1998-05-01

Government Orders
Mi'Kmaq Education ActHon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on second reading of Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education act. I will be asking hon. members to join me in supporting this proposed legislation which provides for the transfer of jurisdiction for education from Canada to nine Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia.
Bill C-30 is neither a lengthy nor a technical bill. It deals with a very specific issue for a distinct group of people. Yet, this is a truly historic piece of legislation that will stand as a milestone in the strengthening of aboriginal communities in Canada.
Why is this bill so important? It is for the simple reason that it represents the first time in our history that jurisdiction for education will be transferred from the federal government back to first nations where it belongs.
In one sense Bill C-30 is a step into the past because we are returning control of an important community activity to the local level, but it is also a step into the future in that it signals the beginning of a new relationship between governments and Nova Scotia first nations. We are hopeful it will lead to many more undertakings.
When this government unveiled its aboriginal action plan in January it made a clear commitment to strengthen aboriginal communities by investing in people. In my view the single most important investment we can make in a community is in the education of its youth.
For aboriginal people in particular education is an essential instrument for achieving self-sufficiency and solidifying Mi'kmaq identity. By providing the tools children and youth need in today's society education can help break aboriginal peoples' traditional reliance on governments and social assistance. Higher levels of education are critical if aboriginal people are to achieve self-government, take full advantage of land claims agreements, participate effectively in the new economy and live longer and healthier lives.
In short, education will open many doors of opportunity that have been closed to first nations people for far too long.
I know that the members of this House are in favour of providing aboriginal people with quality education. I am sure also that some of my distinguished colleagues will agree that decisions regarding the education of Mi'kmaq children and youth should not be made here, in Ottawa, but in the communities where these children live and go to school, communities like Eskasoni, Wagmatcook, Whycocomagh and Pictou Landing.
Thanks to this transfer of jurisdiction over education, the Mi'kmaqs of Nova Scotia will be able to preserve their past and participate in their future.
Bill C-30 will allow the nine participating first nations to determine their children's curriculum. They will be able to develop programs and courses in keeping with their own customs, traditions and culture, all in their own language.
This initiative will have a huge positive effect on the sense of identity in Mi'kmaq communities and on students' self-esteem.
This is not a new concept. It has long been recognized that there are tangible long term benefits to transferring education management to aboriginal communities. That is why, in the past 30 years, it has been a policy of successive governments to transfer educational responsibilities to the first nations.
Bill C-30 goes well beyond the mere transfer of responsibility over the program. This delegation of powers is based on the recognition of the inherent right to control education locally.
This initiative is fully consistent with this government's inherent-right policy and responds to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People to give aboriginal people more power over education.
While not a self-government agreement per se, Bill C-30 will pave the way to self-government for these first nations.
The bill will also help meet the objectives stated in the document entitled Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan , which is the government's recent response to the royal commission.
One of these objectives is for the federal government to work with aboriginal people, the provinces and territories, as well as other partners, to develop practical, sustainable governance arrangements for aboriginal people that are built on legitimacy, authority and accountability. The bill is an important step toward this objective.
Bill C-30 provides the necessary legislative framework to implement the agreement to transfer the powers and duties related to education, which was signed in February 1997 by Canada, Nova Scotia and the leaders of the nine Mi'kmaq first nations.
Through this proposed legislation the government will delegate to the participating first nations the authority to pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on reserves for band members.
Bill C-30 also transfers jurisdiction for post-secondary student support funding for members of participating communities living on and off reserve. In accepting this jurisdiction the Mi'kmaq agree to provide equivalent education to non-members living on reserve. The level and the quality of education they provide must ensure that students can successfully transfer to any other education system in Canada.
In order to exercise education jurisdiction, each Mi'kmaq first nation will establish its own education authority. These authorities will adopt a constitution that clearly outlines their responsibilities, accountability and reporting structure, the process that will be used to pass laws, and a transparent appeals process.
Bill C-30 also provides for the establishment of the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, a new corporation that will assist first nations in the exercise of their education jurisdiction.
The chiefs of the participating first nations will form the board of this new corporation, which will provide collective services such as curriculum development, culture and language initiatives, special education and post-secondary support services, and reporting functions. Like the education authorities, this corporation will be governed by a constitution that ensures a fair and open accountability regime and dispute resolution process.
The final agreement also provides for the transfer to the nine first nations of approximately $24 million per year. This funding will be used to operate and maintain education facilities and for related band administration and capital requirements. Funding levels will be reviewed after five years.
This funding will come from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's existing education budget. It is not new money, but money that has already been allocated on a per student basis to provide education services to these nine Mi'kmaq first nations.
I would be remiss today if I did not acknowledge the Government of Nova Scotia for its support of this transfer of education jurisdiction.
As hon. members know, education is primarily a provincial responsibility and the Government of Nova Scotia has a long and effective partnership with first nations in the province. In recognition of the aspirations and capabilities of the Mi'kmaq people, the provincial government has acknowledged Mi'kmaq jurisdiction for education on reserves. This will be affirmed through separate provincial legislation.
The participation and co-operation of the provincial government in this transfer process is indicative of the commitment that exists in Canada today to build new partnerships with aboriginal people. It is also further proof that the Canadian federation is flexible and can accommodate the interests and expectations of all people.
We are transferring jurisdiction over education to certain Mi'kmaq communities, because they want it, they need it and they deserve it. The transfer process began in 1991, when Mi'kmaq leaders made representations to the federal government to have greater control over education programs in their communities.
After several years of discussions and negotiations, we reached an agreement that satisfies everyone's needs. In January 1998, the nine participating first nations approved a resolution asking the federal and provincial governments to pass legislation to implement the agreement. Today, I am asking members of parliament to take that resolution into account.
I can assure them that Bill C-30 was drafted in close co-operation with Mi'kmaq leaders and provincial officials.
The views of individual band members were also taken into consideration, through a vast consultation process held in the communities, and a ratification process conducted by the first nations. We received letters of support from many non-aboriginal groups in Nova Scotia, including colleges and universities, school boards and the Diocese of Antigonish.
I should also point out that this legislation is not imposed on any first nation. The other four Mi'kmaq first nations will be able to benefit from the bill at a later date and any of the signatory first nations can opt in or out just by having their names added to or withdrawn from the Schedule to Bill C-30.
As I said earlier, the government hopes that this legislative measure will be the first of a number of similar agreements with first nations throughout the country. In fact, I can tell the House that similar negotiations are underway with several first nations in Ontario. Bill C-30 and the final agreement it will implement could be used as a model for future devolution of powers in the area of education.
Bill C-30 positively recognizes the capability of the first nations to take control over their lives and their future. It will give control over the Mi'kmaq education system back to the native people, at the local level, back to the parents and officials who take care of the Mi'kmaq children.
This is certainly an initiative that members from both sides of the House can support and I would ask them to quickly pass this bill, so that we can implement the final agreement in spring, in time for the 1998-99 school year.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to divide my time with the hon. member for Calgary East.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education act. I want to take a few moments to acknowledge my appreciation of those leaders of the Mi'kmaq communities who came to my office to discuss Bill C-30 with my staff and me. They came with the purpose of promoting the bill.
However, during the course of our discussions we also delved into the more substantial issues of how aboriginal people relate to society at large. While we did not agree on many things regarding technical arrangements by which we co-exist, I am encouraged by the good will expressed and the willingness to build and maintain friendships in the future. I look forward to the day when I will be able to travel to the Chapel Island Reserve and enjoy their promised hospitality.
With regard to Bill C-30 I considered many factors in deciding whether to support it. I concluded that I cannot support it in its present form. Most of the reasons for withholding support at this time I also discussed with the members of the Chapel Island Reserve who came to my office.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to implement an agreement signed by the government and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. The communities will, under the terms of the bill, exercise control over both primary and secondary education. It sets up a corporation to be known as Mi'kmawkina'matnewey which will have no share capital. Twenty four million dollars of capital will be injected into the corporation for existing department of Indian affairs funding, with an additional unspecified amount for start-up costs.
The stated purpose of the corporation is to support delivery of educational programs and services under the proposed act. Its members will be the chiefs of the participating communities and they together will constitute its board of directors and will be responsible for management and conduct of the corporation.
As laudable as the stated aims of the bill are, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation at this time and I will explain the reasons for withholding support.
The main objection to the bill is the provision which makes the chiefs ex-officio members of the Mi'kmawkina'matnewey, the governing body. This key portion of the bill concentrates too much power in the hands of one group. When this point was raised during discussions the comment was made that to have an elected board is to create one more level of bureaucracy.
When we are talking about the provision of education anywhere in Canada we always assume the existence of a board of education charged with the sole responsibility for both management and delivery of educational services. There are times when an elected board dedicated to one purpose is in the best interests of the people. Furthermore, it also makes sense for the electorate to hold an education board accountable for education and to deal with it at the polls on that one issue.
Political leaders by necessity have a broader outlook and responsibility for the overall leadership and management of the community as a whole. The objection was raised, probably correctly, that neither governments nor other educational authorities would give credence to an elected board. I would submit that after an initial period of adjustment a board of education would achieve credibility in its own right, particularly if it had the full support of the bands from which its membership was drawn.
If the bill is amended as I am suggesting then support for the bill could be extended. There are, however, other concerns with the proposed legislation and consequences flowing from it that I would like to draw to the attention of the House.
As members are no doubt aware the Reform Party has a longstanding position on equality of all citizens and will find it extremely difficult to support legislation which furthers the separation of Canadians from one another. Full participation in society by all people including aboriginals is the goal of our party. It is our belief that the best interests of Canada's aboriginal people can best be addressed through equality and full participation in all matters pertaining to education.
On another matter, while I realize the chiefs have been elected to represent their people it does not appear the bill is before the House today has the full backing of all members of all the communities. As I previously noted, 4 of the 13 bands in the area are not participating in the planned education system. From what I have seen in aboriginal communities so far there is no consensus on much of the process of devolving responsibility for program management to local communities. On the point previously mentioned, the fact that there is wide disagreement about devolution of powers to local band councils and chiefs is also important to the debate over the bill.
The press kit which accompanied the bill to my office mentioned that the legislation is historic in that it establishes a new relationship between aboriginal people and the federal government in the area of education. Undoubtedly the bill, if enacted, will be used as a model for other agreements of a similar nature. When developing legislation of a historic nature there must be widespread discussions by all groups, both those immediately affected and those potentially affected.
In the area of education, as in so many others which affect people's relationship with governments and with one another, a broad consensus must be obtained. The general public must be involved in the process as well as any group attempting to establish a special education system, and this does not appear to be the case here.
There appears to be a fair amount of uncertainty about the effects of the bill on smaller communities in terms of how they would benefit economically from arrangements like those envisioned in the proposed legislation. Concerns such as theirs have not yet been heard.
While withdrawing from society, which is the point of this bill, appears to be attractive in some measure, I do not believe its long term effects will prove beneficial. The world is changing, and the conditions that led to the reserve system and to the separation of native and non-native cultures are long past. I believe both the Mi'kmaq and society at large will be better served by refusing to be separated and consequently misunderstood. Aboriginal people can and should be full and equal participants in Canadian society with all its benefits and privileges.
We are calling for amendments to Bill C-30 that would make the governing body, responsible for administering education on reserve, more responsive to the band members' direction. Acceptance of this key amendment will improve this legislation immensely and I request serious consideration of it by all members of this House.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 which gives educational rights to Mi'kmaq nations. It is a privilege for me to talk from a minority point of view on this bill. I would very much like to support this legislation. However, as my colleague pointed out, we do have some serious reservations. We would support this legislation if our amendments can be incorporated.
My party's cornerstone policy is equal treatment for all Canadians. We want all who live in Canada to be equal participants in the Canadian mosaic. We recognize that the first nations have a very unique culture and unique customs, which we encourage them to maintain. We also want them to be an equal part of this Canadian mosaic.
When we talk about issues like this one, allowing education to be run by cultural groups, these questions arise. What kind of education? How will that education relate to joining in the Canadian mosaic? The bill states quite clearly that this educational system should be compatible with other Canadian educational systems so that students can transfer from one system to another. However, our concern is that in past experience this has not been the case.
The board is set up so that chiefs have the power and they will be the board members, but there is the concern of who the chiefs are accountable to. The chiefs are supposed to be accountable to the people of the bands but past experience indicates this has not been going on. This raises the concern of how this board will be run. School boards are technically run by parent councils, teachers and elected trustees. Why should that principle not apply here? Why should they not have trustees elected by the band members to run the schools?
We do not see that happening here. This is a top down approach where the chiefs will be the board members and there will be no elections. That is our first major concern. How will the band member be part and parcel in directing school policy?
This bill will be used as a precedent for other aboriginal communities so it is right for us to address the important issues related to the accountability of these systems. We would not have much problem if there were a board to address the needs of the full native community, if the board were elected by the band members, the teachers and others in the education field. Then they could provide the best education for these children who would go on to become future Canadians of excellence in their fields. This is possible in providing a framework for native Canadians.
As my colleague mentioned, it is important to recognize something which is a cornerstone of my party's policy. Are all Canadians and we should be learning to build bridges with each other. Canadians should not be separated. Canadians should not be compartmentalized.
When we create schools and compartmentalize people into different areas, when will these Canadians interface with other people who have come from all over the world to live in this country? After all, we are citizens together. Where will they understand brotherhood? Where will they understand comradeship? Where will they understand being proud Canadians? Even the military would not go to this extent because we need brotherhood. We should be together.
We are creating what to us is a division but we also recognize that there are unique requirements of the first nations, their culture and their customs. We understand that and we respect them very highly. We feel that can become part and parcel of a broader picture of teaching native culture and native customs not only to Mi'kmaq but to all Canadians in schools. In that way we can build bridges with each other, we can understand each other.
I have reservations to this bill. I would like to see further discussion and amendments brought in so that we can have a greater picture on this.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to speak to Bill C-30 concerning the Mi'kmaq people. Because this is a technical bill and the product of many years of research, I will refer to my notes.
As an associate member representing the Bloc Quebecois on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I wish to comment on Bill C-30 at second reading.
The bill before us must be passed in order to give effect to an agreement signed by the chiefs of the nine Mi'kmaq first nations and the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia on February 14, 1997. This agreement provides that the federal government, by means of federal legislation, will delegate authority for education on reserves to Mi'kmaq communities.
The final agreement sets out the nature and scope of the powers transferred, including support for primary, elementary, secondary and post-secondary students. The agreement also defines the powers, responsibilities, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaw-Kina'matnewey, which would be the Mi'kmaq organization responsible for education.
Given all the discussions that have taken place between January 1991, when the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs was initially approached about setting up a Mi'kmaq organization responsible for education, and February 14, 1997, when the final agreement was signed with the Chapel Island first nation, it is altogether understandable that we should do our utmost to wrap this up quickly.
The Mi'kmaq have been calling for full authority over education during all this time. Apparently, all the prior stages having been completed, the bill before us must be passed in order to implement this agreement, which was approved, as I mentioned, by all the chiefs of the nine Mi'kmaq first nations and the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia.
Now that a tripartite agreement has been worked out between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, which has jurisdiction over first nations education, it seems to me that it is time to wrap things up and proceed to the implementation stage.
This has been in the works since 1991 in a kind of one-step-forward, one step back negotiation process. The first agreement between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq chiefs of Nova Scotia dates from 1992. At that time, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agreed to transfer educational programs to the first nations. Agreement after agreement followed and finally, on February 14, 1997, a final agreement was signed by 9 of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities, which stipulated that the first nations would have power over education at the primary, elementary and secondary levels.
I would remind the federal government, which is today wondering about the impact of such a transfer of powers to the Mi'kmaq communities or about the first nations' ability to assume the responsibility for educating their members, that there is a precedent in this area, the Cree school board which was created by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That agreement was signed more than 25 years ago, on November 11, 1975. If the federal government is questioning this situation, perhaps it is because of its memories of the negotiations with the Cree.
