1998-11-27

Government Orders
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation ActHon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): 
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-52, an act to implement the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that Bill C-52 has now passed through the other place, unanimously, with an amendment.
The Senate amendment is a modification of the amendment of this House which inserted article 27.1(2), which reads:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister receives the report.
The Senate has amended the text of this amendment as follows:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the minister receives the report.
We fully support the Senate amendment. We consider it important that pursuant to Canadian parliamentary tradition the annual report of the CTBT national authority should be presented to both houses of parliament.
Let me remind the House that for the past 50 years Canadians have worked hard to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the construction of an effective international non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament regime.
The passage of Bill C-52 will allow Canada to implement one of the cornerstones of such a regime. I am proud to be associated with the legislation before us today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure its rapid adoption by this parliament.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the great people of Surrey Central and all Canadians, and as the deputy critic for foreign affairs for the official opposition I am delighted to speak to the Senate amendment of Bill C-52.
The Senate has passed Bill C-52, an act to implement the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, with the following amendment to clause 27.1. The senators want us to replace lines 6 to 10 with the following:
(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.
The House will actually be voting on the following motion:
That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-52, an act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, be now read a second time and concurred in.
We, the official opposition, offer our general support to the amendment. The chief critic for foreign affairs, my hon. colleague from Red Deer, addressed this bill at length when we were debating it in the House. Liberal members and in fact the whole House can learn a great deal from the hon. member's vast experience in foreign affairs.
I was also privileged to attend the numerous meetings of the foreign affairs and international trade committee where we discussed at great length the nuclear issue.
This seems like a reasonable amendment on a very critical issue. It is a step in the right direction and a step forward. But we remind the Government of Canada that it, along with its NATO allies, must remain on guard against rogue states and the terrorists that may threaten Canadians and the people on this planet with weapons of mass destruction.
The official opposition agrees with the amendment and hopes that as a result of this bill Canadians will become more interested in international affairs and the security of our great nation.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in the House to indicate my support and that of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for Bill C-52, specifically the Senate amendment moving that lines 6 to 10, paragraph 27.1, on page 13 of the bill be replaced by the following:
Tabling of report
The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.
I am particularly proud that this amendment was the result of a Bloc Quebecois initiative. The Bloc Quebecois has always taken a keen interest in transparency and correspondingly in increasing the involvement of members of this House in the implementation of a treaty such as the one before us today, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Furthermore, the Australian parliament has already approved a provision very similar to that in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act. Thus, the report the person designated as the national authority has prepared and submitted to the minister will be tabled in that parliament.
Although this is another step in the direction of more democratic practices in our parliament, it would be a very good idea in future for this practice to become more widespread here in the House in Ottawa. Parliament should approve treaties before the government signs and ratifies them.
My colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is also the foreign affairs critic, has called upon the minister to submit this matter to the foreign affairs committee, in order to bring our treaty process in line with that of other Commonwealth countries, where a far more democratic process is in place.
The minister said he was open to examining this matter and the Bloc Quebecois will keep after him until he responds.
Now, returning to the contents of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois supports it for the values of peace and international security which it puts forward. It is an essential tool for attaining complete nuclear disarmament. For us in the Bloc Quebecois and for all parties here in this House it is important to promote, without a moment's hesitation, any legislative measure focused on those values of peace and security.
By implementing the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, Canada will now be able to contribute to the ultimate objective of the total eradication of nuclear arms. In this way we shall be helping to solve a problem caused by using energy contrary to the interests of humanity itself, abusing of a resource the peaceful applications of which have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the greater well-being of humankind.
The enactment relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The parties signing the treaty undertake not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under their jurisdiction or control and to refrain from causing, encouraging or participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.
Another important feature is the international monitoring system put in place under the treaty. The purpose of this system is to detect, locate and classify nuclear explosions. In addition, on-site inspections may be carried out under the treaty to clarify the situation following a nuclear incident.
Already the treaty has reaped positive results. A number of nuclear nations like France and the United Kingdom have made it clear that, in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, they agreed to discontinue nuclear testing. Other nuclear weapons states, such as China, the United States and Russia, have suggested that they too would discontinue nuclear testing.
That said, we cannot claim victory yet. The nuclear threat still hangs over us. We need only look at India and Pakistan, which recently conducted nuclear tests, and at some other nations with nuclear capabilities, including Israel and South Korea, two countries whose intentions are still cause for concern. These nations have yet to confirm their willingness to stop conducting nuclear tests and to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
The Bloc Quebecois, the other political parties represented in this House, as well as the people of Quebec and Canada agree that it is essential that we rid the world once and for all of all nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. It is a matter of getting our priorities in order.
As the critic for international co-operation, I see shocking statistics on human misery every day. More than 1.3 billion people are living in abject poverty, living on less than a dollar a day. Every day, 34,000 children die from malnutrition and disease. Every year, 17 million people die of infectious and parasitic diseases.
The priorities of the world and of our governments must focus on basic human needs.
Everybody on this planet has the right to proper food, shelter, care and education. Yet, since 1945, it is estimated that the world has spent a whopping $8 trillion on nuclear weapons.
Members should try to imagine what could have been done with all that money in poor countries. Even now, the gap between the rich and the poor is constantly growing wider. The time has come to put a stop to this waste and to invest where it really matters.
As a medium size military power with no nuclear weapons, how can Canada help further and promote in a tangible way the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty? Canada, through its Department of Foreign Affairs, has displayed great leadership in its crusade to ban land mines. The Bloc Quebecois wants to acknowledge the work done by the minister on this issue.
Even if Canada does not have nuclear weapons, and even if it is officially opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, can it claim that it has done nothing wrong?
We can think of China, to which Canada sold Candu nuclear reactors. There is also the fact that our country allows nuclear bombers to enter its airspace and use its low level flight ranges for pilot training.
Canada is on the right track, and we are very aware of the fact, but we are also aware of the fact that it could do even more. We in the Bloc Quebecois want Canada to go even further. Does this government have the real political will to be innovative in nuclear disarmament?
This challenge concerns the international community as a whole, and Canada has a duty to take concrete action and especially not to accept the status quo. On the contrary, it must be proactive and thus help the heads of nuclear countries translate the will of the people into decisive action.
At the dawn of the 21st century, the middle powers must make these heads of state take this opportunity in the name of humanity and the planet.
The Bloc Quebecois is acutely aware of the challenge nuclear disarmament represents. We will continue in our desire to build an international community where nuclear weapons exist only in history books, so that future generations may realize the dangers of nuclear arms.
I can tell you that a sovereign Quebec will not hesitate as a new country to sign the comprehensive nuclear-test ban treaty and to ensure its implementation both nationally and internationally.
With the approach of the new millennium, it is time to put an end to the scourge of nuclear weapons. This is our duty to future generations. Let us do so, to give all children on the planet the opportunity to enjoy life without the threat of nuclear arms.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, this treaty has been an arms control and disarmament objective of successive Canadian governments since the 1960s. The Right Hon. Joe Clark made this issue a high priority when he was foreign minister.
The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was open for signature at a special session of the United Nations general assembly in New York on September 24, 1996 and has now been signed by over 150 countries.
Canada played an important role in the treaty's negotiation, in particular in relation to the verification regime. Approximately 15 Canadian monitoring stations will be part of the international monitoring system as well as one radionuclide laboratory.
Canada has also worked with other countries such as Australia to find a way to open the treaty for signature and ratification. Twenty-one countries have now ratified the treaty, including two nuclear weapons states, the United Kingdom and France, and eight of the thirty-nine non-nuclear states designated under the treaty as having nuclear energy or research programs.
They therefore, along with the nuclear weapons states, must also ratify the treaty before it can come into force. Canada, one of the world leaders in nuclear technology for solely peaceful purposes, is a designated state. It is therefore most appropriate and important that Canada be one of the first group countries to ratify the treaty.
I do not underestimate the importance and complexity of this seemingly straightforward legislation. Bill C-52 criminalizes the carrying out of or aiding and abetting in the carrying out of nuclear explosions. It establishes a national authority to serve as a focal point for a liaison between Canada and the CTBTO in Vienna, with other states party to the treaty, and obligates Canadian industry to report large scale chemical explosions which might be confused with nuclear tests. Once passed, this legislation will allow Canada to ratify the treaty.
I want to take a minute to talk about Canada's record. This government made a very weak statement about France's testing in the Pacific. It was clearly a race to a large nuclear capacity for France before ratification. It is also disgraceful that Canada has not pursued more vigorously its assistance to Russia and the former Soviet Union states in demobilizing their nuclear capability.
The Conservative government started with a small fund in the early 1990s to help scholars so that they might remain within Russia and the Soviet Union and not sell their knowledge and dangerous expertise to other countries.
Equally disturbing is this government's lack of response to the troubled Arctic waters. Time and time again, both in Russia and elsewhere, concerns have been raised in relation to the nuclear waste that is embedded on the floor of the Arctic Ocean and, in the words of many, contaminating our waters around the world. This government has paid only lip service to this problem. If this government wishes to be consistent with this new treaty it must again raise these issues as we did in the early 1990s.
In the wake of the 1974 nuclear explosion test by India, using Canadian technology transferred in good faith solely for peaceful purposes, we learned a hard lesson. Under the leadership of my party Canada went on to become one of the first nuclear exporters to require International Atomic Energy Agency full scope safeguards on all our exports of nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states. We also put in place arrangements to ensure that any transfers for peaceful purposes to a nuclear weapons state would not be diverted for military purposes. These are longstanding Canadian policies which were groundbreaking in their time.
Regrettably, however, against that backdrop of exceedingly high standards and practices must be set the seemingly casual way this government went about signing a nuclear co-operation agreement with China, a nuclear weapons state which still does not require full scope safeguards for its nuclear exports and whose record of proliferation of significant transfers has been dangerous. I want to know how this government can square the ease with which we entered into nuclear co-operation with a communist country with brutal non-proliferation credentials with a very high priority which this government purports to give to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
If Canada is to continue to play a leadership role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting their successive reduction, we must attend to all aspects of our nuclear policy with equal vigour and credibility. But the government never learns. Why? For money. From the events of last year's APEC summit we know the government cares more about money than human rights. We also know the government cares more about money than it does about world security. We should not so easily forget the lessons of India in the 1970s and the question being raised about our nuclear installations and uses in Canada.
The standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade in the other place has just finished a review of Canada's non-proliferation arms control and disarmament policy. The minister asked that we have full House support for the committee report. My party will be forthright. Nuclear weapons are not land mines. My party supported the minister's efforts in the land mine treaty and congratulate him on his success. We are in favour of stopping proliferation. We are in favour of arms control. The world has been, is currently and will be a dangerous place. Ridding our security system and calling for the U.S. to rid itself of its weapons in Europe is gutting our security system and will make the globe more dangerous, not safer.
This minister talks about 50 years ago. Maybe he should talk about 50 years from now.
Nuclear weapons have been the steadfast cornerstone of western security policy since the creation of NATO in 1949. Unless this minister can outline in the House with detail all the security risks the globe will encounter in the next 50 years my party cannot support the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
While it is certainly an idealistic view, it is not based on reality. The reality is the Russian parliament will not implement START II any time soon. To delude ourselves that it will is very dangerous. The reality is the Chinese are developing more nuclear weapons, not fewer. To delude ourselves that they are not is also very dangerous.
My party is in favour of making the world safer, not making it more dangerous.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Finance): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Alfonso Gagliano: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today at third reading of Bill S-16.
The purpose of the bill is to implement income tax conventions that Canada has signed with Chile, Croatia and Vietnam. Currently Canada has tax treaties in force with 64 countries. We have been building and updating this network of tax conventions for almost three decades.
Bill S-16 is part of the ongoing maintenance of Canada's system of tax treaties but that does not mean it is merely a routine housekeeping bill of no importance to Canadians.
In today's environment tax treaties are more relevant than ever to Canada's competitiveness and overall economic performance. Foreign economies are opening up, individuals are becoming more mobile and as the pace of international trade and investment quickens tax treaties are becoming increasingly important to investors and entrepreneurs tapping into these opportunities.
Like all of the other tax conventions that Canada and its trading partners have implemented over the years, Bill S-16 has two overriding objectives. One is to avoid double taxation and the other is to prevent income tax evasion.
The potential for double taxation arises when a taxpayer who is a resident of one country earns income in another. In the absence of a tax convention, both the country of residence and the country that is the source of income would be justified in claiming tax on that income.
Tax treaties address the problem of double taxation in one of two ways. The treaty allocates exclusive taxing rights either to the taxpayer's country of residence or to the country that is the source of the income. Or, if the income would be taxable in both countries, the treaty requires the country of residence to give credit for the tax paid to the source country.
Measures that reduce double taxation also serve the purpose of preventing tax evasion. Laws that limit the potential for double taxation normally include provisions that encourage the exchange of information between the participating countries. It is that sharing of information that helps these countries' revenue authorities to identify cases of tax evasion and in fact act on them.
Another benefit of this legislation is the certainty for taxpayers, certainty that a rate of tax limited under any of these agreements cannot be increased without substantial advance notice of any changes.
In addition there will be a reduced compliance burden for Canadian taxpayers who have investments or business interests in Chile, Croatia or Vietnam.
A key part of any tax treaty bill is the withholding tax rate reductions. In this regard Bill S-16 is no exception. Canada and other countries generally impose withholding taxes on various types of income paid to non-residents. In the absence of a bilateral tax treaty or a unilateral exemption from withholding tax, Canada's statutory non-resident withholding tax is 25%.
Under our network of tax treaties however, there are several rate reductions in effect, and these reductions apply on a reciprocal basis. Where such a tax treaty is in effect, the country in which the taxpayer resides can withhold tax.
Without going into a country by country explanation of the various withholding tax rates proposed, I would like to point out that the rate is generally limited to 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends in branch profits. In addition the withholding tax on interest and royalties is generally limited to 10%.
The exception is the agreement with Chile, which provides for a 15% rate. In some cases royalties on copyright, computer software, patents and know-how are exempt at source.
Another feature of Bill S-16 is that it respects Canada's right to tax pension and annuities paid to non-residents. The agreements with Vietnam and Croatia provide for pension payments to be taxed in both countries with the source country collecting no more than 15% of the total payment. In both Vietnam and Croatia, social security benefits will be taxable in the source country with no limitation. Under the Canada-Chile income tax convention, pension and social security benefits will be taxed by the country from which the payments are made.
Another issue that is addressed by Bill S-16 is the treatment of capital gains realized by non-residents. In these cases the source country would retain its right to tax capital gains on the sale of real property, business assets and shares in real estate companies or interests in real estate partnerships or trusts.
