1999-03-05

Government Orders
First Nations Land Management ActHon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, may I request at the outset that you allow me to share my time with the parliamentary secretary for Indian affairs.
I am pleased to rise in debate at third and final reading of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.
I have been following this debate very carefully. As a result, there are a couple of things that I would like to talk about today.
First, I would like to ensure that the House appreciates the context in which Bill C-49 finds itself. I want the House to appreciate how significant—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I am sorry that I must interrupt the hon. minister, however, on the first 40 minute time slot we have to have consent to split the time.
Is there consent that the time on the first 40 minute slot be split?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize for the interruption.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank my colleagues for their consent.
As I said, it is important from my point of view to put into context the importance of Bill C-49 and the contribution that it will make to ensuring a commitment which this government has to work with first nations to build self-reliance and to provide first nations the opportunity to have the social and economic control that they need to have to better their lives within the community and the lives of their community members.
Second, if I have the time I would like to explore some of the issues that have been raised in the last few days with respect to Bill C-49. I anticipate that I will be able to do that. If not, I know my parliamentary secretary will speak to some of those issues.
First and foremost, let us consider the context in which Bill C-49 finds itself. In this regard I would like to remind the House about the fact that the primary relationship that I as minister of Indian affairs and the Government of Canada has with first nations is through the Indian Act.
Over the course of the last couple of years, as I have appreciated my role as minister of Indian affairs, I have found the Indian Act to be paternalistic, or maternalistic in the sense that I am the minister currently. The way this legislation overlays first nations is quite extraordinary. I have the responsibility to tell first nations how to develop their lands, what they can do with their reserve lands, these lands which have been set aside for them. I have to approve whether there can be economic development, who can build where, what conservation opportunities can be implemented.
In the Indian Act I am the one who decides and approves the will of individual first nations. I am the one, in providing funds to first nations, who says “Yes, you can have so much money for this particular undertaking. You can have so much money for that. You can have so much money for this”. The minister of Indian affairs has considerable and complete control over the activities that occur on first nations.
To me it is inappropriate. It is antiquated. It is not allowing the communities to use the resources that are truly theirs for the benefit of the people in those communities.
We have to ask: Why do we not change the Indian Act? I remind the House that my predecessor attempted to do that. He attempted to amend the Indian Act in a very substantive way. But first nations resisted. They resisted it as a unilateral action made on the part of the crown to interfere with the existing relationship, despite the fact that they knew the Indian Act was so controlling.
If we explore why that was the reaction, we come to understand that first nations see the Indian Act really as their structural relationship, which goes back to the fundamental issue of aboriginal rights. All in this House appreciate, I know, that in section 35 of our Constitution, the highest law of our land, aboriginal rights are identified and protected. These are rights that are not better than yours or mine as non-aboriginal people, but they are different and fundamentally go back to our belief that the first people of this nation have rights that are theirs by virtue of the fact that they predated us in this great country.
For first nations they see that connection to those rights which, quite frankly, we have resisted, over and over again over the course of our relationship, in clarifying or at least somehow protecting through the Indian Act, this paternalistic piece of legislation.
More and more on this side of the House we are explaining and encouraging our support for aboriginal rights. We are seeing those aboriginal rights reconciled in a modern Canada through such things as the negotiation of the treaty in the Nisga'a lands in northwestern British Columbia and in other undertakings. There is an easing and an increasing interest and demand from first nations to deal with the Indian Act and to find ways and means of allowing first nations the authority they need to have as legitimate entities to make decisions in their communities on behalf of the people of their communities.
Bill C-49 is one tool which allows us to take some small steps in this regard. Bill C-49 is a product of over 10 years of work. It has developed into a partnership among 14 first nations and the Government of Canada to explore, in one particular area of the Indian Act, the aspect of land management, how we could restore jurisdiction to first nations. Working together, those 14 first nations and the Government of Canada have prepared legislation that will allow me to relinquish the authorities that I have under the Indian Act to control the lands of those 14 first nations and to give it to them in a legitimate, organized and controlled fashion. It is called Bill C-49 and it is tremendously important.
In the context of Bill C-49, 14 first nations in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick will have the authority to make decisions on how their land is developed, how their land is conserved, how their land is protected, how their land is used and how their land is administered at the community level. For those people who say that government should get out of the face of the people, what is wrong with having decisions made locally, within a community, in the context and the milieu in which the community finds itself? I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
Bill C-49 is a step in that direction, a step which allows us, at least for those 14 first nations, to start to break apart this paternalistic relationship, not in a holus-bolus, free wheeling way, but in a controlled way as outlined in the bill, which will take us a certain degree and allow us the opportunity to test this. We have to review the bill after four years to see how progress is being made before we can extend it to other first nations which also want to be considered. It is a legitimate step that will help us make progress. To me this is fundamental in the commitment that I have to work with first nations and to find ways and means of allowing them the opportunity they need to really do what is most important, and that is to change the social reality of their demographics.
It is the Indian Act that has created and sustained that cyclical welfare relationship, that one way relationship that has kept aboriginal people from engaging fully in the wealth, resources and strength that we know to be ours in Canada. I encourage and ask hon. members to consider this bill in the context of that and to see that these are important first steps which will truly make a difference.
I want to speak to some of the specific issues that have been raised over the course of the last few days. Let us look at the issue of matrimonial property. Yes, we are talking about lands. Yes, women have to have an opportunity to have access to those lands after a marital breakdown. I remind the House that Bill C-75 which was presented previously in this parliament was the first nations land management act. That bill did not pass. When I became Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development women came to talk to me about the importance of including matrimonial property. I believed they were right. I would remind the House that there is nothing in the Indian Act which accommodates matrimonial property.
In Bill C-49 we have included the requirement that the land codes must include the opportunity and the reality in the provisions for matrimonial property to implemented. This will happen in consultation within the communities. The code has to be developed in consultation. It has to be ratified and verified before it can be proclaimed. There is a system.
This gives the first opportunity for women at least in those 14 first nations to have access to legislation that will allow for matrimonial property to be considered. Women would like that to be more broadly spread, for us to deal with it in the context of the Indian Act. In addition, what we have said we will do is appoint a fact finder to talk with interested parties, make recommendations to myself, to first nations and to the women of first nations about how we might be able to include in the broader context of the Indian Act ways and means of providing for property in the unfortunate circumstance of marital breakdown.
As a result of this bill, in those 14 first nations women will have provisions for property at the point of a marital breakdown. They also have my commitment to work with them to explore ways to broadly deal with that issue in the context of other first nations and the Indian Act.
Another issue that has been drawn to our attention is this tool that all governments have when managing lands, called expropriation. It is very unfortunate that in the mainstream press people are talking about the sweeping expropriation authorities. They are not sweeping at all. They are not any different than the authorities which exist now in my power as the minister of Indian affairs for action in first nations. In fact there is more control than the expropriation powers that exist for municipalities, provincial governments, hospitals and schools.
Expropriation is a tool that all legitimate governments need to have at their disposal. It cannot be used without great care. In this bill it cannot be used without a significant process being undertaken. This includes the identification of the need for expropriation only for community based interests such as schools, roads and hospitals, and that compensation be paid if indeed expropriation must occur in the context of the federal Expropriation Act which is referenced in the bill. The code of implementation has to be verified externally.
There is nothing here that is sweeping and broad. There is nothing here that is not offered to any other legitimate government. I cannot see how we can exclude this tool from use by first nations. It is just common sense to provide it but to provide it in a very controlled and regulated context, which is what happens in this bill.
The third area is the issue of consultation. We have heard particularly from British Columbia that the municipalities want to ensure that their neighbouring first nations will consult with them as they decide how to manage their lands. The first nations will do that. In fact consultation has already begun with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to develop a reciprocal agreement, a protocol, on how first nations and municipalities will consult, share information and proceed in the area of land development.
There are those who say that the provisions in the bill must be more specific, that the legislation must require that consultation will occur. I am not sure one can legislate quality consultation. If we legislate it we might get a letter, but if we build the partnership between a first nation and its surrounding municipalities, we build a community, a neighbourhood. We build a partnership where both communities can benefit. That is the focus here.
That is why I have been so impressed by my colleague, the member from Coquitlam who has said, “I am going to go out there and bring the municipalities and the first nations together to make sure that they are communicating, connecting and building that partnership”. As one community thrives, so does another. That is how we build a strong British Columbia and a strong Canada.
It has been my experience that across Canada too many times we find instances where municipalities and first nations who are neighbours and use the same resources, the same water and the same community services, do not know each other. The mayor and council do not know the chief and council. When there are issues, they do not know who to turn to, or who to talk to.
There is a tremendously important role for members of parliament to play in bringing those communities together and ensuring that their constituents, whether they be first nations or not, know each other and work together. That is a challenge we have right across the country.
In my own community that was the circumstance with the largest first nation in Canada, Six Nations. The chief and council did not know the mayor and council. The process engaged in was one that was dysfunctional. If the city decided to do something and the first nations did not like it, there were protests and roadblocks. That is not how this country should work.
Once we brought the communities together and a protocol was written, because of mutual interests, mutual respect and recognition and a commitment to strengthen that part of southwestern Ontario which is broadly populated by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike, we have got a tremendously exciting circumstance happening. Communications are going back and forth. The mayor and council are inviting the chief and council to events in the city and vice-versa. Economic development which is happening in one community or the other is being shared by both.
I believe that is the right approach. It is fair. It is open. It is democratic. It builds on the traditional and real values of Canada which are that we are a diverse country. We celebrate our diversity and we appreciate the strength it gives us as a nation.
The first people of this country have every right to be part of this nation, to have the authorities that the rest of us have to build our communities at the local level without the imposed wisdom or lack of it that I might provide as the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
To me, all this is part and parcel of Bill C-49. The issues that have been raised can be responded to. The responses exist within the bill and with the commitment of the chiefs of those 14 first nations, all of them and specifically those who have worked so long and hard on this as members of the First Nations Land Management Board. I congratulate them for their courage, for their energy and for the commitment to their communities.
In my mind it is in the best interests of all members of the House to support them. They show the leadership that we know we need to have in the 21st century if we are going to ensure that as we stand up as proud Canadians and say we live in the best country in the world, that we know it is true for all Canadians, and especially for our first nations.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have had the privilege of the minister making comments here today which speak to the very core of the concerns that people have with this bill. As she is here in the House, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have a short period of questions and comments for the minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the House knows, the first two slots are without questions and comments, but it is obvious that we can ask for unanimous consent to have a specified period. Does the hon. member wish to specify a specific timeframe?
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, whatever the House would agree to, but I think 10 minutes would be sufficient.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Skeena has requested that the House give its unanimous consent in this instance for the minister to respond to questions for five minutes. A change has been made to five minutes.
Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for five minutes of questions and comments?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will have five minutes of questions and comments to the minister. We will start with the hon. member and if anyone else rises we will try to get to them.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for agreeing to this.
The minister spoke about two of the areas of serious concern with Bill C-49. One is the disposition of marital property in the event of a marital breakdown. She has indicated her willingness and her concern in this area.
If the minister is so concerned, why are the provisions not in the legislation to provide that protection for aboriginal women? Many aboriginal women have contacted not only the official opposition but also the minister and government members to express those concerns. Why are those provisions not in the legislation? Why did the government choose not to support Bloc amendments which would have gone a long way toward providing that?
The minister said that the expropriation provisions are not as sweeping and as broad as some have painted them to be. How would the minister respond to a real estate agent's letter to a client in Vancouver where he advised his client to take his property which is currently located on the Musqueam reserve off the market because Bill C-49 is hanging as a sword over the property owner's head? There is absolutely no possibility of marketing the property on leased land which a couple of years ago was valued at $700,000. That does not square with what the minister is saying at all. This is an independent, unbiased real estate agent's expressed opinion.
I direct those two questions to the minister and ask her to respond.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. Let us look first at the issue of matrimonial property. Let me convey again how significant it is that the recognition that the 14 chiefs, which include women I would point out, have agreed that it is highly important for them in their land codes to include provisions for matrimonial property or the disposition of property that effectively recognizes the impact on women, particularly at the point of marital breakdown.
To my mind, as we look across the provincial jurisdictions which have authorities in the area of matrimonial property, we have seen different approaches province by province. It is my expectation that the strength of these provisions will be developed in the context of the community in which they are found.
The challenge we have in providing services to citizens and responding to their needs is best met in the context of recognizing legitimacy in this particular case of the first nations government to work with its community in order to find the provisions that work for them. Those provisions and those land codes have to be developed in consultation with the community. They have to be ratified by the community. They have to be verified by an external verifier who looks at all the aspects and the intentions to ensure that they are legitimate and will provide what the community wants and what is required.
This gives us the first tangible opportunity to say to women who live in first nations communities that they will be part of this undertaking. They will for the first time have the opportunity to have this very important and essential aspect of their lives, the issue of property, managed effectively in the context of legislation and their land codes.
The second question raised by the hon. member was on the issue of expropriation. I would first say that that real estate agent should look carefully at the bill. I am afraid he is giving his client an opinion that is not based on fact. In a very unfortunate way it serves to escalate, heighten and encourage difficult relationships between and among people in that particular part of Canada.
There never has been and never will be the intention that lands can be expropriated willy-nilly. In this context lands can only be expropriated in the way in which lands can be expropriated through any other legitimate government, for the purposes of specific benefits to the community. That is absolutely clear and so this what I view to be a red herring on the issue of expropriation is an inappropriate one.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided by unanimous consent for questions and comments has expired.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are really privileged to have the minister in the House today. I am sure she would like to remain for a little while longer to clear up some of the many questions for all Canadians.
I would like to once again ask for unanimous consent so that maybe we could extend the question and comment period a little more so some of the very important questions could be asked and the minister could have a great opportunity to respond. I am sure she would go along with that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley have a specific period of time in mind?
Dick Harris: Ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked that the time for questions and comments be extended a further 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would be in agreement, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to respect custom and proceed in the usual way, that is speaking for ten minutes. We have already used up five, and I think another five could be allowed, perhaps. We would agree with that, but we would not want the Reform member jumping up each time and having everything go until noon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The suggestion was for 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: No.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have opportunities in questions and answers throughout the day to debate parts of the bill.
Bill C-49 was introduced on June 11 in the House. During parliamentary debate and review by standing committee the government has continued to put forward the benefits of the bill. However, the official opposition has repeatedly tried to seek to scuttle the bill, even today. It has continually tried to misrepresent the real intentions of the first nations by way of misinformation and fearmongering, as evidenced today by the comments with respect to real estate agents making very unhelpful comments to the leaseholders.
They have tried to confuse the citizenry of the country by trying to raise the fears of average Canadians with respect to the development of first nations and their legitimate desire to take control over their lands and to manage those that are held in trust.
At this time I would like to set the record straight on these matters. I am sure that when I am finished the real story will be before the House and all Canadians.
The minister has expounded quite well on questions of expropriation, but let me reiterate some of the most important points of this portion of the bill.
Members of the official opposition would like everyone to believe that this power is an extreme power in the hands of first nations and one which they believe would be abused to the detriment of existing interest holders on first nations land. There are supreme court decisions which make this impossible to happen. This is nothing more than fearmongering.
As members of the House know, the power of expropriation is a power available to all levels of government and one which all governments take seriously with care and great caution. It must be first noted that the exercise of this power by any of the first nations is optional. In other words, although the bill would provide the power to expropriate, the community would have to decide whether to exercise that legitimate power. It is a community decision, as I said, one that is not taken lightly. In their codes these first nations must decide whether or not they wish to include the power of expropriation.