I should also point out to my colleagues from Nova Scotia that they need to be very cautious about one thing. When the agreement with the Cree and the Inuit was negotiated, all points appeared to have been clarified, but Quebec ran into an obstacle nevertheless. That obstacle came from the federal government of the day. It is very certain that, when the famous tripartite agreement was signed, the federal government was acting in good faith. I will merely point out that my colleagues from Nova Scotia need to be very certain of the government's willingness to fulfil all conditions of the contract.
Aboriginal people perhaps do need to be given power over education, but it must be kept in mind that, in 1966, Quebec was forced to claim $119 million from the federal government as reimbursement of the federal share of the costs of educational services put in place by the northern Cree, Inuit and Naskapi communities. Although as we speak, the three parties appear to have reached agreement on all points in this matter, there may well be a flaw in this agreement, as there often is.
When Quebec and the New Quebec school board signed this agreement with the Cree and the Inuit, everything seemed to be clear. But surprises were still to come, particularly where capital assets were concerned. In order to remedy this situation, Quebec had to make investments, but when it came to foot the bill, Quebec had to wait to be reimbursed by the federal government. Quebec therefore had to wait from 1980 to 1996 before getting reimbursed for the federal government's share.
By the time the refund came in 1996, the federal government owed Quebec $130 million. We should therefore have assurances that, if necessary, the government will pay its share.
Furthermore, Nova Scotia should remind the federal government that it cannot speak from both sides of its mouth. It cannot, on the one hand, boast by saying “Look how nice we are, we have decided to allow the aboriginal people in Nova Scotia to take control over their children's education” and, on the other hand, hinder the development of Nova Scotia and its aboriginal people by denying them the large sums owed to them.
I remind this House that the agreement signed on February 14, 1997, has been approved by all stakeholders in the non-aboriginal population of Nova Scotia. All these groups, from the Assembly of first nations to the Nova Scotia Association of School Boards and the diocese, unanimously agree that this agreement, which is a historic one for the province, is a step forward and was the best way to go. This is an opportunity for the aboriginal people in Nova Scotia to demonstrate how autonomous they are.
As an opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois has intervened and continues to intervene in favour of aboriginal people. We have made statements in the House of Commons and through our involvement in federal politics we have been able to build ties with the first nations, the Metis and the Inuit. Our party advocates an ongoing dialogue with all aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in Quebec's planned society.
The Bloc Quebecois believes it is important that there be focus groups like the forum with equal representation from Quebeckers and aboriginal people. The Bloc Quebecois recognizes aboriginal nations as distinct and, as such, entitled to have their own culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to develop their own identity. They should therefore enjoy greater autonomy. The bill before us today is a fine example of this.
We want to reach a consensus through non-violent means, based on the principle of peaceful co-existence between aboriginal nations, Quebec and Canada, both before and after Quebec achieves sovereignty. That is why Quebec asks that the Canadian government speed up all discussions and negotiations on self-government.
This group has written a manifest on the future of relations between aboriginals and Quebeckers. We hope that similar initiatives will foster a better understanding of our vision of a sovereign Quebec.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois have initiated discussions with aboriginal groups. A series of meetings are underway between the Bloc Quebecois and the leaders of the Assembly of first nations, including Phil Fontaine and Ghislain Picard, from the Quebec section.
Of course, in the bill before us, the government will have to be vigilant in transferring legislative and administrative responsibilities for education to these nine first nations. If this bill allowed the Mi'kmaq to put in place education systems and institutions that would preserve and respect the values and traditions of their culture, it would still be important to ensure that the programs are in line with those offered in other Nova Scotia schools so as to facilitate the transition from these schools to institutions that are under the jurisdiction of that province or any neighbouring province.
As a matter of fact, the agreement says that school results obtained under the education standards specified in the final agreement must be transferable, without penalty, to any other Mi'kmaq or Canadian teaching institution. If this bill applies to the preschool, primary and secondary levels, members of the first nations who want to pursue their studies should be able to do so without having to readjust.
Canada's action plan on aboriginal issues recognizes the important role played by education in ensuring a promising future to aboriginal communities in general, and to young people in particular. If the bill is passed, we will have to ensure that these young people—who will have attended elementary and secondary schools run by the first nations—are prepared to make a smooth transition to post-secondary institutions. I do not have to tell you how hard it is nowadays for people to find work if they did not get a proper education.
If the bill becomes law, the three parties involved, namely the federal government, Nova Scotia and the participating first nations, will know how to make a success of this initiative. While the federal government should not have to hold the hand of those who will run the new institutions, it will have to form a partnership with aboriginal people, until they are fully able to look after their own institutions.
In any case, the federal government is only involved in education when it comes to aboriginal communities, since education is under provincial jurisdiction.
Nova Scotia agrees with transferring to the Mi'kmaq jurisdiction over education on the reserves. We must now ensure that the federal government takes into consideration the province's co-operation and agreement regarding this issue.
The consultations that led up to the bill took a long time. The consultations with Nova Scotia's first nations alone lasted 18 months. The Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey did everything necessary to distribute the information to all the first nations concerned. It not only informed those directly involved, namely aboriginal people, but also all the stakeholders in Nova Scotia's education system. All agree that this must be done, and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities, which represent about 8,900 people, are prepared to go ahead with the project.
I just used a term we should use with great care. I am referring to the word “community”. I wonder about the definition of that word in the bill. Does it mean that a band council does not represent only one community? Also, in French, do the words ”collectivité” and “communauté” mean the same thing? There is a reference to negotiating with band councils, but the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People recommended that agreements be negotiated with nations, not band councils.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the costs that will go along with implementation of this system if the bill is accepted. It is said that, in order for the signatory communities to be able to exercise their powers under the final agreement, the parties will have to reach agreements providing financial resources. There is talk of $24 million from the financial framework already in place within the department. Is this a one-time payment, like a separation payment, or is it a recurring amount, to be paid for by all of the taxpayers, year in and year out?
As well, I hope that the scenario proposed is for there to be a single school board for all nine communities, or some sort of consolidation of boards if there is not just one, so as to minimize expenses and avoid the taxpayers' having to pay for unjustified infrastructures.
If this is not the case, allow me to point out that the Government of Quebec, in its desire to put public finances on an even keel, is doing absolutely everything within its power at the present time to reduce education expenditures.
The educational field has been hard hit, as have many others, and decreasing the number of school boards by combining a number of them into one has not always been the best solution.
But rationalization is the new watchword, and school boards have bowed to government demands. In my riding of Manicouagan alone, the five school boards have been reduced to three. The distance between cities is enormous in some cases. The Fermont school board, for instance, has been merged with that of Sept-Îles. The only means of transportation between these two cities is by air.
Quebeckers would therefore take it very ill if their tax dollars were used to fund small school boards.
I also draw the House's attention to the precedent that could be set by this new bill. It would not be surprising, in fact, if other first nations were to call for the same powers with respect to education. Although the Mi'kmaq live within a well-defined and fairly limited area, at least in Nova Scotia, the same is not true of aboriginals such as the Montagnais, who are scattered throughout Quebec.
Aboriginals are calling for increasing autonomy and, as I mentioned a bit earlier in my speech, the Bloc Quebecois has heard the message loud and clear. To those who have perhaps not taken it in yet, I will quote something the late René Lévesque said at a historic meeting with aboriginals in 1978.
Mr. Lévesque said:
Because we do not know each other, we cannot know what, in each other's identity, we must respect. We cannot know what aspirations and ideas to respect because they are unknown to us.
Nothing can be built on ignorance.
In closing, I would mention that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-30, which deals with the transfer of jurisdiction over education from the federal government to the nine first nations in Nova Scotia that signed the February 14 agreement, but would remind the House that all aspects of the bill must be examined and analysed.
In my speech, I referred to the fact that the Bloc Quebecois is still in favour of autonomy for provinces and aboriginal peoples, and especially for Quebec. We feel that education and the health system are the purview of Quebec alone. The federal government has pulled out, taking the money with it, and told the provinces: Make it work. We are keeping the money and leaving you to look after the education system.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia in relation to education. I am not going to speak too much on the actual content of the bill, as former speakers have done that.
The purpose of this bill is to implement an agreement signed by the government and nine of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia. It gives these communities control over primary and secondary education, at least for those band members and non-band members who live on reserve. It is interesting that it does not apply to band members who do not live on reserve.
This bill has been presented by the minister as part of the answer to RCAP. However, the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia have been working on this since January 1991. It is something that has not just come up, it has been in the works for some time.
This bill is the first of its kind. It is interesting that Phil Fontaine has referred to this bill as a historic piece of legislation. That concerns me. If viewed as a historic piece of legislation, my guess is that it will be applied in the future to other reserves across the country. Therefore, it should be of concern to any member of parliament who has a reserve in his or her constituency. I will speak later on this from that point of view.
I want to again stress that this has not been supported by all 13 Mi'kmaq reserves in the area. There are four groups which so far have not supported the legislation. Two of the four are not supporting it because they are waiting to see how it all comes together.
Before I get too far into my presentation, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member does not need consent to share his time. He is entitled to divide his time because we are now into 20 minute speeches. His colleague needed it because he was on a 40 minute speech. Therefore, if the hon. member indicates he is dividing his time it is divided ipso facto.
Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the explanation.
This legislation has not been supported by all 13 reserves. There are two reserves which do not support it because they want to see how it will all come together. However, there are two other reserves that think the federal government should not abandon its responsibilities.
Beginning last November and early December I put together an aboriginal task force in my constituency. From a group of 20 we came up with four members who helped me with the process. The purpose of this task force was to hear concerns from aboriginals in the constituency and to hear their recommendations with respect to dealing with these concerns.
One of the things this task force heard as it listened to aboriginal Canadians in the constituency, both status and non-status Indians, Metis and anyone else who wanted to make a presentation to us, was that there was certainly not unanimous—
The Speaker: My colleague, you will of course have the floor when we resume debate. As it is almost 11 o'clock we will now go to Statements by Members.

Statements By Members
Walleye Fishing DerbyMr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks the annual walleye fishing derby, Walleye '98, in Napanee, in my riding of Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and in the neighbouring Bay of Quinte.
Established in 1954 by Chuck McGarvey, it has evolved over the years into the biggest catch and live release walleye tournament in North America.
This year organizers expect as many as 6,000 registered anglers to participate from all over the country. Walleye '98 is also on the Internet, making it easier for many anglers to fish for details.
Money brought in from ticket sales is redirected back into community oriented projects and to conservation organizations. This event exemplifies one of the many things rural communities do to promote tourism and to bolster their local economies.
I salute the Napanee Rod and Gun Club and the sponsors and volunteers who make this family oriented event a success every year. I extend a warm invitation to my colleagues in the House and to all to the walleye weekend, May 2 and 3. May all participants have a safe and enjoyable weekend.
Hepatitis CMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over the past four days the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have spoken about hepatitis C victims as cases and files, little more than legal briefs to be closed. Expediency is their mantra, not compassion.
Today let me put a human element to this disease and tell them about Sara MacDougall. Sara has hepatitis C.
In 1988 Sara was stabbed in a Calgary parking lot and left to die. Blood transfusions and 12 major surgeries saved her, sort of. Sara received tainted blood through the transfusions. She is now a victim, not a file.
Sara fortunately falls under the compensation guidelines, but Sara is not taking the package unless everyone who suffers from hepatitis C is compensated.
There is a message here for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. Will they listen?
Unity PeakMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 21 a group of students from South Carleton High School in my riding will stand atop a very special mountain in the Alberta Rockies. The mountain is called Unity Peak. The 85 participating students along with their teachers and parents can be proud that they were granted the privilege of naming this peak themselves, a first for any high school in Canada.
Two years ago just after the Quebec referendum, the students and their teacher, Marc Bourgon, decided to do something special in the name of Canadian unity.
Since then they have fundraised over $90,000, researched and studied their way to a plan to both name and climb Unity Peak.
While they are on site these enterprising young students will collect geological samples and start a three year environmental impact study on the effects of tourism on the Lake Louise area. They will also be raising money for the Canadian Cancer Society.
I am pleased to say that I have accepted their invitation to join them on their 3,153 metre climb. Congratulations to everyone involved in the Unity Peak initiative. I look forward to joining them on June 21 on this climb for Canada.
Sts. Cyril And Methodius Ukrainian Catholic ChurchMr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to celebrate the official heritage designation of Sts. Cyril and Methodius Ukrainian Catholic Church in St. Catharines.
The church was constructed from 1944 to 1946 to support a growing Ukrainian population. The first Ukrainian settlers had come to St. Catharines in the early 1900s. They came to work on the Fourth Welland Canal, in the papermills and the automotive industry. More importantly they came to work the soil for the tender fruit, vegetable and wine industry, for it was the warm weather and the rich soil of Niagara that reminded them of their native land.
As a Canadian of Ukrainian descent I am proud to say that my father Michael was one of the church pioneers. He and many other Ukrainian settlers founded this beautiful church, designed in the Byzantine revival style by Belgium architect Reverend Philip Ruh.
I join with the congregation in honouring those who built this church and in celebrating its official heritage designation. Sts. Cyril and Methodius Ukrainian Catholic Church has always been and will continue to be a special place of worship and fellowship in St. Catharines.
National Textiles WeekMs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, April 20 to 26 marked national textiles week in Canada which was organized by the Textiles Human Resources Council to focus on innovation and excellence within the Canadian textile industry.
I recently had the opportunity to visit Silver Textiles, a textile manufacturing firm in my riding of Ahuntsic. There I noted the technology and innovative processes that have propelled the rapid growth of the textile industry.
Since 1988, exports have tripled, capital investments have reached unprecedented levels and even jobs have increased in the past five years from 50,000 in 1993 to 56,000 in 1997.
Doubletex and Montreal Fast Print are textile manufacturers also located in my riding of Ahuntsic.
Another example of the way this government has helped Canadian entrepreneurs become competitive at home and on the international scene are programs such as le programme de développement des marchés d'exportation and le programme d'aide à la recherche industrielle.
Human RightsDeepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, affirmed the basic rights of all individuals on earth.
Since then we have come a long way in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of people around the world. Whether it involved the freeing of colonies from imperialist rule, the ending of legislated discrimination in South Africa or the collapse of oppressive regimes across eastern Europe, we have made tremendous progress since 1948. However as Tiananmen Square and more recently Kosovo have taught us, the struggle for freedom is not yet finished.
Let us pause for a moment to congratulate ourselves for the strides we have made. Then let us get back to work to ensure that all people's rights are respected.
International Workers DayMr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw particular attention to May 1, International Workers Day.
In a changing economy, the conditions of workers continue to change at the dawn of the year 2000. We can never stress enough the vital contribution made by this part of the active workforce, which is causing society to grow.
Some will say the work environment is better than in recent years and others will say that globalization has had a definite impact on the quality of life.
Whatever the case, all governments must give priority to job creation while not losing sight of an essential element of the quality of our life, which is the implementation of measures to fully protect the health and safety of workers.
In the new world order we are trying to establish, civil society will be given a vital role to play. Workers will therefore be called on to play a larger part. with
Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is proud today to mark International Workers Day.
In 1998, 58% of workers in Quebec are not unionized. They are often the people working in difficult conditions and run the risk of facing psychological harassment or other abuse.
In addition, workers who lose their jobs have an increasingly difficult time qualifying for employment insurance, since the reforms by the Chrétien government penalize them.
Given this situation, the Bloc Quebecois commits to continue the fight to defend workers' rights.
Céline DionMr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today singer Céline Dion will be receiving the Order of Canada, in recognition of her world-renowned talent which brings honour to all of Canada. But it is also in recognition of her efforts throughout her life to hone that talent now so familiar to us all.
We all congratulate Céline on the honours paid to her this week, and we are proud to see her conquering the world and making everyone everywhere aware of the Canadian music industry.
She has come a long way since her first television appearance with Michel Jasmin, or when she sang “Une colombe est partie en voyage” for the Pope in 1984. Like the dove in that song, our songbird Céline has gone far, to become a fully-developed artist, and the ideal spokeswoman for Canadian culture.