The provisions of Bill S-16 are in fact tailored to the realities of international commerce. Reduced withholding taxes and the other benefits of this legislation are reciprocal in nature. This tax convention entails no revenue loss whatsoever, not for Canada and not for any of the other signatories.
When Bill S-16 received second reading in the House of Commons, it received support from members of all parties. Earlier in the week the bill passed through the finance committee without amendments. It is well understood among hon. members that this is legislation that will prevent double taxation and facilitate trade.
As a nation, we all know that almost 40% of our wealth depends on exports, foreign commerce and direct foreign investment. Tax treaties help to ensure that Canada's tax policies are applied consistently in transactions that reach beyond our borders. They also contribute to an environment of stability and certainty for investors and traders.
Bill S-16 will therefore increase our ability to compete and to harness the opportunities of a vibrant and modern economy. For the reasons I have indicated, I urge hon. members to support this bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-16.
I do not know whether everybody here knows the full implications of the bill. It is certainly a good housekeeping bill. As has been indicated, it went through committee and there were no amendments because the bill as it stands presumably is fairly good. It solidifies and gives legislative approval to some very necessary provisions. It provides that we should have agreements with countries with which we have a flow of capital, in which people are investing and where there is money earned. It is reciprocal.
The bill is an act to implement agreements between Vietnam and Canada, between Croatia and Canada, and between Chile and Canada. Whether some of their people invest in our country or vice versa, this bill has some tax provisions to avoid double taxation.
Before I discuss the bill's provisions I will talk about the S in Bill S-16. This is very relevant to the bill. A bill that begins with a C originates in the House of Commons, the House to which people are elected and whose members are obligated to represent their constituents. On the government side in particular there are numerous examples of situations in which MPs are not permitted to represent their ridings and the people who elected them. On command they stand up and vote the way they are told.
At least every four or five years, or three and a half years if the government gets scared as it did the last time, voters have the opportunity to put an x on a ballot and give either their approval or disapproval for what a particular member stands for and to indicate whether they believe that member did a good job in representing the riding.
It is significant that in the last election the number of Liberals elected went down quite a bit. The Liberals went from having a very healthy majority which allowed them to go off and do whatever they wanted without having to worry about having enough people in the House, to what is now a very marginal majority.
The Liberals have very few members to spare. As a result, there were two occasions in this parliament in which there were no Liberals in the House at all. This allowed us to pass things that are good for the people. The latest example is the changes made to the Private Members' Business procedure. The changes give members some freedom to represent their constituents despite the draconian control of the party over its members. Private Members' Business is a very important part of representational democracy.
The C at the beginning of a bill number indicates the bill comes from the House of Commons, which represents the common people. That is where bills like Bill S-16 should come from. On the other hand are the S bills which originate in the Senate.
I forgot to mention that while the number of Liberal members went down in the last election, the Reform membership went up by 20%. It is an absolute indication that Canadian people are ready for a higher degree of democracy. They are ready to have people in this House who will represent them.
Let me get back to the S bills, which originate in the Senate. Who are the senators? Some look at them as being hockey players. The only problem is they do not really have to answer to anybody. If the coach says to go and play somewhere, well they can or they cannot. It depends on who the coach is. If it is the Prime Minister who appointed them, then they will jump to attention. But it is the people they represent who pay for their salaries, pensions, travel, offices, and for their Mexican—but I should not say that as it is over. They do not have to listen to people in their ridings. And there are actually Liberals in the House who continue to defend this.
Last night we debated a private member's bill that said that senators should be elected. What can possibly be wrong with that?
Ask any Canadian what he or she would rather have. We all acknowledge that the Senate is part of parliament. Would Canadians rather have a person in parliament who is elected by the accumulation of more votes than the other candidates in the area that he or she represents, or would they rather have someone else pick them? I do not think we would find one Canadian in a thousand who would say “I think it is important that they be picked because we are not smart enough. We do not want democracy. We do not want to have a say in that”.
It is absolutely absurd. Yet this government continues time after time, year after year to break election promises on it and to do nothing about it. The Prime Minister said “We will have an elected Senate”. He said during the 1993 election campaign that within two years of a Liberal government being elected that we would have an elected Senate. Then he went on to say that as the Prime Minister he could make that happen.
I guess that was as good a vote getter as promising to kill the GST and it went the same way. After the Liberals came to power they did not kill the GST. They increased it by about 100%. That is what happened with the harmonization.
And what has happened on the promise with making the Senate elected, something the Prime Minister could do just by simply saying that he would do it? All he would have had to do instead of giving a great big insult to every Albertan in the country was to say “Yes, people, if you want to choose your own senators, I will be honourable enough and will appoint that one because that is the way it is right now. I will appoint the one that you select. You give me the list and I will choose from that list instead of from my own list of Liberal hacks”.
Sure, every once in a while he picks somebody who does not have Liberal credentials. Every Canadian can see through that ruse. That is a way of trying to legitimize it. Yesterday in the debate one of the members opposite said that Mr. Manning was an appointed senator. That is Mr. Manning, the father of our leader so I am not breaking any House rules. He was appointed. Well of course.
There are people appointed to the Senate who do not have tight Liberal connections. Every once in a while there is one. Why? Because it only takes a little bit of salt to affect the taste of the whole bowl of soup. Put in a few of these little grains of salt, really honourable people who have credentials beyond just being Liberal Party supporters and participators and that gives some air of respectability to the process. But it is a phony process and it needs to be stopped. It is time on behalf of Canadians to stop this charade of appointing people. Democracy is not served by it.
The purpose of the Senate should be to balance powers. Power only works properly in a democracy if there is a proper balance. Checks and balances we call them. We need in the Senate a balance against the dictatorial power of a single person in the House who can control majority members in the government and then can turn around and control majority members in the Senate.
Since the bill is about taxes, I should talk about the GST. During the GST debate several parliaments ago the majority of Canadians said nyet . I should speak English or French; they said no or non. They said they did not want the GST. In my riding 85% of the people were reputed to say that the GST as proposed was bad. They did not want it, but the prime minister of the day sat in his seat and told his members they would vote for it whether or not they wanted it.
The MP for Elk Island voted for the GST. It was one of the things I heard more often than any other during the campaign. People said they would not vote for him again because he did not vote for them on the GST. He voted against them.
I said the Reform policy is that I will represent them. If there is a clear indication from my riding that my constituents have a certain wish on a bill, I will represent that. I am so proud to be a part of a party where that is not only permitted but required. I would be in trouble with my party if I failed to do it. In the other parties, whether it is Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or even Bloc, I suppose, if members do not vote the party they get punished. It is just the opposite in my party. It is time we had a truly democratic Reform government.
What did the prime minister of the day do when the GST bill went to the Senate? In that chamber of sober second thought there was a majority of Liberal senators at that time and the present Liberal government was on the opposition side of the House. They said no to the GST. The present Prime Minister who was then the leader of the opposition said that if they got in they would kill it.
That is what happened at that time, but the prime minister of the day wanted the GST. He had all his Conservative MPs rise when their strings were pulled. Then it went to the Senate where bad bills are supposed to be stopped. Indeed the Senate stopped it because a majority senators, either for the sake of discipline to the Liberal Party of the day or for Canadians as a whole, said no to it.
What was the response of the then prime minister? He pulled out of the hat some obscure rule and was able to load the Senate up with extra members. He stacked the Senate with members whose only qualification was that they had enough energy to stand up when asked to vote whether they were in favour of the GST. He found eight such members, put them in the Senate and the bill was jammed through. That is not democracy.
That is why we need an elected Senate. That is why we need a Senate that truly represents the people from the provinces in which senators originate. That is long overdue. What is so totally disgusting and annoying is that the Prime Minister, who promised he would do it and could do it if he had the will, refuses to do it. That is what is disgusting. He could have simply said when the opening came up in Alberta that he would let democracy rule.
Under the current legislation he does not have the right to appoint senators. Strictly speaking that is to be done by the Governor General, but of course the Governor General is also a favourite appointee of the Prime Minister. They work together in this regard.
The Prime Minister could simply say whomever the people select is the person who will be there. I am proud to say that this coming week these elected senators will be in Ottawa. Maybe they will be observed. They will be around. We hope they will be able to get some media interviews and perhaps breathe a breath of democracy into this place that is so much in need of it.
I am going to take a little pause and have a drink of water before I get to stage two of my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for Elk Island at stage two will want to talk about the tax consequences of the bill.
Ken Epp: I am very happy now to speak about taxation because that is what the bill is about. The other part of my speech was very appropriate because it is Bill S-16. As I said before it cannot be ruled irrelevant. It is very relevant.
I applaud the principle of the bill to make sure that people pay taxes which they should be paying in a fair manner. It does two things. It helps to prevent people from avoiding paying the taxes they should and it prevents people from paying twice the taxes they should.
When people make money in a country sometimes the country charges them tax on it. When they bring their money home they have to pay taxes on it again. That is called double taxation. Very frankly it is not good for the economy of a country.
This is a fine bill. It is regrettable that it was not brought in, in the House of Commons. It would have had the same support from us that it has from us now in principle. Instead it was brought in from the other place.
Speaking about double taxation, it occurred to me not very long ago that we have too much double and even triple taxation. Let us talk about gasoline. I used to teach mathematics. I did a few calculations. I do not remember the exact numbers so I will have to do the calculations all over again on the run. I think I can do that.
Let us say I earn $2.77. At my marginal rate of taxation and at the rate of most middle class Canadians, I have to pay about 40% of my earnings marginally to income tax. Those are federal and provincial income taxes.
If I take 40% away from the $2.77, that leaves me with $1.66. Having earned $2.77 I have only $1.66 left. Then, if I go to the gas station to buy some gasoline with the $1.66 in my pocket, I notice that the pump says 40% of the price is taxes. I end up with another 40% taken off. Finally I buy $1 worth of gasoline. For $1 worth of gasoline $1.77 went into taxes and $1 went for the gasoline. Now $1.77 in taxes on a $1 purchase is a 177% tax. That is double taxation.
The government in taxing us for gasoline. It even taxes the taxes. Part of the price of a litre of gasoline is the federal tax which is 10 cents or 11 cents. That is added to the price. Then what happens? The GST is computed on that amount including the tax.
The government says that it has not increased taxes. I will never forget that in its first budget the government increased the tax on gasoline by 1.5 cents per litre. At least that is what it said at the time. It was inaccurate. When the GST is added to the 1.5 cents, it is 1.605 cents. In other words, the government said it was taking 1.5 cents more but what it really got was 1.6 cents because of the insidious GST which was brought in by lack of MP representation in the House and by the lack of an elected Senate in the other place. It all ties together. We have double and triple taxation in Canada, taxes being put on taxes.
Let me give another example. I will confess about all the big money I earned before coming to the House of Commons. Actually my salary is about the same or a little higher than it was when I was an instructor at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology where I earned $4,000.
What did I do? I paid my income tax on that $4,000 of approximately 40%. What did I have left? I had $2,400 left. What did I do with that $2,400? I took out my chequebook and wrote a cheque for my municipal taxes which that year were around $2,400. I do not have it with me; I could not use it anyway, neither a flag nor a chequebook.
My $4,000 earnings were taxed and then with the money I had left I paid my taxes. When the municipality said that I had to pay $2,400 in taxes, how could I reconcile that with the fact that I had to earn $4,000 to pay my taxes? It is double taxation.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice how relevant I am. I applaud the principle of Bill S-16 which says that we should avoid double taxation. It is not good for entrepreneurs. It is not good for investors. It is only good for the governments that suck us dry.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have to contain himself and carry on his remarks after question period when he will have 18.5 minutes to complete his remarks. I know all hon. members will look forward to that.

Statements By Members
AbortionsMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1948 the World Medical Association adopted a Hippocratic oath to guide the ethical practice of medical doctors. It reads in part:
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.
In the early 1970s medical schools stopped requiring new doctors to take the oath and the Canadian Medical Association code of ethics no longer requires any reference to abortion. The medical profession has abandoned its responsibility for the unborn child and now it is up to Canadians to assume that responsibility.
Last year there were over 110,000 abortions in Canada with a cost to our health care system of over $10 million. That is over 300 abortions each and every day. It says that each year 110,000 mistakes are made at the expense of all Canadians by those who fail to act responsibly.
Is it too much to ask Canadians just to be responsible for their actions? We do have a choice and that choice should be made before we act, not after we have failed to act responsibly.
Canadian Merchant Navy VeteransMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's merchant navy veterans have suffered imposed poverty since World War II. The minister says no to retroactivity for merchant navy war veterans but ex gratia lump sum payments have been made in the past. Stonewalling on terminology is disgraceful. Merchant navy veterans are not seeking great wealth, just equality.
The merchant navy concerns are to be recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for years of inequality, and to receive recognition on ceremonial days.
A motion in committee asked the minister to address these four concerns. Not one, two or three of them but all four. The motion has support from all opposition parties. Will the government not finally add its support and end this sordid affair?
HelicoptersMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate one of the many vibrant high tech companies in my riding of Nepean—Carleton, which will have an impact on helicopter safety around the globe.
DRS Flight Safety and Communications was awarded five contracts earlier this month totalling $10.2 million for the supply of emergency avionics systems for Agusta and GKN Westland Helicopters joint Cormorant helicopter program.
The helicopter industry's version of the black box, the first 15 DRS devices, will be a vital feature of the new Cormorant search and rescue helicopters the federal government is buying to replace the Labradors.
The state of the art technology which allows rescue crews to locate downed helicopters by tracing satellite signals will also be used in more than 80 other helicopters for the British navy and air force, the Italian armed forces and Tokyo's metropolitan police force.
DRS' launch into the market is a prime example of a government investment success story. Over the past decade the company has spent approximately $10 million, including federal research money, to streamline and make the technology the most advanced on the globe. That is what I call an investment in our future.
United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The ChildMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1989 Canada co-chaired and signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article one of the convention states: “For the purpose of the present convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. While most of our commitments have been fulfilled, this article has not.
Today, however, I have great news. The Minister of Transport has committed to introducing new legislation regarding the Canada Shipping Act which will ensure that the definitions of child and infant are interpreted consistently with the definition of child proposed in article one of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This new act will accomplish the objectives of my private member's bill, Bill C-333, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
I would like to congratulate and thank the Minister of Transport for his outstanding initiative, foresight and leadership and for his commitment to the children of Canada.
Canadian HistoryMr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian author, historian and museum director Jack Granatstein has asked the question: “Who killed Canadian history?” Although the answer is not necessarily easy, simple or to our liking, I am pleased to note that the Department of Canadian Heritage and Parks Canada are taking interest in the final resting places of our 13 deceased former prime ministers.