As parliament knows, three first nations have already ratified their codes. Of these, two have opted not to exercise this expropriation power. The third, the Muskoday First Nation, has spelled out in detail the extent to which it will exercise those expropriation powers. It was done with care and proper due diligence to its neighbours and indeed to the community itself.
The member for North Vancouver specifically referenced the Muskoday land code in his remarks of the other day as being a model for other first nations to follow. Of the three land codes now in preparation in the communities, one wishes not to exercise expropriation powers and the other two are following the Muskoday model.
In the exercise of this power the first nations must establish the rules and procedures. In addition, these are based on rules and procedures found in the Canadian Expropriation Act.
Indian reserve lands are currently subject to expropriation by British Columbia with the consent of the governor in council. There are at least 19 statutes where expropriation powers might be exercised in the lower mainland of British Columbia today. Any expropriation power that the first nations in B.C. may wish to exercise is not unique.
I would like to respond to specific concerns raised in debates concerning the matter of the 30 day expropriation time limit. This has been raised a number of times in debate as a threat to the security of interest holders on first nations land. It should be noted that this period is similar to the time set out in the 19 statutes to which I just referred. Under these sample statutes, the 19 B.C. statutes, the timeframe can be as little as 10 days or, in limited situations, no notice. The Railway Act statute is an example.
Consultation has again been repeatedly raised. Apparently some members of the House would like us to believe that the 14 signatory first nations to the bill do not talk to their neighbours. In fact, it has been implied that no first nations consult with their non-aboriginal neighbours. This is completely and categorically false and strongly needs to be addressed.
In direct relation to Bill C-49, the five first nations from B.C. have entered into a consultation process with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to establish a consultation protocol with all the affected municipal governments. In fact, in British Columbia alone there are over 100 service agreements between first nations and their non-aboriginal neighbours.
I would also like to refer to a letter that was tabled by the chair of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities aboriginal affairs committee. The letter supports the discussion paper on a consultative protocol with the five B.C. first nations and touts the benefits of working in a partnership with first nations.
The letter says:
I believe that entering into preliminary dialogue with the (five B.C. first nations) on principles for reciprocal consultation as set out in the attached discussion paper at this time is what the UBCM has been working towards in consultation with first nations over the past two years and may pay back dividends in the future.
Furthermore, at a regular meeting of the district of Squamish held on February 15, 1999, the council passed the following motion:
That council support the amended draft discussion paper on reciprocal consultation between first nations governments and municipalities on land use planning and related issues.
There is another point that I would like to address. Numerous members opposite have continually raised the notion that municipalities must consult with first nations. In their discussions they cite the B.C. municipal act as setting out a mandatory consultation process which first nations would be legislated to follow.
The truth is that the so-called requirement for B.C. municipalities to consult with first nations is not a requirement at all that is imposed on the municipalities. It does not apply when the land and other developments are proposed in those municipalities.
The argument that the B.C. municipal act imposes the requirement to consult with first nations is spurious and categorically inaccurate. It is a myth. It does not exist as a requirement in the B.C. municipal act.
In fact there is no statutory requirement for municipalities in B.C. to consult with first nations with respect to land development. The municipal act provisions for consultations only arises when a regional district board proposes a development strategy. Therefore the cities of west and north Vancouver, which are not the district board, have no obligation to consult with first nations. There are no laws in the other five provinces where nine of the fourteen land management first nations are located that make any provision at all for consultation with first nations in respect of land development or servicing.
The chief of the Squamish nation has written to me and has indicated other examples of how the member for North Vancouver has misinformed the residents of British Columbia. I would like to quote from the chief's letter when he says that he would like to formally go on the record to say that the comments of the member for North Vancouver are outright fabrications and, further, that he should have to resign his position as a Reform Party representative from British Columbia.
In addition, certain members opposite would have us believe that the municipalities would automatically have to provide services to the first nations. The truth is that if the first nations want municipal services provided the two parties must negotiate those agreements.
We strongly believe that the bill and the framework agreement will pave the way for a better understanding of partnerships between the first nations and their municipalities. I think it is worth mentioning that 500 of these service agreements now exist across the country, with 100 existing in British Columbia.
Let me quote excerpts from the Snake Island Cottagers Association located in southern Ontario which represents a few hundred cottage owners, if I am not mistaken, who feel that Bill C-49 is a way for them to protect their relationship with the first nations people:
We strongly support the Chippewas Band's quest for self-government and feel that the swift passage of Bill C-49 will facilitate a new leasing arrangement between our members and the Chippewas band. SICA and the Chippewas Band have over the years developed a friendly working relationship and we look forward to dealing directly with the Band. The time for self-government is now. Please do not delay the passage of Bill C-49 any longer.
The minister spoke extensively and very well and thoroughly to the question of matrimonial property, but I will touch on it very briefly to reinforce and reiterate what she has just said.
This is a very complex issue because the provincial land laws respecting the division of matrimonial property upon marital breakdown do not apply on reserves. That is clear. Why? Reserve lands are unique because they are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the band, not by or for individuals. In other words, it is communal land. Provincial laws cannot be replicated in their entirety to reserve lands.
As the House is aware, the 14 first nations that signed the agreement are anxious to spell out these rules. As the minister said, many of the signatories of those 14 bands are women chiefs, elected ostensibly by the men in their communities as well.
The bill before us and the agreement spell out that the signatories must establish a community process. It is also important to put on record that the equality section of the charter of rights and freedoms will apply, that there will be no discrimination based on sex under sections 28 and 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to the bill before us the legislation requires that first nations solicit the input of all on and off reserve members of their communities, including aboriginal women. Nothing precludes a community from addressing the issue at the beginning of the land code development process. The important point here is that the community decides.
Federal officials through our minister are now working to establish the fact finding process. Letters of invitation have been sent to the aboriginal partners to participate in a meeting where the terms of reference for the fact finding process will be discussed. The minister will make further announcements on this initiative in the near future. Finally, during the recent debates I have raised a number of comments of which the hon. member for Skeena challenged the accuracy. I would like at this time to respond to this challenge with some important facts.
First, the Musqueam tenants were indeed approach by the Musqueam Nation regarding prepaid leases. I am reading from a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1980, sent to all the tenants:
Your lease is based on fixed rental payments until June 7, 1995 with reviews of rental for the three succeeding twenty year periods and one final nine year period. For a number of reasons, we see merit in considering “conversion” to a prepaid basis for this lease.
We make it absolutely clear that participation in the prepaid rental proposal will be entirely your own choice. Having said this we have to also mentioned that the perhaps obvious fact that, unless at least half of you show positive interest, there will be no point in going ahead. If at least half of you do show positive interest in the proposal, it is our intention to retain a professional appraiser to advise us upon the present value of the right to receive the flow of income provided for in your lease. Once that is finalized, we will face the task of agreement with you a mutually satisfactory prepayment figure.
I would like to give the House the results of this offer of the Musqueam band for the sake of the member for Skeena. A total of 38 of the 76 tenants were required to respond positively for this to proceed. The response was as follows. Ten were in favour, nine were undecided and required more information and eight were opposed to a new lease agreement. The possible 19 in favour was far short of the required 38 or 50% and I would like to inform the House that approximately 40% of the tenants residing at Musqueam today were residents at the time of this letter in 1980.
These are important facts, along with the other fact that was raised as an inaccuracy about arrears. I am told by the band and through its documents that 15% of the leaseholders are still in arrears to the tune of $334,000. I say this to clear up the record because I did receive a letter from the member for Skeena addressed to me with very strong and somewhat personalized language. I feel it is my obligation to respond to that letter and to the House with the facts of the case.
I say this in concluding my comments with all due respect to the leaseholders of the Musqueam leasehold land who have had a very difficult and trying time over the past number of months. I say to them it is the wish of the first nations, it is the wish of the government and I believe the House on vote on concurrence of 171 to 35 just the other evening on this bill that we as Canadians, the House of Commons and our first nations people work together to resolve these issues in a compassionate, fair and equitable way so that our communities can live together.
This is my wish. I know is the expressed wish of the minister in her role as minister responsible for first nations people. She has advocated for that repeatedly and this is one that we support.
I think this is a good bill. It is a great opportunity to move forward in a new relationship where first nations people have the opportunity to seize control of their own lands, to do business with other first nations people or non-aboriginal people if they wish, to proceed beyond the 100 years, beyond the dark past of subjugation where first nations people were unable to leave their small plots of land on reserve in which they find themselves able to participate more broadly in Canadian society. This is what they have asked for. This is what we are trying to accomplish within the framework and broad underlying principles of this bill.
It is not to drive a wedge between Canadian people and first nations people, that we have disruptions and we become the international embarrassment that Canada is viewed in the United Nations and globally as treating unfairly its most vulnerable citizens.
This is an attempt to pull those parties together and I believe we do that in the bill. The first nations believe we do that in the bill and Canadians, as represented by the majority of members of parliament in the House of Commons who have supported it, believe that as well.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Once again we will need the consent of the House. The hon. member for Skeena has requested that his 40 minute slot be split in two and shared. Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: No.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, if time is allowed for questions, it must be of the same length. Let us do as we usually do, so parties other than Reform can have the opportunity to respond.
Five minutes is not, therefore, sufficient. We would need ten minutes or none at all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the first two debate slots there is no provision for questions and comments. We had questions and comments through unanimous consent. We will now resume debate on the split time for 20 minutes if there is consent. I am not sure if there was consent. I will therefore ask again. Is there consent to split the time?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I would agree on the member's splitting his time as he was kind enough to allow the minister and I to split our time. I have no difficulty with this. I was unclear whether you had agreed to the Bloc proposal of 10 minutes of questions and answers and what precisely we were agreeing to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was pointing out that in the first two debate periods in this debate there is no provision for questions and comments. On the minister's debate, through unanimous consent, there was a provision for a five minute extension. All we are asking to do is split time, not to extend debate. There are no questions and comments in this period. We have requested a splitting of time for the member for Skeena.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accommodate the request to split the time. We hope the opposition will be equally accommodating to agree to consent to five minutes for questions and comments at the end of the speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is up to the House. Someone at the end of the speech will have to ask for questions and comments. We are now into debate with the member for Skeena for 20 minutes if there is consent.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to address some comments with respect to the issue the parliamentary secretary raised and his comments in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago in debate which not only elicited a strong response from me, as he pointed out, but I am aware of a very strong response from a lot of residents on the Musqueam reserve, leasehold residents.
The parliamentary secretary made statements that were erroneous and not based on facts. He was challenged to come outside the House and make those same statements. That would have been the democratic test of whether the veracity of what he said was there but the parliamentary secretary chose not to do so. He has chosen not to apologize to the Musqueam residents and has chosen to ignore my letter.
I think it is really unfortunate because when he talks about driving a wedge between people, I can assure him that his comments served nothing more than to drive a wedge between Musqueam residents, the Musqueam band and the Government of Canada. I can assure him that was the effect of his comments. It is really unfortunate that he sees fit not to apologize for those.
I will go on to address some of the issues the minister raised.
She rightly identifies the Indian Act as a major obstacle for aboriginal people in Canada to get ahead. In that regard we agree with her completely. We also agree with the principle and the notion of decentralizing decision making especially with respect to reserve based land. As the minister knows and as members in the House know, reserve land does not even belong to the band. It belongs to the crown in right of the Queen. Obviously this is wrong and it needs to be addressed.
We thought we were in the process of having an arrangement whereby we could support Bill C-49 earlier in the year and late last year. That was based on agreement to have some amendments made to provide for property rights for aboriginal women, to provide for consultation between municipalities and to provide for expropriation provisions that would be seen to be fair to leaseholders on reserve land.
I might add that on the issue of leaseholders we are focused right now on the Musqueam because there is an obvious problem. What is not yet widely known across Canada is that there are some 60,000 leaseholders on reserve land in Ontario. There are some 20,000 leaseholders on reserve land in British Columbia. There are tens of thousands of leasehold interests on other reserves across Canada. We think that this is a sign of progress and that this is a good thing. We do not say it is bad. What we are saying is in the government's attempt to decentralize decision making some principles have to be followed like the principle that we do not take tens of thousands of people who have a leasehold interest on reserve land and let them twist in the wind. There must be provisions to protect those interests built into the legislation.
It is beyond me why the minister is not willing to consider those amendments. For the minister's benefit I point out that the member for Vancouver Quadra, a Liberal, was recently quoted in the Vancouver Sun saying: “The bill in my view needs corrections and I want them made”. This is a very well respected Liberal member of parliament. He is a lawyer and is recognized as a constitutional expert. He goes on to say a number of other things. He says Bill C-49 was poorly drafted. He supports concerns expressed by another Liberal member of parliament and B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who say that the expropriation rights for Indian bands are excessive.
This is the very point the minister was addressing and she said they were not excessive. Her colleague who is a recognized constitutional and legal expert says they are. He cites the bill's lack of protection for native women who often loose the right to marital property after a divorce and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he will have 15 minutes left in his dissertation when we get back to debate.

Statements By Members
Bruce WylieMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following his historic radio addresses of the second world war, Winston Churchill often commented that he was never comfortable with the notion that he inspired his nation. He conceded that he might have been their voice, but the people provided the heart.
Throughout the ice storm of 1998 the people of Leeds—Grenville were updated, counselled and inspired through our local radio station CFJR, and in particular the voice of Leeds—Grenville, broadcaster Bruce Wylie.
Yesterday at the Canadian Music Week Media Awards, Bruce Wylie was awarded the Ontario Association of Broadcasters Broadcaster of the Year Award.
His work on behalf of our community makes him a legend in our area. Now the rest of Canada gets a glimpse of the valuable and professional manner in which he carries out his work.
True to form, Bruce and his tuxedo were delayed by the snow storm and he was not able to attend the presentation.
I sincerely want to congratulate Bruce, his wife Eileen, his sons Ben, Dan and Tom, as well as the staff and management of CFJR and the River, as the prestige of this award is a tribute to them all.
National Nutrition MonthMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I am pleased to announce to the House that March is national nutrition month. This year's theme is “Make nutrition come alive—it's all about you”.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Dietetic Association and Health Canada on their efforts to promote national nutrition month, which has incidentally given us the opportunity to review food labelling policies.
The FamilyMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government continues to erode the power of parliament.
Parliament must be supreme. It must oversee the activities of the courts, the bureaucracy and cabinet.
Public and legal policy should respect the foundations of Canadian society like marriage and spouse that serve to bring appropriate consistency to the application of the law.
Currently Bill C-63 before the House contains a clause proposing to give cabinet the sole power to define what a spouse is and what constitutes a family.
If the government is considering fundamental policy changes, it should present its rationale and justifications and demonstrate how the public interest is served. Then we should debate it and allow a free vote.
The Reform Party defines marriage to be the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. Anything less than an open democratic process will only serve to undermine the credibility of the House.
Early Childhood DevelopmentMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the linkage between the quality of early childhood care and the physical, mental and social health outcome of children is well established.
As the finance minister has stated, good fiscal policy makes good social policy and good social policy makes good fiscal policy.
Investments in early childhood development will provide beneficial social dividends.
Families have diverse circumstances. As a consequence, parents must be given the flexibility, options and choices to provide the best possible care for their children.
The government has responded and will continue to respond. Consider the Canada child tax benefit, the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program. Consider also the Canada millennium scholarship, the youth employment strategy and registered education savings plans for older children. Consider the spousal tax credit for single income families. Consider a balanced budget that gives us the freedom to provide broad based tax relief so that all parents have more money.
Let us work together to help all parents, those who work outside the home and those who work so hard at home, give their children the best future possible.