Céline Dion deserves our utmost admiration for her skyrocketing rise to fame, characterized by such gusto and professionalism. Thank you, Céline, for representing us so admirably, and good luck in your continuing career.
The SenateMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein is bravely proceeding with Senate elections. He knows it is time to give senators the respect of explicit approval of the voters.
We get only doublespeak from Liberals on this subject. In 1993 the Prime Minister promised “We will have an elected Senate. As Prime Minister I can make this happen.” Now in power, he does just the opposite. The justice minister says that the constitution requires the Prime Minister to make the appointments but she fails to mention there is nothing preventing him from appointing a person who has been chosen by the people.
What about Liberal Senator Nick Taylor? He was a key opposition player in carving out the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act 10 years ago, but now he says that mental patients on leave from psychiatric wards will be seeking the position. What an insult to candidates. What an insult to Albertans. What an insult to people with mental disabilities. He should be ashamed of himself. He should run for election and test whether this kind of outrageous statement has the support of Albertans.
International Labour DayMrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that today, May 1, is International Labour Day.
On the eve of the next millennium, the economy is ever changing and so are labour conditions. One cannot stress enough the importance of the labour force's contribution to Canada's social development and economic growth.
Some will say that the work environment is better than in the past, while others fear that such things as globalization are certain to affect the quality of life of Canadian workers. Whatever the case, all governments must make job creation a priority without losing sight of the fact that to improve our quality of life we have to ensure that measures are taken to protect the health and safety of all Canadian workers.
I salute our Canadian workers.
May DayMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since 1889 workers around the world have celebrated the history of our struggle on May 1. This date was chosen to commemorate the hay market massacre in Chicago where police opened fire on workers whose only offence was to demonstrate for the eight hour work day, something which we all take for granted today.
I am proud that in this country our labour code does enshrine workers rights. We are currently in the process of enhancing that code and strengthening it, in spite of an anti-union official opposition.
On May Day, Canadian trade unionists remember our own history of struggle. We commit ourselves with renewed determination to support the struggles of working people the world over.
Based on the principle that what we want for ourselves we wish for all people, we stand in solidarity with the Australian dock workers, with the workers on the roads in Burma, garment workers in Indonesia and in the maquiladoras in Mexico.
We all move forward when we move forward together.
EnvironmentHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by withdrawing from a group opposed to greenhouse gas reductions, Royal Dutch Shell has dealt a blow to the oil industry coalition opposing the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases. Shell says that it supports ratification of the treaty on reduced emissions responsible for climate change.
Shell's support for the Kyoto treaty reveals an important policy shift in favour of an increasing dependence on energy efficiency, conservation and renewable resources in anticipation of the fact that we will one day run out of non-renewable sources of energy.
Shell's far-sighted decision sets an example to the petroleum industry which is still being dragged reluctantly into the 21st century.
Health CareMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say how this government's 40% cut to health care is hurting vulnerable Canadians in our society.
Charles Chase, a disabled adult from my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, depends on the services he receives in community residence to live. Cuts in health care transfers have dramatically reduced staffing and services for the disabled who live in these facilities.
Now Charles' future and the future of other disabled people are threatened as more cuts are anticipated. If this trend continues, Charles and people like him face being moved to a nursing home. They will be institutionalized and their quality of life will be lost.
Charles and his parents did not choose for him to be disabled. He was born with his disability but he and other disabled people have a right to live independently and to participate in the everyday life of their communities.
If we cannot take care of those who need help most, then this government has failed in its duty to the people. This is just one example of how this government's drastic cuts to health care are causing great hardship for those who are least able to defend themselves.
Sustainable DevelopmentMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week in Jonquière, the Pyrovac group announced it would be investing $40 million to develop a new technology, unique to Quebec and a world's first, recycling by pyrolysis. This new process of pyrolysing ground and dried bark will yield wood oils and charcoal, both of which are in considerable demand commercially.
This innovation holds great promise for yet another means of exploiting the resources of Quebec's forests, and fits into the strategy for sustainable development of the resources nature makes available to us.
At a time when we are particularly concerned with battling the greenhouse effect, without a doubt this procedure of converting organic material into valued added products will draw world attention, and will place Quebec in an advantageous position in the renewable energy market.
Michelin CanadaMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, there is good economic news in Pictou county, Nova Scotia. On April 9 Michelin Canada announced an additional investment of $75 million to expand its operations at its facilities in Granton.
By installing a new rubber mixing line at the Granton plant, this innovative company will not only create upward of 70 jobs, but also will contribute $15 million worth of contracts for local companies. This amount is in addition to the $25 million directed to local contractors that resulted from the previous Michelin expansion.
I am however concerned about the recent musings from the Liberal government to phase out the Atlantic Canada investment tax credit. Along with Nova Scotia's strong work ethic and great quality of life, it is one of the many attractive incentives to private sector job creation.
I urge the government to continue this tax incentive so that we will have more economic success stories like Michelin, a cutting edge company that directly employs more than 3,500 Nova Scotians.
South Surrey Eagles Hockey TeamMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to congratulate the South Surrey Eagles hockey team for winning the Doyle Cup championship for the second year. Now the Eagles are soaring to the Pacific Region Royal Bank Cup national championships tomorrow in Nanaimo. The people of Surrey Central are proud and wish them every success.
I urge all members of the House to take an interest in the sports activities of the young people in their ridings. Our young athletes should be encouraged to pursue the social, health and fitness benefits they receive from their sports activities.
Youth should be encouraged to get involved in the community and to be a part of the solutions to our problems. Young athletes like the players on the South Surrey Eagles present fine role models for all young people in Canada.

Oral Question Period
Hepatitis CMr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has claimed that he could not possibly compensate all the victims of hepatitis C because the provinces would not agree, but every day now another province announces that it is willing to develop a new deal. Instead of responding with hope or encouragement, the Prime Minister castigates the provinces and engages in name calling.
Instead of being petty, why does the Prime Minister not show some leadership and agree to work with the provinces for a new compensation package?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in spite of comments reported on the part of some provincial ministers and one provincial legislature, no provincial government, no territorial government has withdrawn from the accord they entered into some months ago in which they said that only post-1986 victims should be compensated and for which responsibility should be shared and for which they were putting up $300 million. That actually as a matter of fact has not changed.
Speaking of being petty, we are not being petty. We are putting $800 million on the table.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, a real leader would have responded to the provinces with an open mind instead of with insults or statements like this. After all, if anyone has a right to be angry, it is the provinces themselves. They have been bad mouthed in this House with respect to their role. They are the ones that are paying the medical bills for the victims. They are the ones that have had their health care funding cut by billions of dollars by this government.
Is it not true that the real reason for the hold-up here is that the Prime Minister does not know how to help the victims without losing political face?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is the last person to talk about cuts to health care. After all, he was going to scrap the Canada Health Act, bring in a two tier health system and make Canadians pay for private health insurance and user fees. Now another attack of crocodile tears.
After all, we are still providing billions and billions of dollars for the health care system which, if he had his way, he would eliminate.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, real leadership would do three things for these victims. First of all the Prime Minister would get the premiers together and negotiate a new deal. Second, they would confirm the facts, and the facts are what Krever said, that there was a test before 1986 and he confirmed the number of victims. Third, they would instruct the finance minister to find the money to finance this package within the existing spending envelopes by reallocating resources.
Why will the government not simply swallow its pride and get on with the job?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the callous game that some of these provinces are playing.
I was the one who was at the table. I was the one who was in the room last summer when the minister of health for Ontario said he would not discuss compensation for any victims under any circumstances, saying he was afraid that if he did so, people on waiting lists for surgery who were not operated upon early enough would sue him. I was in the room when the minister of health from British Columbia said compensation for nobody because there are problems with children's aid and they would be suing too.
It was the federal government showing leadership that got this issue on the national agenda.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we do not want to hear from the discredited health minister unless he is standing up to announce a compensation package or his resignation.
On behalf of the official opposition, I want to commend the Quebec government's leadership in speaking out on the issue of compensating all hepatitis C victims.
This is a time when francophones and anglophones, separatists and federalists alike, are united on what is best for all hepatitis C victims.
Does the Prime Minister at least plan to hold discussions with the provinces to—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I now recognize the hon. Minister of Health.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec agreed with us to compensate those victims who were infected between 1986 and 1990. This week, it changed its position with respect to what the appropriate period should be.
This was a cynical and meaningless move. It is politics at its worst. They told victims “You should indeed be compensated, but we will not compensate you”. That is cynical, inappropriate and cruel for the victims.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, a discredited minister, a discredited answer.
The provinces have simply said “We are now willing to discuss”. The federal government is acting like a petulant schoolchild who will take their marbles away so nobody can play.
If political opponents can set aside their differences, why cannot the federal government at least sit down at the table and talk about compensation for all the victims of hepatitis C?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the petulant and discredited health critic of the Reform Party, if he would drop his petulance and rely on the facts he would recognize that it was the federal government which sat down with the provinces and brought about the agreement which still stands, to which all the provinces, through their governments, are continuing to say that only post-1986 victims should be compensated. While the federal government put on the table $800 million, the provinces admitted their own responsibility and put $300 million on the table.
Those are the facts and the critic's petulance will not change anything, no matter what the tone of his questions may be.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government was pleased with the agreement and still is, but it will not turn a deaf ear to the calls of the public, which is asking that all victims be compensated.
When will the minister realize that he is now isolated and that he has no choice, but to compensate all victims?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the position adopted this week by the Quebec government is unacceptable. Indeed, it has come up with a very important principle, namely that someone else should pay, not the Quebec government. But this would not be appropriate.
The public knows full well that this is cynical and unacceptable. It is hypocritical.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would once again ask you to stay away from words such as hypocrisy. They do not add to the debate. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, so far the federal government has cut $7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for health, and it is not over yet.
At the same time, it may end up with a surplus of about $4 billion for the year that ended on March 31, 1998. With all the money that is available, how can the minister have the nerve to claim that he cannot afford to compensate all hepatitis C victims?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government and the Bloc are very sensitive to the issue of provincial jurisdiction, particularly for Quebec.
Minister Rochon has often told me that health is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This is not true. But now, the Quebec government is saying that the federal government alone must pay for the victims infected before 1986. This is cynical and totally unacceptable.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. He can say what he likes but everyone knows that the federal government has the means to compensate all hepatitis C victims and that the provinces do not.
Rather than making ill-advised decisions, such as the one to spend $750 million on submarines or fork out $2 billion for military equipment that does not even meet the army's requirements, what will it take for this minister to show some compassion and compensate all hepatitis C victims as the people of Quebec and of Canada are calling on him to do? The federal government should come up with the money.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government has already agreed to share responsibility with the provinces. If it had not, why did they put down $300 million to compensate victims? It is too late to say that the provinces are not responsible. The provinces, especially the province of Quebec, have already admitted and accepted this responsibility.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, this money, which comes out of taxpayers' pockets, must be returned to those of us in the greatest difficulty.
Does the minister understand that he is not being asked to be generous, but to be compassionate, humane, and to compensate all hepatitis C victims by extending the agreement signed between the federal government and the provinces?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, according to La Presse , Quebec's health minister, Jean Rochon, said, and I quote: It is the provinces that are responsible for running the Canadian blood system. The federal government has no business interfering. Mr. Rock's only business is to see that standards are met.
This speaks volumes about the provinces' responsibility in this issue.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister has often said in the House that he had the support of the provinces in the matter of hepatitis C, however, thanks to Liberal Daniel Johnson, Quebec is no longer on side and neither are Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba or Alberta.
Given the provincial support for another proposal, is the minister prepared to reopen the matter and come up with fairer compensation for all victims of this disease?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. He should read the replies by Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon. This week they said “We have adopted the appropriate principle to protect the health care system by compensating only those infected during the period of time authorities should have acted”. That is what Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon said this week.
They changed their position—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is not about saving face, it is about showing leadership, Mr. Minister. The file is open. I repeat, the file is open, Mr. Minister. The provinces—
The Speaker: My colleague, please address your questions through the Chair. I would ask the member to go directly to his question.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to know today whether or not the minister will put more money on the table since the government has a surplus and it cut back billions of dollars in transfer payments for health to the provinces. Is he going to put more money on the table and fairly compensate all the victims of hepatitis C as the provincial health ministers are now calling for?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as Premier Romanow was saying last Friday when he visited Ottawa, governments are doing the right thing. They are showing leadership; the federal government most of all by offering compensation to those who were injured at a time when governments could have prevented it. The governments of Canada are taking that position because it is the right thing to do and the hon. member knows it.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Saskatchewan health minister is holding a conference call with all provincial health ministers. Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have recognized that more must be done to compensate all hepatitis C victims. If the provinces come to the federal health minister with a request to renegotiate the compensation package, will the minister reopen the file?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out just a few moments ago, there is not one provincial or territorial government that has said it is withdrawing from the agreement to contribute to an offer of compensation of $1.1 billion.
Instead, what has happened is that some provincial ministers have engaged in the empty, hollow, cynical exercise of saying “Oh, yes, others should be offered compensation too. But we are not going to do it”.
The Canadian people will see that for what it is. They will also see the federal government standing on the principle it thinks is right and showing courage and leadership.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the ultimate constitutional authority for protection of blood and blood products rests with the federal Minister of Health. He has the final authority on compensation. The only reason the government is in this mess today is because it has a health minister who obviously cannot do his job.
The minister has only two choices. Will he reopen the compensation file or do everyone a favour and resign?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I shall do what the Prime Minister and this government have done from the outset. I shall do the right thing.
We have proceeded on the correct principle in offering cash payments to those who were injured as result of institutional fault.
For the others, I invite the hon. member and all other members of this House to work with this government on its agenda to strengthen medicare so that all of those who are ill in this country can have the highest possible quality of care. That, at the end of the day, is our most fundamental obligation.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, he keeps referring to his opponents in the provinces as cynical and callous. I will tell the House what is cynical and callous. It is throwing half the victims of hepatitis C out of the lifeboat. It is coercing these backbenchers into supporting a position and then pretending to take the high ground.
If the minister wants to do away with cynicism, I suggest he excise it from his government, from his caucus and from his own heart.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, nothing is less edifying for the people of Canada than to see this kind of display of name calling.
People have watched the theatre over there this week. They have seen the member for Macleod, that party's health critic, who has become the chief ambulance chaser for the opposition. They have seen the opposition refer to a 15 year old child as a victim of this tragedy without even knowing if that 15 year old is covered by the compensation that has been offered. They do not even understand the package. They do not even know what we offering. Yet, they stand to call names—
The Speaker: I would encourage my colleagues to please stay from personal remarks as much as you can.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what is edifying. This lawyer in health minister's clothing stood in the House and told the House repeatedly that he has the support of the provinces behind his limited compensation package, when the fact and the truth is that he does not have that support. It is being shredded away every day.
Since the health minister has misled the House on this issue of provincial support for his package, why does the Prime Minister not demand his resignation? Why should we listen to the repeat of these arguments?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the minister because he is an outstanding minister. He is doing a first class job.
The leader of the Reform Party has brought forward no information to say that the provincial governments, as such, have left the accord. They are still there. They are accepting responsibility. If that was not the case why did they put $300 million on the table and not leave everything to the federal government? The facts show that this is a shared responsibility and the federal government has certainly accepted more than its share.
Pay EquityMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
Pay equity is not negotiable, it is a matter of justice. Section 11 of the Human Rights Act was adopted in 1977 in order to put an end to economic inequality between men and women in the workplace.
What is the President of Treasury Board waiting for before sitting down with the Public Service Alliance to settle the pay equity issue, which has dragged on since 1997, once and for all?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter of pay equity is clearly one in which the government has made the right proposals. The government made a proposal which now, in light of the most recent court decisions, is seen as having been very generous.
On numerous occasions we have asked the unions to pass the offer on to their membership because we are convinced that the majority of their members would vote in favour of the government offer.
I beg my hon. colleague to try to change the inflexibility of the union leadership and to ask them to submit our offer to their members.
Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, does the President of Treasury Board realize that his actions are sending the message to major employers under federal jurisdiction that legal obligations can be avoided by challenging them before the courts?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, if there is one group which is demanding negotiation of the pay equity issue, it is the group dealing with pay equity matters within the government.
We have tried for months and months to reach a negotiated conclusion. In fact, at the present time it is the unions which are stopping their membership from voting on a more than generous offer from the federal government.
Hepatitis CMr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what is cynical is when the government does not acknowledge that the provinces will be paying $1.6 billion in health services over the years ahead because of the negligence of this government. It has not acknowledged that it was not the fault of the provinces. The federal regulators were at fault and this federal government.
Yesterday we had revealed something about the character of the Prime Minister when he responded to the provinces calling for new negotiations to compensate hepatitis C victims. He could have said “I am willing to discuss it. I am open to new ideas. I have some concerns, but together we can overcome them”. A true leader would put personal frustrations aside and sit down with the provinces to work out a new deal. Instead, he—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, for the last five weeks in this House we have stood on the principle that governments should pay cash compensation when they have caused damages and when those responsible for the system could and should have acted. That is an important principle.
It is true to say that in the last couple of days some of the health ministers and some of the premiers of this country have departed from that principle, but Canadians will see that for what it is. They depart from the principle but they then say that Ottawa must pay, not them. It is easy to cry crocodile tears and then say that someone else should be responsible.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the provinces will be paying to the tune of $1.6 billion in addition to that $300 million in the years ahead because of the fault of this federal government.
Let us be very clear that it was the federal government that had responsibility for regulating the blood supply. The provinces had no statutory authority in this matter. It is irresponsible for this Prime Minister to now blame the provinces. It is juvenile and petty to use that kind of hostile rhetoric. Why does he not take seriously the federal government's obligation and show even a hint of prime ministerial leadership by improving the package to hepatitis C victims?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is correct in what he is saying, why did the provinces agree to be part of the March agreement and put $300 million on the table? If it is entirely the federal government's fault, then the provinces were certainly wrong themselves to be part of the agreement.
If it is entirely the federal government's responsibility, why is he asking the federal government to open discussions with the provinces? The hon. member's arguments simply do not add up.
Tokamak ProjectMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In reply to a question which I asked a few weeks ago to his colleague, the environment minister, the Minister of Natural Resources said, and I quote “With respect to the need to expand in terms of renewable energy, alternative sources of energy, co-generation projects and so forth, indeed those are very much a part of our agenda to deal with climate change”.
Can the minister tell us if nuclear fusion is among these new forms of renewable energy covered by what he refers to as “our agenda to deal with climate change”?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very fortunate to have a very broad mix of energy sources and it is important that we use all of those sources prudently and wisely.
Some of those sources are still in the realm of scientific development. The one the hon. gentleman refers to is one of those. There is certainly interest in that subject matter but it is one of a very long term nature that does not seem to have a short term payback in terms of dealing with issues like climate change, say in the next five to ten years.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister reconcile the nice principles that he is referring to now and that he referred to a few weeks ago with his government's unjustifiable decision to cut its modest annual contribution of $7.2 million to the Tokamak project, in Varennes?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the scientific activity the hon. gentleman refers to is scientific activity that is perfectly legitimate and valid but has a return period that is some 20, 30 or 40 years into the future.
In terms of dealing with the climate change issues we must deal with in the next 5 to 10 years, obviously the timing horizon of 30 or 40 years into the future is not particularly helpful. That is not, though, to undermine or to demean the importance of fusion research and it is a subject matter that may well—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Hepatitis CMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the provinces are getting together and are trying to develop some sort of compensation package, or at least they are realizing that right now in this country there are two two tiers of victims, pre-1986 and post-1986. They realize there is something wrong with that kind of package.
They are trying in their own way to develop another package that could address the needs of all those victims.
Will the Prime Minister do the right thing today and meet with those provincial counterparts, convene a meeting to see if there is some way we can look after the needs of all hepatitis C victims?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the provinces and I have heard no province say it is abandoning that agreement.
The agreement calls on both levels of government to contribute a sum of money to be offered to people who were harmed when it could have been prevented.
Let us remember the basis of this. Money or damages or cash payments are being offered to people who were harmed when it could have been prevented. That is what is at issue here. For those who were infected before when it could not have been prevented, we are taking a different approach.
The Canadian people support that and I invite the member and his colleagues to join with us in our ambitious agenda to strengthen medicare to provide—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the discredited health minister knows there were tests available prior to 1986. He knows Horace Krever has documented that in his study on the issue.
Why does the Prime Minister not convene a national meeting of premiers or health ministers and himself, show some leadership, invite Horace Krever to talk about who is liable and when the tests were available, and then develop a compensation package for all hepatitis C victims? Do the steps, one, two, three and it will work.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Krever wrote four volumes of the report. If the member will look at them he will see that it was clear that by early 1986 the governments and those responsible for the blood system should have put tests in place and did not.
Canadians understand there is a difference between someone who is harmed when we could have prevented it and someone who faces a risk inherent in the clinical medical system. They also understand that if we offer cash to people who become ill just because they become ill, we cannot go on.
Governments have taken the tough decision to make that distinction and do the right thing.
Old Age PensionsMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, I asked the Minister of Finance questions on old age pensions. It would seem that, pressured by many organizations, including the AFEAS, the minister has now changed his mind. But we still do not know what he has to propose.
When will the minister inform us of his intentions so that present and future retirees can stop worrying?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the 1996 budget, the minister announced changes to old age pensions, which provide that every Canadian whose yearly income is over $40,000 will have to pay more.
On Monday, the minister had discussions with groups of seniors from across Canada. Discussions will continue, and he will take their views into account.
Youth UnemploymentMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State (Children and Youth).
There has been much talk about government measures to help students who plan to go to university but a lot less about the situation of those, and they are the majority, who do not and who face a much higher unemployment rate than university graduates.
Could the secretary of state tell this House what concrete steps the government has taken to help these young people?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year alone our youth employment strategy is helping over 95,000 youth to get valuable work experience to break the no experience, no work dilemma they undergo.
Under the strategy we are funding worthy projects, hundreds of them, making the bridge between school to work for young people. One great example of this is on May 14 the Minister of Human Resources Development will attend, along with 750 students in Vancouver, the fifth national skills Canada competition. Seventy-five per cent of youth do not go on to university and we need to encourage them—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Hepatitis CMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this brilliant Minister of Health has advised us there are four volumes—
The Speaker: Order. What we have here is one member saying this fellow is discredited, the other one is discredited, and we are just going back and forth. I appeal to members to address one another as hon. colleagues. I think that would help matters a bit for all of us.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this health minister who has done so much research into the hepatitis C issue just advised us that there were four volumes of the Krever report. The last time we checked there were three volumes. I wonder if he has actually read them, because the provinces certainly have.
This health minister told his caucus members, implied, to allow themselves to be run roughshod over in the vote the other night, he would open up this file again. Then he said it is closed. Now the provinces have opened it up again.
This minister does not have a clue what is going on. Instead of calling the provinces names, why does he not work with them to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, now we see what the source of the problem is. The Reform Party has not read the fourth volume of the report.
My point is that it is a careful and detailed report which indeed I have read. Mr. Justice Krever went through the history of this whole matter, examined what happened and when. It was very clear that from and after early 1986 those responsible for the system should have acted. They did not. People were harmed. The principle on which we are offering cash payments is not because people became sick. We do not do that in this country. We cannot. We are offering cash payments because there was fault.
Jason Kenney: Actually, Mr. Speaker, maybe he missed the fourth volume because that was the one with the recommendation that every victim should be compensated. That seems to be a section of the report the minister seems to be completely unaware of. The province are not now. The same government which has accused the provinces of being cheap is the government that cut health transfers by billions of dollars, which has offloaded the medicare costs for hepatitis C victims on to the provinces.
How dare this minister and government take shots at the provinces which are doing their best to solve this problem. Why do they not exercise co-operative federalism instead of attacking their provincial partners?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have read all the volumes of the Krever report but we have read the Reform platform. That platform says that if there is a Reform government it would scrap medicare. It would scrap the Canada Health Act.
If the hon. member wants to point the finger on health care, he had better point the finger back at his own party and his own leader and get them to change their position against medicare before he lectures anybody else.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, for the last month the government has been saying it is refusing to compensate all hepatitis C victims as a matter of principle. Tommy Douglas used to say that when they tell you it's not the money, it's the principle, you know it's the money.
Every Canadian can see it is not a matter of principle or precedent. It is the money.
If the minister will not reopen the deal with the provinces, will he now negotiate a new supplementary deal for all the rest of the hepatitis C victims?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member what principle was the Saskatchewan NDP government of Roy Romanow following when it refused to have a free vote on a motion in the Saskatchewan legislature and all the members of the NDP in the legislature voted against changing the existing deal? Was there no lack of principle there? I do not say that, but he does.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians deserve a better answer than that. I asked a legitimate question.
Now we have learned from the auditor general that the government has been fudging its books and hiding its money away from hepatitis C victims.
We all know the money is there. Why will the Minister of Health not show some real leadership and some real political courage and revisit the issue? If you will not open the old deal, negotiate—
The Speaker: Address your questions to the Chair, please.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not express the view of his party in Saskatchewan. His party, which forms the government in Saskatchewan, stands with the federal government on the principle involved.
Tommy Douglas, called by many the father of medicare, would surely be the first to say that medicare cannot be sustained if the principle on which we are going to proceed is if a person becomes ill they not only get treated, they get paid.
It is an important principle. Surely payment should be for those where there is fault. That is the principle on which we have proceeded.
Royal Canadian Mounted PolicePeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board has said, the privacy commissioner and human resources development have advised us that information concerning grant applications to HRDC must remain confidential until both Quebec and federal ministers approve them.
For example, how can the minister explain that on February 20, 1997, one month prior to the minister for manpower in Quebec's approving the grant, Raglan Company received a visit from now convicted criminal, Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil to improperly solicit funds?
How can the minister allow confidential information to be abused in such a blatantly criminal manner?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been dealt with. It was a member of the government who indicated these allegations to the RCMP. A full inquiry has been made. All the facts were in front of the inquiry. One charge was put forward and the person has pleaded guilty. That is the end of it.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House the file is not closed and perhaps we need more charges.
The President of the Treasury Board has someone in his office who has breached public confidence and brought his minister and the government into disrepute. To suggest otherwise is mendacious.
What steps has the minister taken to assure the Canadian—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the word mendacious and to put the question directly.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word.
What steps has the minister taken to assure Canadians that his office is no longer an information source for Liberal shakedown artists like Pierre Corbeil?
The Speaker: The way the question is put is quite borderline. I will permit the hon. minister to answer.
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, if the member has accusations like that, let him try to make them outside and see what happens to him.
In this case the investigation has been done. The investigation is complete. All the facts were in front of the RCMP and the matter is closed.
Human RightsMrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the attention of the House to the very important issue of human rights, an issue the Reform Party seldom if every raises in the House.
I am very disturbed to hear of the reported rise of hate and bias activity in British Columbia.
Can the secretary of state inform the House what initiatives she and her department have taken to combat the promotion of hatred and to prevent its growth in our communities?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the government has come to power we have strengthened, under Bill C-41, hate and bias crime prevention, which the Reform Party voted against in the House.
We also happen to know that laws are not enough to stop hate and bias crime, that we need to work and to educate and to promote a society in which there is no room for hatred.
As a result my department's multiculturalism program, which again the Reform Party would cancel, is very important in working with the schools, with municipalities and with communities to educate and promote a society of intercultural understanding so that there is absolutely no—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Hepatitis CMr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why will the Prime Minister not ask Judge Krever to confirm the availability of pre-1986 testing procedures for tainted blood and to determine the number of hepatitis C victims involved in this issue? Why will he not do it? Is the real reason because he is afraid the facts will destroy the excuse for abandoning the hepatitis C victims? Is that the real reason?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no question there were tests available before 1986. Some American states had them, some parts of Europe as well. The judgment of those who know is that by January 1986 there was enough information that those responsible here in Canada should have put the tests in place. Before that it was speculation, it was uncertainty. January 1986 was the turning point.
On the numbers the member asked about, Mr. Justice Krever accepted the analysis of Health Canada's director of the laboratory centre for disease control on the number of victims.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that throughout the year a number of activities are planned in celebration of the RCMP's 125th anniversary.
I would like the solicitor general to tell us how much these activities will cost and where the money is coming from.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House and the member, who refuses to accept this, that businesses interested in contributing are holding fund-raising activities throughout Canada, and that thousands of volunteers are raising money in their community to celebrate an event that is very important for Canada and for Quebec.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government is responsible in part for the crisis developing on crown lands in New Brunswick. In the New Brunswick situation what has this government done in response to the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples that the federal government work with the provinces and aboriginal communities to improve aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands?
Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I think what this government has done in this regard should be pointed out. Including the first nations in certain areas, such as forestry in New Brunswick, is very important for them.
We are working with New Brunswick and with all provinces across the country. I am very pleased to point out, with respect to forestry, that the Government of New Brunswick has established a round table with New Brunswick first nations.
Hepatitis CMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. There are two huge holes in the minister's excuse not to compensate all hepatitis C victims.
First, the government was responsible for blood products prior to 1986 because it refused to allow blood users to bank their own blood, thus forcing them to use untested blood.
Second, if the government has only so much money, so be it. We still have an obligation—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to his view but the facts as laid out by Mr. Justice Krever make it plain in our view that it was in the beginning of 1986 that there was really a turning point.
That was the stage at which there was enough knowledge about testing that those responsible for the system should have put the tests in place. As a result, some 22,000 people were infected between 1986 and 1990 when the tests were put in place. As a result governments, provincial and federal, have offered cash payments.
The member goes beyond that and says all those who were sick should be paid cash. Tommy Douglas—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, provincial health ministers are showing some leadership. They are being sensitive to the needs of the tragic victims of hepatitis C and are reviewing this issue. But what are they getting from across the way? Insults and putdowns.
Now is the time for action. We are asking the Prime Minister to show some real leadership on this issue. Will the Prime Minister commit to joining with the leadership shown by the provincial health ministers and come to the table to reopen the hep C file which this minister has so heartlessly locked?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member demonstrates that he does not have any idea what leadership is all about. He thinks leadership is the minister of health for Ontario or Quebec saying to victims infected before 1986 “Oh yes you should be compensated but we are not going to do it, let Ottawa do it”. He thinks that is leadership.
Leadership is having the courage to take a tough position on a difficult issue as a matter of principle and to stand by it. If he does not realize it, that is exactly what this government is doing.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question period.
VacancyThe Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation. Mr. Charest, member for the riding of Sherbrooke, resigned on May 1, 1998. Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed today my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 8 petitions.
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 26, 1998 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 in regard to vote 5 under Parliament, House of Commons. The committee reports the same.
Questions On The Order PaperPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 53, 63 and 64. .[Text]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Concerning the acquisition of a parcel of land for the RCMP in Amos, Quebec, in 1991: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin taking step in order to purchase the land; ( b ) with whom did it deal; ( c ) where was the land located in relation to the courthouse and the detention centre in Amos; ( d ) how long did the negotiations go on; ( e ) what was the surface area of the land to be used for the RCMP's needs; ( f ) what was the approximate purchase price of the land; ( g ) was this amount included in the budget and, if so, for what year; and ( h ) what were the reasons the file was closed?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows. Concerning the acquisition of a parcel of land for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in Amos, Quebec, in 1991: a ) The RCMP began planning to build a detachment in Amos around September 1989. Steps to purchase land were initiated after the funds required to purchase land had been approved, i.e., on October 22, 1990. b ) The RCMP only dealt with Public Works and Governmnent Services Canada, PWGSC. PWGSC dealt with the onwer of the land, Clair Foyer Inc. c ) The land was located on 3rd Street West which is located just south of the court house. d ) The RCMP commissionned PWGSC to start looking for a suitable piece of land in April 1991. Following this, the recommendation to purchase the land was made on December 12, 1991. The option to purchase was exercised on January 5, 1993, and the purchase contract was signed on or around October 21, 1993. e ) The surface area of the land was 3969 square metres (63 m x 63 m). f ) The land was purchased for a sum of $77,201.00. If we take the fee paid to PWGSC into account, the total cost of the land to the RCMP was $92,000. g ) Building a new detachment in Amos had been discussed since 1989 and the purchase cost of the land was included in the 1992-1993 budget. The purchase of the Amos site was identified under Vote 40 in the amount of $50,000 in fiscal years 1992/93 and 1993/94 of the main estimates. The actual expenditure was $92,000 in fiscal year 1993/94 and was paid out of the capital construction program. h ) The project to build a new detachment in Amos was put on hold on December 14, 1993, and the construction file was closed on September 1, 1994. Those decisions came as a result of the following:
—On September 16, 1993, a message from the commissionner announced that the RCMP had to cut its overall budget by some $32.7 million during fiscal year 1994/95 and by an additional $36.9 million over the next three years.