We are, to my knowledge, the only country which fails to acknowledge and preserve as national historic sites the burial places of those who have led our country.
To know our future we must know our past. That maxim is being realized by actions being undertaken by Parks Canada to preserve and mark the burial sites of former prime ministers.
Drug AwarenessGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, last week was Drug Awareness Week.
I hope this asleep at the wheel government took the opportunity to learn something about the drug problem in our country. I hope it has learned something.
This weak Liberal government is allowing the drug cartels and organized crime to abuse our immigration system. The Liberal dominated immigration committee has refused to even study the abuse in the future business of the committee.
The bogus refugees sell drugs to our children. The problem is at an epidemic level in British Columbia. We need help now. We should tighten the borders and toughen the penalties to keep out the dealers and their drugs.
The RCMP is losing the war against drugs. They have no funds. Our RCMP needs help. Stop making Canada a haven for drug dealers. Clean up the drug problem. Just say no to drug cartels. Protect our youth from drugs.
Violence Against WomenMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, violence against women is unacceptable any way, anytime and anywhere. In Canada one woman is killed every six and one half days by a gun. Four out of every five victims of spousal homicide are women.
These statistics confirm a fundamental abuse of power, an abhorrent violation of human rights. All too often violence against women goes unpunished. All too often it is tolerated in silence by its victims.
This government has sent a powerful message through gun control legislation, anti-stalking amendments, rape shield laws and other amendments to the Criminal Code. This is not enough. Canadians as a community must become motivated to break this cycle of violence.
I urge members of this House and Canadians everywhere to break the silence and eradicate violence against women now.
Canada must be a safer place for our wives, mothers, daughters and sisters; for women everywhere.
Canadian FarmersMr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the crisis currently unfolding in Canada's agricultural industries.
1998 has been a difficult fiscal year for our primary producers. Commodity prices have plummeted and financial forecasts call for ominous storm clouds to form on the horizon.
This nation was founded upon the institution of the family farm. Sadly, it is that very symbol which now faces almost certain disaster if we fail to intercede. Over the course of the last several weeks my colleagues and I have examined this matter with numerous interested parties. I recall one farmer who summarized this debate effectively when he said “I work on my farm to feed my country but I must work off my farm to feed my family”. It is a very sad reality.
Unfortunately, the choices available are limited. Farmers must either get out of the business now or face the very real prospect of future financial ruin.
I cannot stress enough the urgency of this matter. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this matter. If we fail to act we run the risk of closing the proverbial gate long after the cattle have run off.
Semaine Québécoise Des 4-HMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of 4-H week in Quebec, last Friday marked the inauguration of the exhibition entitled “Nature in all its forms”, at the Laval Récréathèque.
Every weekend until next April, this interactive laboratory will teach young people about protecting and improving the quality of the environment. There will be teaching workshops for groups of students.
In keeping with their motto of “honour, honesty, handiness and humanity”, the Quebec 4-H clubs have been operating since 1942 to protect the forest and the environment. Through science-oriented recreational activities, they develop a respect for others, a sense of responsibility, a spirit of initiative and creativity in young people.
I would like to draw attention to the remarkable work done by the 4-H clubs in Quebec, especially those in Laval, which are working to develop good consumer practices in keeping with the principles of sustainable development.
Canadian FarmersMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in September American farmers and politicians shut down the borders. They accused the Canadian Wheat Board of illegally dumping Canadian grain. They accused Canadian farmers of being subsidized by the Canadian Wheat Board. What did the responsible minister say? Don't worry, be happy; it is nothing but an election stunt.
It is time to worry. The Americans were dead serious then and they are dead serious now. On December 6 American farmers and ranchers from Minnesota to Washington state are planning another blockade. They are demanding an audit of the Canadian Wheat Board to prove that it is illegally dumping Canadian grain. They are demanding country of origin labelling on our agriculture products. They are demanding a moratorium on all grain and livestock imports.
These are not election stunts. These border closings are making a bad, critical situation worse for our Canadian farmers. How many more border closures will we see before this government gets serious about helping our farmers in Canada and at the international trading tables?
Election Campaign In QuebecMs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Monday is a decisive moment for the future of Quebec and of Canada, the day of the Quebec election.
Quebeckers will have an opportunity to choose between economic growth and separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.
I myself will be voting Liberal, because I believe in a better future within a united Canada for myself and my children. I will be voting for a party which has the true interests of Quebec at heart, the Quebec Liberal Party.
This coming November 30, it is Quebeckers' chance to speak up. I am confident that they will choose Canada.
Canadian FarmersMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadian banks have a golden opportunity. They can prove their commitment to the Canadian people by helping farmers in Canada.
Grain and hog farmers in Canada are trying to survive the most serious crisis since the great depression of the 1930s. After years of record profits, bank closures and a multitude of service charges, the banks have been spending millions on a lobbying campaign to force the acceptance of mergers. Canadians have be vigilant in their opposition to the mergers and have clearly said no.
The banks were in the farming and mining communities in the good times and now they must stand by them through the bad. They must reconcile their profitability with the responsibility which comes with their charters.
They can begin rebuilding their reputation with Canadians right now. It is imperative that Canada's chartered banks put those merger campaign dollars into productive use and invest in the farming and mining communities of Canada.
I urge the banks to halt foreclosures on any family farms during this crisis.
Fédération Des Agricultrices Du QuébecMr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently, the Fédération des agricultrices du Québec announced the recipients of its 1998 regional awards.
The women who received these awards were: Abitibi-Témiscamingue, dairy and cattle operation, Lise Gélinas; Bas-Saint-Laurent, greenhouse operation; Yvette Trépanier; Beauce, dairy operation, Fabienne Roy; central Quebec, dairy operation, Lucie Talbot; South Shore, sheep operation, Gisèle Nadeau; Estrie, beekeeping operation, Carole Huppé; Lanaudière, goat operation, Carole Johnson; Mauricie, cereal and market gardening operations, Françoise Béland; Montérégie, cereal operation, Monique Lecours; Montérégie, seed operation, Marie-Anne Marcoux; Outaouais-Laurentides, cereal operation, Nathalie Malo; Québec, ornamental horticulture, Lorraine Bélanger; Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, dairy operation, Suzanne Larouche.
Our sincere congratulations to all these women for their initiative and their competency.
Election Campaign In QuebecMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 30, Quebeckers will be choosing a new government. I encourage the population to exercise its right to vote, as this is the very cornerstone of democracy.
People need to keep in mind that, ever since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec Liberal Party has safeguarded the best interests of Quebec. When making their selection, they must keep in mind that the Quebec Liberal Party has always worked to maintain harmony and social justice within a country serving the best interests of the people of Quebec
Health CareMr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the Minister of Finance put more money into federal transfers for health and education. In the case of Newfoundland, that only slowed the rate of decrease in our transfers. This year Newfoundland received $274 million in these transfers. By the year 2002 the amount will have dropped to $245 million.
As of November there have been 429 cardiac surgeries done in Newfoundland. When asked recently in question period about the 220 cardiac patients on the waiting list at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, the Newfoundland Minister of Health said “Unfortunately we have to live within our fiscal means”.
When those means keep decreasing it is possible that some people may not live. I call upon the Minister of Finance to increase transfers for health in his upcoming budget. For some people on the waiting list it will be a matter of life and death.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax the Minister of Health, together with Nova Scotia Health Minister Jim Smith, announced some important initiatives for the future of health care in Nova Scotia and all of Canada.
Funded under the health transition fund, these four projects will be testing ways to improve primary health care to enhance the health of children and youth in Nova Scotia, to pilot palliative home care in rural areas and to develop a new model for primary care in the Eskasoni First Nations community. Total funding for these projects will be $4.8 million.
The common thread through all of these projects is that they put the patient first by organizing health services around the needs of people instead of the needs of the system.
In the spirit of co-operation that is guiding our efforts, these projects will be managed in partnership with the Nova Scotia ministries of health, education, community services and justice, the Prince Edward Island department of health and social services, Health Canada, Dalhousie University and the Eskasoni First Nation reserve.
These projects will generate evidence based information to help provide the right care, at the right time, in the right place.
Standing Committee On The Environment And Sustainable DevelopmentMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week the government showed enormous contempt for the Canadian taxpayer.
It has been the tradition in the House that the minister be called before the appropriate committee to be questioned on the money allocated for the respective departments.
In the fall ministers appear to answer questions on the supplementary estimates, which are additions to their budgets late in the fiscal year.
In the case of the Ministry of the Environment this additional expenditure amounts to $46 million. When opposition members called for the environment minister to appear before the environment committee, the government used its majority to vote down this motion.
What happened to accountability? What happened to tradition in the House? By refusing to allow the minister to appear the government showed not only contempt for the Canadian taxpayer and for the principles of an open, responsible democracy, it renounced one of the traditions of the House.
It raises a question. What is the government trying to hide in this $46 million expenditure?
PornographyMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of my constituents recently joined together with other Canadians to wear white ribbons against pornography. In particular, several local chapters of the Catholic Women's League in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough sent me hundreds of white ribbons to express their opposition to the destructive and harmful effects of pornography.
In an era where the CRTC grants broadcast licences to the playboy channel but denies similar privileges to single faith Christian broadcasts, we as parliamentarians need to be vigilant against the spread of obscene material, especially with respect to children.
I urge all members of the House to join with me in commending the white ribbon against pornography campaign. Let us hope that the depictions of human relations in the ever expanding mass media are ones of morality, decency and respect and not personal gratification, degradation and objectification.
Canada-China Legislative AssociationMr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour of travelling to China with several of my colleagues from the House and Senate to participate in the first meeting of the Canada-China Legislative Association.
This new association was created under the sponsorship of Speaker Parent, Speaker Molgat and that of the chair of the Chinese National People's Congress, Mr. Li Peng.
Our counterparts from the standing committee of the National People's Congress were Jiang Xin Xiong, Zheng Yi, Zeng Jianhui, Lu Congmin, Liu Zheng, Tao Xiping, Wang Shuming, Jamyang Losang Jigme Tubain Qoigyi Nyima, and Yang Zhenhuai.
Together we covered a wide range of topics of importance to legislators from the functioning of our respective governments to many of the more difficult issues we all face: respect for the rights of minorities, the rule of law, the development of a civil society, human rights, protection of the environment and much more.
Together we began a process which I believe will deepen the already positive relationships that exist between our two countries.
The Deputy Speaker: I must caution hon. members from using the names of other hon. members in speeches or in statements. I believe I heard two today but I was reluctant to interrupt.

Oral Question Period
AgricultureKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, this government does not seem to understand that to a prairie farm family losing the family farm is a disaster. They lose the land that in many cases has been in the family for years. They lose their home, their income and their hope.
Instead of inventing excuses for doing nothing, why does this government not treat this like the disaster it is?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are treating it like the disaster it is. It is imperative, however, that we make sure that producers are able to use the risk management tools that are already there. If and when a program is put in place we must recognize that it needs to go to the individual producers who are most in need and that it is as equitable as possible across the country.
I agree with the member very sincerely. We need to do it and we will do whatever we are able to do as quickly as we possibly can. We must be diligent in making sure it helps those most affected.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. When there is a disaster in any part of the country the government correctly leaps to the aid of the people who are affected.
This is a disaster in western Canada, the provinces where agriculture is the very lifeblood of survival, and this is taking altogether too long.
Farmers have been brought to their knees by this government. They are pleading and begging the ministers of finance and agriculture to do something. Will they announce disaster relief for these farmers today?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, that is very refreshing. The member's party just a few months ago was adamant about farmers not having support, not having subsidies and that we should cut back the minister of agriculture's budget.
On behalf of the farmers of Canada, I thank opposition members for their new found support and understanding of agriculture.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is because of this government and the lack of getting agreement with other countries that are unfairly subsidizing that these farmers are in trouble. It is the government's fault.
Will the minister finally wake up and smell the coffee and realize he has to respond to the long term needs of farmers, cut taxes and get a trade agreement that works for everybody?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, there has been no government that has done a better job and worked harder than this government in working with the provinces and the industry in putting safety net programs in place and listening to them.
We started many months ago after the federal-provincial agriculture ministers meeting in reviewing the whole safety net program. The safety net advisory committee has been giving us advice. It gave us some very critical and important advice last week. We are working on that and will continue to do so as quickly as we can.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this fall South Dakota stopped Canadian agriculture exports. South Dakota gave a two week warning and the trade minister did nothing until the trucks were stopped.
Now North Dakota farmers have warned us that they will blockade the border on December 6. Why is the trade minister doing nothing to keep the border open on December 6?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we resolved the issue between the United States and Canada that was triggered by governors who clearly woke up one morning and did something that was completely illegal. The trucks are moving. Our officials are discussing these issues. Next week is the next round for discussions. We have already brought to their attention that once is enough. We call on the Government of the United States to take up its responsibility to cease and desist actions coming from its states that are clearly illegal.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just met with Roger Bergrand and John Germs, hog producers from Saskatchewan who were in tears. Both farmers will be bankrupt by March. They cannot afford to feed their baby pigs, and talk among hog farmers is not about the weather this winter but about whether diesel or gasoline fumes are the cheapest way to kill their pigs. It is clearly a desperate situation. John and Roger are right there in the gallery—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows it is quite out of order to refer to the presence of persons in the gallery. The Speaker alone is permitted to do that. I would ask the hon. member to put his question forthwith.
Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, will Roger, John and thousands of other farmers get the emergency aid they need immediately?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have met with Mr. Germs a few minutes ago but I had the occasion to meet Mr. Germs earlier. It was not organized to be so but we did so because we were both having interviews on national television. I told him we were working as hard as we possibly can. I had every indication from Mr. Germs and his colleague that they appreciated the efforts we are taking at this time.
Social UnionMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government boasts about introducing the concept of a partnership with the provinces on social union. But at a time when all the provinces are unanimously in favour of asking that it wrap up this issue before Christmas, the federal government is the one putting on the brakes.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify the fact that his government is the one rejecting the idea of holding a first ministers conference to resolve the social union issue before Christmas?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premiers launched this initiative in December 1997. The provinces submitted their proposals in June 1998. The federal government responded with a counter-proposal in July 1998. Since then, work has been progressing well.
The PQ government stayed away from these negotiations until the very end. Yesterday, Mr. Parizeau explained why the PQ is in now: they hope to make the negotiations fail so as to create winning conditions. Winning conditions for Lucien Bouchard are losing conditions for Quebeckers.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in September, commenting on the Saskatoon agreement, the Prime Minister stated that the provinces wanted to take the place of the federal government. More recently, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs accused everyone of acting in bad faith.