Business LeadersMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to a survey carried out in January, 42% of respondents reported that they had complete, or considerable, trust in business leaders.
Three quarters of them felt business leaders ought to be actively involved in major societal debates. The economic role played by business leaders plays a determining role in the economy of Quebec.
Instead of using all manner of approaches for promoting the separation of Quebec, the sovereignists should devote that same amount of resources and energy to the political stability of Canada and of Quebec, and thus gain the confidence of those who have a definite impact on our lives.
The separatist government should build bridges for collaborative efforts, instead of driving away potential investors by attempting to sell them on this option of separating Quebec from the rest of Canada.
International TradeMr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the U.S. trade representative imposed 100% duties on imports from Europe to the United States.
If the international trade and heritage ministers doubted the United States would follow through on retaliation because of Bill C-55 they should now be true believers.
What will the finance minister say to wool suit makers in Montreal when the U.S. retaliates against textiles?
What will the international trade minister say to pharmaceutical workers in Toronto when they lose their jobs because he would not take action?
What will the heritage minister say to Hamilton steel workers in her own riding when their jobs disappear because of trade retaliation?
How will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians that he allowed Canada to bear the brunt of a $1 billion retaliation?
United Nations Security CouncilMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's long and proud history of supporting international peace and security was again honoured on October 8, 1998 with our election to a two year term on the United Nations Security Council.
Since taking its seat on January 1, Canada will have an opportunity to lead the UN and the world into the next millennium.
Canada was one of the charter members of the UN and our active involvement in this organization is a cornerstone of our foreign policy.
It is my hope that during this term we will continue to lead on issues of human security, democratic development, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rules of law and good governance.
But it is also important to initiate a fundamental change to the way the UN Security Council functions. Canada's influence will make resolutions more transparent, effective and responsive to the needs of UN members. For example, when a Security Council resolution is passed, we must ensure its prompt implementation.
Official LanguagesMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently I received a letter from a participant in the Katimivak program from my riding, inviting me to attend a gala. Nothing out of the ordinary so far, except that this letter by the Katimivak co-ordinator on behalf of my constituent, who comes from Quebec, was in English only.
According to the person responsible, the decision was that the letter was to be sent in English only because most MPs are English speaking.
This exemplifies a flagrant lack of respect for a very large number of young people who come to Quebec to take part in this activity.
We have proof yet again that French and the situation of Quebec are being ignored in favour of the anglophone majority. And all this is taking place within an organization that, since its inception, has received considerable federal funding.
The Late Gerhard HerzbergMarlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the flag on the Peace Tower flies at half mast today in memory of a great Canadian who brought much honour to our country and much enlightenment to human understanding of the world in which we live.
Dr. Gerhard Herzberg came to Canada from Germany in 1935. He regarded Saskatoon, his first home in Canada, as his Canadian birthplace, although he lived much of his life in Ottawa and did most of his work here at the National Research Council.
Although he was an astrophysicist, he nonetheless became Canada's first Nobel Laureate for chemistry. He made his latest major discovery of triatomic hydrogen when he was nearly 80. He continued his active research at the NRC until the age of 90 and he was a lifelong ardent advocate of research in Canada.
Canada and the world owe Dr. Herzberg much for his life's work and we extend our gratitude and sympathy to his family.
ImmigrationMr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Chris Taylor, head of the western division of the immigration department, came down hard on the RCMP officer who works on the very serious problem of Honduran refugee claimants who deal drugs on the streets of Vancouver. At committee this week the minister of immigration fully supported the actions her minister took against the RCMP.
Incredibly, instead of attacking the problem, the minister and her department have chosen to attack the RCMP officer who has spoken out about the problem. Immigration officials have launched a formal complaint against the RCMP officer involved, when all he did was tell the truth about the problems in immigration law and in the enforcement of those immigration laws.
Why does the minister not focus her efforts on attacking the problems in her department rather than attacking the RCMP for speaking out about these problems?
Luc PlamondonMr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Quebec composer Luc Plamandon, who will be inducted into the Canadian music hall of fame as part of the Juno Awards night.
He will join other greats, including Oscar Peterson, Paul Anka and Glenn Gould, among others.
This recognition of the talent of Luc Plamondon speaks of perseverance and hard work over many years and demonstrates eloquently that a Quebec product compares favourably with the best internationally in both artistic and cultural terms.
In making this statement, I particularly please my daughter Jordana, a devoted fan of the work of Luc Plamondon.
There are a number of other artists to watch for on Sunday. I wish them all good luck and want them to know I am proud of them as a Quebecker and a Canadian.
Genetically Altered FoodsMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of the consumer's right to know. This forms a basic right in any democracy. We have a right to decide and to make a choice.
In the recent budget the Liberal government claims that Canada is a leader in biotechnology, but it is also a leader in removing the right to know.
Genetically altered foods are not being labelled in this country and any promotion for the liability of mistakes made in terms of genetically altered foods and products in the world is not ensured.
In Cartagena, Colombia, the Liberal government scuttled the United Nations biosafety protocol. The government refused to address the international concerns on biotechnology liability.
When will this government legislate genetically altered food labelling? It is a leader in financing these foods and products. It also has an equal moral responsibility to all consumers.
Social TransfersMr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was an ogre named Canadosaurus. He shared his cave with ten dwarfs who were bound in servitude to him. The fattest was called Ontariette, and the prettiest, Québequine.
To reward them for their loyalty, the ogre gave each of them 100 crowns a year to help them feed their children. He called these social transfers.
One day, in order to pay off his debts, the ogre decided to reduce their annual stipend from 100 to 50 crowns each. Soon forced to feed her children nothing but bread and water, Québequine made known her indignation, but her sisters submitted without complaint. That, of course, was because they loved the ogre.
One day, tired of the protests of Québequine, the ogre announced that the dwarfs' stipend would now be 70 crowns. “See how kind I am”, he said, trying to look sincere. “Seventy crowns?”, exclaimed Québequine. “You are a thief and a robber. I want my 100 crowns”. “Ungrateful wretch”, shouted the ogre. “I give you an extra 20 crowns and you cannot even say thank you”.
Nortel Networks InstituteMr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great news of an event taking place right now in my constituency of Kitchener—Waterloo. If I was not here, I would be there.
Dr. James Downey, president of the University of Waterloo, is hosting a media conference. Keith Powell, senior vice-president of Nortel Networks, will announce the establishment of the $10.3 million Nortel Networks Institute for Advanced Information Technology at the University of Waterloo.
This institute will fund student scholarships, faculty research chairs and will increase enrolment in advanced technology disciplines through a collaboration of business, education and government.
This partnership is great news. It will be of great benefit to my community, Ontario and Canada. I join with the rest of the House in congratulating all of the parties involved in this exemplary collaborative partnership.
Shrimp FisheryMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express concern regarding the future of the shrimp fishery in Nova Scotia. Seafreez Foods Inc. has requested, along with the Canso Trawlerman's Association, an immediate increase in shrimp stock quotas off the Strait of Canso, Nova Scotia. A similar request was made by the ACS plant in Mulgrave. Both have made straightforward requests for help.
After meeting with the minister and bringing this matter to his attention several times over the past few months, I am confident that he too understands the importance and significance of the much needed quota for the small fishing communities of Canso and Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. Given the dire situation that these communities find themselves in, such proposals make absolute sense.
I urge the minister to review these proposals with fairness and equity and answer favourably the plea for quota. These two communities are among the most economically stricken areas of the country.
The hardships experienced since the downturn of the fishery have been staggering. If the requests are denied, as was the case with the turbot quota, devastation to the people in these communities is guaranteed. The premier of Nova Scotia has proven to be an ineffective voice for these communities.
As the minister is well aware, the fishing—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Oakville.
International Women's DayMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year the theme for International Women's Day will be “Going Strong—Celebrating Older Women”. This theme was chosen to coincide with the International Year of Older Persons as declared by the United Nations for 1999.
Secretary General Koffi Annan has said “As we reflect on a half century of human rights advocacy, and as we resolve to do better where we have failed or fallen short, the situation of older women warrants special attention”.
Women make up a large share of our senior population and, while many are active and independent, older women are among the poorest people in Canada.
Without the resources and support they need, these women are faced with significant obstacles to independence, health and the ability to remain active members of society.
As we prepare together to celebrate International Women's Day next Monday, March 8, let us rededicate this House and ourselves to the challenge of promoting fairness, equity and respect for older women in Canada.
The SenateMr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members of parliament are accountable to the public and last year they received a 2% increase in their office budgets. Members of the senate who are not accountable to the public gave themselves a 6% increase this year on top of the 10% increase they gave themselves last year for a total of 16%.
The Senate has it so good that it has decided not only—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Centre D'Insémination Artificielle Du QuébecMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is good news in Quebec's agricultural sector: the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, the Conseil québécois des races laitières and the Conseil provincial des cercles d'amélioration du bétail have bought the Centre d'insémination artificielle du Québec, or CIAQ.
This artificial insemination centre is a strategic tool for the development of Quebec's cattle industry. For 50 years, it has been a loyal partner, helping to promote the evolution of dairy farms in Quebec by supplying quality products and striving to bring about genetic improvement.
The new limited partnership can point to universally recognized achievements. The reputation of the now celebrated bull, Starbuck, whose descendants number over 450,000, is well known. One of his offspring, Rodolphe, continues to supply the CIAQ and could well leave behind even more progeny than his father.
The CIAQ controls over 80% of Quebec's artificial insemination market and 45% of the Canadian market.
We wish all Quebec's dairy cattle farmers and the 125 employees of the CIAQ a very successful future.

Oral Question Period
TaxationMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for a week now we have been asking a basic question. Why do single income, two parent families pay considerably more tax than two income families? The government's responses fall into three categories. Either the Liberals avoid the question and puff up what little they have done for families, they avoid the question and attack any Reformers who dare ask it, or they avoid the question and attack and insult stay at home parents.
I invite the finance minister to answer the question. Why is he allowing this clear discrimination to continue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the preamble to the hon. member's question simply does not bear any relationship to reality. What we have done is certainly outline the number of measures which we have taken to help those families raising children, whether it be the child tax credit, the community action program for children or the prenatal nutrition program.
What has happened in every case is that we have pointed out to the Reform Party that despite its rhetoric in the House it has voted against every one of those issues which will help children. That is the basic debate, how to help children, how to help families raising children.
This government has brought forth a series of measures and the question is why does the reality of the Reform Party's votes contradict its rhetoric?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I guess that falls into the category of avoid the question and attack the questioner. The minister knows very well that the measures he is speaking of to help families were embedded in a budget where taxes on families were jacked up time and time again. Of course we did not support his budgets and we will not until there is tax fairness in them.
Again, will the minister even acknowledge that there is systemic discrimination in his own budgets against two parent families with only one income?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member simply does not seem to get it. In the last budget by raising the threshold by $675 and the $300 million that went into the child tax benefit, the tax burden on Canadian families was substantially reduced.
The basic issue is the Reform Party is saying, and if not would the hon. member explain the contradiction, that it would tax somebody at $25,000 at a higher rate than it would tax somebody at $50,000. That simply does not make any sense. That is why we have a progressive tax—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this problem will never be fixed if the minister will not even acknowledge it.
The fact is, and he knows this very well being the finance minister, that single income, two parent families pay about $4,000 more in taxes even though they have less net income. They have a difficult time under this minister's budget. What will the minister do to address this problem?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that, just as we have brought in through previous budgets measures to help families, we would like to see the House of Commons finance committee look at the whole issue as to how best government can help Canadian families raise their children. We have already said that.
The issue we are debating here is whether the Reform Party is in favour of progressive taxation. Is the Reform Party in favour of individual taxation versus family taxation? If it is, how does it gibe its approval of that with its questions? The real fact of the matter is that the Reform Party is against progressive taxation. It is against individual taxation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all this bafflegab about progressive taxation is really quite galling from a minister who brought in a clawback on his much vaunted child tax benefit of 70% for low income families. The C.D. Howe Institute calculates that families between $25,000 and $35,000 in income are facing as high as 70% marginal rates.
When the minister talks about progressivity our objection to the inequities for single income families relates to the child care tax deduction which they cannot claim if they raise their children at home.
How can the minister defend the continued discriminatory effect of the child care tax deduction?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have said this matter should be referred to the House of Commons finance committee. Now that we are in a surplus position it makes an enormous amount of sense to us to look at one of the beneficial ways we can improve the tax code to benefit Canadian families. The hon. member ought to be prepared to participate in that process on a constructive basis.
The real issue is why the hon. member is arguing against individual taxation. Why does he believe that higher income Canadians should be taxed at a lower rate than lower income Canadians? That is the issue. Why does he not answer the question?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about progressive taxation then he has to explain to $30,000 income families why they are facing a 70% marginal rate with his vicious clawback of the renamed family allowance.
I look at the figures in his own budget which say that a family with $35,000 with a single earner is paying $1,700 in taxes, $2,200 more than what a dual earner family would play. That is a low income family.
Studies are fine. Talk is cheap. When will the government act? When will it address the concerns of single income families and provide the kind of equity they have been demanding for years?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the example the member raised was a $30,000 family. The fact is we did act. We increased the child tax benefit and as a result that family will now pay no federal income tax.
Illegal ImmigrantsMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the television program Le Point , the CBC said that Canada is, in the eyes of criminal smugglers, the one country where it is easiest to bypass immigration laws.
That alarm has also been raised by the Canadian security intelligence service since 1997 in its annual reports, where it points out that the smuggling of illegal immigrants has been increasing because of the relatively minor penalties imposed on those found guilty of that offence.
Will the government admit that, as things now stand, our Canadian laws are totally powerless to eliminate the smuggling of illegal immigrants, and that this is shameful?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada has one of the best immigration and refugee policies in the world.
I reject categorically any claim that the government is not acting or that we are ineffective in our actions. We are very forceful through CIC officials, the RCMP and all arms of the federal government to ensure that our immigration laws are being followed and adhered to.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, a study on organized crime sponsored last year by the Solicitor General of Canada revealed that 8,000 illegal immigrants arrive in Canada every year, and that this situation costs taxpayers between $120 million and $400 million.
Why has this government not taken action since?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the government is acting. We are very active internationally on the whole issue of the international smuggling of people. We are at the forefront of this effort.
I really would caution the hon. member from the Bloc to not start taking on the characteristics of the Reform Party in trying to victimize some people who come to this country in a legal fashion. In any country with any law there will be some illegality but that is just a small percentage.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the illegal immigrant network was clearly shown in the television report prepared by Normand Lester.
Worse still, in that same report, Immigration Canada admitted that it does not know the actual number of illegal immigrants.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the government admit that the current mess regarding illegal immigrants in Canada is the direct result of the ineffectiveness of the immigration and refugee board which, on average, takes three years to issue its rulings?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, no, no.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am a little worried.
Since 1989 all the Quebec ministers of Immigration have asked for an in-depth review of the process concerning political asylum claims. Will the government pledge today to introduce a bill to that effect by the end of the current session?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government has produced a white paper on immigration. The committee on citizenship and immigration will be reviewing the whole legislation and the member knows that her party and all other parties in the House will be in a position to give input.
There is no activity of government that is totally fault free but in the vast majority of cases this government in immigration and citizenship is doing a great job.
The SenateHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. I want to ask him what the government considers to be a motion of confidence. It pertains of course to the request of the Senate for a 6% increase in its budget this year after a 10% increase last year.
According to parliamentary procedure a vote against the Senate estimates is not a vote of non-confidence unless the government deems it to be so.
