respond with perhaps a new defence statement or new priorities of defence that will show how we are going to cope with that. Before we commit any other sizeable groups of Canadian soldiers, sailors or airmen I believe that there has to be a full discussion in Parliament.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for raising this important matter and I welcome this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister of National Defence.
Adjournment Debate
The priorities identified in our defence policy published in April 1992 are based on our commitments to the defence of Canada, domestic security, arms control and disarmament, and peaceful dispute settlement.
In a field in which Canada has been active for the past 40 years, our peacekeepers have acquired a reputation for professionalism that is recognized the world over. Our contribution to UN peacekeeping operations is a source of great pride to the members of our armed forces.
It is an indication of the trust we enjoy on the international scene and of the support in this country for our efforts to maintain world peace. It is true that certain specialties are in great demand. Nevertheless, our regular and reserve forces are capable of meeting our various commitments. As for the ability of our reservists to perform their duties in the armed forces as a whole, so far we have had no trouble finding the necessary numbers to bring our regular forces up to the strength required to perform these missions effectively.
At the present time, the system works. Peacekeeping operations are reviewed regularly which means that resources assigned to the various missions are reviewed and modified as appropriate.

At the moment there are some 4,700 Canadians taking part in peacekeeping operations around the world. Of these, approximately 475 are members of the reserve. Under total force, increasing numbers of reservists will be available to take part in peacekeeping operations. These troops are well-trained, prepared members of the Canadian forces and ready to serve alongside their regular force counterparts under any circumstances.
As evidence of our commitment to making total force work, in 1993-94 total expenditures of the primary reserve will rise by nearly $46 million over the forecast in the current financial year. This is a 6 per cent increase. In addition capital expenditures of the primary reserve will rise to 25.6 per cent of the total reserve expenditures, up from 16.1 per cent in the last fiscal year's estimates.
The purchase of new equipment will ensure that the Canadian forces, reserve and regular alike, will have what they need to fulfil their roles, both at home and abroad. Important acquisitions include many types of equipment which will be used to ensure the safety of our troops on peacekeeping operations.

I will repeat what the Minister of National Defence said not long ago when she appeared before the Standing

March 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Committee on National Defence, namely that the government is considering some new approaches to participation in peacekeeping missions throughout the world.
Again, I wish to thank the hon. member for raising this question which is of interest to us all. I trust I was able to provide the requisite clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 12, 1993