Is the reason the government refuses to resolve the social union issue surrounding federal spending powers that, in its next budget, it plans to interfere in health, as it did last year in education with the millennium scholarships?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, we have the deepest respect for the Constitution. The Government of Canada has always provided assistance to students, but does so without any direct involvement in education. We help ensure Canadians have access to education.
I might remind the hon. member that, in the United States, 75% of public funding for students is provided by the federal government. In Germany, it is 65%. That is how federalism should work, except in the minds of some separatist leaders, who never understood what the Canadian federation was all about.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of an election, it is understandable that the minister wants people to think that Lucien Bouchard is guilty of bad faith on the social union issue. The trouble is that the minister has no credibility, because the 10 premiers are all of one mind. They all signed the same agreement in Saskatoon.
Does the minister think that the 10 premiers are all acting in bad faith, or are we to understand that, if anyone is guilty of bad faith, it is the foot-dragging federal government?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the member should listen to the answers before he asks his questions. I have said who was holding things up in the past: the Parti Quebecois government. Its reasons for doing so are fairly obvious. Its reasons for getting involved now are also fairly obvious because the number one item on its agenda, unlike the agenda of the other premiers, is the destruction of the country.
It is very difficult to work credibly at improving a country one wishes to tear apart. There is a fundamental contradiction because the member does not even appear to know what social union means. It means Canadians helping Canadians, coming to each other's assistance more often, something this country is very good at.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is known in university circles as an ideologist with a Liberal, centralizing vision of Canada in which the federal government gives orders and the provinces take them.
Is this why the minister is going to do everything he can to avoid allowing the provinces to withdraw with full compensation before the next budget, even though all 10 provinces are unanimous that this is what they want and are telling him it is urgent?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member got his information.
I will say, though, that I find his questions increasingly personal and uninteresting.
AgricultureMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while farm families are in desperate straits this government sits idly by.
It reviews endlessly. It hints at emergency plans, but you cannot feed pigs on promises. You cannot grow grain on uncertain ground.
When will the government end the delays and bring forward specific measures to provide the relief Canadian farmers so desperately need?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I have told the House over and over again, although some hon. members have not heard yet, that we are working diligently with the provinces and with the industry to put together as quickly as possible resources in order to do that. I have explained the necessity and the urgency of that to my cabinet colleagues.
We want to be able to put a program in place to assist with the provinces, one that is coherent, clear and a national strategy to provide producers with security. If those words sound familiar to the leader of the New Democratic Party they are words from the NDP framework for Canada's future. That is what we are trying to do.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, farmers cannot wait. They cannot wait until Christmas and they certainly cannot wait until the new year.
They need help and they need help now. Many more farmers will be forced into bankruptcy before the government announces a relief package.
To prevent still more bankruptcies, will the government move swiftly to secure from the banks a moratorium on farm foreclosures?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that along with all the other work we are doing right now, all we possibly can as quickly as we possibly can, I have been having discussions with the banks encouraging them to be as understanding, as supportive and as compassionate as they can possibly be with the producers in Canada.
Pork ProducersDavid Price: Mr. Speaker, the problems relating to pig slurry merit the government's attention.
The present government has, in fact, invested millions into the Lennoxville Research Station in my riding for research on pig slurry, particularly on ways to suppress the odour and waste generated. Yet the government is unwilling to do anything in spite of these studies. Not a day goes by without the government talking about this crisis, and not a day goes by without another farm bankruptcy.
How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before it decides to intervene?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the pork industry and environmental concerns are certainly high priorities in our research program in Canada.
On the hog environmental management strategy, for example, the Canadian government has put $2 million in that program along with $1 million from the industry itself to assist the industry to find ways the nutrients from hog operations in Canada can be best managed in the rural areas.
David Price: The present government has invested millions in the Lennoxville Research Station in my riding for research on pig slurry.
I acknowledge that such studies are essential, but they are useless if pork producers continue to go bankrupt. There will simply be none of them left to make use of this technology.
How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before this government realizes that its policy on pig slurry is just pig manure?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, if I hear the hon. member's question correctly, he is saying that we should not be continuing research even though there is a situation of low prices in the hog industry in Canada now. It is another reason we need to.
The research is being done by the federal and provincial governments and the industry. That is another reason why our producers are very efficient. It is also another reason why all of us want to do all we possibly can in order to help these producers get through this crisis and downturn in the cycle right now, so they can and will continue in the future to be producers of some of the finest pork in the world.
Public Works And Government ServicesMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is evidence of a breach of government security with regard to confidential secret government documents that were supposed to be shredded by a company in British Columbia.
Today we have confirmed that classified secret documents had been shipped unshredded to China, Korea and the United States. Last Wednesday in the House the minister of public works said that “no important documents were in the hands of anyone important”. His assistant deputy minister, Mr. Williams, is quoted as saying there were. Can the minister confirm that what he said on Wednesday was not accurate?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying for a few days now that this is an important matter. We are taking it seriously.
At the beginning of July of this year as soon as we learned about it, we stopped the work and suspended the company. We suspended its security clearance and we called in the RCMP.
According to the synopsis of the RCMP report, I quote Sergeant John Ward of the RCMP national security intelligence service: “We are quite sure that no national security issues were compromised”.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, other countries have spies to get their secret information. Today we learned that Canada gift-wraps its secret NATO documents and other information and sends it to foreign countries.
It has been confirmed by the RCMP and the minister's staff that secret NATO documents went to British Columbia from Ottawa. Secret PMO documents went from Ottawa to British Columbia to be shredded by a company that had been in bankruptcy at one time.
Can the minister assure the House today that none of those secret PMO documents that went to British Columbia to be destroyed have anything to do with the APEC situation?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is stretching his imagination a little bit.
Again, we learned from the RCMP investigation that no national security issues were compromised. How much clearer can I be?
ImmigrationMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
We learned in the papers that a Northern Ireland parliamentarian, Alex Maskey, was refused a visa to enter Canada.
Does the minister not consider that this decision sends an extremely negative message to the supporters of democracy, a message that discredits the peace process in Ireland, which Canada officially supports?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve knows very well that I cannot comment publicly on any individual case.
That said, allow me to say that, first of all, the people of Ireland do not need visas to enter Canada.
Second, for anyone deemed ineligible for entry into Canada for whatever reason, the law contains provisions covering such a possibility. Of course, the individual in question must apply in the first place.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister spoke to her officials this morning.
How can the government justify refusing this visa to an Irish democrat, a man who has chosen peace, and whose leader, Gerry Adams, was welcomed here a few weeks ago, when the government went out of its way to welcome the Prime Minister's dictator friend, President Suharto, last year?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, again, there was no refusal, because there was no application.
Public Works And Government ServicesMs. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, confidential documents from the Privy Council Office were discovered unshredded in a Burnaby warehouse, as were restricted NATO documents.
The minister has known about this for months, yet he ordered his department to cover up this massive security breach to avoid media attention. He went so far as to keep this information from the privacy commissioner.
Just how serious was this breach of security that the minister was afraid to inform the privacy commissioner?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying since Wednesday that the moment we learned about this incident we acted right away. We took all necessary security procedures. We removed the material that was in the warehouse. We called the RCMP. Since then, the RCMP has been investigating. This has been open. I did not order anybody to hide anything.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's denial on Wednesday, Canadians now know that sensitive documents were shipped to Korea, China and the United States instead of being burned and shredded.
Will the minister tell us just who in these foreign countries has received our secrets? Their military or industrial concerns? Who in China is reading our confidential NATO documents?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the other side does not listen to the answers. I said that as soon as we learned of this, we called the RCMP to investigate. They are investigating. We received a preliminary report of the investigation. I want to make sure they get it right. Sergeant John Ward said “We are quite sure that no national security issues were compromised”.
Official Languages CommissionerMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we read in the National Post that the government is getting ready to appoint a new official languages commissioner.
Although the government promised to appoint a successor to Dr. Goldbloom before Christmas, the Bloc Quebecois has not yet been consulted on the matter.
Does the government intend to respect the precedent it recently set for the position of access to information commissioner and allow the House to debate the matter?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, which is a very important one. I must inform her that the allegations in today's papers are completely false.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I would still like the minister to elaborate.
According to the article in the National Post , two people are on the short list: Jean-Jacques Blais and Jean-Pierre Kingsley.
Since Mr. Kingsley indicated in the same report that he has never been contacted in this regard, is the government not getting ready to reward another friend of the regime and hand out a patronage appointment to Mr. Blais?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in fact the member has just confirmed what I told her. I told her that the allegations were false. One of the two persons apparently mentioned in the article has also said it is false, so false it is. And now there is even a witness.
Canada PostMr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is about to force postal franchises out of business across this country by imposing a restructuring of commissions on stamp sales. Atlantic Canada will be especially hard hit. In fact none of the postal outlets in Atlantic Canada say they will be viable after this imposition.
The minister knows that allowing Canada Post to close businesses is a hardship on these people. Why is he allowing Canada Post to force these people out of business, killing jobs and disrupting the postal service in Canada?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by Canada Post that it has been working with the franchisees to make sure that in the new system of commissions for the new projects they have, those outlets with a counter in their store will not lose any money.
I ordered a moratorium for two months which expires December 1, next Tuesday. I am sure that next Tuesday Canada Post will make the right decision and the right announcement. The member should wait for that announcement.
Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. Does the minister admit by that statement that Canada Post will announce on Tuesday that there will indeed be a moratorium on the imposition of the new commission structure?
The minister knows he can change this and keep these people in business if he imposes a moratorium thereby protecting small business and the postal services in Canada.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, December 1 is next Tuesday. I hope the member will wait until Tuesday before drawing any conclusions.
Canada Post wants its franchises, its postal outlets to continue giving service to Canadians and they will do so. We will make sure that they continue giving good service. Whatever decision Canada Post makes, those franchises will not lose any money.
AgricultureMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hog industry is going through the worst price crisis it has ever experienced.
In order to help farmers, the Canadian Pork Council is suggesting that Canada consider the food aid program and send 10,000 tonnes of pork to Russia for humanitarian purposes.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Is he prepared to take that course of action?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, this government has always actively participated in food aid programs and in international support.
I have certainly had a number of comments from the pork industry and other agriculture and agri-food industries to the effect that this government should take this into consideration as it always has. We will take that consideration and will discuss it among our cabinet colleagues as a government.
JusticeMs. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
A month ago the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled the report “Victims Rights: A voice, not a veto”. What has the minister done with these recommendations?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate all the members of the justice committee, and my colleagues who held town hall meetings to give victims an opportunity to have a real voice within the Canadian justice system.
The minister brought forth these recommendations at the last meeting of the provincial and territorial ministers. She will be responding very soon in order to ensure there will be a real voice for victims in our system.
National DefenceMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, another helicopter mishap and the minister has not even been able to get the helicopters off the ground. I do not think the minister is treating this issue with the importance it should have.
It will be another two years before a new Cormorant helicopter comes into service. The defence department has said that operating the Labradors beyond 1998 is a significant risk.
Will the defence minister look at leasing new helicopters as a stopgap measure?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, there was a small electrical fire in the anti-icing system of one of our Labradors. It was put out. No one was injured. Damage to the aircraft was minimal.
As I have said many times, we only put our aircraft in the air when they are safe to fly. Regarding the life of the Labradors, the Labradors will be able to function with a high maintenance level and the overhaul level applied in their maintenance until we get the new Cormorants.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is the only Canadian who has confidence in the Labrador helicopter, a helicopter that is 35 years old and now apparently has developed a spontaneous combustion problem.
Two incidents have taken place since the October 2 tragic incident that saw six of our air crew killed. When will the minister do the right thing and lease new helicopters? Are human lives worth less to this government than leasing new helicopters?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I have more confidence in these helicopters and more confidence in the people who operate and maintain them than certainly the hon. member and the leader of his party have.
We definitely keep a very high level of maintenance. If we need additional resources in the operation of our search and rescue mission, even the leasing of aircraft, we are quite prepared to entertain that.
PovertyMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, chronic poverty is Canada's worst human rights problem and this week we got an earful about it from the United Nations. The UN asked Canada some very tough questions.
It asked why in such a rich country we tolerate escalating rates of child poverty and poverty among women. It asked why we were fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed. These are questions we in the NDP have been asking for years.
Will the government heed the warnings from our colleagues at the UN and use the next federal budget to fight the real deficit in the country, the social deficit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reassure the opposition that our government has had very good answers to provide to the people in Geneva at the United Nations, of which we are a very proud member.
These answers will include the commitment we have made as a government to fight child poverty by investing $1.7 billion more in the national child benefit. That is a great deal of money and is on top of the $5 billion we already put toward children in the country.
We will be very pleased to speak about last year's budget which included the Canadian opportunities strategy that helps with access to education which provides better jobs for Canadians. We will be speaking about—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, for all the rhetoric it would seem that the government's social and economic policy is not only hurting Canadians. It is becoming an international embarrassment, and the world is telling us so.
Some of the UN's observations were very specific. The Minister of Human Resources would be interested in this one at least. It asked the government to use the EI surplus to expand coverage and criticized the end of the Canada assistance plan and the gutting of transfers through the CHST.
If the government will not listen to us in these matters, will it listen to the world? Will it expand coverage to EI so more people are covered? Will it broaden the social transfer through the CHST?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, when the opposition says this is becoming an embarrassment around the world, I would like it to say that the United Nations has recognized Canada for the fifth year in a row as the number one country in terms of human development. That is an extraordinary achievement.
We will continue to improve the situation of as many Canadians as we can. We are quite proud that there are 1.4 million more Canadians working now than there were five years ago. The best way to fight poverty is to improve their lot.
Treasury BoardPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, when Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil was convicted of influence peddling based on information received from one of the Treasury Board president's own employees, the government's response was “The file is closed”.
Yet slippery staffer Jacques Roy kept his job with the Treasury Board president and the government provided no assurances that the confidential information would be kept out of the hands of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to those applicants for government funding how their names can be protected from Liberal kickback artists?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this matter it was the government that asked the RCMP to intervene. The RCMP has intervened and has made a full inquiry.
The government made available to the RCMP all the information we had. After it made a full inquiry it went to court and a judgment was rendered.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. An internal HRDC report was prepared regarding numerous complaints received from transitional job fund applicants that they were getting phone calls from Liberal Party workers.
The report then concluded that “It is possible to fear that all projects approved or recommended so far have been subject to such calls”. If the Corbeil tollgating scandal was an isolated incident, why were Liberal Party workers harassing transitional job fund applicants during the months leading up to the 1997 election?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new here. I asked for the investigation on behalf of the government. My department provided all the information about these allegations to the RCMP. The RCMP conducted a full and thorough investigation into the matter. One person was charged and convicted. As far as I know the matter has been dealt with.