I have a copy of a memo that went out to all Liberal MPs yesterday that appears to be deeming this vote a motion of non-confidence. My question is very simple to the minister.
Will the government be considering the vote on the estimates coming from the Senate for its increase of 6% a matter of confidence in the government?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discover this new found interest in the upper chamber by the hon. member. The Prime Minister has indicated that he received his candidacy with enthusiasm last week.
The estimates of the other place, as with the estimates of this House, particularly the component having to do with the compensation package, were voted on by both houses of parliament and surely the member would not ask us to undo a bill which he voted on unanimously.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question. I will ask him once again. I have a lot of respect for many government backbenchers in the House. I hope the minister has the same respect for his backbenchers as I have.
Will the vote on the estimates coming from the Senate where it wants an extra 6% this year on top of 10% last year be considered an issue of confidence in the Government of Canada? Answer that question directly. Will it be a confidence vote or not? We have to know that. Are members free to vote their own minds?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been around the House even longer than I have, which is a very long time, and knows the institution of responsible government. He also knows that parliament functions when both Houses function to pass legislation that is enacted and that we do so on behalf of the people of Canada.
That is what parliament will continue to do now and in the future.
Health CareMr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Apart from the public squabbling between the finance minister and his close personal friend, Brian Tobin, there is the question of the fundamental principles underlying the per capita equalization payments. It is an undeniable fact that the scheme to calculate transfers on a per capita basis would be devastating to Newfoundland and Labrador, a province which has lost 30,000 people in three years. Equality of transfers per person simply does not translate into equality of available services.
Will the minister guarantee us today that the additional funding will be made available to ensure the principles of the Canada Health Act are available for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member understands that social transfers and equalization operate hand in hand. What we have done is reverse a discrimination against other provinces on a per capita basis so that all Canadian citizens, whether they live in Newfoundland, Ontario or British Columbia, are treated equally under the federal provision of health care.
At the same time we have improved substantially the equalization program. There are much larger amounts of money that will be transferred. That has been recognized by the Premier of Newfoundland.
Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously quite pleased with himself, but his former colleague and close personal friend, Mr. Tobin with whom we know he has so much in common, is not wearing the same grin.
The Liberal finance minister in Newfoundland might be smiling for another reason. He calls this government's claims laughable. The Liberal health minister in the province has said outright that it creates a two tier health care system, one for Newfoundland and one for the rest of Canada.
For the sake of those caught in the middle in Newfoundland and Labrador and for Canadians everywhere who care about health care, will the minister tell us which group of Liberals are we suppose to believe in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a little out of date. The fact is that the Government of Newfoundland and the federal government are speaking with one voice. That one voice says that in fact there is very large scale funding going from the federal government to the province of Newfoundland in both the CHST and equalization, money which I know full well the Government of Newfoundland will put into the health care system because its interests are ours, and that is to have the best health care system right across the country.
The SenateDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, dictatorship is alive and well in the Liberal Party. Yesterday the Prime Minister ordered his own MPs to vote once again like sheep in favour of supporting the 16% two year raise for senators. He also had the gall to say “The Senate is doing its job and doing it well”.
I would like to ask the government exactly what the Senate is doing such a good job at. Is it taking Mexican holidays or is it not showing up for work? Which one does it accomplish best?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across and some of his colleagues are in no position to talk about attendance in this House.
The raise for senators was 2% for subsequent years and 1.25% in the first year. The hon. member who asked me this question voted for it. How can he now claim the opposite of that which he voted on himself?
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in parliamentary committee the member for Calgary West asked the committee to call a senator to come before the committee to explain exactly where all the money was being spent. Under the Prime Minister's direct orders, the Liberal members voted against calling an accountability.
What is the government trying to hide in this Senate money spending? What kind of embarrassment is it trying to avoid? What is it that troubles the government about the way senators spend money?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, nothing is hidden. The full estimates were tabled last Monday. The supplementary estimates will be tabled today before all members of the House. Copies are supplied to all members of parliament and all members of the other place.
The hon. member knows the breakdown of every item spent by both houses of parliament. As it pertains to the compensation package, he voted for it himself.
Government AdvertisingMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Since the government has recently converted to the principle of a per capita breakdown of public expenditures, can the minister tell us what proportion of the Canada Information Office's propaganda spending is in Quebec?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not involved with any propaganda.
We do inform Canadians from coast to coast on what the government is doing. All programs are created for the benefit of Canadians. In Quebec, as in the other provinces, our information programs are equitable.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs declared that the leaders of the Conservative Party and the Reform Party are more dangerous to Canadian unity than Quebec sovereignists. Last year, two-thirds of Canada Day funding was spent in Quebec.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not think that a greater proportion of government propaganda spending ought to be focussed on the west where, according to his colleague, it would be better spent and would correct another injustice?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, as the Government of Canada, we take part in all Canadian activities and festivals. Celebrations are held throughout the country, and we have a presence there, whether for Canada Day, Labour Day, or some other event.
TaxationMr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what is with the government's aversion to saving taxpayers money.
A departmental study recommending the amalgamation of the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Artists Tribunal and the Public Service Staff Relations Board was ignored despite projected savings of $3 million to $4 million. Instead the government changed the name of one board and shelved the study.
What is the government opposed to, greater efficiency or the proposed saving of $3 million to $4 million a year?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the agencies, boards and commissions. In that process we abolished hundreds and hundreds of positions. We amalgamated or got rid of up to 70 of these agencies, boards and commissions.
In the process we saved the government a lot of money. All these decisions were done in the interest of Canadian taxpayers.
Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, then perhaps there is a willingness on the part of the government to go the next step. The budget for the Artists Tribunal alone last year was $1.7 million yet it only completed 11 cases.
Why will the minister not combine these bureaucracies? Is it because he does not want to save the taxpayers $3 million to $4 million, or is the government saving these boards as nice little patronage plumbs for its political friends?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, once again, we have done that review. There is a continuing review of all these agencies, boards and commissions.
Our purpose is to be able to give good government at the lowest possible cost. I think we showed it. We abolished hundreds of positions. We saved millions of dollars and we intend to continue to do so.
Contributions To Political PartiesMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
In 1995-96, Atomic Energy Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Canada Post, the latter now headed by a former Liberal minister, contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada campaign fund.
Does the minister think it appropriate for these organizations to contribute public money to his party's election fund?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Shameful.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, crown corporations—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Alfonso Gagliano: Individuals, perhaps, employees of the corporations can contribute to any political party they wish, but the corporation itself, I am not aware of that.
Maurice Dumas: Mr. Speaker, so, I ask the minister to consult his party's list of contributions.
Our figures show that a given Canadian's chances of being awarded a contract by the Canada information office are 125 times greater if he has contributed to the Liberal Party coffers. Businesses' chances of being awarded a contract by the CIO are 40 times greater if they have contributed to the Liberal Party.
Does the minister not think that this situation, even though he may not be aware of it, undermines public confidence in public institutions?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the member's allegations, which are totally unfounded.
Since August, nearly 70% of the calls for tender by the Canada information office have been open to the public, and all those who got contracts have been required to apply through a public tender process.
Therefore, I totally reject these allegations.
Aboriginal AffairsMike Scott: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The government is ramming Bill C-49 through the House and counting on the Senate to fix it up or tidy it up later.
Why will the minister not fix the bill in the House where it ought to be done rather than shirk her responsibility and count on an unelected, unaccountable Senate to fix it later?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned we have a very good bill. I would note that the hon. member opposite voted fully in support of the bill after second reading.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the government shuts down debate on Bill C-49. The government has refused to address the issue of the disposition of family homes in divorce, choosing to instead to leave it up to individual bands to create laws.
Mr. Stanley Cuthand, an academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, has stated that the problem with entrusting band councils to develop divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague.
Does the minister think that this statement by a respected elder has merit? If so, why is she ramming the legislation through so quickly?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is not being rammed through. In fact, we have had 50 speakers address this bill in the House. That does not include the interventions that were made at committee. I would clarify that the hon. member for Skeena supported it at second reading in committee.
The issue of matrimonial property is important. The bill gives us the first opportunity to deal with the provision of recognition of matrimonial property in first nations. I encourage hon. members opposite to understand that and join all other parties in the House to unanimously support Bill C-49.
Family TrustsMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, George Harris of Winnipeg is asking the courts to get to the bottom of the family trust scandal, where $2 billion were allowed to leave Canada tax-free in 1991, but the Liberals are going to appeal the ruling, which allows Mr. Harris's request.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that all the government's fears have been laid to rest in the Muldoon ruling, can the Minister of Finance tell us why it is stubbornly blocking an investigation into the family trust scandal? What is he hiding from Quebeckers and Canadians?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that this matter is before the courts and that I am not in a position to comment.
PovertyMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recommended that Canada establish an official poverty line to accurately measure poverty and to enhance the accountability of our progress.
Does the Ministry of Human Resources Development accept this recommendation and, if so, when will it be implemented?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, at the current time there is no agreement in this country about how to appropriately measure poverty.
Some groups think that the LICO measure is too high. Some think it is not high enough. What most people seem to agree on is that we need to broaden our understanding of poverty to better address the situation of low income Canadians. That is why we are working with the provinces to develop a market based basket measure which takes into account the cost of people's essential needs.
Any new measure that is developed would supplement, not replace, the current measure like the low income cutoff.
WaterMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, control of one of our great national treasures, water, is under threat in a precedent setting case before NAFTA, the Sun Belt bulk water export case. At any moment now this case and Canada's control over water might be subject to a NAFTA panel.
What is the government doing to ensure that Canada continues to retain sovereignty over its water? What is it doing to make sure we keep bulk water out of NAFTA?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member was but a few days ago, my colleagues the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Environment offered the solution to that very question on two tracks.
The first one is with respect to the boundary waters with the United States and the federal government takes leadership and has full sovereignty. On the question of bulk water extraction, we have been in touch with the provincial governments and have agreed to move on a national policy basis to eliminate bulk extraction and to also have a moratorium. Both tracks work in the best interests of Canadians in this very important issue in terms of water supplies.
Softwood LumberMr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber deal is killing a number of Canadian businesses. This deal expires in two years, yet 86 out of 146 companies replying to my recent questionnaire have little or no trust in this government to spell out a better agreement.
How will this government regain the trust of these companies in order to give confidence back to the industry?
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when the two governments entered into this agreement, it had the virtual unanimous blessing of the national industry. It also had the virtual unanimous blessing of the provincial governments involved. Clearly it was very much a private sector solution that led to the agreement my predecessor worked on.
We met with the industry some weeks ago. We are beginning the process of determining now rather than later how this agreement is working, whether we want it to continue and if not, what changes can be brought to it.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our public broadcaster is in crisis. This government has gutted its funding and the cuts have resulted in labour strife. There are also repeated examples of government interference with CBC operations, from Bill C-44 to the logo fiasco to interference in the APEC coverage.
Will the government restore funding to allow the CBC to pay its employees a fair industry wage and restore job security? And will the minister admit this government's financial actions and partisan appointments have caused the current crisis?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has guaranteed stable funding to the CBC and Société Radio-Canada until the year 2003. My hon. colleague could verify from the estimates that that has been increased by $60 million this year, some of it for operational costs and a good chunk of it for technical investments. The government remains committed to this very important institution, that is, CBC and Radio-Canada.
National DefenceMr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fairness of military justice is under scrutiny worldwide. Military justice in Canada is under scrutiny.
In light of the legitimate safety concerns and serious questions raised around the Anthrax vaccine, is there any indication that the director of military prosecutions will use his discretionary power to withdraw the charge against Mike Kipling, a father and husband who faithfully devoted over 25 years of his life in the service of his country? The Department of National Defence has accepted Mike Kipling's resignation. Why not allow this family man and loyal Canadian to retire in peace and dignity?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the specifics of the case. The individual deserves to have a fair trial. The matter will proceed to a court martial. Cohesion and discipline in the military are very important. Someone is alleged to have disobeyed an order in terms of a major offence. On that basis the court martial will proceed.
The EnvironmentMr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should step in to the real world and see that climate change is for real and so is the Kyoto challenge.
The truth of the matter is that we are 25% behind our goal and environmental issues continue to be a low priority for this Liberal government.
Another Liberal budget has just passed and so has another opportunity for the minister to take concrete action to combat climate change.
When will this government put an end to its paltry environmental record and announce new and significant economic instruments so Canadians can meet their Kyoto target?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that work is already under way in two important respects.
First, in the budget of 1998 we introduced the climate change action fund. This is $150 million in new money to support the ongoing process with the provinces, to support the work on science, to support the work on technology transfer and on engaging the Canadian public. We have a very open and transparent process with 450 Canadian experts working together to develop a long term strategy. The process is very well along in its development.
John Herron: Mr. Speaker, is the finance minister for real? The science on climate change certainly is and our international Kyoto obligation is as well. As a former environment critic, the Minister of Finance should be ashamed.
Last spring the auditor general pointed out that this government lacked the political will to implement international agreements. We should not be surprised because this government is in the sixth year of its mandate and it has yet to pass one piece of environmental legislation, except for the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million.
Will the minister commit today to provide industry with the necessary economic instruments to begin to combat climate change?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, again I point out to the hon. member that the 1998 budget added $150 million to the process. That brings this government's investment in climate change solutions on an annual basis to over $200 million per year.
In addition, there were a number of technical measures in this budget having to do with gas flaring, having to do with support to municipalities, and having to do with wind experiments in the Atlantic provinces which will continue to move the momentum along.
The government is moving on the file and we intend to meet our targets.
National DefenceMr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. We have heard that Canadian forces personnel are well trained to meet a variety of situations. Does the minister have any information about a flight crew in the Canary Islands who saved a woman's life?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, four members of an air crew from CFB Trenton on their way home from the Central African Republic were on a one night stopover in the Canary Islands on February 24.
During the crew's rest period, they noticed a man struggling to pull an elderly woman from a hotel pool. The crew members pulled the woman from the water. They applied CPR and cleared her lungs. Within a few minutes, she was breathing again. I am pleased to report that she is doing fine, thanks to the fine efforts of Master Corporals Frank Bessette, John Kolontouros, Jordie Larson and Dawn Garvin.
TaxationMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents in Surrey was promoted but taxes demoted his family's standard of living. As his child tax benefits shrink, CPP and bracket creep eat away at his paycheque, leaving his family worse off. He pays $4,000 more in taxes than the family next door where both parents work.
Will this government stop discriminating against families where one parent stays at home to raise children?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that what the government would like to do is to have the whole question of how the state can help families raise children and what our responsibilities are looked at by the House of Commons finance committee. I would ask the Reform Party to join in a constructive effort to take a look at this.
This is one of the great benefits of having balanced the books. Now that we have balanced the books, the Government of Canada is in even a greater position.
I would remind the hon. member that in this year's budget, $300 million more went into the child tax benefit. I would ask him to look at what the government did regarding prenatal nutrition, what we did in a whole series of measures over a whole series of budgets.
The question is, why does the Reform Party vote against those things that help children?
Irving WhaleMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent report to the Minister of the Environment on restoration of the site where the Irving Whale went down proposes various ways of dealing with the problem of the PCB contaminated sediments left behind after the barge was refloated in 1996.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us whether her government is going to remove the contaminated sediment from the Irving Whale site and bill the Irving company?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's question under advisement and get back to her at a later date.
FisheriesMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there was further proof last Monday that this government's policy in fishery matters favours the corporate destructive sector over the small inshore fishery. Last Monday High Liner Foods reported an increase of a 50% allocation increase catch on their quota for 1998 while at the same time this government announced a 10,000 tonne further reduction of the quota for groundfish for inshore fishermen.