—On February 18, 1994, a letter was sent from the deputy commissioners, criminal operations and corporate management to the commanding officers asking them to start reviewing the operation of their respective divisions for the purpose of streamlining and restructuring their resources.
—On March 4, 1994, the commanding officer, “C” Division, Assistant Commissioner Mr. Thivierge, announced the creation of a divisional streamlining committee.
The divisional streamlining committee first met on April 13, 1994, and it was then decided to set up subcommittees which would be each responsible to review some RCMP activities in Quebec. One such subcommittee analysed the organization and restructuring of the police function. On August 18, 1994, this subcommittee submitted a report on the project to streamline “C” Division RCMP detachments in the Abitibi region. This report contained seven recommendations, which are summarized as follows: to close down Amos and Val d'Or detachments and to centralize RCMP activities in Rouyn-Noranda; to relocate RCMP personnel from Amos and Val d'Or; not to staff the vacant position of NCO in charge Amos detachment; to make sure that a 1-800 line be available to Amos and Val d'Or residents; to check with PWGSC that extra space be available on the first floor of Rouyn-Noranda detachment; to sell the land purchased in Amos and to allocate part of the funds set aside for the construction project in Amos ($874,000 in 1995/96) to fit out and renovate Rouyn-Noranda detachment; to make sure that the civil authorities and clients departments in Amos and Val d'Or be sensitized accordingly.
Those recommendations were approved by the division executive committee as well as by headquarters, Ottawa, with the result that the construction project in Amos was cancelled on September 1, 1994, as mentionned above.
On September 30, 1994, the commanding officer, “C” Division, and the officer commanding Montreal subdivision met the member of parliament for Abitibi at the time, Mr. Bernard Deshaies, to advise him of the RCMP's intention to amalgamate its detachments in the Abitibi. The latter approved of the initiative. On October 14, 1994, Val d'Or mayor, Mr. Tétrault, was met. He expressed his disapproval but, according to correspondence dated November 23, 1994, signed by Chief Superintendant G. Zaccardelli, then acting Commanding Officer Mr. Tétrault understood that we had to cope with budget restraint and had no choice but to streamline our services.
On February 7 and 8, 1995, meetings were also held with the mayors and chiefs of police of Amos and Val d'Or. According to correspondence dated February 17, 1995, signed by Insp. P. Droz, acting officer commanding, Montreal subdivision, those representatives unanimously denounced the choice of Rouyn-Noranda. However, the mayor of Amos expressed his interest in an exchange program between the RCMP and Amos police department.
The foregoing answer to part ( h ) of the question briefly summarizes the studies made and steps taken in this file to meet budget cuts.
Guy St-Julien: Regarding the construction of a new building for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin looking to buy a lot; ( b ) with whom did the RCMP deal; ( c ) what lot size did the RCMP require; ( d ) what was the purchase price of the land; ( e ) did the RCMP request public bids in selecting land in Rouyn-Noranda; and ( f ) was the plan to purchase the land contained in the budget forecasts and, if so, for what year?
Andy Scott: In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows.
(a) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police began planning to build a detachment in Rouyn-Noranda in 1988-1989. Steps to purchase land were initiated after the funds required to purchase land had been approved, i.e. June, 1997.
(b) The RCMP dealt with Public works an Government Services, PWGSC. PWGSC dealt with the owner of the land, which in this case was the Rouyn-Noranda school board.
(c) The RCMP's initial requirements to PWGSC were for a lot between 21,000 to 45,000 square feet. The surface area of the land eventually purchased was 56,822 square feet (294ft x 174ft).
(d) The land was purchased for a sum of $179,557. If we take the fee paid to PWGSC into account, the total cost of the land to the RCMP was $205,000.
(e) No; a competitive process was held and a follow-up was put in place by PWGSC who issued a request for public bids in June 1997. In July 1997, 6 bids had been selected and following a comparative analysis, a final site was selected in July 1997.
(f) Building a new detachment in Rouyn-Noranda had been discussed since 1988 and the purchase cost of the land was reflected in the “C” Division budget in the 1997/98 RCMP capital construction program. It was not reflected in the main estimates because the project was being advanced.
Guy St-Julien: Regarding the construction of new buildings for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec; ( a ) how much did these buildings cost to build; and ( b ) were these costs contained in the budget forecasts and, if so, for what year?
Andy Scott: In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows:
(a) In the case of Amos detachment, the projected construction cost was $924,000. In the case of Rouyn-Noranda, the projected construction cost was $1.1 million.
(b) The construction costs for a new detachment in Amos were included in the 1995/96 capital construction program budget as well as the main estimates, at a total cost of $924,000 with $374,000 to be spent in 1995/96.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsPeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 51 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that Question No. 51 be made an order for return?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed. .[Text]
Mr. John Cummins: With respect to aboriginal fishing activities in British Columbia during the period from March 31, 1992, to November 30, 1997, with the exception of salmon and herring fisheries: ( a ) which aboriginal groups received communal licences or other authorization to fish excluding commercial fishing licences of the same type issued to the all-canadian commercial fishing fleet in British Columbia; ( b ) what period did each licence include; ( c ) what species did each licence include; ( d ) what quantity of each species could be harvested under each licence; ( e ) what quantity of each species was reported as harvested under each licence; ( f ) what evidence does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) possess to conclude that these aboriginal groups have an aboriginal right to harvest the species for which the licence was issued in the area in which the fishing activities take place; ( g ) what evidence of pre-contact harvesting of the species did the aboriginal groups provide to convince DFO such that they now ought to be awarded an aboriginal licence; ( h ) were any coastal waters of British Columbia closed either permanently or temporarily to fishing by other Canadians to accommodate these aboriginal fisheries; ( i ) if certain areas were closed, which areas, for what period and to accommodate which aboriginal group fishing and for which species; ( j ) what evidence does DFO possess to conclude that an area closure was necessary to protect the claimed aboriginal fishing right; and ( k ) in the absence of a proven aboriginal right to fish, on what grounds or on what basis does DFO close waters to fishing by Canadians other than those belonging to a designated aboriginal group?
Return tabled.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the submission of private members' bills.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Criminal CodeEric C. Lowther: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, this bill relates to offences of communicating for the purposes of prostitution to make it a dual or hybrid offence. It would allow prosecutors the option to treat the offence as either a summary or an indictable conviction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question period, the hon. member for Lakeland had five minutes and thirty seconds remaining in his speech. I invite him now to resume the floor.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where I was in my speech when the interruption took place. I will begin by saying that with regard to this bill on education, the Reform Party supports national standards for education and apprenticeship across the country.
In a broader way, the Reform Party's ultimate goal on aboriginal matters is that all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in the Canadian citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians. I want to clarify that just so there is no doubt about what we are saying.
By saying that the aboriginal people should be full and equal participants and indistinguishable in law and treatment, we are not saying that it means they should be indistinguishable in cultural, language, dress or character. That is not what we are saying at all. I am clarifying this because I have had people interpret it that way to me.
I personally very much enjoy the culture of aboriginal people. Over the last few months I have had ample opportunity to enjoy that culture, the character and the formal ceremonial dress of the aboriginal peoples.
I want to end my presentation by asking the government four questions in response to the bill. I will also make some comments on the questions.
First, do the grassroots aboriginals on the reserves that are being covered under this legislation support the change that this legislation would make?
We already know that only nine of the thirteen reserves that are covered support the legislation. We have no idea whether the grassroots people themselves on the nine that have supported it support this legislation in any way. It is crucial that this be determined before the bill continues. We know Phil Fontaine supports the bill. We know that the chiefs and councils from the nine reserves support the bill, but do the grassroots aboriginals? I would like an answer to that question.
Second, $24 million will go into this fund to be managed by the chiefs and councils. It has been said that there will be a requirement for an independent auditor and some accounting for that spending.
Specifically my question is what level of accounting will be required? In what detail? How will the auditor be chosen? Will the Auditor General of Canada who after all is the final auditor on federal spending have the final responsibility to check into the spending of this money? This is critical.
In the aboriginal task force I set up, in the private presentations and at the public meetings, and in the presentations made to the questionnaire, the issue which came up more than any other issue was that of accountability on the part of chiefs and councils to the grassroots aboriginals. That question must be answered.
Third, if this deal is being made to help status Indians move toward self-government, has this government determined in fact that is what they want? It is an important question.
At the largest of the public meetings I had on this issue, there were about 75 people. About 70 people were aboriginal and I would think 40 of them were status Indians. Television cameras were there. I asked how many would support self-government. Not one hand went up. One woman stood up and said “What do you mean by self-government?” I said that that was a very good question. That question remains unanswered.
What exactly is self-government? Do grassroots aboriginals support it? Certainly the people we have heard from do not. They support no new level of control on the part of their governing bodies until the time that they are assured that there will be real accountability.
This fourth point is a comment. With regard to the quality of education, the task force found, and it was expressed very clearly and strongly, that better education is required. Better education is the key to two things. It is the key to things becoming better on the reserves. It is also the key to giving those people who choose to leave the reserves a fighting chance when they go. This was expressed very clearly. That is why I need some assurance that this change will provide a better quality of education. I really do not feel that I have that assurance right now.
As we go through the rest of the process, through the amendments to the bill at committee, at report stage and at third reading, I ask the government to provide that assurance in a way that really means something. I also ask that the government answer my questions.
In closing, there are too many unanswered questions. I certainly cannot support the bill as it is now, but I will look at what happens over the rest of the process.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to address the technical details of this bill. This has been done by other members. My objections to the legislation are more philosophical than technical.
I object because the bill in my eyes is a reflection of the government's agenda to create a system of benevolent apartheid, velvet glove segregation enforced not by truncheons and attack dogs but with chequebooks and devious dealings.
When the Prime Minister of Canada was the minister of Indian affairs some 30 years ago, he knew better than to perpetuate the system we have in this country today. In fact, he issued a white paper which would have brought the native people holus bolus into Canadian society. Had he had his way at the time, the majority of the problems the native communities are now facing in Canada and by extension the rest of us would not exist.
However, he was not a senior member of the government at that time. He was beaten down by Prime Minister Trudeau. He was beaten down by the Indian chiefs. Now apparently he no longer recognizes the wisdom of his thoughts in those days. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is off and running on the same track which this government has followed ever since it was elected, which is to maintain segregation.
Let us be clear that when we talk about not segregating the native people, we in the Reform Party are not saying that there should not be any cultural distinctiveness. Any group in society, if it has a culture to protect and defend, should be able to so. What we object to is administrative distinctiveness.
The southern United States used to refer to facilities, primarily education facilities, being separate but equal. This was the line of the Bull Connors type of person or, if we want to get someone a little more civilized, George Wallace. Surely these are not the models which we in Canada should follow in developing our social policy.
I would like to speak for a moment about what I think may be one of the impetuses behind the establishment of a natives only educational system. I would like to speak about the much maligned residential schools. One should remember that at the time when most natives, particularly in northwestern Canada, lived on the land, these were the only available options for an academic education for native children.
I used to work with a number of young men who graduated from the Fort Providence residential school. They had formally completed what was then referred to as a grade eight education. I would say their general level of sophistication and general knowledge was at least equal to that of the average contempory high school graduate. Had it not been for the residential schools, the construction of the educational foundation on which to build native political power would have been delayed by at least 20 or 30 years. Where do members think the leaders came from who were able to integrate themselves into the system—I use the word integrate advisedly—and effectively they beat the caucasian migrants at their own game?
I know some of these residential schools were tough. The one that my friends went to was apparently tough. When they talked about it, they did not talk about it in tones that would suggest they had been devastated by it. They spoke about it in a rather jocular fashion. In the days they were there all schools were tough. I attended a school where corporal punishment was the norm. I somehow survived. As has been admitted, there were perverts and sadists in the system, as there are everywhere in society. There were some terrible events. But that does not condemn the entire system which by and large was run by dedicated, sensitive people who really had the best interests of their students at heart.
In any event, with modern communication and modern transportation there is now no need for residential schools. If the Mi'kmaq children were to ride school buses to universally accessible community schools there might be some cultural shock but certainly much less than would be experienced by native people in other parts of Canada. Segregated schools are unfortunately a geographic and demographic necessity in some parts of the country but certainly not in Nova Scotia.
Anyone who has been watching the events on television lately the disputes over logging would certainly have been struck by the down home Nova Scotia accents of some of the disputants. These people are for all intents and purposes integrated into general society. This government is proposing what I would call a policy of dis-integration.
Many people would like to forget the band system in Canada, which this new educational policy would help to perpetuate, was the model for South Africa's system of homelands. The designers of that system actually studied our reserves at a time when our domestic apartheid was not benign, as it is today. They thought this was wonderful and went home and did the same.
We still have the apartheid system. We still have the reserves. Thank heavens they are now a little more benign, but at what cost? We have created this gigantic bureaucracy both in Ottawa and in and about the reserves. We have a class of people known outside of the Indian community as the Indian industry which comprises not just bureaucrats but the chiefs, the bands, all the people in power, the people who have their hands on the money and who will retain their power, their influence, their trips, their meaningless meetings and their good life as long a we continue to boost up the band system. It is a classic example of this type of band boosterism when we give people their very own schools apart from the rest of society.
Therefore I cannot in conscience support this type of legislation. It is wrong to divide people. It is wrong to set up a system where we have a money elite with power bestowed by the federal government, both economic and social power, who are in effect the representatives, whether the people being represented like it or not, of the vast majority of rank and file natives who have no choice in the matter.
This is the old colonial system. This is the way it was done in colonial times. They set up a leadership system that would eagerly collaborate with the senior governments. They gave them lots of perks and privileges and through that they were able to maintain permanent control, permanent separation, permanent economic subjugation of the vast mass of the people allegedly being represented.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.
It has been said by some that the Mi'kmaq should blend in with the rest of society and become a part of the rest of the Canadian society. I think interface was a word that was used.
History has recorded very well the results of the attempt to assimilate and have first nations people blend in through the residential school system which robbed them of their culture, history, dignity and heritage. It is time for a change, to face the reality of today's situation.
This bill will be the first of its kind in transferring jurisdiction for education to first nations communities. The royal commission on aboriginal peoples argues strongly that education in all its dimensions be placed under the control of aboriginal people.
On February 14, 1997 the chiefs of nine Nova Scotia bands signed an agreement concerning jurisdiction for education. I emphasize that the chiefs represent their communities. Bill C-30 would allow for the transfer to occur.
The chiefs of Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh, Wagmatcook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley and Acadia signed the agreement to transfer jurisdiction for education on reserve.
This development is not a new idea. Mi'kmaq have been struggling to preserve and develop their education for a very long time. Marie Battiste, a Mi'kmaq, stated as cultural curriculum co-ordinator for the Eskasoni school board in 1992:
In Eskasoni we do have language instruction going on in the school. We do provide cultural integration into the curriculum and we do a lot of things toward cultural enhancement, enrichment and appreciation. And those have many kinds of positive outcomes.