Work StoppagesMs. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of strikes recently, including the Air Canada and Canada Post strikes. These have caused Canadians much inconvenience and many problems.
What is the Minister of Labour doing to help employees settle their differences and minimize work stoppages?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the strikes by Air Canada and Canada Post received a lot of media attention.
However, during the past year 95% of all Canada Labour Code bargaining disputes were settled without work stoppage.
The conciliation officers from the Department of Labour are very professional and we should be proud of them.
Also the union and business communities should be complimented for bargaining these labour disputes in good faith.
Canadian Merchant Navy VeteransPeter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs compared Canada's merchant navy war veterans to convicted kidnappers Lamont and Spencer. Other comments were made such as undemocratic, blackmailers and un-Canadian.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs please explain this outrageous slander of Canada's proud war veterans and apologize now for the hurt that these comments have caused?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say in response to the hon. member that the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs said no such thing. In fact he said the opposite.
This very delicate situation of a hunger strike, I am delighted to report to the House, is now over because of the hard work of my department, the staff, other members of this party and this government, and the work of the committee and all members.
I thank my parliamentary secretary for the excellent job he has done in this regard.
Employment InsuranceMr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, we already knew by this time what the employment insurance contribution rate would be for the coming year.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When is the minister going to announce the contribution decrease for 1999?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for his vote of confidence in our government, as evidenced by his expectation of a drop in the contribution rate.
As a government, we have constantly succeeded in lowering employment insurance contribution rates. I thank him for his confidence in expecting a decrease.
In the past six years we made the announcement in late November three times, and in early December three other times. When the commission has made its recommendation to me, I will go to see the Minister of Finance and we shall announce the decision as soon as it has been made. That will be soon.
FisheriesMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to allocation of the fisheries resource the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has admitted that past governments have favoured large corporations over small inshore fishermen in their coastal communities which have devastated thousands of Canadians and their families.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. When will the government change this disastrous policy and enter into regional and community based management agreements for this precious resource?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Sackville—Eastern Shores is an active member of the fisheries committee and works diligently with members on the government side in terms of overcoming some of the problems in the fishery.
He will know that departmental officials met with the fisheries committee last week and the minister this week. They have indicated that they are finding new ways of consulting with the fishing community and fishermen.
Premier Tobin last week at the fisheries council meeting admitted that the reason Newfoundland's economy will be number one this year is because of the fishery. It is not just a disaster. There are good examples, and it is as a result of the leadership of the minister.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, there is another problem with the fishery. The lobster fishery is set to open in southwestern Nova Scotia. Thousands of fishers will begin the risky business of another season in the lobster industry.
It is incomprehensible that the government would choose at this time to take the coast guard vessel Mary Hichens out of service. This is a time when we need more search and rescue capability, not less. What is the minister doing to prevent another disaster at sea and to ensure the safety of these fishers?
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the member should know full well that the minister has answered this question many times.
In terms of the coast guard, safety is our number one priority. He mentioned a particular vessel but the vessels are now being used for multi-arrangements and the safety of fishermen will not be compromised.
HealthMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a recent study shows that both the rate of cancer and of survival from cancer differ dramatically across Canada. For example, in Ontario deaths from breast cancer are 18% higher than in British Columbia.
I would like to know how Health Canada could use a report like this one to give all Canadians a better chance of avoiding and surviving cancer?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report is a very important one. All provinces will be interested in its details because they actually provide services to people in the provinces.
We have heard the Minister of Health speak about a report card. The Prime Minister has spoken about it as well. This is one example of how greater accountability and report cards can raise important questions that must be answered for people across the country to have access to the very best care available. We can learn from each other to improve the rates of treatments and outcomes.
National Parole BoardMr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the National Parole Board is out of control. Since the Prime Minister took office it has handed out thousands and thousands of pardons to convicted criminals.
Through access to information the solicitor general's department shows that 700 sex offenders who were pardoned later had their pardons revoked because they had committed new sex crimes. More victims.
What possible excuse could the solicitor general have for pardoning so many sex offenders who go on to abuse, rape and molest our children and families again?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first concern of the parole board is public safety. When it reviews each case that is the primary concern. There has been a very small number of—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Seven hundred?
Lawrence MacAulay: Public safety is the major issue. It is an arm's length body of government that acts within itself.
Fresh WaterMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment plans to expand the mandate of the international joint commission to all waterways and groundwater on both sides of the Canada-US border.
Since she did not answer my question the day before yesterday, I will ask again: does the minister realize that her project could constitute a new instance of federal government interference in an area that has always belonged to the provinces?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in a response, the issue of fresh water is of concern to all Canadians. As the federal Minister of the Environment I have been working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to address this very serious issue.
The International Joint Commission is a body that is under the authority of both the United States and Canada. We work together in setting out the parameters of its work. We have requested it to conduct some reviews of fresh water issues.
As I said, I speak to the International Joint Commission along with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We do so in collaboration with our American counterparts and the provinces and territories.
AgricultureMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has to provide leadership in our time of crisis.
The government's impotent efforts to protect our farmers from the trade wars are a national shame.
The misguided suggestion by the Reform Party and its advisers for tax relief but no new expenditures is a crying shame.
Farmers need help now. The federal government must take responsibility.
When will the minister accept advice from farmers who are asking for an immediate and long term national disaster relief program?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in this Chamber today, I have had a very good, clear and concise report from the safety net advisory committee. We are considering that at the present time. I have shared some of that, or the main gist of it, with my cabinet colleagues.
As I said yesterday and continue to say, my cabinet colleagues and I realize the severity of this situation and we will do all we possibly can as soon as we possibly can.
Points Of OrderPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services made reference to a document during question period and read from the document. I would ask him if he would be willing to table the document that he quoted from today.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the document referred to in fact constitutes the minister's own briefing notes from the department, and as we know those documents are not tabled in response to a question. Otherwise, we might as well table the briefing books of the entire cabinet.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the standing orders clearly say that it is a requirement that if a minister is willing to quote from a document then he is obligated to table it. So his choice is either that he quote from it and table it, or that he not quote from it. The minister must be consistent.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, what I was quoting was from the Vancouver Sun newspaper of November 25.
The Deputy Speaker: I think we can deal with this matter. The minister has indicated that he was quoting from a newspaper. He has given the source of the quote. If it was a state document that he was quoting from he would normally be required to table the document in accordance with the rules of the House. But since the Vancouver Sun is not a state document, and since it appears that it is a public document, I do not think there is a necessity for the minister to table the document. Therefore, I think the matter is closed.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
Committees Of The HouseShaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 29, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence, and your committee has agreed to report it without amendment.
Employment Insurance ActRob Anders: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-457, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would exclude the employment category for persons who are, in essence, self-employed from the application of the regulations that result in the employment of such persons being included in insurable employment. In other words, people who cannot collect EI should not have to pay EI premiums.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Controlled Drugs And Substances ActBill Gilmour: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-458, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school).

Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act to impose minimum prison sentences of one year for a first offence and two years for a further offence in cases where a person is convicted of trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or a narcotic within 500 metres of an elementary school or a high school.
Drug abuse is destructive to our youth and to society, and drug related crimes have been estimated as the source of 85% of all criminal activity in Canada.
My bill is in the interest of all Canadians and our youth in particular. It is my hope that this House will support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
David Pratt: Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that you will find unanimous consent to put this motion to the House without debate:
That this House request that the government convey to the Governor of the State of Texas, the hon. George W. Bush, and to parole authorities of the state its very serious concern about the violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in the case of Mr. Stanley Faulder, a Canadian citizen who is to be executed on December 10, 1998 at Huntsville State Prison; and further, that the government convey this House's respectful request that the execution be stayed pending a judicial review of the case to ensure that due process has been followed.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
PetitionsMac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents across the country who are asking that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the rights of grandparents to access or to custody of the children.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following two petitions which come from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.
The petitioners request that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiations until a full public debate on the proposed treaty takes place across the country.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to present a petition that points out the injustice of certain decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The petitioners point out that the CRTC licensed the pornographic playboy channel while declining licences to certain religious broadcasters.
They also beseech parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which encourages the licensing of single faith broadcasters.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I also table this petition from citizens of Canada, mostly from my constituency.
The petitioners state that a majority of Canadians are in favour of fair compensation for all victims of tainted blood and they would like action to be taken. They affix their signatures to that end.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is in respect of the Young Offenders Act.
These petitioners ask for changes in regard to the Young Offenders Act. They ask, in view of the increase in crime in recent years, that laws be changed to make enforcement more rigorous.
The Speaker: I think three petitions would be enough for today.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that I would like to table.
These petitioners are largely residents of my riding of Winnipeg Centre. They feel very strongly that there is a need to modernize our parliamentary institutions and they would like to see the Senate abolished.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Request For Emergency DebateThe Speaker: I have an application for an emergency debate which was received yesterday afternoon from the hon. member for South Shore.
The hon. member will have a very short period to put his case before the House.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave under Standing Order 52 to propose an emergency debate to address the current farm income crisis.
Producers are selling at a loss. According to Statistics Canada, farm cash receipts are down drastically in 1998. Net farm income dropped 55% nationally in 1997 and it is expected to be worse in 1999. It is certainly one of the worst farm income crises since the Great Depression.
If we compare Canada's producer support with other countries we should be ashamed.
According to figures released by Agriculture Canada, Canada ranks second last, with 2% producer support, when compared to other OECD nations. The United States, the European Union, Japan and other OECD countries, respectively, have 16%, 49%, 23% and 9% support for their farmers.
An emergency debate is required now in order to urge the government to address this issue immediately before more farmers are forced into bankruptcy. I believe that all parliamentarians do not want to force our producers out of the industry.
The debate would also give the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the opportunity to inform the House about the proposed $2 billion package that the government is considering to help farmers through this crisis. Time is of the essence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful consideration of this very important and extremely urgent matter.
The Speaker: I received this request yesterday at 5.40 p.m. I have considered the request for this emergency debate under Standing Order 52 made by the hon. member for South Shore. He has explained the general principles of the debate, if it were to take place.
I have concluded that the current crisis in agriculture in this country does meet the terms of the standing order.
Since this is Friday, the standing orders would see such a debate begin immediately and conclude at 4 p.m. this afternoon.
But I do not think this rather hasty arrangement would do justice to the subject, as the hon. member has said in his few words, or to the many members who may want to speak on the matter.
I have therefore decided to exercise the discretion the standing orders afford to the Speaker and to hold over the debate until Monday, November 30 at 8.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the third time and passed.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to continue my debate. I will not say I was rudely interrupted by question period because I think question period is a very important part of the role of parliament. For us to stop and hold the government accountable for the things it is doing incorrectly or failing to do is a very important. I wish when such a great speech like mine is interrupted by question period that we would also have an answer period as well. But that is for another time.
I was talking about the fact that we have double taxation in Canada. We have this wonderful bill, Bill S-16, before us. It is a great bill. It is long overdue. It is time we start recognizing there is a global economy. We need to not only trade with other countries but compete with them. For us to have an agreement on taxation will help the businesses from Canada that are dealing with these foreign countries and the foreign countries will benefit.
Undoubtedly there is an advantage to when Canadians take their expertise and investments to other countries. But there is also an advantage to us in the sense that we can help, on the international scheme of things, to make these different countries financially strong. This does a couple of things. It helps the people in that country. It gives them goods, services and expertise that they would otherwise not have. It helps Canadian people and Canadian businesses. It gives them an outlet for their creativity and for their investment dollars. It is a good return but we must make sure the tax regime is good.
As I said earlier, I believe in the principle of fair international taxation. Why can we not have that same principle enacted in Canada? We have the statistics. Over the last five years since this Liberal government has been in power the real take home value of the average Canadian family has gone down by $3,000 a year. Meanwhile taxes have gone up.
The Minister of Finance will say we have decreased taxes. He can point to one or two little examples where they have reduced the rates marginally. I commend him for it. Why should I withhold a compliment for the Minister of Finance? He is worthy of so few that when I do find an opportunity I should give it to him. So yes, it has been great that he has taken a few little taxes down a bit. But the big picture shows the opposite. Collectively we are paying more taxes than ever.
I am thinking of thousands of families I am speaking for right now, not only farm families in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, but families in farms, working families, union people, all kinds of people right across the country who every month have difficulty paying their bills.
Yet we extract taxes from them at every turn.
We take the GST, the HST. We take the excise tax and the income tax. We take the UIC tax. It is a tax because by very definition money that is extracted from one citizen which goes to someone else is a tax. It is a function that governments in Canada have assumed. Governments believe it is a proper role for them to take money from the person who earned it and give it to someone who did not earn it.
Do not get me wrong, there are many instances where that is good. It is perfectly fine for us as a society to reach out in compassion and care for those who cannot look after themselves. That is why I became a Reformer. I am interested in making sure Canada's finances are run in such a way that we can do the things we truly value.
Let us make sure we look after those who are ill and cannot work. Let us make sure we look after those who are in dire straits. Let us make sure we have health care for people who need it.
The principle is sound and it is supported by the majority of Canadians. No Canadian should be denied needed health care because of lack of financial resources. I am deeply committed to that, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of that belief given often by people on the other side. I am deeply committed to that.
But what do we have in this country? We have three levels of government, in some instances four, and they tax and they tax and they tax on tax. I gave two illustrations before I was interrupted. One was the illustration of the tax on the tax on the tax on gasoline. The second was property tax.
This has nothing to do with the federal government but I sometimes think it would be a good thing for municipalities to say that when they have taken taxes from a property that over the years accumulate and reach the original value of the property, then we have taxed 100% and surely that is good enough. I have sometimes thought that might be a limitation.
I would like to see municipalities, provinces and certainly the federal government have some sort of curbs on their relentless grabbing of our dollars because Canadians have to work for those dollars.
Many of us get up early. I worked at NATE, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. In order to do my work and stay ahead of my students and the rapidly changing technical field, I often got up at 4 o'clock in the morning so I could get to work. I would work on the equipment before the students arrived so I really knew what I was doing so I could act authoritatively.
I got up at 4 o'clock in the morning and sometimes, in order to supplement our income, I would teach night classes. I used to say I work on Tuesday nights for me and on Thursdays for Mr. Trudeau because our marginal tax rates are about 50%. We are taxed to death.
I taught those evening classes because I enjoyed teaching adult students who came for night courses. I had some wonderful experiences and great relationships with some of those people. But we also needed the money in our family because it was more and more difficult to make ends meet.