Why does this government continue to destroy the hopes and dreams of thousands of inshore fishermen, their families and their coastal communities?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the New Democratic Party member is not suggesting that the companies in Atlantic Canada, in particular Nova Scotia, not be profitable. There is a convention in Nova Scotia tonight that perhaps he should go to. The Liberals are going to be talking about building business and industry in Nova Scotia.
The fact is large fish companies and small fish companies are trying to restore profitability in Atlantic Canada and to the fishery. This government is working with them to do that both at the fishery level and the company level.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is famous for his promises. He promised to scrap the Pearson airport deal and it cost Canadians $650 million. He promised to scrap the EH-101 and it cost Canadians a bunch of money and more importantly and more recently eight lives, airmen based out of Greenwood, Nova Scotia. He promised in 1972 to provide a reserve for the Caldwell Indian band in southern Ontario. I would like to know the price of that promise both for aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians.
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding obligation to the landless Caldwell First Nation that stems from from the 1790 treaty where they along with others surrendered a huge amount of land in return for reserve land. That is the promise. This government is going to do all it can to ensure that we make good on that almost 200-year old commitment.
Year 2000Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
This morning the media is reporting that the federal government is stocking up on satellite phones because of millennium bug fears. Canadian telephone companies have informed the industry committee that they are confident that they are well prepared for January 1, 2000. Has something changed that is causing the government to take these precautions?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the turn of the millennium of course the government is taking all the precautions necessary to make sure that we are prepared for any contingency.
I can tell the hon. member, and again it was confirmed in the last few days by a United States Senate report, that Canada is one of the leading nations in the world in Y2K preparedness.
Second, I can say with respect to the telephone system that the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean and I visited the Stentor labs a few weeks ago. They demonstrated to us their testing of Y2K. They turned their clocks forward and demonstrated that the tests worked. We are assured that throughout Canada, both the electrical and telephone systems are well on the way to being fully prepared for the change in calendar date.
TradeMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the United States has just announced 100% duties against the European Union for failing to comply with the World Trade Organization's ruling on bananas.
I would like to pose a very important question. If this trade dispute somehow ends up disrupting Canada's supply of imported bananas, how is the Prime Minister going to control his caucus next Wednesday?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the problem is really more for the Reform Party. Obviously its members have been starved of bananas for far too long. We will do our best through our very capable Minister for International Trade to make sure that the Reform Party not only gets the bananas it needs, but all the other foods to enable its members to do their job, because they need all the help they can get.
ShipbuildingAntoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has harmonized its taxation of the film and television production industry with measures introduced by the Government of Quebec.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not want to do the same for the shipbuilding industry?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we explained yesterday that there are already tax shelters for the shipbuilding industry. They have been around for a long time. There are also other programs to help this industry.
It is not true that we have a system to reduce the benefits made available by the Province of Quebec. If other provinces wish to offer benefits, as Nova Scotia has done, they are free to do so.
Employment InsuranceMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the most unfair things about the EI legislation is the clawback provision where if one makes $39,000 a year or more one has to pay back any EI benefits collected. Just ask the auto workers in Windsor, Ontario what they think of the $39,000 clawback. It seems almost custom written to target them personally and to pick their pockets of benefits that they pay for and deserve.
When will the government call a byelection in Windsor—St. Clair and let the people tell it at the ballot box what they think of the $39,000 clawback rip-off?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the byelection will be called very soon. In spite of the efforts of the hon. member to start the campaign early I am positive that his party will be swept aside and there will be a strong Liberal victory led by Rick Limoges, our outstanding candidate. Thanks for the endorsement of Mr. Limoges. We will see and hear very soon and he will be doing a terrific job for the people of Windsor and the people of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to a point of order, during Standing Order 31 statements I was premature in cutting off the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I jumped the gun. We owe you one.
Points Of OrderMike Scott: Mr. Speaker, during question period the minister of Indian affairs indicated to the House and to people watching across Canada that the Reform Party indeed supported Bill C-49 at second reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, during question period the House leader of the government was completely in error in an assertion he made that I supported the 16% raise senators are now asking for.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is also not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to table the voting record taken on December 1, 1998 on Bill C-49 for the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have unanimous consent to table the document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask for unanimous consent to table a memo entitled “Talking points on the spending estimates for the Senate”. This is a memo sent to all Liberal MPs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
PrivilegeMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of the in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations looking into a proposal to invite a member of the Senate's board of internal economy to appear before the committee to defend the Senate's increases in spending has been deliberately revealed to the media.
I deliberately revealed the contents of the meeting. The contents of the meetings have been revealed in the Ottawa Citizen , the National Post and others.
Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 57 reads:
The House has in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera to be a breach of privilege.
While this is a clear contempt of the House, I feel it is a justifiable contempt since the principle of accountability is, in my opinion, greater than the principle of secrecy of an in camera meeting.
A request to have a representative from the Senate defend its estimates before a House of Commons committee is an attempt to bring some accountability to the Senate. The decision by the Liberal majority on the natural resources and government operations committee to consider this proposal in secret confirms the government's policy that the Senate need not be accountable for its thirst to spend taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the following motion: That the deliberate disclosure of the March 4, 1999 in camera proceedings of the committee on natural resources and government operations concerning the proposal to invite a member of the Senate's board of internal economy to appear before committee to defend its increase in spending be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's raising a question of privilege against himself. I found it very interesting. His confession to the House and the apology inherent in it are duly accepted by all members on this side of the House.
Having heard that confession and apology, I am fully willing to accept them right now. There is no need to refer it to any committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This question of privilege will be dealt with by the Speaker. I will resolve to ensure that the Speaker is made well aware of both the form and the context of the point of privilege. In due course the Speaker will rule on this point of privilege.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I made no apology for what I have done.

Routine Proceedings
House Of CommonsThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have the honour to lay upon the table the report on plans and priorities in relation to the main estimates for the House of Commons.
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (C) of sums required for the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
Government Response To PetitionsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Japan interparliamentary group, the seventh annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum which took place in Lima, Peru January 11 to 14 this year.
Under the chairmanship of the hon. Yasuhiro Nakasone, former prime minister of Japan, parliamentarians from 24 countries gathered to consider an agenda centred on economic matters in the Asia-Pacific region, political and security issues in the Asia-Pacific region and regional co-operation, including environmental issues and money laundering.
The Canadian delegation was successful in having its two resolutions adopted by the assembly, namely measures to strengthen the national financial sectors and control of small arms.
Canada was also elected to serve on the executive committee of the APPF. The influence of this important international body cannot be neglected. The Canadian section is very pleased with its accomplishments and wishes to thank the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Finance for their assistance in meeting its objectives.
We also wish to note the excellent work of our ambassador Graeme Clark and his team in Peru.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House a report, in both official languages, of the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association concerning the inaugural visit to Belfast and London, United Kingdom, which took place from January 24 to 30, 1999.
It was a very productive delegation which included discussions with our own General John de Chastelain on the progress of the Belfast agreement and subsequently with representatives from five parties of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the peace process.
We also met with a representative of the Monaghan and Portadown project which takes Catholic and Protestant youths together for classes at Confederation College in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Subsequently we met extensively with members of the parliament of Westminster on Canada-U.K. areas of concern. Much was accomplished by the delegation and we are very appreciative of the parliament allowing this opportunity.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent of the House to table the third report of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Association concerning a recent delegation to Taiwan.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, last April a delegation of parliamentarians representing all parties in the Senate visited Taiwan on an official visit to discuss bilateral trade issues, agricultural issues as well as immigration and visa issues. Their report has been presented back to us. It will be reviewed by the membership of the friendship group and recommendations as appropriate will be directed to the ministries involved.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to its order of reference of Monday, February 15, 1999, the committee has considered Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
I also take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee for their unanimous support of Bill C-65 and for participating in the finance committee hearings. We had over 160 meetings and members on both sides of the House demonstrated a great deal of commitment to making sure that the finance committee reflects the views and opinions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans pertaining to the order in council appointment of the Commissioner of Agriculture.
I would say, with the exception of one committee member, that all members of the committee were most impressed with the appointment of Mr. Yves Bastien.
Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship ActRéal Ménard: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-481, an act providing for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I reintroduce a bill to recognize same sex partners and to amend 70 statutes accordingly in order to give equal treatment to all those in such relationships. I am hopeful about getting the full support of this House, including that of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Supplementary Estimates (C)Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the year ending March 31, 1999, laid upon the table on March 5, 1999, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Since the list is rather lengthy I would ask that it be printed in Hansard at this point without being read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1c, 5c, 7c, 8c, 15c, 30c and 35c
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1c, 5c, 11c, 15c and 20c
To the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1c, 5c, 20c, 25c, 30c, 50c, 55c, 60c, 65c, 70c, 75c, 80c, 85c, 90c, 100c, 105c, 110c, 120c, 125c and 135c Privy Council, Vote 26c
To the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
Citizenship and Immigration, Votes 1c, 2c, 10c and 15c
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment, Vote 1c Privy Council, Vote 30c
To the Standing Committee on Finance
Finance, Votes 20c and 35c National Revenue, Vote 1c
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
Fisheries and Oceans, Vote 1c
To the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 20c 21c, 22c, 25c, L30c and 40c
To the Standing Committee on Health
Health, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c and 25c
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Human Resources Development, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 20c, 25c and 35c
To the Standing Committee on Industry
Industry, Votes 1c, 5c, 25c, 40c, 45c, 55c, 60c, 65c, 70c, 75c, 80c, 85c, 90c, 95c, 100c, 105c and 110c
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Justice, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c, 15c, 25c, 30c, 40c and 50c Privy Council, Vote 40c Solicitor General, Votes 1c, 15c, 25c, 35c and 50c
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 1c and 5c Veterans Affairs, Votes 1c, 5c and 10c
To the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations
Canadian Heritage, Vote 130c Governor General, Vote 1c Natural Resources, Votes 10c and 30c Parliament, Vote 1c Privy Council, Votes 1c, 5c, 10c and 35c Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1c, 5c, 6c, 7c, 8c, 9c, 11c, 12c and 13c Treasury Board, Vote 1c
To the Standing Committee on Transport
Privy Council, Vote 15c Transport, Votes 25c, 28c, L29c, 30c and 35c
To the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
Privy Council, Vote 25c
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition from hundreds of concerned Canadians regarding the critical state of the health care system in Canada today.
The petitioners call upon this government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act, which they call the foundation of medicare. They call upon this government to maintain and enforce the five principles of medicare.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the individuals involved in presenting this petition and particularly mention the work of the save medicare committee, and in particular the work of one individual, Russ Rak, who is with the Retired Workers' Chapter of Local 222 of the CAW in Oshawa.
It is with great honour that I present this petition which calls upon this government to move quickly to preserve and strengthen medicare in this country.
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents of Ontario which requests that the House of Commons ask the Government of Canada to amend the Divorce Act to make a provision for grandparents who, as a consequence of the death, separation or divorce of their children, are often denied access to their grandchildren by guardians. The petitioners ask the government to implement a provision which would allow them to have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including those from my own constituency of Mississauga South, on the issue of human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that violations of human rights continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia.
They also acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized internationally as a champion of human rights.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to continue to speak out on behalf of those whose human rights are being violated and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such violations.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time and passed.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my continuing intervention I must point out, as I tried to do on a point of order immediately after question period, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during question period, and at other times, incorrectly stated that members of the Reform Party supported Bill C-49 at second reading.
For the record, I have a copy of the vote that was taken on December 1, 1998 when the bill was being voted upon at second reading. The results of that vote were: yeas, 199; nays, 38, the 38 comprising all of the Reform members who were present in the House for the vote that day.
I note that the minister addressed her remarks specifically to me. I would also point out that I was here for that vote and that I in fact voted against Bill C-49, which is in direct contravention to the minister's statement.
I think this goes to the heart of the problem. The government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary continue to put out misleading and erroneous information on a regular basis on this bill. They have, as a result of that, undermined the confidence of people, particularly in British Columbia but across Canada, as to the intent of Bill C-49. I suggest they have done themselves no favours by doing this. The parliamentary secretary was talking about driving wedges. There is nothing worse in terms of driving wedges between people than putting out information which is incorrect, which is deliberately done and which is done to try to leave people with a false impression of what actually has taken place.
Prior to Christmas, as a result of lobbying by a number of different people, including aboriginal leaders who stand to be affected by Bill C-49, we agreed to sit down to see if there was a way that we could support Bill C-49 with amendments, because we certainly agreed with the principle inculcated in the bill, that decision making should be taken out of Ottawa and put into the hands of people in local areas.
We were led to believe by the government and by some of the people we were dealing with that these amendments would be possible, but it turned out at the end of the day that the government was not prepared to entertain these amendments. For that reason, regrettably—and I say regrettably very sincerely— we could not support Bill C-49. To have done so would have been to really let down the people across Canada who have been asking us to stand up for these amendments and to make sure the bill was fixed prior to being adopted.
I will return to discussing the expropriation powers in the bill, which is where I left off prior to question period.
The parliamentary secretary and the minister deny that the expropriation powers in Bill C-49 are broad and sweeping. The parliamentary secretary said that the federal Expropriation Act would actually confine aboriginal bands to that particular legislation.
I point out for the people watching and for the parliamentary secretary that the bill specifically states that in the event of a conflict between Bill C-49 and the federal Expropriation Act, Bill C-49 would take precedence. Clearly that means that the federal Expropriation Act, in effect, does not have any real influence over how expropriations might take place on reserve land in the future. The expropriation powers are not only a concern to people on leasehold land on reserves across Canada, they are also very much a concern to band members.
One of the reasons we have had great difficulty in supporting Bill C-49 is this. I have personally met with some of the chiefs who have been trying to get this legislation passed and trying to get Reform's support for it. They indicated that their band members were in support of it. In fact, in the case of the Squamish band, regrettably, we found out after the fact that most of the people on that reserve were not consulted about Bill C-49. We have a petition signed by some 230 members of the band saying that they were not consulted, that they are opposed to the bill and that they want it to be changed. They are very concerned about their rights as band members. They say very clearly that up until a very short while ago—the end of January—they were never consulted and they were not even aware that the band council was working with the government to have Bill C-49 brought into effect.
These band members are equally concerned, just as those who have leasehold interests on reserve land are concerned, about being expropriated. They feel that the chief and council will have altogether too much power and too much ability. They do not want to rely on a land code which may come into effect down the road to grant the protection they are looking for. They want it to be enshrined in the legislation.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary are standing in opposition to that. I cannot understand why they want to deny these people having their protection and their rights enshrined in this legislation. It is not a difficult matter for that to be accomplished.
The minister said that the concerns about expropriation are overblown. However, a real estate agent wrote a letter to a client on the Musqueam reserve, advising him to take his house off the market because in his professional opinion as a real estate agent that house currently has no market value. The parliamentary secretary and the minister can argue with Reform, but they certainly cannot argue with the marketplace. I can assure the House that right now—and this is a very clear situation—the marketability of homes on the Musqueam reserve is at zero. They cannot sell their homes. These are homes that were often valued at several hundred thousand dollars each a couple of short years ago. Many of the people who are living in them are at or near retirement and living on fixed incomes.
The fellow who first contacted me about the inability to market his home, and the letter that he had received from the real estate agent advising him of that, does not live on the Musqueam reserve. He in fact lives in Calgary; he has retired to Calgary. He wants to sell his home to get his equity out it. The sale of his home was a big part of what he was counting on to retire.
We can see how people have been dramatically affected by not only Bill C-49 but by other moves the government has been making with respect to the disposition of lands on reserves.