Throughout the royal commission hearings presenters told the commission and wrote in their reports that education must in part develop children and youth:
As aboriginal citizens, linguistically and culturally competent to assume the responsibilities of their nations. Youth that emerge from school must be grounded in a strong, positive aboriginal identity. Consistent with aboriginal traditions, education must develop the whole of the child, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically.
I extend my congratulations and those of my caucus colleagues to all those involved in the negotiations and discussions that have brought us to this point.
The final agreement, signed less than three months ago, sets out the powers, duties, functions and structures of the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey, or the Mi'kmaq Education Corporation.
This agreement provides for the corporation to have the ability to pass laws for primary, elementary and secondary education on reserve for band members only. However, the Mi'kmaq under this agreement are obligated to provide equivalent education for primary, elementary and secondary education to non-members. This point will need to be discussed in committee because Mi'kmaq must provide education to non-band members on the reserve under this agreement but there is no capacity to cover Mi'kmaq not on reserve.
One of the highlights of the agreement is that an education standard is transferable between the Mi'kmaq nation and any other education system in the country. If we are concerned about addressing the interface and the reality of Canadian society, this is provided for in the bill.
Bill C-30 will give effect to that final agreement. It is about time. Since schools have been operated by religious missions for over 300 years much of the history of aboriginal formal education has been about so-called educating the spirit, culture and being out of aboriginal youth. One description given to the royal commission is that it has been tantamount to beating the Indian out of the child.
While there are some people who would still advocate that today by their policies and philosophies under the guise of mixing and interfacing, it is important that aboriginal people maintain their heritage, their identity and their culture.
Many schools were explicitly used to break down the transmission of culture, language, history and spirit from one generation to the next. Mi'kmaq educator Marie Battiste said:
Cognitive imperialism—is [the attempt to change] a whole way in which people see things. I think it is important at this point to tell you a bit about the Mi'kmaq language. It is a beautiful language. It has many, many ways of expressing things. There are more ways to express things in Mi'kmaq than there are in English and the language is built around relationships—
The language is the cement and the bonds. It provides the moral communion, if you will, of the community. And when we begin to take that language away from the people, when we tear the people away from the very rudiments of that language in terms of the relationships of people to each other, the relationship to their universe, their relationships to the animals and the plants, we take away their interconnectedness and we leave them empty, lost and alone. This is a tremendous loss the people feel—
This bill, thanks to the resolve and creativity of the Mi'kmaq leaders, sets to change the course of education in a significant way.
One of the recommendations of the royal commission report calls for:
—federal, provincial and territorial governments to collaborate with Aboriginal governments, organizations or educational authorities, as appropriate, to support the development of Aboriginally controlled education systems by introducing, adapting or ensuring the flexible application of legislation to facilitate self-starting initiatives by Aboriginal nations and their communities in the field of education.
This bill is a significant first step in that direction. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Bras d'Or, recently spoke with Chief Lindsay Marshall from Chapel Island about these issues, as did I. I am sure the member for Bras d'Or is proud that this history is being made in her riding.
Just before I conclude my remarks I would like to add a personal note with respect to the value of education for all peoples.
My father had probably less than grade six formal education and my mother had about grade nine formal education, but those two people were very well educated, much more educated perhaps than people who had gone through university. They were very wise in their years. They were self-educated and self-taught.
It was due to circumstances beyond their control that they were unable to complete their education in a formal sense. My father's father died when he was quite young and he had to take charge of trying to help support his family. My mother came from a larger family and had to, because of economic circumstances, take part in trying to help support her family.
The one thing that was of great significance to me as a young person growing up in that family setting was the importance that my mother and father stressed upon education. I can remember my father saying to me “Son, never let any man or any person put you down because of the colour of your skin. Get your education. Pursue education, be proud of who you are and what you are, and work hard to become educated so you can compete in this world”. It is because of those words of encouragement and support that I am here today and I am the person I am.
This was not an attempt to mix or interface with the rest of society. This was being proud of who you are based upon your own personal being, your own values and the mores and the values that came as a part of the family in which I grew up.
Many aboriginal people did not have that opportunity. They were torn away from their families, from their homes and from that kind of support. They did not have that advice because they were taken away from their mothers and fathers who cared for them in the same way as my mother and father cared for me.
I can recall my mother and father going to school meetings, discussing our progress with the teachers of the day and taking great pride in our report cards. Many aboriginal children did not have that opportunity because they were torn away from their culture. They did not have the opportunity to discuss their progress with their elders and the people within their community who meant so much to them and who could have provided the kind of support which I received.
When we talk about moving in the direction of giving aboriginal people control over their own affairs, I feel it is time this was done. We know the message that history has given us of non-aboriginal people trying to take control of aboriginal people's lives. So many people are afraid to move to something different and allow people to change.
I would urge very strongly that every member of this House give serious thought to the principle that is involved in this bill and not the technicalities about how much money is going to be involved and how the taxpayer is going to be involved. Those are incidentals that can be worked out in a different forum. It is the principle and the heart of the bill which are important. The bill will enable people to take charge of their own lives. They will be able to do the kinds of things they should be able to do. They will once again have pride in their heritage. They will have control over their own destiny and their own affairs. There is nothing for people to fear about that concept.
I say to all members that we should think seriously about this bill and lend it the support it has been given by the aboriginal communities and by the province of Nova Scotia, which have signed this agreement with the federal government. We should move forward so that every aboriginal person may take their rightful place in Canadian society.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for St. John's East on his presentation. To me the member is representative of the very philosophy which I was trying to espouse in my speech. In other words, here is a man who has succeeded. He was encouraged and helped by his family, but he went out and did what had to be done within general society and has finally arrived here as a member of the Parliament of Canada.
I would ask the hon. member if he attended a segregated school when he was on his way up. If he did attend such an institution, did he think that was a good idea?
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I would applaud you for referring to my riding correctly as Halifax West. It is not St. John's East, as my hon. colleague has indicated. One of the problems in our society is that quite often we do not get things straight.
In response to the question, I would like to comment first upon my hon. colleague's remarks about the general society. Part of the problem is that many times we do not recognize that aboriginal people are a part of the general society.
By that very terminology we are excluding aboriginal people. We are isolating and doing the very thing that he is trying to purport he is not doing, which is segregating and separating.
Aboriginal people are a part of the general society. It is just that they have not been afforded within that context the opportunities that have been afforded to other people. One of those opportunities should be to allow people to have their own culture, heritage and form of education. There is nothing wrong with that.
There are many systems of education today which are quite different. There is no one common system for Canadian society. There are public schools and private schools. There distance education via computers. There is home schooling. Are people who teach their children at home less a part of the general Canadian society than someone who sends their children to the public system?
Why would someone who is pursuing education within the confines of the Mi'kmaq community be any different from someone who is pursuing a home education course?
We must be careful not to apply our standards to other people and feel that because their standards do not apply or conform with our standards that they are not a part of the general society.
In so far as my own schooling goes, I grew up in the north end of Halifax. The school I attended had people from various races and that in itself does not necessarily support the member's contention that I would have done any better or any worse.
What made me do well, and I emphasized this during my speech, was the support I received within the confines of my home environment, which can be accomplished by aboriginal people in the confines of their home environment within the context of self-education controlled by the Mi'kmaq community. The two do not conflict.
I fail to see the point the hon. member is getting at. I feel it is very important that this bill be supported and I stand on that.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.
Bill C-30 is a historic piece of legislation that will provide the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia with jurisdiction over education on reserve. This will be the first piece of legislation transferring jurisdiction over education to first nations and it will set a precedent across Canada.
Education is a provincial matter, but the federal government is responsible for programs and services for aboriginals living on reserve. As such, the federal government, the provincial government and the Mi'kmaq first nations worked together to bring about this legislation.
To give a little history and background to this legislation I would like to point out that the process which led to Bill C-30 began in 1991. At that time the Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia, namely a group of band chiefs and concerned citizens, approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requesting control over education.
This led to the signing of a framework agreement in 1992 between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia. These first nations are: Acadia, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Horton, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh.
Following the signing of the framework agreement meetings were held between the federal government and the Nova Scotia chiefs and culminated with the signing of a political accord in November 1994. This accord began negotiations for the transfer of jurisdiction over education.
A process of consultation with band councils preceded this event and consultations were conducted with the Mi'kmaq people and the general public to apprise them of the current state of negotiations and the extent of jurisdictional control requested by the Mi'kmaq first nations.
My point here is that we have had seven years of negotiations and discussion on this bill already. It has been in the public eye for seven years. This is not the first time the public has heard of it. Parliamentarians should not think that all of a sudden there is some type of conspiracy going on which will threaten education on native reserves across Canada. This is a piece of legislation that has been discussed prior to today, which will hopefully be enacted after this discussion today.
The corporation, known as Mi'kmaq Education, was established to help with the anticipated transfer of jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq communities. Mi'kmaq Education's purpose is to facilitate and support the Mi'kmaq communities in the setting of objectives to ensure a program and structure is in place to deal with the administrative requirements associated with such a transfer.
Mi'kmaq Education established by the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations hired three Mi'kmaq people to consult with the Mi'kmaq community members and the general public. These consultations were carried out in a number of ways, including newsletters and information booths, in an effort to reach as many people as possible.
As well, the team met with Nova Scotia first nations schools, Nova Scotia universities and the Nova Scotia School Board Association. The team visited each community twice, meeting with both the band council and community and business members. This led to the negotiation of an agreement in principle which was signed on May 3, 1996.
The final process at the community level was conducted through the signing of band council resolutions which demonstrated that each band council had the support of its community and there was support for the chief to sign the final agreement on their behalf.
However, no referendum was conducted to determine community support and the Millbrook first nation later raised this as a point of contention.
Nine of the Mi'kmaq first nations signed the final agreement on February 14, 1997. The four that did not sign, Afton, Bear River, Horton and Millbrook, did not feel they had informed consent from their respective communities. However, clause 12 of the legislation allows these bands to join the process at a later date if they have the support of the band council to sign the agreement. The governor in council may then add the name of any Mi'kmaq first nation in Nova Scotia, thus granting the band jurisdiction over education.
The reverse may also occur. If the band council authorizes the withdrawal of the first nation from the agreement, the governor in council may do so. Both these procedures would be effective as of April 1 the following year.
It is important to note that the act allows for bands that have not signed on to this agreement to come into it. It also allows for bands that have signed on to the agreement and that may later see it does not suit their purposes to leave the agreement. It encompasses all Mi'kmaq first nations.
Four of the thirteen first nations in Nova Scotia did not sign the final agreement for various reasons. Horton first nation consists of a small number of Mi'kmaq, most of whom live off reserve. The advantage of the legislation is therefore minimal for this group. Two of the others, Afton and Bear River, still have questions regarding the process and are content to wait and see how the legislation progresses and how successful the program is. It is expected that they will join at a later time which the process allows for.
Millbrook was looking for legislation that would establish an inherent right process. While Bill C-30 is a step in that direction it does not go that far toward self-government since this remains a delegated jurisdiction. Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook first nation expressed concerns over the funding arrangements supporting this legislation. Chief Paul felt the funding should be guaranteed for a period greater than five years agreed on by the federal government.
Twenty-seven Mi'kmaq first nations currently exist in Canada. They are located in four of the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. Thirteen of these bands are in Nova Scotia. They are situated across the province. They have a long history and a strong culture. There are approximately 9,000 Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, with 6,200 living on reserve. There are 2,200 Mi'kmaq students in Nova Scotia with this number split evenly between those living on and off reserve. Half the on reserve students go to public schools off reserve. This legislation does not provide the Mi'kmaq with greater powers or control over schools that are not on reserve.
Mi'kmaq culture historically relied heavily on story telling as a means of entertainment and communication. It incorporated songs and dances into these stories which were a means of passing on Mi'kmaq history. It is a goal of Mi'kmaq education to preserve Mi'kmaq culture and traditions. Giving control of education to Mi'kmaq communities ensures this is possible. The goal of Mi'kmaq education is to incorporate traditional languages and cultures back into the school system. This was one of the reasons the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations requested the federal government to transfer jurisdiction to their Mi'kmaq communities in 1991.
This legislation covers elementary and secondary jurisdictions and the allocation of funding for post-secondary education. Thus first nations will have control over what is taught to their students but they will have to ensure the education is equal to that of other students in Nova Scotia and that it meets university entrance requirements.
Without this legislation, the Mi'kmaq have no opportunity to make laws for education on reserve. The Indian Act gives the federal government this authority. Bill C-30 repeals sections 114 to 140 of the act and delegates jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq. This will force the Mi'kmaq to develop structures to properly manage education and to make laws in line with standards set out in a constitution. Each community will first have to develop a constitution before it makes up its laws.
This legislation should increase accountability for the Mi'kmaq with regard to their education system. Currently band councils are not accountable to members. Instead they report to the federal government. Bill C-30 will increase community involvement, and accountability will improve through the preparation of financial statements and the annual report.
There are some detractors to this important piece of legislation but if we read the legislation thoroughly and carefully, which I would encourage all hon. members to do, this is a very precedent setting piece of legislation and increases accountability. It does not diffuse accountability.
Mi'kmaq communities recognize there will be challenges ahead such as the construction of schools on reserves, in particular for those bands outside Cape Breton. Moreover, there are challenges of finding Mi'kmaq who can teach students their own language and there are challenges of maintaining standards as required to meet both school board and university requirements.
Most first nations in Nova Scotia seem to be happy with the proposed legislation and feel this is a step in the right direction not only toward self-government but to improving the education their students receive.
When I spoke with a number of bands affected they stated they were pleased to be getting control over education. While they expect some hurdles along the way ultimately this is seen as a positive move.
This legislation also has its critics within the Mi'kmaq community but the legislation is designed and written to encompass those critics and to give them the opportunity to have their say and also to perhaps make changes in the legislation.
Bill C-30 would be a stepping stone for other first nations across Canada to begin taking an active role in educating their own people. Taking an active role would mean that the 53% of natives living on reserve under age 25 would have some say in their education process. This is an area of great importance to the first nations and its students. First nations want to ensure their traditions and heritage continue while the young people want and need an education that will prepare them for the future.
First nations in Manitoba and Ontario are looking at the process but because of different treaties they will have to tailor it to meet their own needs and circumstances. Furthermore, this is a move toward self-government, something my party has and continues to support as a means of improving economic development for aboriginal peoples.
This is a historic piece of legislation. The Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia have requested and are prepared to administer it and I am pleased to support it at this stage.
I look forward to examining it in greater detail as the process continues in committee.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HousePeter Adams: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to Toronto on May 7, 1998, in order to visit a Toronto refugee detention centre.
(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, 1998 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we further defer the vote to Tuesday evening at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I also suggest that the House see the clock as 1.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Criminal CodeMs. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, volume discounts for rapists and murderers, that is the law in Canada today. It is called concurrent sentencing. It means that serial predators can serve penalties for multiple crimes at the same time and be out on the street in only a fraction of the total sentencing.
Concurrent sentencing cheapens life. The lives of individual victims are erased from the sentencing equation. The suffering, the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the courts. The minimum penalty always applies for even the most prolific killers.
For the third time in two years I am presenting a bill which offers parliament the opportunity to correct one of the justice system's most jagged obscenities. My bill, now called Bill C-251, asks that Canada stop giving volume discounts to its rapists and murderers through concurrent sentencing.
On this third attempt my bill has finally been deemed votable and for that I extend my heartfelt thanks to the 166 members of the House from all parties who lent their names in that cause. Their support will give all members the opportunity to weigh the arguments and determine whether consecutive sentencing will bring our justice system a little closer to justice.
The current penalties for murder were imposed over 20 years ago. Yet I can find no record of any minister or member of Parliament for that matter who spoke in the House in favour of concurrent sentencing for Canada's most vicious criminals. As near as I can tell, it was never discussed and certainly never available for public debate.
I believe it is time for the people's representatives in parliament to determine whether serial killers and rapists deserve special leniency they are currently afforded under the law and by our courts.
Bill C-251 has as its purpose three simple objectives, to reduce our inhumanity to the families of victims, to restore some truth in sentencing and to stop gambling away lives on the chance that a multiple murderer or serial predator will not attack again. It seeks to achieve these ends not by increasing the penalty for any one crime but by ensuring that these penalties have meaning by being served consecutively.