It is worse now than it has ever been. We have families whose disposable income is down by $3,000 a year since 1993. The government keeps taking it.
The example I was using was property tax. I remember several years back when I did a calculation. I earned $4,000. Right off the top the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta extracted from my earnings let us say 40% as a nominal number. The marginal rate is 50% but of course there are some basic deductions.
Of my original $4,000, 40% of that is $1,600. I am now left with $2,400 which I deposit in the bank. Then I take out my cheque book, go to the county office and pay my property tax. In that year my property tax was $2,400. So I wrote a cheque for $2,400. Now the municipality can say it only taxed $2,400. But the fact is that I had earned $4,000 to pay the $2,400 bills because we have taxes on taxes. Bill S-16 is right in principle because it says an investor should not have to pay income tax in Vietnam, or in Croatia or in Chile and then when he brings that money on his investment home pay income tax here again. There is an agreement here that we should avoid double taxation. The same thing is true for pension funds and other earnings. This is a very good agreement.
However, I wish we could apply that principle of avoiding double taxation. Though I have not discussed this with anyone else in the party I have talked to other people about it. They think perhaps we should have some deductions for Canadian families that are struggling. Perhaps we could have a deduction for interest on their mortgages as in the United States. Perhaps they could have a deduction for their property taxes so that they do not have to pay their taxes with after tax dollars and avoid that double taxation. This is an urgent need.
We have before us a bill which goes in the right direction on an international agreement. It is correct in principle and I support the bill. I presume most of my colleagues will vote in favour of it when vote time comes. Meanwhile the principle we are dealing with here is very important. We need to start applying it to Canadians who earn money in Canada. Let us stop taxing them to death.
I sometimes think Canadian taxpayers, and I am one of them, feel like 500 pound governments are using us as a trampoline. Of course I would be rather bouncy and it would work not too bad but there are a lot of other people who would not be able to take the crush. We have right now thousands of families really struggling to pay their bills yet the taxman is relentless in his demands.
This is a little off topic, but I am being given parliamentary immunity from relevance right now since everyone is very tolerant. I appreciate that. I need to say something about government policy in the long run.
Here we have a government making a policy. But it just happens to be true that the area in which I live and which I represent is suffering immensely these days from long term, wrong headed policies of the federal government. I am speaking about the government's policies on agriculture. With its monopoly in the wheat board we have guaranteed to farmers almost consistently the lowest price is the law instead of the highest price. International buyers wait until the Canadian Wheat Board announces its floor price and then that is the price they offer and it becomes the price. It is absolutely crazy the way it does this.
Instead of holding out for a good price the Canadian Wheat Board claims its only obligation is to sell the farmers' wheat. It is not accepting its responsibility to sell the wheat at a reasonable price and perhaps to withhold it when it is being sold at a loss.
Instead the farmers are forced by legislation to give their wheat to the wheat board whether they want to or not. They cannot find another market for it. It is against the law, unless they happen to live in Ontario or Quebec. Then they do not have to. They are free of the wheat board. But in western Canada where farmers are suffering so much that is one of the factors.
The other factor of course is taxation. I spoke to a number of farmers in the last couple of weeks over this issue. They are saying taxes on taxes on taxes. I had one farmer this week say to me “When I make a deposit into my NISA account in order to spread off my income in years of loss, why does the government take taxes off that? Why is that deduction not tax deductible?” It should be.
I hope the finance minister and the agriculture minister start waking up on policy needed in Canada right now. If we would provide these farmers with a tax regime and a system of selling their grain at a reasonable market price, at least something above cost, whether it is grain, animals or whatever, then we could survive internationally. We could compete with the best of them.
The government has to start applying the principles domestically that it is using in Bill S-16 and recognize that it is 20 years of bone headed Conservative and Liberal policies with respect to agriculture that have brought us to the place where now we are on our knees begging and pleading for disaster relief.
This is a manmade disaster. It could have been avoided. The crops in western Canada were generally not that bad this year. There were areas where they were not good. It is despicable in a year when a farmer has a good crop that he still cannot make it. He might as well get out of the business and that is what is happening.
When I was in farming a number of years ago we took some animals to the market one day and came back with more than we went with. The animals did not sell at the auction. When we went to take the truck back home, somebody had thrown a few calves into our truck.
We went there with six calves to sell and came back with eight because the farmer could not afford to keep them. He figured I would take them. Of course I could not bring myself to kill these young calves. We kept and fed them. I used my mate's income to subsidize the farm.
That was 15 years ago but those policies are still in place. While the Liberal government comes out with good things in Bill S-16 now and then, every time it has a good principle it applies it in only a narrow fashion. I ask the Liberals simply to consider applying those same principles to Canadian businesses, to Canadian families, to Canadian farmers. Let us get the country up and strong like it should be.
There is not a country in the world that has the wealth we have. If everything is added together such as our natural resources, our agricultural capabilities, our manufacturing capabilities, our mines, minerals and resources, what a wonderful country to travel to.
Canada is a safe country. People here are not generally worried about crime because Canadians care for each other. We do not go around beating each other on the head.
We have an excellent industry of tourism. We have a vigorous population. No one can live at this longitude and not be vigorous. Winter comes every year. We are good, hardworking and dedicated.
I am typical of Canadians who get up at 4 a.m. and do a job. When I grew up on the farm, my dad used to say the Lord put the sun in the sky as a light for us to work and it is wrong for us to waste it.
In summer when the sun came up in Saskatchewan at 5 a.m., we were out in the fields. That is what the light was there for. We worked hard. It is a shame that government policies over the years have basically stolen from us what we have worked so hard to earn.
I think of the family farm where I grew up. What a shame government policies put the continued ownership of that family farm at risk because the government cannot get it right. The government had better start getting it right. We will have a good debate Monday on this.
When people get on a roll they see things clearly. I commend the government for what it is doing in Bill S-16. I hope it spends this weekend studying. I used to say to my students on Fridays “There are no classes tomorrow. Sunday is the day of rest. You can go home and study”. I hope the Liberals study this bill on the weekend.
The bill will probably come to conclusion and pass today. It has some good principles on taxation. I hope the members go home and study it tomorrow. I would like not just every Liberal in the House but every Liberal in the country to go home and contemplate.
Tomorrow morning when they wake up contemplate how they are killing the country with excessive taxation and with bone headed government policies. Let them fix it. Let them serve Canadians like they say they are serving them. Let us see them do something tangible for farmers as they are doing for investors with this bill.
I drifted far from Bill S-16 on occasion but have always kept it as my goal in the distance. I have always come back to it.
Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be as voluble as my Reform Party colleague. I did appreciate his speech.
I am pleased to speak today on Bill S-16, which was passed by the Senate on June 2. This bill will implement agreements between Canada and the two following countries: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
The Bloc Quebecois does not oppose treaties between Canada and other countries insofar as they ensure fair and equitable tax treatment for persons and encourage trade and investment between countries. I would mention that the term “person” includes physical persons, corporations, trusts and all other groups of persons.
Since the tax rate in the countries concerned in this bill is similar to Canada's, I will not oppose the bill. However, I do want to take the time accorded me to speak in this context of tax conventions in effect between Canada and certain other countries.
While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of corporations and individuals, they are in many cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Great care must therefore be taken to ensure that these treaties do not open the door to excessive tax evasion. They must therefore be restricted to countries with tax rates comparable to Canada's. While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of individuals, as defined earlier, they are in some cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Although the most recent treaties, which take their inspiration from OECD models, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older tax conventions with countries known as tax havens because they have low or no taxes on the incomes of individuals and corporations.
Under the tax treaty between Canada and these so-called tax havens, the Canadian taxation system closes its eyes to these amounts, treating them as if they had already been taxed at a comparable rate elsewhere, and not taxing them when they are brought back into Canada. Let us bear in mind that the auditor general has raised this matter on a number of occasions since 1992. I could also point out many cases to the government, but that would be like talking to a brick wall.
There is another danger to certain tax treaties, the ability to change Canadian tax rules to suit the friends of those in power, or those in power themselves. I am referring here to Bill C-28. The Minister of Finance is in a clear conflict of interest in this case because, if the bill is passed, it will mean millions of dollars for Canada Steamship Lines, a scandalous trick discovered by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We would remind you that all opposition parties supported the Bloc in this CSL business. The minister ought to defend the interests of the Canadian taxpayer as staunchly as he defends his own. Tax treaties and manipulation of the law cost our taxpayers billions of dollars. Those billions are lost to us, and the public suffers as a result.
What should be done instead is for a serious and responsible government to devote considerable resources to assessing, adjusting and renegotiating problematical tax treaties, particularly those with countries that represent the greatest risk to Canada as far as loss of taxation income is concerned.
What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes. What we also have is a government that probably spends more money on a one-week visit by the Queen of England than it spends in a whole year on enforcing and improving tax conventions.
This is a serious issue because it undermines the overall integrity of our tax system. It also makes Canada look like a country where wealth means bigger loopholes. It is very troublesome. And given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has cut in transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and social assistance, honest citizens who pay their taxes to Canada want their government to at least ensure that everyone pays his fair share. It is not such a lot to ask, but it seems to be too much for this government.
In conclusion, I recognize that tax conventions have the advantage of preventing double taxation of the operating revenue of companies in two countries with branches or dependent companies in one country or the other.
Another advantage is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply to travel by Quebec and Canadian artists who perform abroad, or even to travel by those involved in sports, such as hockey players and other athletes. On the other hand, we know that tax agreements are nothing new. They have always existed and will always exist, and will even increase in numbers with globalization.
Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation, insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the countries with which Canada signed these agreements are equivalent or comparable.
In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of residents and non-residents, and encouraging trade and investments between countries. But make no mistake, these treaties should not open the door to excessive tax evasion.
Norman E. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to respond, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to Bill S-16 which will allow Canada to ratify tax conventions and tax treaties with Croatia, Chile and Vietnam.
Canada, as everyone is aware, is a trading nation. Last year our exports totalled some $344 billion. Our imports were up around $329 billion. That gives us some indication of how important trading is to Canada.
While the majority of our trade has traditionally involved the United States, we do have trade and we do have investment treaties and ties with virtually every nation on the face of the earth, including the countries mentioned in the bill.
Therefore, it is vital that trade and investment be promoted and carried out with the maximum degree of certainty that we can possibly have both for us and for our partners.
Over the last quarter century Canada has sought to expand on a number of tax agreements it has with other nations, especially with the countries mentioned in the bill. That has been the policy, as we are all very much aware, of both Liberal and Conservative administrations. We have now reached a point where we have 70 such agreements in place. That is pretty impressive.
Such tax treaties have two main goals. They sort out who has the right to collect which amount of tax when a business or person residing in one country earns money in another country. They also ensure that taxes that are paid in one country are recognized by the other country.
One knows, for example, what withholding tax to expect on income that one takes out of that country. As a result, one can invest and earn income in the secure knowledge that the foreign country will not make it impossible for one to bring home one's profits by imposing new and unexpected withholding taxes.
The result is that business and individual investors can pretty well feel secure that they can invest internationally with confidence and that they will not have their profits withheld. That is an important economic objective, whether it be through treaties such as these or through trade agreements such as NAFTA, the World Trade Organization or the proposed free trade agreement of the Americas.
Such treaties prevent tax evasion. They allow the free flow of information and encourage communication between individual countries that is needed to catch individuals and corporations that are evading tax. This is a result, I am sure we could all agree, everyone would be in favour of.
The member for Kings—Hants, the finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, knows full well the benefits of international trade. They are well known to all members of the Conservative Party. It was the PC government, incidentally, that designed the the North America Free Trade Agreement.
The PC Party also liberalized trade in telecommunications for Canadian business. The Liberals who were in opposition at that time were opposed outright to the notion of opening up Canada to the rest of the world. Now we are all aware they have had a great conversion. They have seen the light. They are quite pleased to associate themselves with the North America Free Trade Agreement. Very often the Prime Minister uses every opportunity, whether at home or abroad, to promote that agreement. Just recently we saw the Prime Minister actually take credit for negotiating the free trade agreement.
On numerous occasions our finance critic has risen in the House to remind the government and the Prime Minister that the Liberals are born again free traders. Now that it has become fashionable, the Prime Minister and his government cannot get enough of international trade and discuss it at every opportunity.
The PC Party was the party that took the initiative when issues such as free trade were not fashionable because we knew that it was in the best interest of Canada. Also the PC Party was the party that let Atlantic Canada prosper under more liberalized trade both within Canada and other nations around the world.
Free trade has created a prosperous economy and has created thousands and thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada for which the Minister of Finance is currently taking credit as he did in the House yesterday.
It is encouraging to see the Liberal Party of Canada finally seeing the light and supporting the very ideas the Conservative government embraced as the best bet for the future of Canada.
The Conservative Party has no problem with the bill. It is a good bill and Canada will be better off for it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, the member in whose name the bill under Private Members' Business stands today is presently in the House. I believe there would be unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. in order that we may proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business
Indian ActJim Hart: 
moved that Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to debate Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land). The bill is a direct result of a serious incident that occurred in my constituency last fall, and it has implications for all Canadians in every province and territory in Canada.
In November 1997, 51 families from the Driftwood Mobile Home Park just outside Penticton, British Columbia, were evicted from their homes through no fault of their own. Health Canada deemed the sewage treatment facilities there to be totally inadequate. No one at the federal or provincial level had been inspecting the sewage treatment plant to ensure it met provincial or national health and safety guidelines.
To make matters worse, my constituents were not protected by British Columbia's residential tenancy act. The act declares that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the building and property of rental facilities to provincial and safety standards and must oversee repairs of serious problems. One might ask why my constituents were not protected. It was because they were renting property on Indian land. The residents, many of whom had lived in Driftwood Mobile Home Park for years, fell into this grey area of the law.
Let us put a face to these people, these 51 families who were evicted from their homes in November. Who were these people? Many of them were senior citizens. Many of them were low income families, single income families. They had scrimped and saved to realize the dream which most Canadians hold of owning their own home.
Nobody at the provincial level had been inspecting the septic system of the mobile home park because provincial legislation, in this case the B.C. residential tenancy act, does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves.
With regard to the victims of the mobile home park, the hon. Michael Farnworth, B.C. minister of municipal affairs and housing, wrote to me stating unequivocally:
It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned land lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impacts on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.
This is not the first time this has happened. Other incidents involving tenants renting on federal Indian land have ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. In almost every case the supreme court has ruled that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on reserve land.
These rulings reinforced that parliament, this House, has exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. Despite that there is still a legislative vacuum which needs to be filled. That is what I am attempting to do with Bill C-402.