A large part of the problem on the Musqueam reserve arose because federal governments over a long period of time have made changes without disclosing to the people who lived on those reserves that they had made those changes.
In 1980 the Liberal minister of Indian affairs, John Munro, signed a discretionary letter that he was authorized to sign under section 53 of the Indian Act, transferring his authority to the Musqueam Band Council in terms of dealing with the leases. That was done without any notice and without any consultation with the people who live in those houses, the leaseholders. They had absolutely no knowledge that this had taken place.
Furthermore, in 1991 another minister of Indian affairs, Tom Siddon, signed a further agreement which gave the band taxation authority over those leaseholders. This was contrary to what the people had been led to believe when they entered into the leases in 1965 through 1973. The deal at that point was that the city of Vancouver would be providing the services and would be collecting the property taxes.
Incidentally, once that transfer was done the property taxes rose dramatically, two to three times. A large portion of those property taxes have been for school taxes because we know that in Canada property taxes are levied in most municipalities for municipal services and there is a separate component for schools.
The band has collected, according to news reports, about $6 million in school taxes since 1991. Yet not one penny has actually gone toward school or education. Not one penny was transferred to the provincial government in aid of education. There has been absolutely no school services provided by the Musqueam band to the leaseholders that have been paying these taxes.
Those are the kinds of flaws which leave people very uncertain and very concerned about the kinds of sweeping changes Bill C-49 contemplates. For the life of me, I do not understand why the government and the minister are not prepared, if they want to get the bill passed, to look at amendments that would provide protection and give people a level of comfort so that they would be willing to move forward.
We know that by and large Canadians are decent, fair minded people. I have met personally with virtually all the Musqueam residents. I know they are decent, fair minded people. I know they are not opposed to the aspirations of the band. They just want to be treated fairly. At the present time they feel they have been treated extremely unfairly, not only by the band but also by the government because the government has chosen to proceed with major changes without any consultation and without any notice to the leaseholders.
Going further and talking about marital property rights, in the minister's intervention she talked about the fact that she as minister and previous ministers for the past 130-odd years had been making decisions on behalf of bands for the disposition of reserve lands.
I certainly agree with her that it is completely inappropriate that these decisions be made in Ottawa. We certainly agree with the principle of devolving that decision making power. However, where the government is in error and where the minister is in error goes back to the whole notion of collective property rights.
I live in a municipality and the municipality does not own the land I have my house on. Why would people living on a reserve want the band council to own the land that their houses are on? Why is there no provision for private property rights? Why is there no provision for the property rights that all other Canadians enjoy, and in particular that all other Canadian women enjoy on the disposition of a marital home in the event of a marriage breakdown?
It is not rocket science. It is not difficult if we have people who are willing to examine that issue and provide those protections, but we see no inclination in that regard whatsoever. Now what we find is that the government is intending to send the bill to the Senate to have the Senate fix it up because it has finally come to understand and recognize that there are problems with it.
In conclusion, I would like to propose the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Management” and substituting the following therefor:
“be not now read a third time but referred back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of reconsidering all the clauses with a view to ensure that the land code is consistent with the federal Expropriation Act and provincial expropriation acts as applicable.
I would ask that the House adopt the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in order.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but now that he has completed his speech I want to take this occasion to indicate to the House the following.
I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at these stages.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the First Nation Land Management Act.
Originally the kings of Britain owned and taxed everything. The nobles got fed up with that and forced the king to back off on what he had previously owned. He had been able to tax and to decide who could use land, when and how. The nobles forced some changes. After the nobles finally had their say for a number of years, the commoners stepped in and had their say.
We do not yet have full ownership of land. We have something called an estate in land and the estate most Canadians have is an estate in fee simple. Fee common is not as common as one might think. It has finally come to the stage where Canada's Indians will perhaps get a stab at having an interest in land which the government does not control.
The evolution of ownership has been accompanied by armies of lawyers and consultants who have taken fees for their opinions. If we follow it all the way through, we get to Bill C-49 which purports to allow first nations to manage their lands.
Anybody watching the debate is aware that the official opposition has some very grave concerns about Bill C-49. It is not only our concerns. These concerns have been raised by a number of people.
Petitions have been filed. People have called talk shows and written letters to editors. Personal representations have been made to members of parliament, particularly from the west coast. Now they are coming in from the east coast where people are concerned about what Bill C-49 will do, what powers band councils will have and what will be the limits of their powers.
While the B.C. Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra has not spoken in the House in opposition to the bill, he has expressed opposition as reported in the Vancouver Sun on March 3. The article indicated that he “voted with the government Monday but said he is working behind the scenes to ensure there is a thorough Senate committee study, including public hearings and possible amendments”. It went on to indicate:
“No, I don't” support the bill, the MP for Vancouver Quadra said on Tuesday.
“Some concerns that had been felt by B.C. MPs on the fast track procedure are being resolved by what's emerging as an understanding that the Senate will study and hold public hearings and will possibly consider amendments and changes for the House.
“The details will be worked out in the next few days”.
It further indicated that the member said:
—the bill, along with media coverage of a 7,000% rent increase imposed on non-natives living in Musqueam Park in Vancouver, is fuelling more public concern over broader and more crucial native issues such as the $490 million Nisga'a treaty.
That treaty is also under attack because it is perceived to be granting far more power and lack of accountability.
The member for Vancouver Quadra has stated that Bill C-49 was poorly drafted. He supported concerns expressed by others who said that expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive. There is a lack of protection for native women who often use their right to marital property after divorce and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters. He said “The public's concern is correctly focused on it”.
Another government member plans to vote against Bill C-49. He said the bill was excessive and criticized the government for imposing closure to limit debate in the House of Commons. He accused the minister of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land claims and self-government matters across Canada. He stated that their position was to keep the dummies in the dark.
When government members raise those kinds of concerns, the government should be listening. It is not just us.
Today I asked a question about the government shutting down debate on Bill C-49. I am going to quote what a respected academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College said, “The problem with entrusting band councils to help develop divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague”.
The government has refused to deal with an issue that is going to create a mosaic of rights across Canada as bands write their own laws in respect to divorce. Does it seem fair when a woman from one reserve marries a man from another reserve and finds out that she has a different set of rights than she was born with? This is Canada, one country. Surely this country will respect equality at least between men and women. This is not too much to expect at all.
I would like to speak for a moment on the expropriation provisions in this bill. Clause 28 of the bill, a very short section, talks about expropriation which allows a band to write its own expropriate act. Subclause 5 states:
A first nation shall pay fair compensation to the holder of an expropriated interest and, in determining that compensation, the first nation shall take into account the rules set out in the Expropriation Act.
Taking into account is not the same as being bound by. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to understand all the legalese, but I am sure that we are going to see judges beginning the process, after this bill is passed, if it is passed unamended here or by the Senate, of determining what it would mean to take into account the provisions of the Expropriation Act which is a federal act. The federal act lays out in very clear stages what the mechanisms and timelines are for recourse with respect to dispute resolution at arbitration in the event there is a conflict over expropriation.
As I said earlier on in the debate, getting control over land is a process that has taken centuries. It has gone from the kings to the nobles to the commoners and it is finally getting down to the Indian bands. However, let us not leave out the people who are affected by it. It is not always the leaders. It is the people who are governed by the leaders. We want to ensure that they are not unfairly left out.
The expropriation does not necessarily have to be natives over non-natives. It can be natives over natives. Whoever owns an interest can have that interest ended by expropriation.
A municipal expropriation act will talk about the compensation proposed. It might talk about the description of the land, what is the extent of the land required, the reasons for doing it and those types of things. If people do not agree, they have recourse. Provincial legislation sets up all of the conciliation and arbitration boards to determine how compensation is paid. It is always in the interest of a municipality to have a mechanism to obtain land for public purposes but the owner of the interest has to be protected. We certainly do not want the courts to be involved early on in every dispute.
I am sure that introducing a simple motion calling for the clauses in the federal Expropriation Act to be binding is not too much. We want to see development on Indian land, but if people are concerned that they may not have their interests safely held, we will not find people investing. One thing investors look for is certainty of profit and certainty of a continuing profit and that it will not end. If people own a home they want to ensure that they hold it now and in the future. They do not want it taken away without proper compensation.
The bill is deficient in that way. It is in the interest of the signatory bands to put those amendments in place. It is not in our interest. It does not matter to me. I do not live on band land. I have a home that is held in fee simple in the town of Nipawin. Consequently, I have nothing to gain in this but the bands have something to gain and those who hold interest in the land have something to gain.
Perhaps I do have something to gain. When the Reform Party forms the next government, I do not want to be back here having to deal with Bill C-49. I want to be able to move on to new legislation the government will have on its agenda at that time.
Those are all good reasons that we should not rush ahead on this bill. It is the government's role to write legislation and to get it right the first time. If the government does not do this, it has to be willing to make the necessary amendments.
It is not our role to write the legislation but to ensure it goes through the House in correct form. It is our role to make it perfectly clear to the public that a bill is deficient and that the government will have to do something about it. That is what we are doing. I hate to think we are going to send a bill that originated here to the Senate of all places asking that it make the amendments we refused to make. That is a ridiculous thing to expect.
What can we say about the matrimonial home? The children live in the home, the mother lives in the home, the father should be staying in the home. We want to see the family as a unit but realistically, families break down. The B.C. Native Women's Society has raised a concern as have native women across Canada and the national native women's organizations. Why has that not rung a bell with the government? Why is the minister simply saying that they are consulting? Why not get the consultation done first and then come to the House with a bill that is complete in its current form?
I read earlier about Mr. Cuthand, a respected elder who was a priest in the Anglican church. Why are the concerns of men like him not listened to? The government has rushed ahead and allowed this to go on the back burner for who knows how long. There will surely be court cases, payouts and domestic tragedies because the government has refused to accept that it has a responsibility not only to chiefs and councils but to the people they govern as well.
Let us talk about the issue of ratepayers on reserves which I do not believe has been raised today. They have no vote. Prior to the American revolution some protesters dressed up as Indians and threw a load of tea overboard from a ship docked in Boston harbour. Why? Because they did not want to be taxed without representation. What we have here is taxation without representation. Many cottage owners have raised the concern that they are going to be taxed but they are not going to be represented. Does the government consider this fair?
Indians have been kept down in the past but overwaiting is not any better. It still creates conflict and hardship. It is a major concern to everyone.
The lack of public knowledge about this bill is coming to light. There is a newspaper article that talks about women from the Saint Mary's reserve near Fredericton. A woman in the article is demanding equality, an honest and responsible government, and she is against the mismanagement of funds. She is concerned about Bill C-49. She says that it will give up control over management of reserve land.
I do not think that every reserve has a government that is irresponsible and unresponsive, but they are there. Certainly we want people to have the power to hold the members of the council to account. We do not see that with Bill C-49 going through in its current form.
I am asking the government to vote in favour of the amendment my colleague from Skeena put forward today. Send the bill back to committee to address these valid concerns and then bring the bill back to the House, not so that anybody's rights are diminished, not that what they intend is diminished, but that the bill be made sufficient and not be passed in this deficient form.
We heard convincing arguments earlier that there existed a high level of support for the bill by members of the reserves and all the communities surrounding them, but in January events overtook that testimony. Concerns were expressed, as I said before, in letters to the editor, talk shows and letters to MPs, all of these things. Municipal councils raised concerns. Constituents raised their concerns. They all stated that they had concerns with Bill C-49 in its current form. Consequently we are required as members of parliament to bring these concerns to parliament.
Aboriginal women and children living on reserves do not enjoy the protection of property division laws that are available to every other Canadian woman. There is no protection whatsoever regarding the use, occupation and possession of land when a marriage breaks down with each band devising its own land code.
A band of 200 people here, a band of 200 members over there, a band of 1,000 people over here, what kind of legislation will result from individual bands as different pressure groups push to have their interests represented? Why not do it here in our national parliament where all sides of the debate from all reserves can be heard. We can come up with a fair and equitable law allowing for the division of the matrimonial home and other property. It just is not right to do it the way it is being done.
We know that the band councils probably wish the best, but do they know what is best? Do they know the laws? Do they have access to the expertise to write these codes? Do they have the expertise to write property division acts? Do they have the expertise on expropriation?
We are not talking about Bill C-49, which has been developed by the Government of Canada. We are going back to the individual reserves, many of which are already under stress where their finances are concerned. They are being asked to put more money into developing parts of a land code that could be adopted right here in the House of Commons. They could simply apply it. Judges could take it and understand it. Then one judgment where there was possible alternative application would be binding rather than having every band's land code subject to judicial interpretation. It just does not make any sense.
I will end with a clear call to the government to reconsider forcing this legislation through. It is denying the legitimate expressed concerns of band members, municipalities and other interested persons. Not only have they said it to the official opposition, but we know they have expressed these concerns to the government as well. They want us to get the bill right in the House the first time so that we do not see all kinds of amendments going through at the Senate study of the bill. We know it is going to come back for amendment.
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I believe that for the purposes of expediency and to make sure with the 30 minutes we have remaining that both the NDP and PC parties have an opportunity to get on the record, that the member currently speaking for the Bloc Quebecois will speak not longer than 20 minutes. We can begin another session with the PC party speaking first and the NDP without questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We may have to go back to the drawing board. The information I have is that debate will terminate in 14 minutes. We can by unanimous consent extend the time to 1.30 p.m.
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to give other parties an opportunity to speak by extending the time from 1.15 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean and Bloc Quebecois critic on aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management.
I would like to draw attention to the excellent work done by our colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, who was unable to be here today. He has done excellent work on aboriginal issues since 1993, first of all by lending an attentive ear to the first nations, and also by raising awareness of the aboriginal reality in Quebec and in the rest of the country.
This framework agreement was signed by 14 chiefs of Canada's first nations, and the federal government, in February 1996. The bill was introduced just before the dissolution of parliament in June 1997, as Bill C-75, dying on the Order Paper when the election was called.
Aboriginal groups concerned by this bill worked very hard to get it back on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. They did an excellent job of lobbying the government and opposition critics.
The Bloc Quebecois lent them a hand in getting the bill back on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. I should point out that the 14 signatory first nations are dispersed throughout British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.
The British Columbia first nations concerned are the Westbank, the Musqueam, the Squamish, the Lheidli T'enneh and the N'Quatqua.
I ask any aboriginal people listening to excuse my pronunciation. I lack my colleague from St-Jean's familiarity with these names.
The signatory in Alberta is the Siksika, while there are two first nations signatories in Saskatchewan, the Cowessess and the Muskoday.
In Manitoba, they are the Opaskwayak Cree; in Ontario, the Nipissing, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning, and the Chippewas of Georgina Island. Finally, in New Brunswick, it is the first nation of Saint Mary's.
One of the key objectives of this bill for the 14 first nations is to allow them to establish their own system for administering their land and natural resources. It will allow them to manage the land and natural resources on their reserves. Land management will no longer come under the Indian Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will therefore no longer have discretionary powers in this regard.
The bill makes provision for the 14 first nations to draw up a land code through a process of community approval. This land code will be used to resolve issues such as the use, possession and occupation of lands. Provision should also be made for the division of matrimonial property in the case of marriage breakdown.
The Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the bill's underlying principles. My colleague, the critic for native affairs, has said in the House and in committee that he supports the spirit of the bill, which gives the 14 first nations the necessary tools to control their lands and thus ensure their economic development.
This bill is therefore one more step towards greater native autonomy. This principle of autonomy is consistent, moreover, with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Bill C-49 will therefore give the 14 first nations greater control over their lands and their economy.