We do not have concurrent sentencing for parking tickets. If one parks illegally 10 times, one pays 10 tickets. One does not get a volume discount.
My bill seeks the same proportionality for the most serious and vicious crimes committed against Canadians. I believe very simply that justice is about proportional penalties, about relief for victims and about protecting the safety of citizens. Clearly, concurrent sentencing runs counter to each of these principles.
In the five years that I have been working on this issue, I have seen the human consequences of the current legal framework which is indifferent to the crimes committed against the second, the third or the eleventh victim of a serial predator.
I have talked to the families of victims and to victims themselves, some of whom never had their case prosecuted because the crown determined that any additional sentence would only be washed away by concurrent sentencing. Many of these victims have mustered the courage and drawn purpose from their personal horror by trying to change the system which treated them with such callous indifference. They journey here to Ottawa thinking that MPs, that parliament, will listen and spare future victims.
In the summer of 1996, not just one but two multiple murderers were free on parole in Mississauga. Concurrent sentencing had given these repeat killers volume discounts for their crimes.
For John Lyman Kehoe, the second child he murdered did not affect his sentence so he was free to create yet a third victim. On July 2, 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent by the name of Wendy Carroll, slashed her throat and left her for dead. She survived, but no thanks to the justice system or the parole board which opened the cages of her assailants.
Wendy Carroll's life was nearly erased because our sentencing system erases victims. Had John Kehoe served a second consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered, he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carroll or anyone else. Wendy Carroll wrote to me, after narrowly surviving these predators. She wrote:
For some reason our politicians have decided to grant rights to violent criminals who have taken every right away from their victims. What are they thinking? How many people must endure the horrific and extremely painful experience I did in fighting criminals like these for my life? How many more innocent people must die before parliament decides to make some changes?
Wendy Carroll cannot understand how two predators who had been convicted of killing four people between them could have been set free to attack again.
Albert Einstein once noted that “the world is a dangerous place to live in, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who let them do it”.
In this case, the cages were flung open by volume discounts applied to their sentences which disregarded all but the first victim and left two predators eligible for parole in half the time. Of course the National Parole Board proved to be no barrier between predator and prey.
Bill C-251 does not ask the parole board to be any less irresponsible. It does not increase the penalty for any crime. What it asks is that penalties that currently apply to each murder or rape conviction be served and not be written off as part of a bulk rate for carnage.
The consecutive sentencing approach proposed by my bill is an uncomplicated attempt to restore a degree of truth in sentencing. It recognizes that each sentence applies to a specific crime, an individual victim, a personal horror. It insists that the price for murder must not be marked down.
Last summer I had occasion to witness the obscene spectacle of Clifford Olson's 745 hearing. His remarks reinforced my resolve to continue to resubmit this bill until the issue was dealt with by this parliament. Olson read out a letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. This way, the lawyer indicated, Olson could take full advantage of concurrent sentencing. Olson mocked in the court “They can't do nothing. They can only give me a concurrent sentence”.
Today we have to answer why Olson and other predators should only be given a concurrent sentence, and why our justice system should continue to offer a bulk rate for brutality.
The only persons negatively affected by my bill are future serial killers and serial rapists. This is not a bill that affects shoplifters, tax evaders, drug dealers, vandals, or petty thieves. Concurrent sentencing will still be available to all but our most vicious criminals.
I ask members of this House to place their compassion where it is deserved. There is no compassion in inflicting a lifetime of parole hearings on a family already destroyed by a serial killer.
Just two weeks ago I was visited by a father in my own riding who begins each and every year by going to a parole hearing to prevent the murderer of his 11-year old daughter from getting back on the streets. He owes it to his daughter to keep going because he knows that without his intervention the parole board would release her killer on to other victims. This father suffers from legislation that is focused on the welfare of killers rather than compassion for victims.
In the debates over the past two years I have heard no compelling arguments being offered by those who support volume discounts for serial predators.
In Hansard members will find it argued that we have too many people in jail and that we have to double bunk a quarter of all the inmates. I am not kidding. This was raised in this place just last year as a reason to give serial killers early release. I would hate to tell Wendy Carroll that she was nearly killed by two paroled multiple murderers just to increase the percentage of single cells. That sadly is what has been argued in this House.
It was also argued that we cannot have consecutive life sentences. Canadians are gradually catching on to the deception of life imprisonment. Half of all those convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life are released after less than 12 years. Denis Lortie, who machine gunned three people to death, was released after serving only 11 years, about three and a half years of lost freedom for each person he murdered. That is the bargain basement price of life in our courts and under our parole system.
Sickeningly, Denis Lortie was not an exception. He was representative of the fact that the only meaningful part of his sentence is the period of parole ineligibility. The rest of the sentence is just an option, an option our system allows to revictimize the parents or the relatives of the victims. It potentially forces them to join countless other victims in having to dredge up gruesome memories just to provide impact statements and petitions to keep the cages closed. But the quality of mercy is not strained.
It has been argued in this House that concurrent sentences “counter any need to reduce sentencing dispositions for individual offences in order to achieve an overall just result”. It is never a just result to reduce a sentence for rape or murder just because the victim was not the only victim of the predator involved.
It is worse yet for the courts to mask the fact that they do discount sentences in precisely that way time and time again through concurrent sentencing. There is no more justification for disguising a volume discount than there is for giving one.
The courts should not be able to placate victims by hiding the ugly truth behind their decisions. They should have to impose consecutive sentences when the crimes are as devastating as murder and sexual assault.
The argument has also been made in this House to suggest that we give volume discounts for rapists and murderers so that we can be different from the United States. I quote “I question whether we want to follow the American example of building more prisons”. This is the kind of hyperbole and exaggeration that protects an utterly flawed system with respect to Canada's most dangerous offenders.
I think the most efficient use of our prisons is to keep those predators who have killed or have sexually assaulted multiple victims securely away from future victims. If space in prison needs to be found, more creative forms of punishment and rehabilitation should be found for non-violent offenders guilty of property or commercial offences.
When it comes to serial predators, public safety must be our first concern. We know that each convicted serial predator is capable of more horrific crimes. Their actions have identified them as a permanent threat to society. To ignore that threat is to negligently endanger innocent lives.
A corrections research and development study from the Department of the Solicitor General showed that released child molesters who targeted boys had a 77% recidivism rate. That means for every 100 of these child molesters released, at least 77 more children are victimized. If a children's toy had that record, it would be banned.
The National Parole Board considers its record, its annual slaughter to be a success story. I have heard it argued that the National Parole Board is fit to decide what predators should be released, but the fact that the average murderer can get full parole within two years of eligibility illustrates that our parole system has lost its balance.
The Olson hearing proved to everyone who witnessed it that absolutely any predator can appear with a corrections worker who will attest to his good character and press the parole board for release. I was amazed when the corrections worker responsible for Clifford Olson testified in court as an Olson witness and talked of how he was more concerned with Olson's safety than he was his own, and how he relied on Olson to keep him informed on current events.
This Corrections Canada employee was even a member of the prison program planning board. He told the court that Olson was a diligent worker who did a good job. Addressing Olson directly, the same corrections worker said “Most of our interactions were done in an open room sitting side by side at a table. I never saw you as a threat to me. My main concern was more for your safety than for my own”. He went on “I am sure everyone is well aware that you are considered a jailhouse lawyer. They consulted you for advice. You gave them advice. You helped them prepare documents and by the peer group, you were well thought of”.
The corrections worker added later “I always found you very interesting to work with as a matter of fact, for several reasons. One is you are well read. Because I live in a rural part of Saskatchewan, I do not have television facilities and you had several channels on television. You kept me informed of what was going on”.
If Clifford Olson can get such an endorsement from Corrections Canada, every other murderer must deserve the Lady Byng trophy. That experience was a demonstration of the distorted picture parole boards must be given on a regular basis. If Clifford Olson can find champions among corrections personnel, so can any criminal.
Some time ago I watched a television debate where one of the commentators suggested that consecutive sentencing for Clifford Olson, which would amount to genuine life imprisonment, would amount to nothing more than revenge. This sort of hyperbole is common in the predator protection industry. Life imprisonment is not some form of revenge.
If the families of the Olson victims were to hack him to death with a rusty axe, that would be revenge. Sentencing Olson to life in prison where he can educate corrections workers on current events is not revenge but very civilized and measured justice in response to a series of vicious crimes.
It has always been the tactic of those who earn their living defending predators to accuse anyone who opposes the early release of serial predators of being emotional, vengeful and of giving in to their primitive instincts. They think instead it is somehow superior to test their pompous theories by releasing known serial predators on to an unsuspecting public.
By far, the most distasteful argument I have heard in the defence of the status quo also had the most impact. When I first brought this bill to the House, one of its chief opponents told me that he could not support my bill because he did not want to create a victims industry. That is right. He did not want public policy to result in a victim's industry that would continuously challenge established legal practices. In short, he wanted to preserve the silence of the lambs.
Instead it is the predator protection industry that is supported. It is that industry that thrives on the endless parole process that annually threatens to unleash the chained savagery of predators, consuming untold tax dollars while dismembering the future of victims.
Let me summarize the arguments to defend volume discounts for rapists and murderers. They say we need concurrent sentencing because we do not want to double bunk predators. We do not want to reveal the fact that the courts are discounting sentences for individual crimes. We want to be different from the United States. We do not want to be emotional. Most importantly, we do not want to create a victim's industry.
That is all I have heard in the past two years to defend a system that cheapens life, revictimizes the families of the dead and recklessly exposes every Canadian to unnecessary risk from released predators.
I am asking members of this House to reach beyond the grasp of a legal system that not only fails victims but fails us all. I ask them to smooth the barbed face of Canadian justice and allow victims to find justice in our laws. I ask them to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.
Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga East who has just spoken, not only for bringing forward this bill for a second time, but for the words she has given this House to consider as well as all Canadians who are struggling to understand why we have a justice system that allows this kind of thing to go on and on.
Surely it is fair and just that we take a look at what our courts are doing in terms of sentencing individuals like the Clifford Olsons of this country to terms of imprisonment that are in fact a bargain price for criminality.
I rise in support of this private member's bill. This is a good bill. It was a good bill when it was introduced last parliament as private member's Bill C-321, a bill that may have been law today if our Liberal colleagues had deemed it votable.
In 1993 the Liberals campaigned on a promise to give backbenchers more weight in this government through added private members' bills. For those members new to this House, in the last parliament the member for Mississauga East accused the Liberal dominated, four-member committee that determines which private members' bills will be votable of short-circuiting controversial bills.
The Mississauga East MP, and I hope she does not mind me quoting her comments since they are on the record, said:
We supposedly have open government, but we have secret committees and I'd guarantee that no member of that committee would oppose the bill openly. They were just encouraged in secret. I'm not suggesting it's a kangaroo court; it's more like a cockroach court. You can't see them at work and they run.
In 1996 the hon. member was also quoted in the Hill Times as saying:
If I had a bill on lawn care, I bet I'd have success in getting it through the committee—. If I had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct an obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate.
The member made these comments in reference to her private member's bill on consecutive sentencing, Bill C-321, which was rejected by her colleagues.
I commend the member for having the fortitude to once again bring this most important bill forward.
Harsher comments appeared in the Hill Times in reference to private members' business. These words, which I would like to reiterate, were from Debbie Mahaffy, the mother of murder victim Leslie Mahaffy. Mrs. Mahaffy said:
I am disgusted but not surprised by the heartless comments on the issue of consecutive sentencing that came out of the flapping mouths of government Liberal members as reported in your paper on November 11, “MPs Slag Private Members' Business.”
Mrs. Mahaffy went on to state:
—the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says she was not familiar with this serious issue for victims' families because she had not attended caucus that week and as a result had nothing to say. Could it be that the issue of consecutive sentencing has been at more caucus meetings than she? Or perhaps she simply doesn't read newspapers about serious issues of crime. Another cruel remark dealing with sentencing of serial predators made by another bright light, Liberal—. chair of the women's caucus is equally inane. Her diatribe that she might support consecutive sentencing if [the member from Mississauga East] brings the issue to the forefront again, is mindless and absurd to say the least.
Well, if the floor is hers again we will see what that member has to say.
Mrs. Mahaffy went to state:
The fact that she made this comment after consulting with [the] Justice Minister and the Liberal [member from Mississauga East] adds to the obscenity. With this calibre of consultants, I suggest it is time for [the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore] to seek better advisors.
I have omitted a small portion of Mrs. Mahaffy's letter to the Hill Times , but I would like to read her last paragraph:
Shame on all of you for adding to our pain and for your lack of humanity, and the lack of wisdom to make a difference.
When we talk about our justice system and those in this House who are responsible for amending our laws and bringing forth new initiatives I cannot help but be reminded of an article in yesterday's newspaper by Jeffrey Simpson. It is headed “A Justice Minister with a Lower Profile than a Groundhog in Winter”. That is not very flattering, but I think it strikes very close to the truth. The reason for that is because our justice minister has really done very little, if anything, during almost a year of holding one of the strongest portfolios in government. It is certainly one of the two portfolios that has the mandate and the responsibility to look into things like ending concurrent sentencing and moving toward more just and applicable pieces of legislation.
I would also like to read from an article which appeared on November 27, 1996 in a B.C. newspaper regarding the standing committee on justice's national forum on youth justice, which occurred at the end of the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act. For the record, I could not support the expenditure of $60,000 to host this meeting. That was what the estimate was. I do not know what the actual cost was, but that is what we were asked to support. I could not do that because I felt we would be going over old ground by hearing from a number of witnesses who had already appeared before our committee. My opposition to this wasteful use of taxpayers' money caused me to endure a bit of a berating from the chair of that committee, which is hard for me to forget, although I have forgiven that member for that type of an attitude toward me because of the feelings the member experienced at the time. Nevertheless, it did happen. That displays an attitude that is all too prevalent in those who are responsible for the direction that our justice system has been taking, certainly during the last five years since I have been a member of this House.
I quote from that article:
Ottawa was a bust for [the member for Surrey North]. [The member for Surrey North], whose teenage son Jesse was stabbed to death by another teen four years ago, was invited to speak before the federal standing committee of justice affairs last weekend in Canada's capital city. But the Guildford dad, who founded the victims' rights group Crime, Responsibility and Youth (CRY) after his son was murdered, says the trip was a waste of time. “I spoke maybe five minutes total,” he said. “It was a joke. I shouldn't have even bothered going.” The meeting was poorly chaired, he charged.
Of 33 participants, [the member for Surrey North] said, only himself and a representative of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination (CAVEAT), another victims' rights group, spoke from the victims' perspective. The other participations were lawyers, criminologists and members of groups like the John Howard Society, a group advocating convicts' rights. Everything else was geared to the rights of offenders [the member for Surrey North] said. “I was the only person in the whole damn bunch who took the victims' side to anything,” he said, “and someone from CAVEAT.” He said he appreciated being asked to attend, but added, “it was so obviously one-sided.”
It is certainly not the first time a witness or an observer has called the committee a bust or a sham. The mayor of Cornwall walked out on the committee, called it a complete waste of time and accused the committee of being predisposed. I was and remain a member of that committee and I cannot disagree with the observations of the member for Surrey North and the mayor of Cornwall.
By December 1996, three years after the 1993 election, 16 private members' bills were introduced to reform Canada's criminal justice system. None have become law. It is unfortunate that despite the hard work and effort of many parliamentarians from all sides of the House, a similar pattern is emerging in this parliament.
Included in those bills that died was one introduced by the member for York—South Weston, Bill C-234. This very necessary bill did not become law. It did not even come back to the floor of the House of Commons because the Liberal members of the justice standing committee killed it. They did this despite the fact that Bill C-234 had the overwhelming support of the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence. Bill C-234 most certainly had the support of the Reform Party because this private members' bill would have repealed section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would have quashed the killer's glimmer of hope for being released before serving his full sentence.