Although the federal government is responsible for tenants on federal land, Health Canada's health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations and repairs on Indian reservations, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation some 10 years ago or those of other mobile home parks in my constituency. Therefore no action by the federal government was taken to prevent what turned into a disaster for those 51 families in my riding.
Every Canadian believes that no matter what happens he or she can turn to the courts for redress of grievance. This was not the case for my constituents. There was no federal law to protect them. They fell through the cracks.
What was the effect of that happening to these people? Due to years of neglect, raw sewage started to seep up through the ground of these people's homes. Many were forced to literally walk away from their lifetime investment.
On October 9, 1997, in an effort to protect my constituents' homes, I tried to pull together the interested parties by organizing a meeting with the federal minister of Indian affairs; the mayor of Penticton, Beth Campbell; the local MLA, Rick Thorpe; and the chief of the Penticton Indian Band, Chief Stewart Phillip.
I congratulate all those people and in particular the minister of Indian affairs because she was willing to meet with these people. In spite of the best efforts of all parties involved a comprehensive solution was not reached. In November 1997 after only 30 days notice my constituents walked away from their homes after they were evicted.
They could not move their homes. Some of the mobile homes were quite old. Some of them can be seen sitting right there today. They have been destroyed, mainly through vandalism. Some people in the area even offered them 10 cents on the dollar for their investment.
Many of these people literally walked away. They had nowhere to go. They could not move their homes. There were no vacancies in any other mobile home parks for them to move them to if they could come up with the money required to do that. One family literally walked away from their home after Health Canada advised them to keep their dog in the house and to boil their shoes. Imagine being told to boil their shoes after walking in their own yard. That is what happened to these people.
This incident brought to my attention the danger thousands of Canadians face who rent land on federal Indian reserve lands. While my constituents faced the tragedy of being evicted from their homes, luckily no lives were lost. However, the tragedy could have been much bigger if the inadequate sewage facilities had led to an outbreak of disease. This is not just a one time local problem. There are many other mobile home parks in my riding that could end up with the same fate. I would venture a guess that there are probably many right across the country.
Other Canadians on reserve lands could also lose their home faced with this situation. What is needed is effective federal legislation to ensure that the federal legislative vacuum is filled so that no other Canadians are crippled by this or any other similar incident. This is the point of Bill C-402.
Bill C-402 is designed to prevent future Driftwood mobile home parks from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. Both the crown and the sublessor or the locatee will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlords and tenants.
For example, as already mentioned, the B.C. residential tenancy act ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by law. The crown and the sublessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out by the various provincial residential tenancy acts.
These people had paid their rent to put their mobile home on a pad in a park. They were paying rent in good faith for years and the locatee or the sublessor was not spending that money or a percentage of that money on the upgrading and care of the property. The crown definitely has a responsibility because the crown was one of the signators of the lease.
Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent future generations of Canadians from facing the tragedy faced by my constituents in November 1997. This is extremely important. With more economic development happening right now on reserve lands across the country, we need a solution. It is required now more than ever before.
In the case of Driftwood it took 10 years for the problem to surface. Bill C-402 is the answer for future developments on Indian lands. It would protect residential tenants on reserve land by making provincial tenancy legislation apply in any province. It would mean that in new developments on reserve land involving tenants, provincial health and safety standards would have to be followed. Tenants would be protected from arbitrary evictions.
Normally in the course of a speech I would be asking at this time for support of my legislation in the House. Unfortunately any support I receive today from the House would be an empty endorsement. This is no fault of the vast majority of the members of the House but rather an indictment on our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system is set up to ensure that no private member in the House, no matter from which party, is able to pass legislation. Standing Order 92(1) states that no more than five private members' bills and five private members' motions may be designated votable.
I find this rule ridiculous as do my peers from both sides of the House. Every member of parliament has a sound knowledge of the important issues in their constituencies, issues that require federal legislation to be resolved. These are issues that the Liberals consider small or insignificant in the big picture or the scheme of things. The Liberals should always keep in mind that all politics is local and this issue is very important for not only constituents in my riding but constituents right across the country in every riding. Ministers and departments only see the big picture and ignore the unresolved smaller issues. They have the power to bring in sweeping legislation that is always votable. Yet for members of parliament bringing in a private member's bill is the only way we can change federal legislation for the better.
Despite the fact that Bill C-402 is only a paragraph or two in length, it took hours of consultation. Speaking with constituents, speaking with experts in the field of Indian affairs and the Indian Act and legal counsel in the House of Commons, it took literally hours to come up with the solution we have brought forward in Bill C-402. And that was the easy part.
After the bill is finally drawn up the member of parliament is forced to wait until his or her bill is drawn in a lottery system. The merit of this piece of legislation is of no importance whatsoever. If you are one of the lucky ones to make it through the House lottery then you must convince the Liberal dominated committee that your private member's bill is worthy of being voted on.
Unfortunately for Canadians who rent on Indian reserve land, the subcommittee determined that Bill C-402 would not be votable. In fact, about 20 of my colleagues in the House made presentations to the subcommittee at the same time I did. All were refused the status of being votable except for one private member's bill introduced by an unelected, unaccountable senator.
The way private members' bills and business have been treated in the House is absolutely scandalous, and this occurs every single day. This deplorable state of affairs must end.
In my riding there is a great deal of economic development on reserve land and therefore Bill C-402 is very pertinent.
All we are asking in Bill C-402 is that the same protection be afforded to renters right across the country regardless of living on Indian reserve land or non-reserve land.
Bill C-402 is an important piece of legislation drafted to protect Canadians. If passed, it would ensure that those who rent on Indian land are protected by provincial landlord and tenant legislation.
Robert E. Lee, an American military commander, once said: “Duty then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less”. I have done my duty today by raising this issue in the House of Commons and now I ask the federal Liberal government to do its duty.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for his interest in this issue and for all his efforts to bring greater certainty and equity to landlord and tenant relationships on reserves.
The member has not made this a partisan issue, nor should he have. We thank him for that.
The House has heard the circumstances which prompted the member's interest and the reasons behind his sponsorship of the bill. Certainly none of us can argue with his motives or quarrel with the very real needs of his constituents which he has properly identified.
The situation at the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton was extremely unfortunate. No one can feel anything other than great disappointment that the situation ended the way it did. Certainly no one wants to see these unfortunate incidents repeated.
Along with the hon. member, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was personally involved in trying to bring all the relevant parties together in the hope of resolving that situation. Unfortunately these efforts were not successful.
While I do not support the bill for reasons which I will explain in a moment, I do share its ultimate goal to improve landlord and tenant relationships on reserves in Canada.
I do not believe the bill is the best way to achieve that goal. Sometimes in trying to remedy the particular circumstances of a legitimate and specific situation, our efforts lead to solutions that do not lend themselves to general application across Canada, in this case for all reserves.
In our haste to right a wrong we lose sight of the wider issues and broader concerns that involve all Canadians and all first nations. I believe this is the case with this proposed legislation.
Let me focus on three major concerns I have with Bill C-402. It is too limited in scope. While it does address some of the issues concerning leases, it does not address the numerous other kinds of residential leases that presumably deserve the same kind of protections and certainty intended by the bill.
If we proceed with this legislation we create two classes of leasehold interests on reserves, those which fall under provincial legislation and those which do not. This may be an unintended consequence but it is also an unacceptable result and cannot be supported.
Second, the bill would bring confusion, not clarity, to the issue of landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
Third and most important, I have grave concerns about the process of addressing landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
This legislation offers one solution, to bring the reserve under the relevant residential tenancy legislation of the province in which it is located. But there has been no consultation with first nations to see if this is their preferred option.
It returns us to the old paternalistic approach of Ottawa knows best. It attempts to substitute our judgment for that of first nations. It attempts to alter the relationship between first nations and provincial governments without consulting those governments as well.
In “Gathering Strength”, the government's response to the the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, we made it clear we were not prepared to return to the ways of the past.
We said we had learned from our past mistakes and we were determined not to repeat them. Instead we wanted to develop a new partnership with first nations based on mutual trust, respect and consultation. This legislation fails that very important test.
Quite apart from the commitments made in “Gathering Strength” for greater consultation the federal government has a legal fiduciary duty to consult first nations on any significant changes which might affect them. This legislation also fails that important test.
The issue of determining the appropriate laws to govern landlord and tenant relations is at its core an issue of governance. In “Gathering Strength” the government pledged to work with first nations to promote self-governance and this legislation again unfortunately fails that test.
I am very concerned this legislation prejudges the outcome of several processes currently underway, processes which I believe should be allowed to run their course unencumbered by interference from Ottawa.
As the member knows, the Indian taxation advisory board which has an excellent record and is highly respected for its mediation of sensitive first nation issues is overseeing a consultation process on this issue in British Columbia involving the province, first nations representatives, park operators, tenant representatives and officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The first workshop was held a little over a year ago and another is scheduled to take place over the upcoming months.
There are also discussions concerning the development of land regimes under self-government proposals and the proposed first nations land management act, Bill C-49, currently being debated in this House. These discussions may well deal with some of the points in Bill C-402.
A whole range of issues dealing with land management is currently the subject of consultations involving my department and the assembly of first nations and Bill C-402 pre-empts a potentially important aspect of those discussions as well.
I do not know what proposals will emerge from these various consultations. It may be that a recommendation will come forward that band bylaws dealing with residential premises are the best way to deal with landlord-tenant issues.
This is how the Westbank band council in British Columbia has decided to proceed and time will tell if bylaws are the best instrument for this kind of enforcement.
The point is that we should not prejudge the outcome. Let us allow the consultations to proceed. Let us allow those with the greatest interest and most concern to meet in good faith and to see what solutions they might suggest.
That is what “Gathering Strength” is all about. That is what promoting self-government is all about. It is not about Ottawa rushing in to fix all the problems and to provide all the answers. It is about working with first nations and other parties to seek honest answers and make honourable, reasonable concessions. In short, it is about partnerships, not paternalism; co-operation, not control.
For all of these reasons I respectfully oppose Bill C-402. Let me say again how much I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. While we may disagree on this particular approach, I know that we share the same concerns and seek similar objectives and goals. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. member and others in a spirit of co-operation, collaboration and consultation.
Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to rise today to speak to private members' Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, introduced by the Reform member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
This bill concerns specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. Its aim is to protect individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by extending the application of provincial landlord and tenant legislation to leases on reserves.
Under the bill, native landlords and tenants living in one of the ten provinces of Canada would be governed by provincial legislation rather than the Indian Act. Bill C-402 adds a provision to the Indian Act at section 88, and it reads as follows:
88.1 Notwithstanding this Act, provincial laws relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants apply to a lease for residential purposes of land or a dwelling unit on land in a reserve that is granted
(a) by an Indian or any other person acting as sub-lessor under a lease from the Minister under subsection 58(3); or
(b) by the Minister acting as lessor under subsection 58(3).
Admittedly, the obligations between landlords and tenants are not clearly defined in the Indian Act as it now stands, whether the landlord is the crown, a company or a sub-lessor.
For their part, provincial laws give a very narrow definition of the contract between the two parties, the tenant and the owner or landlord of a building. For instance, provincial laws determine the responsibilities of owners and tenants with respect to maintenance, safety and cleanliness of rental accommodation.
Quebec's rental commission legislation gives a clear edge to tenants. In Quebec, tenants are often said to have more rights than owners. Although this could do with some clarification, it is nonetheless indicative of a certain state of affairs.
As for this bill, it can only give more rights and protection to aboriginal tenants living on reserves.
If I understood correctly, the member introduced this bill in the House because of the experience of a community in his riding, the native community of Penticton.
There were 51 families living in mobile homes on this reserve in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. In the summer of 1997, they found themselves with a septic tank problem that quickly deteriorated into a serious crisis for almost 100 people living on the reserve.
The federal government, through Health Canada, ordered people to leave their homes before October 31, 1997. This eviction notice was sent to the residents of Penticton 30 days before the date they were being ordered to leave. As one resident put it, people found themselves all but homeless overnight.
Some found themselves in real financial difficulty, because they had invested a lot of money in their homes. Some mentioned investments of $35,000. Others said it cost them some $10,000 to move and relocate.
In addition, for the natives who could absorb this cost, there was nowhere to go in the region. Whatever the cost, moving costs even more when you live on a reserve.
The government and the Department of Indian Affairs remained silent in the face of the distress caused these people, who were appalled by the government's lack of action. They thought the Department of Indian Affairs, the city and the band council would fix the problem of the septic tank. However, as the problem was serious and would have entailed expenditures estimated at $22,000, they preferred to solve it by evicting the residents.
Obviously, if these residents had come under B.C. housing legislation as it concerned the obligations of landlords and tenants, they would not have been evicted so quickly or they would not have been evicted at all.
Both parties would have had to do a lot, especially the owner or landlord, before such a massive eviction could take place. Under provincial law, including that of Quebec, an owner or a landlord must ensure that all his rental units meet cleanliness and safety standards. In this case, the lessor was shamefully in breach of contract. This bill is, therefore, a response to a real problem recently experienced by an aboriginal community.
For the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-402 does not appear to be a problem in that it provides protection to lessees and lessors on the reserve by defining more clearly the obligations and commitments of both parties. However, considering that the Indian Act is an obsolete piece of legislation, one which could do with a thorough review, we question the appropriateness of adding any more modern clauses, such as those the House is being asked to add today.
Would it not be more appropriate to undertake a thorough review of this act, in order to give it a better fit with the aboriginal reality nowadays, as this century comes to a close? The Indian Act goes back to the last century.
Hon. members will agree with me that many changes have taken place on the reserves and in the lives of aboriginal people since that time. It is imperative that these be reflected in the legislation, so that the aboriginal nations may find some balance, in their social and economic development in particular.
This bill therefore raises a more complex problem than just these few clauses concerning the relationship between lessors and lessees, even though we agree that relationship does need to be made far clearer. Now that the issue has been raised, it needs to be looked into thoroughly, and discussed with the Indian affairs minister and her staff.
This bill strikes us as very timely and must serve as the starting point for a true debate among the parties involved in this area.
Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss an issue that is overall a very crucial issue at this time in Canada's history with respect to our relationship with aboriginal people.
I want to pick up on a statement made by the hon. member who moved this motion. He said “all politics are local”. In his statements dealing with Bill C-402 he referred to hours and hours of work in preparing this consultation with Indian affairs officials and Indian Act experts. However, I beg to hear from him whether there were any consultations with first nations people. Were there consultations with the first nations people of Canada?
When one is dealing with this act, it is of national scope. It goes from coast to coast to coast. If there is a local issue which is impacting on the national perspective, it is time to open the books and look at a major overhaul of an act that may be archaic.