In fact, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has been studying the economic development of the first nations since last year. The members of the standing committee are trying to identify the obstacles to aboriginals' economic development, and there are many such obstacles, of which the worst is the Indian Act.
This legislation is paternalistic. It treats aboriginals like children and is a major impediment to their economic participation in their communities. This bill will mean that the 14 first nations can break free of the paternalistic clauses in the Indian Act and finally develop economically. The chiefs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on December 3 all spoke of this economic impact of Bill C-49 on their communities.
According to Robert Louie, head of the transitional land management commission, Bill C-49 will give first nations control over their resources and lands. They will be able to assume the responsibilities inherent in this control. It is a way of putting an end to the archaic and paternalistic attitude of the Indian Act and the federal government's power to administer their lands.
Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday first nation of British Columbia told the members of the standing committee at this same session that his community, and many others, had missed out on opportunities for economic development because of the restrictive and paternalistic nature of the Indian Act.
He spoke about an American manufacturing company that had shown an interest in locating in their community. When told of the procedure that had to be followed, obtaining the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and going through all manner of red tape, their response was that they did not have time for that; it was too slow.
At the present time, the Muskoday first nation is also seeking to develop its tourism potential in partnership with others. If there is one thing Chief Austin Bear does not want, it is to miss out again on an opportunity to do business with an interested partner because the Indian Act deprives them of control over their resources and land.
We are very much aware that aboriginal people have a different concept than us about community, land and resources. The Bloc Quebecois aboriginal affairs critic has referred to this on more than one occasion here in the House.
Chief William McCue of the Georgina Island first nation in Ontario also touched briefly on the economic issues relating to this bill when he appeared before the standing committee on aboriginal affairs on December 3.
The Georgina Island community is located on three islands in Lake Simcoe, 60 miles north of Toronto. Its main source of revenue is the rental of 500 cottages, and the leases of most of these terminate on March 31, 1999.
This represents $1 million in revenue, which is used to finance various programs, including housing and community maintenance and infrastructures. Cottage rentals are therefore a source of operating income for the community, and create and maintain a number of jobs.
Chief William McCue raised one interesting point about the economic dynamics in his community. Most of those responsible for leases and therefore the management of the cottages on Georgina Island are women.
Despite these positive aspects of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois not only had reservations, it presented amendments. The Bloc Quebecois believes the native women will not have legal protection during the transition period leading to the signing of the land code in the reserve in the case of marriage breakdown.
To better understand the sense of the Bloc Quebecois amendments, we must recall the legal context of native women. Currently, they face a legal void, because the Indian Act contains no provision for distributing matrimonial property in the event of the breakdown of marriages between native men and women.
Native women cannot claim the same rights as Canadian women, who are governed by provincial laws. This situation causes concern to associations of native women in Canada and Quebec.
I refer specifically to the British Columbia Native Women's Society, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Association des femmes auchtotones du Québec, which have made representations to the native affairs critic and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois expressing their concerns in this regard.
They convinced us to introduce amendments to protect native women legally during the transition period, the 12 months in which the land code comes into effect.
I must say that at the start of Bill C-49's parliamentary journey, the Bloc Quebecois put a lot of stock in the independent inquiry initiated by the minister of Indian affairs at first reading of Bill C-49 last June.
The purpose of this inquiry was to find solutions to the legal vacuum in which native women find themselves. But since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been dragging her feet, the inquiry has not even begun. The Bloc Quebecois had no choice but to move amendments concerning the claims of the native women of Quebec and of Canada.
An inquiry is a good way to examine the problem of the legal status of native women generally, for, in our view, the problem goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-49.
In fact, what is required is a complete overhaul of the Indian Act, an outmoded piece of legislation from the last century, which completely ignores gender dynamics on the reserves. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that this reform is necessary so that legislation such as Bill C-49 can be enacted quickly, with prejudice to no one. In this case, it is native women who are affected.
I would add, however, that this reform of the Indian Act should not take place unless there is genuine consultation with all native groups in Canada. Only then would the legislation truly reflect native concerns.
Because the inquiry into the legal status of native women is stalled, the Bloc Quebecois has moved four amendments at report stage.
These amendments are necessary because of the foot-dragging of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this issue, for which she was strongly criticized by the native affairs critic at the time the amendments were moved. All these amendments are therefore based on the provision in the bill on environmental protection.
In fact, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that there are minimal standards for the protection of aboriginal women with respect to matrimonial property in the case of marriage breakdown. This protection is based on the existing legislation in this regard, that is, provincial statutes.
The amendments, which were rejected, amended clauses 17 and 20 in order to establish the minimal protection necessary during the transition period of 12 months following the taking effect of the land code, in which the 14 first nations are asked to include general rules and procedures, and I quote:
—in cases of breakdown of marriage, respecting the use, occupation and possession of first nation land—
This was taken from clause 17.(1).
There is another clause I would like to deal with, if you will allow, Mr. Speaker. I will only need in seconds.
This is clause 7, which was based on British Columbia's family heritage legislation. We hoped it would apply until general rules had been incorporated into the land code. We are very surprised—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the member.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the NDP to speak in support of Bill C-49.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would be perfectly agreeable to doing that but the member's proposition did not set a time to it. If we could agree on say 15 or 20 minutes, of course we would agree to that on our side at least but not without a time limit, obviously.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it was the government that invoked time allocation on this legislation. It should have thought about being so generous with the time allocation before it brought in time allocation. Further, we have already dealt with this point of order and unanimous consent was refused.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, March 1, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 8, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House would be agreeable to calling it 1.30 p.m. so we could move right away to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Employment Insurance ActMadeleine Dalphond-Guiral: 
moved that Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (premiums and Employment Insurance Account) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act as regards the premium rate setting and the employment insurance account, which was tabled in this House in December 1997.
Let me first remind members of the context in which this bill was introduced, along with five other bills on employment insurance that were introduced by Bloc Quebecois members, namely the hon. members for Frontenac—Mégantic, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Québec, Repentigny, and Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Since 1990, the federal government has imposed four employment insurance reforms to fight the deficit. The federal obsession with the elimination of the deficit at any cost was prevalent under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. With each of these reforms, the government changed the rules with the obvious goals of excluding claimants, of reducing the amount of benefits, and of shortening the period during which these benefits are paid.
It can, therefore, be stated clearly and unequivocally that the deficit is being overcome at the expense of the unemployed. Even if the federal budget is balanced, moreover, the government is sticking with the same policies and showing no hesitation in o misappropriating the surplus in the fund for its own use.
Ten years ago, in 1989 before these reforms were introduced, four out of five unemployed people were entitled to benefits. A drop from 80% to 20% may well be impressive, but mostly it is disgusting, that now two out of five unemployed people draw benefits. At the same time, the government is getting its hands on the sizeable surplus in the employment insurance fund. At the moment, this surplus is estimated at close to $20 billion, and it is expected to exceed $25 billion by the end of 1999. I will come back to the matter of the surplus later on in my speech.
Bill C-299 was therefore introduced in December of 1997, in order to improve two aspects of employment insurance, the setting of contribution rates and the employment insurance account. The first clause therefore addresses the way decisions are made on premium levels. At present, it is the governor in council who does so, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development. Judging from past experience, hon. members will agree with me that this is not very reassuring.
Going back over the events of last fall, we had to keep on asking questions of the two ministers until December, before finding out what would be happening to the contribution rate in the coming year.
How is it the government has so much power to determine contribution levels, when, since 1990, it has not contributed a cent to the employment insurance fund?
The money in this fund comes entirely from workers and employers. It is absurd that they have no say in contribution levels and have no choice but to pay, without a word, but smiling all the while.
Therefore the amendment we propose to clause 1 of our bill is intended to give full powers to the Employment Insurance Commission to establish contributions. It must be said that this commission is tripartite and comprises representatives of employers, workers and the government. Initially, the commission would have the power to establish levels of contributions.
To make the process more transparent, since at the moment it is particularly obscure, Bill C-299 provides that every two years the Commission will hold at least one session to hear the observations of parties interested in making their opinions on the establishment of contribution levels known.
Within 60 days of the session, the commission must publish an opinion in at least five major francophone papers and five major anglophone papers.
This bill therefore makes the process much more transparent and much more democratic, because it will enable interested members of the public and organizations to have their observations on contribution rates heard.
This provision gives power back to those who should have it: the contributors, employees and employers. This is all the more important because the government is using the premiums as it pleases.
The premiums paid by workers are currently set at $2.55 per $100, while those paid by the employers are at $3.57. Of that $6.12, the government is spending $1.28 for purposes not related to employment insurance.
This looks a lot more like a tax on employment than an insurance in case of a loss of employment. The government is deliberately altering the basic purpose of the employment insurance fund. This type of behaviour is not acceptable in a country that prides itself on being the best in the world.
The second part of the bill seeks to separate the employment insurance account from the government operations account.
This is why clause 2 of Bill C-299 provides that:
—on September 1, in each and every, there shall be credited to the employment insurance account and charged to the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal to the amount calculated in accordance with the following formula:
A - B
Members will no doubt want to know what A and B stand for.
—where A represents all amounts paid into the consolidated revenue fund or obtained by it pursuant to this act in the preceding financial year; and
B represents the total amounts used by the consolidated revenue fund to meet its obligations under this act that have been credited to the employment insurance account in the preceding financial year.
The result of this amendment would be that, on September 1 of each year, we would know exactly where we stood with the EI fund.
Right now, even though these surpluses are close to $20 billion for 1998, they could be said to be virtual, because they are part of the consolidated revenue fund.
Amending the legislation in this manner would create a separate account for the EI fund. This surplus should obviously be used exclusively for the purpose of administering the EI regime.
What is so shocking right now is that the EI surplus is melting away like snow on a warm day, particularly when we recall the repeated assurances of the Minister of Finance that the EI surpluses were a good thing because they represented a hedge against periods of lower employment.
The discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance says and what he does is very troubling. In 1997, 64% of premiums paid into the EI fund went towards paying benefits to unemployed workers. The remaining 36%, approximately $7 billion, was used by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt and finance the federal government's forays onto provincial turf. According to the 1999 budget, the Minister of Finance will be helping himself to $5 billion from the fund.
Since 1993, employers and employees, the only contributors to this fund, have paid the government's share, have wiped out the $6 billion deficit in the fund, and have built up the surplus of $20 billion. It is clear that the government does not want to change the rules of the game one iota, because the employment insurance fund is a real milk cow for the Minister of Finance.
He has done away with the deficit with the money of the workers and employers, and has started to pay down the debt. He is also using these funds to interfere in education via the millennium scholarships, which have been criticized by Quebec, and is using it as well to interfere in the health system of Quebec and the other provinces. These costly duplications have been funded with this money.
This, then, is the context that justifies Bill C-299. The employment insurance program is based on a consensus among the population that everyone needs to be assured of a decent income when temporarily out of work. This is the very purpose of having such a program.
As we have seen, however, the Liberal government has completely altered the nature of this plan by tightening up the rules for eligibility so that a large number of people are excluded, particularly women, youth and seasonal workers.
The present government is using the fund as if it were an employment tax, as if it were deficit insurance. The employment insurance fund no longer serves workers; it is there to serve the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular.
The purpose of Bill C-299 is, therefore, to give more power to contributors as far as setting premium levels is concerned, and to differentiate between the employment insurance fund and the Treasury. These amendments would add transparency to the program.
I hope, therefore, that all parties in this House will support the bill.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-299, which was introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois.
Bill C-299 would give the Employment Insurance Commission the sole authority to determine the rate of premiums for employers and workers.
The commission would be required to hold hearings every two years as the basis for establishing the rates and it would credit any surplus of premiums over benefits to the EI account and presumably leave that money there.
This proposal is seriously flawed, however, and would not at all serve the interests of workers or the general Canadian public. Let me explain why.
First of all, a totally independent commission would be accountable only to its constituents, in this case workers and employers. As it now stands, the commission makes recommendations to the government which is accountable to all Canadians.
It is precisely because the government is accountable to all Canadians that we have taken steps to ensure that employment insurance offers unemployed Canadians more than just income support.
Under the current system, EI provides for $2.1 billion a year in active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find work.
Under the Bloc's proposed amendments to the act, there would be no assurance that such an active system would have been established or would be maintained by the proposed commission.
Further, neither Bill C-299 nor the later Bloc proposal states whether the proposed commission would be given responsibility for establishing EI benefit levels or for policy and regulation of benefits.
During a recession, increased numbers of unemployed could place greater demands on the fund, necessitating higher premium rates. This would happen at the very time when sound fiscal policy would keep premiums stable rather than raising them.
Surely only a single body responsible for both premiums and benefits and accountable to all Canadians could effectively deal with such a situation.
The fact is that the Employment Insurance Act is set up the way it is for very good reasons. The act sets out the process for determining premium rates and the existing commission is bound by that process.
The commission includes one representative for workers, one for employers and the deputy minister and associate deputy minister of Human Resources Development Canada. It sets premium rates which the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance recommend to the governor in council.
Since 1986 the EI account has been integrated with the accounts of Canada on the advice of the auditor general because it is, after all, the Government of Canada which establishes EI policy and legislation and it is the Government of Canada which makes up any deficit in the account.
Under the current system, accumulated surpluses are used temporarily by the government which credits interest to the account.
Also under the current system, premium rates are set at a level that responds to the needs of workers and employers, but they are also established with the broader perspective of the account's role as an economic stabilizer. In fact, our government has reduced premium rates in each of the past five years from $3.07 per $100 earned in 1994 to $2.55 in 1999.
Our intention is to continue to reduce rates at a gradual pace as long as economic conditions permit.
In the final analysis, the greatest flaw of Bill C-299 lies in what it does not address. The bill is largely beside the point in that it completely ignores the conditions that led up to redesigning the old unemployment insurance program in the first place.
The current employment insurance program is a response to the very different labour market we have today compared to when unemployment insurance was first introduced. Certainly we still need a sound income support program to assist people who find themselves temporarily out of work. However, nowadays we need much more than that.
Indeed, one of the objectives of the new employment insurance program is to reduce regular dependence on EI by giving people the tools they need to get back to work. In today's labour market very few people start a job straight out of high school and keep at it for a lifetime. They now change jobs quite often. Many work short term or on contract. Many are self-employed. Many young people juggle several part time or short term jobs to gain experience and the skills they need to get a job. Many people need different types of help: people with disabilities, young people trying to get their first job, aboriginal people and others trying to adjust to changing working conditions.
Giving people a little income support while keeping them on the economic sidelines will never make a real improvement in their lives. What we have to do is give them the tools they need to get and keep good jobs. That is the purpose of part II of the employment insurance regime, an array of active measures beyond mere income support. Those measures fit into a much broader plan of action.
As I mentioned earlier, through the EI system Canadians invest $2.1 billion a year in active measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find employment, be it through wage subsidies, job partnerships, self-employment assistance or earning supplements. Every year hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians benefit from these measures paid through the EI account to get the experience they need to get good jobs. Furthermore, much of these measures are delivered by the provinces and territories in an effort to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of Canadians wherever they live and work.
These are the ways in which we can really help the unemployed, ways that work and can address the problems of the unemployed. But it is unclear if such efforts could be maintained through the EI account if parliament adopted the legislation proposed by the hon. member across the way.
So far the new system seems to be working as it should. It is too soon to tell if further amendments to the EI program are required.
For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, the House should oppose the bill proposed by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to my colleague's bill, a private member's bill, brought forward not from the government or a government department, but from a member of the House. As such, I have great respect for members who take advantage and work within this very important opportunity that we as members of parliament have.