I commend my colleague from Mississauga East for her courage in standing in a caucus where there is not much support for what many people across this country are asking for. I assure her that she has my support on this bill and the support of my caucus.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This enactment provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events or where the person is already serving another sentence at the time.
The enactment also provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for first or second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served, in addition to the portion of the sentence that the person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven years of any other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence arising out of the same events or that the person is already serving. The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively before the person is eligible for parole.
There are two main parts to this private members' bill. The first section deals with consecutive sentencing for those who commit sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same events, for example, sexual assault and a break and enter, or where the person is already serving time for another sentence at the time.
Sentencing in Canada is a relatively complex matter. Sentencing principles are set out in section 718.1 and section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Degrees of punishment are set out in section 718.3.
There are two types of sentencing in penitentiary: consecutive and concurrent. Concurrent is when the time runs together. For example, in a case of eight months for break and enter and four months for theft, the offender would serve eight months. Consecutive is when the sentences are cumulative. In this case the offender would have the two sentences added together for a total of 12 months.
Judges can currently impose consecutive sentences under section 718.03 of the Criminal Code, but not for life imprisonment. Sentencing is complicated by the principle of totality which says that the total sentence, that is combined sentences, is “just and appropriate” and will rarely exceed the harshest sentence for the most serious crime of all those being considered at the time of sentencing. This is a common law principle and is well entrenched in law. Consequently with regard to the first section of this bill, Bill C-251 provisions already exist which address consecutive sentencing.
The second aspect of the bill provides for a consecutive portion of another sentence to be served upon an offender who is serving time for murder. Thus someone who is serving 25 years for murder and who is also found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to nine years would have three years added to any parole eligibility requirements.
This section of the bill recognizes the nature and severity of certain crimes and imposes additional penalties to serious offenders and deals with public safety concerns. In that area I would support this part of the bill.
Having said that, while I could support the second part of the bill and appreciate the intent of the first part, the first section of the bill complicates existing law and is contrary to the principles in common law. Consequently we find we cannot support the bill in its present form.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to speak on Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I would suggest at the outset that this is a very timely and important bill.
Let me start my remarks with a quotation from the mover of this bill, the hon. member of Mississauga East, from a speech which she gave in the previous parliament. The bill was then labelled Bill C-321, the ancestor to the present bill:
Since I reintroduced this bill I have sadly been visited by too many victims of crime who have now come to realize that they are also victims of parliament. Some had lost children, some had lost parents, some had lost spouses, but all had lost faith in the courts, lost faith in parole boards and, most of all, lost faith in parliament.
Very sad words. I must say again at the outset that I commend the hon. member for Mississauga East for her dogged determination and pursuit of this very important principle and for bringing this bill forward again.
How true her statements ring when we look at what has happened this week in the House. We and the Canadian population have seen that the Government of Canada has displayed some callousness toward victims. Although I listened very carefully to her words, I must say that the quality of mercy is strained by what has happened to the victims of hepatitis C.
I do want to say with that on the record that I am glad to see there is at least one member who does care for victims. I know she has been working very hard over the past number of years to bring this matter forward in the form of a votable motion.
She stated in her remarks that there were three basic principles behind this bill: inhumanity and to avoid it, improving humanity toward victims, and certainly to protect us against those who offend. I congratulate her on her work. I am happy to see that members in this House and some members of her own government have decided to make this a votable item.
The member for Mississauga East has moved this important bill and has given a very eloquent speech before this House. This is the kind of intelligent, impartial and passionate speech we see far too seldom. Her speech clearly described how difficult it is for victims of crime in this country to face the justice system and how far too easily it is for them to lose faith.
Today parliamentarians have an opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation to help improve our justice system, to help bring to Canadians confidence in the system and more important to improve the protection of society from violent offenders. These are very collective and substantive suggestions the hon. member has made. Again I state on the record that I wholeheartedly and unequivocally support her motives.
Bill C-251 provides for truth in sentencing, something we must see. It is a very brief, straightforward and easy to understand amendment to the Criminal Code, something which we and all members of this House should encourage.
When it comes to the issue of sexual assault and section 271 of the Criminal Code there is a substantial need for this amendment. There is a need that sentences which are imposed by judges be served consecutively so that the punishment reflects the gravity of the offence.
At the present time there is the ability for these types of sentences to be served concurrently. That is, if there is more than one offence or the offence of a sexual assault occurs at the same time as other offences such as break and enter, theft or simple assault, the sentences are served at the same time. It is tantamount to having loans from three different institutions and only having to pay back one loan, to put it in simple terms.
The principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 718 of the code sets out what legislators in the past have tried to do and tried to reflect in the sentencing principles. Section 718.1 states: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. It goes further in setting out what these principles are and it speaks of the need for reformation and rehabilitation to be balanced against the more important, I would suggest, principle and that is the protection of society.
The Criminal Code states: “Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. Try to explain that to victims. Try to explain that to those who have lost their loved ones or had their loved ones attacked, beaten or killed. It is hard to impose this very strict and I would suggest heartless, callous principle and make them understand.
We have to revisit the principles of sentencing. The suggestion by the hon. member is a good one.
Bill C-251 would expand the ability of judges to impose a fair sentence. No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. Sadly, that is precisely what happens on occasion. We permit sexual offenders and other offenders who commit two, three, four or more crimes to serve one sentence at one time. It is absolutely absurd.
The name Clifford Olson has been mentioned in this Chamber far too often. I shudder to even mention that man's name. This is an individual who killed 11 children and is serving one life sentence. He should be serving 11 life sentences. The manipulative and self-serving evidence that he gave at his section 745 hearing is an absolute disgrace. It is a black eye for the entire country and our justice system in particular. There is no meaningful sentence that would ever reflect the heinous nature of the crimes that waste product committed.
One cannot help but be alarmist and reactionary when one hears the individual circumstances that surround some of these crimes, but one has to be thoughtful and thorough when approaching the subject of sentencing. Common sense has to apply at some level. For people like Olson and Bernardo, to suggest that 15 years to life is an adequate response is absolutely ludicrous.
This is why I hope that the member for Mississauga East will also support members of parliament on the opposition side when we continue to call for the abolition of section 745 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint hope clause. I am sure that based on the time she spent watching this debacle in British Columbia she will be of a similar mind.
The principles of her bill are completely undermined and useless as long as we continue to have section 745 in the Criminal Code. It is my belief that each of the innocent lives that were taken deserve at least the validation of having a consecutive sentence to represent their lives.
Conditional sentences are another subject, but that is another matter that has to be revisited. I would suggest that serious sexual assaults and violence should never be considered by judges for the imposition of conditional sentences.
It is also my belief that a person who commits multiple crimes should be given an appropriate sentence to reflect each and every one of those offences if committed at a different time with different circumstances.
Bill C-251 addresses that. It does so in a substantial and common sense fashion. Therefore I support the member and I support her bill. I support truth in sentencing. I support a justice system that does not marginalize by bargaining away the ability of society to protect itself and reflect its revulsion of violent crimes.
The second clause of Bill C-251 also amends section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires offenders sentenced for first and second degree murders to serve their full parole ineligibility period on the sentence, plus one-third of a maximum of seven years, whichever is less. Again it is an innovative way to ensure that there is some truth in sentencing.
There are times and factual circumstances when the judge should impose a sentence that would really reflect what the crime represents. If a judge says 25 years, it should be 25 years and that should be the end of it. That would give the offender and society the belief in their justice system.
When a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life for first or second degree murder, and after being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of another crime, why should that sentence not be served consecutively? It is a very good motion on the part of the hon. member.
Simply put, cumulative sentences play a very important role when it comes to parole eligibility. With a double murderer, Bill C-251, would be the best way to address this. The victim's family of the second murder, are left with the fact that their victim is not being addressed by the justice system when the sentence has to be served concurrently.
A person capable of serious violence and sexual aggression is a risk. It has to be a priority. It has to be something that we are prepared to address. This bill is worthy of our support.
Bill C-251 is a step toward improving our justice system overall and our sentencing principles. We must do more. We must continue to work toward this important goal.
In conclusion, I and the Conservative Party support this bill wholeheartedly and congratulate the member for Mississauga East.
Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-251.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East on her tenacity and dedication to an issue that concerns us all.
It would seem that, for the rest of this session, the criminal justice system will be a major focus in this House. The Minister of Justice is continuing consultations on the subject and proposing changes on various criminal justice issues, including legislation regarding young offenders, the difficult situation we are all aware of concerning victims and recommendations made as a result of recent investigations.
As for the solicitor general, he is presiding over the review of legislation including the Criminal Records Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. He is also involved in reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This review is a major initiative of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Essentially, the government is open to suggestions to bring about positive change and is fulfilling its responsibility, which is to provide Canadians with a more efficient criminal justice system.
I would certainly not give the impression that our legislation, even the most comprehensive and recent, is perfect. Lawmakers have the duty to keep an eye out for changes that may require a reform of existing legislation and for legislative inconsistencies and anomalies that may create inequalities.
Private members' bills are a tool to put forward corrective measures, which are sometimes adopted. I firmly believe in the value of debating issues raised in private members' bills.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, may take away flexibility and discretionary power from our courts and add to the already heavy burden of correctional bodies, when it comes to administering sentences.
The proposed changes would introduce new elements to the legislation adopted by parliament not so long ago. They would amend existing legislation in ways not foreseen by those who drafted it, who took part in discussions, and who made the amendments that give them their present form. If adopted, these amendments could well lead to serious challenges under our charter of rights and freedoms.
The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga East seem to be the solution that has always been called for by any groups calling for heavier penalties for law-breakers.
As other hon. members have said, Bill C-251, in its present form, and the prior forms of these proposed amendments are aimed at responding to the demands of a group which is attempting to convince us that longer sentences and later releases will enhance public safety. This admirable group is made up of police officers and victims, that is well-intentioned people who deserve our respect.
I would, however, like to respectfully submit that law enforcement agencies are sworn to enforce the law, while lawmakers are the ones responsible for drafting it. Moreover, it is an underlying principle of our justice system that the state guarantees the objectivity of the criminal justice system by prescribing penalties, and thus eliminating any element of personal vengeance.
The impressive list of legislative measures drafted by previous hard-line governments, as well as the improvements introduced in recent years, have had an impact on a large number of criminal justice issues.
In some cases, the new legislative provisions were the direct consequence of suggestions from police and victim assistance organizations. They were consulted in all cases. Most of the time, the measures that were adopted lengthened sentences and made the system more stringent.
I know that sometimes unusual and tragic events put considerable pressure on hon. members in the House to find solutions to problems in the area of criminal justice. The public reaction to recent deplorable and senseless crimes is also quite understandable. The efforts of individual Canadians and groups to exert positive influence are for the most part very commendable.
The proposed amendments, however, invoke punitive measures that far exceed the restrictions now set out in the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as threaten freedoms defended by the charter, as I mentioned.
Nevertheless, Bill C-251 is before us today and as described by its subtitle proposes cumulative sentences that could in some cases double or triple current levels of sentences.
Although I do not doubt the motives or intentions of the hon. member for Mississauga East, I must point out that support for the bill will come from those who believe that life should mean life.
There is a certain element here that has been addressed in past sessions when similar attempts were made to achieve the same objectives. The thrust of these proposals applies to those who might otherwise anticipate earlier eligibility to be considered for conditional release under current rules of sentence calculation.
I will attempt therefore to provide some details of how the government has come to address corrections and conditional release issues. In so doing I submit that it will become clear to my hon. colleagues that the proposals now before us do not at this time reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.
We are living in times of tremendous change, as hon. colleagues are well aware. Change is experienced no less by the criminal justice system than by any other institution in our society.
For the criminal justice system the past decade has been a period of difficult and sometimes painful questioning. Is our justice system working? Is it protecting our most vulnerable citizens? Can we assure Canadians that their safety is of paramount concern to the Government of Canada? These are all valid questions.
The 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General was entitled: “Taking Responsibility”. In that report, the committee recognized the need to make certain improvements to sentencing, conditional release and the correctional system, and included detailed recommendations to that effect.
The work of that committee is greatly appreciated, and its members know that their concerns were instrumental in the reforms proposed by our government. These reforms seek to improve public security and to restore public confidence in the system.
In the second half of the 1980s, the country had been shaken by a series of unusual and tragic events that made our criminal justice system look rather bad.
Moreover, because of an increase in the crime rate, the public was urging the government to change the system and to adopt harsher measures that would reflect the new limits of tolerance for certain types of crimes. The 1988 report, along with other basic reviews of the correctional system, led to the adoption, in 1992, of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
This radical reform of legislative measures pertaining to correctional matters and parole responded to public pressure by making the system more open, more just and more accessible and recognized the need for significant change to bring it into line with public opinion and values. The current government considered it appropriate on two occasions to change the law, after consulting with interested Canadians and with its criminal justice system partners.
Throughout the process, the first priority was to re-establish public confidence. We must continue to respond to public fears about crime and concerns about criminal justice.
We must, however, take account of the change in the landscape. The number of violent crimes has consistently and considerably dropped in recent years.
For us to properly respond to public concerns, we must work to improve understanding of the nature of crimes currently committed and of our criminal justice system, which has changed appreciably in recent times.
As I mentioned, the government now intends to keep the criminal justice flexible in part through a review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The Solicitor General of Canada will be addressing the House justice committee on Monday in introducing its review of the CCRA. I encourage the hon. member to put forth her recommendations under that exhaustive review. I will work with her on that committee.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to add my congratulations and thanks to the hon. member for Mississauga East for her tenacity and courage in continuing this fight and bringing this important debate to the House.
I am also very pleased to see that after the third time this private member's bill has come this far and is going to be votable. We will find out when the vote is held who actually speaks for Canadians and who speaks for victims.
I am actually really restraining myself in my reaction to the speech we just heard. I cannot use the words because they are unparliamentary. It is really deplorable that the frontbench of this government has so little regard for victims in this country.
While I was sitting here listening I thought of the word empathy which means feeling with someone who is hurting. It is different from sympathy. Empathy is feeling with.
Recently I went to Saskatchewan to visit my parents. We drove down a road that we drive every time we come from our home in Alberta down into Swift Current, Saskatchewan where my parents live. When we make a certain corner I always think of a person who died at that corner. That person was Eugene Martens.
He was a rancher who gave part of his farmland in order to put up a camp for children and young people. I attended that camp as a youth and later on as a counsellor. It was one of those situations where a man had a significant influence in my life because of his generosity. He was killed on the corner of highway 4 north of Swift Current because, I believe, of icy roads. It was not because of drunken driving. It was an accident.
Even though this man was not a member of my family, every time I go by that place I think of that person and I say a little prayer of gratitude for his life and for what he did. That helps me to empathize with a person whose family member, a loved one, has had their life taken from them by someone else's negligence or by someone else's misguided and wilful act.
When I think of their pain and how they must hurt it absolutely drives me to distraction to think that there is a government in Ottawa that cannot empathize with those victims. I cannot understand how that can be. All one has to do is try to put oneself into the same situation.
We are dealing with the question of changing the rules for sentencing. How should a criminal who was charged and convicted of committing a serious crime be sentenced?
The present system is that individuals who are charged with more than one crime at a time often get concurrent sentences. That is incredible. One can take a life, or two, three, four or more and at a certain time their sentence starts and they are able to serve all sentences at the same time whether they have killed one person, two, three or eleven, a significant number in this country. It is unconscionable that we allow that to happen.
Our media paid quite a bit of attention to the application of Clifford Olson for eligibility for early parole last summer. I was interviewed by a local person and I said really he should have had 275 years. When we think of each of those victims, if life sentence means 25 years in prison, ll times 25 is 275. Then I said if he behaves, we will let him off after 250. That is not to make light of it in any way. Here are families of victims with an inescapable sense that some of the lives taken do not matter. There is no penalty for them at all.
I am indeed one of those who believe that a life sentence should mean life. It should at least mean 25 years.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
The next time the matter is under consideration, the hon. member will have four minutes remaining in his time.
It being 1.56 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.55 p.m.)