As the hon. member for the Bloc mentioned, I believe the royal commission on Canada's aboriginal peoples tried to address the need to modernize our relationship with aboriginal peoples.
At this time I would have to say that I am opposed to the bill, but would welcome a new dialogue for us to start a new relationship with the first nations of this country. They are waiting for this. They have been calling on the government and on all Canadians for this dialogue.
I must highlight the fact that a nation to nation treaty was written with Canada's aboriginal nations. It was not the first nations which allowed anybody to take hold of this land for whatever reason.
When the treaty was written it was in the context of the British nation on behalf of the crown seeking to use and occupy lands to build a new nation, but the first nations held obligations to the federal government.
Provincial jurisdiction is very suspect when it comes to first nations people because the fiduciary responsibilities fall under the nation to nation treaty with the federal government. The hon. member is on the right track in asking the House to change these laws.
The royal commission also considered creating a provincial jurisdiction across this nation, a chequerboard province of all first nations, so that they could govern themselves. There could have been a model for self-governance. This is something that was not brought out in the recommendations, but the dialogue was there.
As well, territorial governments have not been taken into account. Nunavut will be created on April 1, 1999. The Northwest Territories will reissue itself and reorganize its governance, as will Yukon. Someday these territories might have full provincial jurisdiction.
Where are the present landlord and tenant issues concerning the territories? I believe they fall with the northern affairs minister. I beg to see some response to that in the northern jurisdictions because we have to look at this as a national issue.
A major change happened recently with Bill C-49. Fourteen first nations were included, in a very consultative manner, to deal with land management. However, the bill did not consider the issue of residential, agricultural or business leases in these first nations.
First nations governments are saying that they should be able to address tribunals, that they should have a means for dealing with and appealing decisions on jurisdictional issues, such as a business jurisdiction being changed to residential, especially for the people who presently hold leases. This whole topic opens up a major concern.
At this time I have to tell the hon. member that I cannot support his motion, although I acknowledge that the House of Commons needs to address the Indian Act in consultation with all first nations of this country.
The new millennium would be a fine opportunity for us to provide a good example to the world. There is a human rights conference being celebrated right now in Edmonton. A lot of aboriginal people feel that their human rights have been infringed through the development of this country, with respect to land use and their education, cultural and spiritual life. All of these things have infringed on their way of life. Let us address these issues in an open way, with open and respectful dialogue. Then we can build a nation that will be good for our children and for future generations.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw a few references from the remarks of the member for Churchill River. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear his whole discussion, but what I did hear I thought was very well put forth and very well thought out.
I think he could have used a little more emphasis on the benefits that can be derived from the protection of both the land owners, in this case the first nations, and the lessors of first nation lands. Bill C-49, which the member referred to, deals with this issue in a very positive manner. If we did not have Bill C-49, then maybe some type of legislation like this would be required. Unfortunately, this would be inappropriate.
We cannot willy-nilly and easily change the Indian Act. This is a long, drawn out process that would take the support of all members of parliament. Certainly I do not see that support, nor do I believe that most members of parliament see that support.
However, I speak to Private Member's Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, and specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. This bill seeks to have provincial landlord and tenant laws applied to leases on reserve land.
As everyone in the House is aware, reserve land is a federal responsibility. As such, provincial laws currently do not apply on reserve and I would dare to say they will not apply on reserve in the near future.
This is a complex issue. It is not an easy thing to change. We simply cannot give provincial laws jurisdiction where there is already federal jurisdiction and we do not have a willingness on the behalf of the land owners, in this case the first nation and the Government of Canada, to grant that jurisdiction.
The Indian Act sets out provisions relating to reserve land. Aboriginal people do not own land on reserve, unless the band council with the approval of the minister allots it to that individual, usually through a certificate of possession. Anyone with a certificate of possession may lease or sell land, subject to restrictions such as approval of the minister. All lands remain reserve lands under the Indian Act unless they have been surrendered conditionally or unconditionally to the minister.
To lease land on reserve the first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. To sell land it must be absolutely surrendered to the minister.
I want to go back to leased land on reserve. The first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. It is obvious that the jurisdiction and the responsibility and control is in the hands of the minister of the day.
Bill C-402 would provide the ability for provincial landlord and tenant laws to apply on reserve. Provincial laws may include the following provisions: the right to limit rent increases; the right to establish rules for terminating the lease, for example, evictions cannot occur without notice and reason; the obligation to meet certain standards of cleanliness and damage repair. That sounds right and most reasonable thinking people would ask why we cannot do this.
Again, it gets back to jurisdiction, and it gets back to the way we run the country. I am not saying that is correct, but I am saying that we cannot change it in the short term. In the long term with a lot of research and due diligence and study on everyone's part and the ability to sit down and discuss this perhaps, and certainly I for one would support anything that brings the first nations out from under the aegis of the Indian Act. It is an archaic piece of legislation; in the long term it is harmful and in the short term I would say it is discriminatory.
I would like to explain some of the reasons this piece of legislation in my opinion will not work.
We are imposing regulations on first nations. This is a step away from self-reliance for first nations. It is a step away from responsibility for first nations. It is a step away from self-government which all parties in the House have proposed to support. There is some discussion on what self-government is, but that is not in here. We are discussing something else altogether, a bill to impose provincial laws where there is federal jurisdiction. This changes one small segment of the Indian Act instead of removing the paternalistic and onerous obligations required by an act that was flawed from its inception.
Certainly the PC Party has always supported increasing first nations self-reliance and self-government, concepts that require first nations to assume control and responsibility of resources, land and administration. That sounds like leases of property to me. The bill before us contradicts that goal.
The Indian Act states that the first nations land is clearly under federal jurisdiction, so provincial rules have no authority on the first nations land if they contradict the Indian Act. One assumes that the first nations negotiated in good faith and continue to negotiate in good faith.
Since some first nations rely heavily on income derived from leased land, they must ensure rents are set at levels that ensure optimal use of that property. Under the Indian Act the first nation may lease land with the permission of the minister by surrendering or designating such land. This prevents first nations from optimizing economic development opportunities since the process can be time consuming. As well, this already ensures that some protection is available for tenants on first nation land since leases must receive federal approval.
Although I do not support Bill C-402, I see that there is a problem between landlords and tenants in relation to first nations land. However, that does not take away from the fact that first nations people need to be responsible for first nations land. At the end of the day we must recognize that they own first nations land. It is fine for them to decide they want to continue a lease for economic gain or opportunity. It is also fine for them to decide to discontinue a lease which they have the legal right to do.
Unfortunately provincial laws do not apply because it is within federal jurisdiction. It is a simple concept although some members have difficulty wrapping their heads around it.
I support making changes to the Indian Act. However this change already exists under Bill C-49. If it passes third reading and the bill gets through the House there will be provisions available for tenants and landlords to deal with one another. That is the way to do this in a democracy.
Although there may be some sympathy with the member and for the lessors involved, they did sign a binding contract with the first nations. They are responsible not only for their own investments but they are also responsible with the first nations. There is a binding contract. We have to give first nations responsibility. At the end of the day we may not be happy with every single thing that is done, and the first nations may not be happy, but in a democracy the first nations have the right to be masters in their own home. It is as simple as that.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-402.
This bill will amend the Indian Act to provide protection for individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by making provincial landlord and tenant legislation apply to those leases.
The impetus for this bill came from an incident in the Okanagan—Coquihalla riding in British Columbia. Although I am not a resident of this riding or of the province, I feel the implications of this incident are important to Canadians nationwide and certainly to constituents in my area.
Last November the 51 families of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park were evicted from their homes after Health Canada declared the sewage treatment facilities were inadequate and posed a serious health hazard. Under B.C. law it is normally the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the building and property are kept in a condition that makes the building reasonably comfortable to live in. Part of this responsibility is to maintain the building and property to health and safety standards. In the case of mobile home parks, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the property is safe and habitable.
The unfortunate residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park enjoyed no such protections. Why? Because their homes were located on the property of the Penticton Indian band. Nobody had been inspecting this land because it fell under a grey area of the law.
I would like to give a bit of the history to put this incident into perspective. On March 30, 1988 under section 58(3) of the Indian Act, the minister granted authorization to lease Indian reserve land to Ethel and Margaret Kruger for their benefit. The term of this lease was from March 30, 1988 to March 30, 1998. The property of the lease was to be used for the purpose of the mobile home park operated by Sanmar Mobile Home Services.
When that firm created the park the septic fields were not engineered to handle the high volumes that are being experienced. As a result these fields have been saturated beyond a safe level and the overflow is creating a serious health hazard.
Health Canada's Indian health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations on Indian land, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation. This breakdown in communication led to 51 families being torn from their community, many forced to abandon their homes without any compensation. If this situation were not tragic enough, the same fate may await other residents of mobile home parks located on the Penticton reserve land.
Health Canada has declared that both the Driftwood and Delta mobile home parks face serious health risks. Although the Sun Leisure and Riva Ridge parks have inadequate septic systems, Health Canada has not yet declared them to be a serious health risk.
The residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park were given 30-day eviction notices. In an effort to resolve this problem, my colleague organized a meeting between the minister of Indian affairs, the mayor of Penticton, Ms. Beth Campbell, and the local MLA, Rick Thorpe, and Chief Phillip of the Penticton Band.
Despite the efforts of those involved, a comprehensive solution was not reached and the hon. member's constituents lost their homes only one month before Christmas. This is at a time when people should be enjoying the fellowship of their friends and families in the comfort of their own homes, not worrying about where they will be living.
This incident should not be repeated but it is a very real possibility. Thousands of Canadians who rent federal Indian reserve land are in danger, citizens of Canada who have no idea that they have been left in limbo because the law does not recognize their rights.
The Indian Act is a complex one. For years different levels of government have been struggling with what the bill covers and what it does not cover. According to the Supreme Court of Canada there are only two ways for a non-Indian to be in lawful possession in a reserve, through the operation of sections 28(2) or 58(3).
Section 28(2) states:
The minister may, by permit, in writing authorize any person for a period not exceeding one year, or with the consent of the council of the band for any longer period, to occupy or use a reserve or to reside or otherwise exercise rights on a reserve.
Section 58(3) states:
The minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being designated.
It is under these sections that a 10-year lease was granted. Although it was not outlined in the lease, it was implicit in the agreements with the sublessees that they would be protected under the provincial landlord and tenant legislation. Indeed it was the responsibility of the lessee to provide at its expense all services and facilities required for use of the premise. This would include septic services.
However, because of the failure of Health Canada to inspect these services, the residents fell through the cracks. Although they appealed to the provincial landlord and tenant board they were not successful.
The Supreme Court of Canada stated that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves. Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. This was stated in Millbrook Indian Band v Northern Counties Residential Tenancies Board et al, 1978. Again, in Anderson v Triple Creek Estates, the supreme court stated that provincial legislation does not apply to an eviction dispute between a mobile home park tenant and the park proprietor. It continues to say that “although it may be unfair to deprive a person of an appeal against a termination at will of a tenancy, this matter can only be resolved on reserve land by federal authority”.
A letter from the British Columbia minister for municipal affairs and housing, Mr. Michael Farnworth, confirms this is a federal responsibility. He writes:
It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned lands lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impact on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.
It is apparent that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fill in this void. That is where Bill C-402 comes in. The bill is designed to prevent future Driftwoods from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. The crown, the lessors, and the sublessors will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlord and tenants.
Although I have already mentioned this, I will do so again for the benefit of members opposite. The landlord and tenant legislation in B.C. ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by the law. The crown and lessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out under the various provincial residential tenancy acts.
Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent other Canadians from facing the tragedy of the unfortunate residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park.
I realize that Bill C-402 is a non-votable item and that is very unfortunate. As has been explained in this House, it is a very unfortunate thing that we as members of parliament cannot help create laws.
The bill would ensure that Canadians are all treated equitably before the law. If any of the members opposite would care to see what Reform stands for, all they need to do is flip through the Reform Party blue book and peruse the statement of principles. The first statement says:
We affirm our commitment to Canada as one nation, indivisible, and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens.
The last statement of principle states:
We believe in the true equality of all Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for all.
I think it is absolutely plain to see this is a party dedicated to the equality of all citizens and I congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward. I know Liberal Party members think quite highly of the Reform Party blue book because they have, albeit it with mixed success, adopted many of our policies as their own.
However, they would do well to consider these two principles that are so core to the heart of our party. It is apparent through the actions of this government on many issues that it does not consider equality of all Canadians a thing to be grasped.
However, perhaps we should leave this debate for another day. It is because of my dedication to the equality of all citizens that I support this bill.
Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members who participated in the debate today on Bill C-402.
I would like to respond to some of the comments. Bill C-49, the land management act, deals only with 14 bands and that there are just about 700 native bands from coast to coast to coast. It certainly does not affect the Penticton Indian Band whatsoever. Therefore Bill C-49 does not respond to the needs of the people from my riding.
I appreciate very much the parliamentary secretary's passing along his regret regarding the outcome of this tragic incident. I will convey that to my constituents. I will also convey to my constituents today that the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party support in principle the eviction of 51 families from the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton. I find it quite regrettable today that they could not see there was a great deal of support for Bill C-402 which directly deals with the problem faced by these families.
I would have to argue with those members opposed to Bill C-402 that striking another committee to look at the issue does not help at this point. As I mentioned, the establishment of some of these mobile home parks in my riding goes back 20 years. Members pointing out that the Indian Act is flawed are absolutely correct.
However, Bill C-402 deals specifically with an emergency situation and it also brings equality to renters regardless of whether they are native or non-native. It does not matter. Bill C-402 brings equality to all people who find themselves in the position of renting land.
In the House of Commons there are many of us who rent apartments or homes in Ottawa. If we found ourselves in the situation the people of Driftwood mobile home park found themselves in we would have the Ontario provincial tenancy act there to protect our rights as renters. That is what Bill C-402 does. That is what we are attempting to do with this legislation.
I think it is wrong and meanspirited for members of other parties to say they will not come to the aid of the people of the driftwood mobile home park. I also point out that on the horizon there are four more mobile home parks in my riding that will face a similar situation. We will not be talking about 51 families, we will be talking about 200 families.
What will the federal government do at that point? I hope its response will not be to strike a committee and seek consultation across the country. We need action and we need it now. That is what Bill C-402 would have done.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are presently negotiations going on between parties. I ask if there would be consent to suspend for about 15 minutes because there are a few details to iron out in this consultation.
Either at the call of the Chair or in 15 minutes, whichever comes first, Mr. Speaker could entertain what you usually do at the conclusion of debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House leader has requested that the House suspend for no more than 15 minutes. Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated votable, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 1.50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.50 p.m.)