I find myself very impressed by the fact that this bill was drafted and entered into the system in 1997. That was before the true magnitude of the concern regarding how government was misusing the EI surplus became a strong issue. This member was very far-sighted. She looked ahead and saw a real issue before a number of other people did and I congratulate her for that.
What she is attempting to do in this bill is, first, to get government hands off the EI money and, second, to separate this money to make it more accountable and transparent in the way it is handled by crediting moneys collected under the Employment Insurance Act to an employment insurance account.
The first point concerns the employment insurance commission setting premium rates and generally having a more independent role in the management of this fund. The government member who just spoke said that this should not be handled by a commission accountable to workers and employees, but by the government which is accountable to all Canadians. Sitting in opposition, I see a woeful lack of accountability on the part of this government to Canadians, so I would oppose his arguments.
One of the concerns that workers and employees have is that the commission is not really accountable to them. It is a body that is not chosen from workers and employees. It has a very strong government influence. The strong hand of government is very evident in the workings of the commission. Far from this commission being accountable to workers and employees, in my opinion it needs to be strengthened in that direction.
If the member wishes to pursue this issue in another bill, since this one is not votable, I would suggest that strengthening the accountability of the commission to the people whose money is involved and who this program is supposed to serve would be important.
I would remind government members that this is supposed to be unemployment insurance. If it is really insurance, surely the insured, the people who pay the premiums and have to live or die with the benefits, should have a say about how their program program that they pay for and which they rely on in times of unemployment should be structured.
For the cabinet to use this program for its own political purposes is not appropriate. It is definitely not appropriate for the government to use the premiums of this insurance program for its own purposes, its own slush fund or pot of money to do with it as it will. That is the second part of the member's bill. It attempts to separate the moneys paid into the employment insurance account from the general revenue of the government. I think even the member would acknowledge that this provision in her bill is not as strong as she would like to see it. I would certainly like to see a stronger provision.
Although it talks about moneys being credited to the employment insurance account, it does not specify explicitly that this account would be separate from the general revenue fund and that government could not spend money from the fund on other purposes. Clarification and strengthening of that provision in light of the government's insistence and anxiety to use these moneys for other purposes would be necessary.
The government speaker talked about the fact that there had been reductions to EI premiums. I would point out that these are minuscule reductions. We have had debates on this before in the House. I do not need to belabour the point.
The chief actuary of the fund says that premiums could be reduced by fully a third and still leave a very prudent, even a very generous surplus in the fund against a time when for some reason there may be more withdrawals from the fund than there presently are. The fund's own actuary is saying that the reductions the government has made are minuscule, that they do not really get the fund to a reasonable level. Of course the government is using the enormous overpayment from Canadian workers for other purposes, and particularly to make itself look good on the deficit side. It is a kind of borrowing from an insurance fund of Canadians for other purposes. That is not the way this fund should be run.
The member also talked about skills training. Most members in the House if not all would agree that with our changing technology and our changing economic circumstances and the information boom in recent years, training and retraining are very important components of workplace effectiveness. These are things that Canadian workers need. There has not been an adequate debate about the extent to which the insurance fund, the insurance against unemployment, should be a legitimate funder of those programs.
I would be interested if the member proposing this bill is so inclined, to hear how she feels the fund should be used in this regard. How would workers and employers themselves feel about not only paying for some of this training and retraining but then having those programs overseen by government?
I am sure the member has had people come to her office, as have I, workers who have taken training or retraining programs under the EI system which are administered and run by government. They are very disappointed in many cases. Some programs give virtually no skills at all. Even though workers diligently perform everything that has been asked of them, they go back into the workforce and find that they have not received any substantial training or benefit, or the training has been for jobs that do not exist. If there is going to be a retraining effort for workers, it should be directed much more by what they themselves feel they need and what the labour force is looking for.
This is a very worthwhile effort on the part of the member. It is a bill which we all know is needed and which is moving in the right direction. I applaud the member and support her efforts wholeheartedly.
Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-299 presented by the Bloc Quebecois member for Laval Centre.
Bill C-299 proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act in two ways. First, it proposes that the Employment Insurance Commission set the UI premium rates. Second, Bill C-299 would create a separate UI account to ensure the unemployment insurance fund is used to help unemployed workers.
One might ask why these measures are necessary. We would think that the unemployment insurance premiums we all pay are used exclusively to help unemployed workers while they are looking for a job. Unfortunately this is not exactly the case.
For the last five years the unemployment insurance fund has been collecting huge surpluses. That is not necessarily a bad thing, if the money was being spent to help the unemployed. Unfortunately these surpluses have been used by the Liberal government as a slush fund to eliminate the deficit on the backs of the unemployed.
That is why Bill C-299 is important. By having the Employment Insurance Commission set the UI premium rates, we are guaranteeing that political motivations do not become a factor in setting the premium rates.
The NDP would go even further and create an independent UI commission. We recommend that this commission be comprised of one workers representative, one employers representative and a president who would be chosen following consultations with the representatives of workers and employers. The commission should also be comprised of five part time worker commissioners and five part time employer commissioners. It should be gender balanced and reflect the regional diversity of the country.
Having the commission set premiums and creating an independent UI commission are important steps in guaranteeing the integrity of the UI program.
Bill C-299 also proposes the creation of a separate UI account. This addresses the concerns of many Canadians who refuse to accept that the UI fund has become a slush fund for the Liberal government. Unemployment insurance is a trust fund, not a slush fund.
I would like to take this opportunity to read a few comments of working Canadians who oppose the use of the UI surplus for purposes of other than helping Canada's unemployed. These comments were gathered by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who visited 20 cities from coast to coast to coast listening to what Canadians have to say about the changes in the unemployment insurance system and the theft of the UI fund by this government.
A worker from the Acadian Peninsula had this to say about the government's dependence on the UI fund: “The government is wrong when it says that workers become dependent on unemployment insurance. It is rather the Minister of Finance who is dependent on the unemployment insurance fund, because without it, the deficit would still be there, and his budget would show a deficit, not a surplus”.
The government has justified its changes to unemployment insurance by stating that it wants to prevent dependence. It has failed. This government has become so dependent on the UI surplus that it could not have balanced the budget without it. For all of the Minister of Finance's boasting of having balanced the budget, he forgets to mention that were it not for Canadian workers and employers, we would have no budgetary surplus.
Gary White had a very good question when he attended an event during the NDP's UI tour. Mr. White said “If someone steals from a store and gets caught, they are arrested and have a criminal record. How is it that this government can steal the money from the workers' premiums without being investigated?”
I believe this is an excellent question. How can this government take the money of workers and employers out of the UI fund? Since this government clearly has no qualms about balancing the budget on the backs of the unemployed, we need to create a separate UI fund to stop this nonsense.
Currently only 32% of unemployed workers qualify for UI benefits. Over 800,000 unemployed Canadians who have paid into the UI system are unable to get benefits. Meanwhile there is a $20 billion surplus in the UI account.
This insanity has to stop. This government is hurting unemployed Canadians and the small and medium size businesses that they are no longer able to support.
Women have also been hard hit by the government UI cuts. Fewer women qualify for maternity benefits. Only 11% of women under 25 who lose their jobs qualify for benefits. Eleven percent. Why is that? Where is the equity in that?
This government's changes in UI are hurting women, as well as young people, as well as seasonal workers. The government's changes in UI are hurting entire communities.
My riding of Dartmouth, for example, has lost $20 million a year in UI benefit payments. Nova Scotia has lost $716 million between 1993 and 1997. That is a lot of money taken out of our economy, taken out of small and medium size businesses and taken out of unemployed workers' pockets.
The unemployment insurance program needs to be reformed to respond to the realities of the current labour market. Bill C-299 is a first step in ensuring that the unemployment insurance fund addresses the preoccupation of Canadian workers.
I strongly urge members of this House to support this very important initiative put forward by the member for Laval Centre.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-299.
Payroll taxes are one of the most significant impediments to job growth in Canada. By directly increasing the cost of labour, we ultimately decrease the demand for labour. That is one of the reasons Canada's unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high.
This government has stubbornly clung to unrealistically high EI premiums in order to pay down the deficit. While we laud the efforts to pay down the deficit, effectively the government through its policies, by paying down the deficit, by raising and maintaining unnecessarily high taxes and at the same time cutting spending on programs like the EI, has put the government in the black and perversely Canadians in the red.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: You cannot pay down the deficit.
Scott Brison: An hon. member from the Reform Party is saying that the government has not paid down the deficit. Perhaps as a member of the House of Commons finance committee he should consider that there is a difference between deficit and debt. I think the member means the government has not paid down the debt. The member does not understand the difference between deficit and debt, but that is all right. I guess one does not have to understand economics to be in the House of Commons or on the finance committee.
The employment insurance issue is fundamental for a number of reasons. First, labour market flexibility is extraordinarily important in the new economy. I commend the hon. member for this piece of legislation. It has the potential by creating a new independent commission to set rates separate from politics and separate from the finance minister and the government in power. Labour and management in small business can set rates which best reflect the realities of the market in a particular area of the country at a particular time. That is very important.
Labour market flexibility depends largely on employment insurance programs and training. One of the failures of the government in terms of the slashing of EI benefits has been its complete abdication of responsibility for training. There has been an offloading to the provinces in the area of training.
It is fundamentally wrong that in order to qualify for training someone actually has to be on employment insurance and in order to get employment insurance has to be laid off. Many small and medium size companies across the country would like to have their employees participate in training but currently they do not benefit from it. The training components are failing on a national level and the cuts to EI have been a significant part of that.
The commission should have the ability to determine both the premiums rates and the nature of programs. I feel an autonomous commission could better determine how premiums could be spent through the programs.
One of the shifts I would like to see in EI is from almost pure income support to a focus on training. We could develop a mandate that recognizes the importance not just of income support but also of training such that people are able to access the levers of the new economy and of an economy that will be changing at an ever-increasing pace in the future.
The issue of seasonal work is another issue the government has largely ignored. It has punished Canadians who are involved in seasonal work. Many sectors in Atlantic Canada, including agriculture, the fisheries and small business, have over a period of years developed along the lines of seasonal employment. The government cut EI premiums, particularly challenging those involved in seasonal employment, without providing any structural alternative to those programs for those people.
Seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada were hit extraordinarily hard. I heard the hon. member for Dartmouth say earlier that there was a $716 million loss to Nova Scotians. I would posit that loss was largely felt by those involved in seasonal employment: people working for farms in the Annapolis Valley, people working in the fisheries, people working for small business. Small businesses, farms, fish processors and other employees bore the brunt of those cuts.
Did the government create a new agency or co-ordinating body to help co-ordinate seasonal work such that seasonal workers like people involved in agriculture in the summer could potentially participate in forestry work in the winter? No, it did not do anything. It effectively cut the money but did not replace it with vision or with a commitment to new and visionary programs and better government. Instead it reduced the size of government.
It is not all about the size of government. Sometimes we have to talk about the role of government and the effectiveness of government. One of the areas in which the government could have played a more active role and could still play a more active role in is the creation of a pilot program in Atlantic Canada aimed at creating an agency that effectively co-ordinates seasonal workers so that those employed in such sectors as agriculture in the summer could have an opportunity to participate in other types of seasonal work like the forestry in the winter.
It would be able to effectively take those people who have been treated shoddily by the draconian cuts to the program and provide them with a sense of hope and a sense of opportunity by helping them focus their efforts on participating in the economy.
There are people with mortgages in my constituency who are trying to raise families, in many cases two or three children. They have effectively seen their incomes halved by the changes the government made to EI. They are struggling with $6,000 or $7,000 per year or less. That is a reality. That exists in many areas of Canada, not just in inner cities but in poor rural communities. It is a significant challenge.
We as a party have a fundamental belief in the free market economy, but a free market economy is not sustainable unless all members of society have access to the levers of that economy and equality of opportunity. If the EI program were properly structured, it could help provide access to those levers.
The creation of a separate commission would be a great step forward. Ultimately the decision making powers would be with those people affected most by the EI fund. We would assert that the employers and the employees are the correct proprietors of that fund. It would deny governments of any political stripe the opportunity to use the fund for politically motivated purposes.
At a time when there will be change in the workplace and change in the economy it would provide, for instance, opportunities for the EI fund to be focused on new and exciting areas, including providing Canadians with an opportunity to train and retrain throughout their lives. Those are the types of changes that are necessary.
I am not confident the government will make those types of changes. As long as it keeps EI premiums unnecessarily and offensively high and reduces benefits significantly without replacing them with any type of vision for the future, I do not think the government will ever engage in creative policy development focused on achieving the full potential of the EI program.
I would hope all members of the House consider the legislation very carefully and its potential in the long term. The government has taken $19 billion from the EI fund over the past several years to pad its own books. The past is the past. It is hard to change that now, but we do have an opportunity where we are emerging into a post-deficit situation where we can focus on doing the right thing.
Bill C-299 would be one of the first steps toward making the right decisions in the future to ensure that all Canadians and employers and employees benefit from the good public policy that we developed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The member from the PC Party chided me for not knowing the difference between debt and deficit. It is my contention that he is the one who does not understand. He and members on the Liberal side frequently talk about paying off the deficit.
By definition it cannot be done. The deficit is an amount that one borrows. The best one can do is to reduce the amount of borrowing or to stop borrowing. One cannot pay off a deficit since it is intangible. It is simply the amount borrowed.
I objected to the use of the terminology because many people do not understand it. It confuses them into thinking that we are paying off or have paid off the debt which still stands at close to $600 billion. I just wanted to correct that point.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, these five minutes are very important to me.
First, I want to express my gratitude that all the parties in this House considered it worthwhile to intervene on Bill C-299. The people who had the time to watch us on television saw very clearly where the heart of this House lies.
When I face you, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it lies to the right in this House.
I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill who recognized my perception. I would like to say to her, and to all the members sharing this emotion—and most of them are on this side, although I am sure there are some on the other side too—that it was not hard to be perceptive. Everyone knows that the past often foretells the future.
I heard my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia praise the absolutely extraordinary reductions in contributions. I would remind him that these reductions boasted about by the Minister of Finance and so extraordinarily praised by him, came nowhere near to satisfying employers and workers. They did not satisfy the auditor general any more. They were not enough.
That money could have been given back to workers and employers to be reinvested in businesses because, as we know, they need these funds in the context of globalization. However, that was not done.
Everyone agrees that the poor were totally ignored in the last federal budget. The government ignored the unemployed and the needy. Yesterday, I was sitting on our committee and the Minister of Human Resources Development came to testify. He had no choice but to recognize there was nothing in that budget for handicapped children. Where is the compassion? Where is the heart? I wonder.
Right now, unemployment is going down somewhat in Canada. This is great, but that trend does not at all reflect the surge in the economy. This has been the case for several years. The economy is doing well, but the unemployment rate has not come down as much as it should have.
Unemployment is on the decrease and the poor are still with us, and in some cases their poverty is the direct result of EI cuts. While 80% of unemployed workers used to qualify for benefits, now only 40% do. One might well wonder what became of the other 40%.
Were they coddled for all these years? Did they receive government handouts? I do not think so.
My riding could be described as relatively well off, but even it has its young people who have no jobs, or who manage to find only insignificant jobs that will never give them the required number of hours. It is high time this government gave a signal to the Canadian public.
I will give it an opportunity. Despite my years, I am still a bit naïve. I will give it an opportunity. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill C-299 votable. We must show compassion as well as reason.
I therefore call for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Laval Centre has requested unanimous consent of the House to have her bill made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 2.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)