Stephen Owen

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising the issue specifically of the great city of Vancouver. I have the honour to represent the constituency of Vancouver Quadra.

The Vancouver agreement is a process agreement which the whole country is looking at in terms of urban development and the quality of life in our urban centres. This brings together, concentrating on the urban agenda, the federal and provincial governments, as well as municipal governments. It allows them to integrate the services across their own departments and then co-ordinate them among the three levels of government. This is critical because urban issues are issues of broad governance that effect and demand a response from every level of government.

The Vancouver agreement specifically deals in its first few years of a five year program with the very critical issues of the downtown east side of Vancouver. There are health issues, drug dependency issues and personal safety issues. There is a need for a economic development and a great need to stop homelessness. Our colleague, the Minister of Labour, has led the way in dealing with homelessness in cities.

I will finish my answer by slightly correcting my hon. friend. There was a national urban strategy in the 1970s under a previous Liberal government. There was a minister of state for urban affairs and a deputy minister, Peter Oberlander. He is the urban savant I suppose and central leading urbanist of this country. He has dedicated his time to working with the Government of Canada and other levels of government to develop the world urban forum in 2006 in Vancouver. This will commemorate the 30th anniversary of Habitat, which was held in Vancouver in 1976 and which initiated and developed the UN Commission for Human Settlements. We will continue on with that in 2006 in Vancouver.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth.

The Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions and many other members on this side of the House have talked about the importance of this budget. Let me reinforce their arguments by saying that the reason that we have such a successful, balanced, strong budget from the government is because of the extraordinary strength of the Canadian economy. This is not just coming from members on this side of the House. Our extraordinary strength has been identified by the IMF and the WTO. PricewaterhouseCoopers has identified the high level of foreign equity investment in Canada. KPMG in terms of low business costs in Canada. The growth of our economy is noted as the highest of the G-7. Taxes are continuing to lower, and more lowering of taxes was announced in this budget on top of the $100 billion tax reductions announced in the 2000 budget.

Canada has a strong and growing economy with surplus after surplus, ending up in paying down the debt to GDP ratio from 71% to below 45%, almost a 50% reduction. These are strong fundamentals which have allowed us to present the strong budget we have for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let me briefly speak to a few specific aspects of the budget that are particularly important to my responsibilities in Western Economic Diversification and Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

With respect to Western Economic Diversification, this budget and the strength of our economy has allowed the Western Economic Diversification budget to be stabilized over the next four years. This will allow me as minister to enter into western economic partnership agreements with each of the four western provinces whose premiers have all indicated their desire to enter into these multi-year agreements for the economic diversification and development of the western economy, as well as urban development agreements and northern provincial development agreements. This stabilization over four years gives us all the chance to plan together, to work among levels of government, to identify together interests of common objectives which is economic diversification of the west.

I would like to speak about the close to $3 billion, with other sustainable development initiatives, dedicated to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. When we look back at this ratification late last year from 10 years out, we may see this as the most important public policy decision of perhaps the last 30 years, since the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an extraordinary act of leadership by Canada, and it is leadership in a number of different areas: as a moral ground first and most important. We are talking about the rights and the quality of life situation of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. We are also talking about the impact of climate change being felt most severely by the most impoverished people in the world, and that too is a moral issue.

It is also a scientific issue. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from scientists around the world is that the climate change consequences are severe. They are based on human action they will give severe costs to economies around the world.

Therefore it is an economic issue. It is an economic issue because the major climate change events, the unforeseen and catastrophic, in some cases, weather events cost all of us through increased insurance premiums. It is also an economic event because if we can reduce our consumption of energy and develop environmental technologies to decrease energy consumption, we will lower the costs of our industries and be more competitive. We will also be able to export these environmental technologies to the rest of the world as countries develop the same standards that we are developing and look to us to provide the technologies to do so.

It is also a health issue. The carbon pollution which causes climate change also relates to other types of air pollution and causes respiratory health problems. We must address those. Most important, it is a leadership moral issue and we are in a position to lead the world on this.

With respect to the cities in the budget, we have heard some complaints from mayors across the country that this does not given them enough money for their agenda. In fact it does a great deal for the urban areas of this country. These are not federal issues of municipal affairs, those are for the cities and the provinces. This is a national urban agenda.

Eighty per cent plus of our population lives in cities. The $3 billion on top of the already committed $5 billion over the last successive infrastructure programs is available to cities in concert with provinces and the federal government to build infrastructures, which will relate and improve the lives of people living in cities. Of course 80% of Canadians who live in cities will benefit from the $35 billion in additional expenditures on health care. People live in cities, people get sick and that is where that money will be predominantly spent.

Universities and research centres exist in cities. We have more than $1 billion of increases to the granting councils, to the Canadian Foundation For Innovation for graduate scholarships and for research and development which will to assist cities. Universities and research centres are engines of growth in our cities.

Also children live in our cities. For children who live in poverty, we have $965 million in additional spending in the budget to double the child tax benefit for those families with children living in poverty. We are also adding $935 million to early childhood development and child care facilities over five years.

These Canadians live in cities and will benefit, as does the urban agenda nationally, from these spending initiatives, and there are many more.

While I am speaking on cities, I would like to speak to an extremely important event that will come forward in 2006, and that is the world urban forum which will be held in Vancouver. That forum will bring together international NGOs, country representatives, people from major cities in the developing and developed world. They will display in Vancouver the best practices, everything from urban agriculture in developing country cities, to high tech and public transit in developed countries, to green space planning to density consideration. These are all things that will improve the lives of the 80% of people who live in cities and by reflection, outwards to all Canadians.

I would like to speak for a moment about the aboriginal side of my ministerial responsibilities. More than $2.2 billion is identified in the budget to assist and improve the quality of life of aboriginal people, which I know is the objective of all of us in the House and Canadians across the country. Of that amount, $1.3 billion is to provide better health care for aboriginal people and $600 million on top of the $225 million a year will be spent on water and sewage systems in aboriginal communities.

However an especially important part to me is the $72 million over the next two years which will be directed specifically to helping to improve the educational outcomes of aboriginal children in their school systems, on reserve or off reserve. This is on top of the $1.3 billion that is spent every year on post-secondary, secondary and elementary education for first nations students. This is extremely important. A national working group of 15 aboriginal professional educators are advising the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and myself and will be working with the provinces and the first nations leadership to improve these educational outcomes.

We all appreciate that when we get right down to it, a sound education for all children is the basis of a high quality of life and will continue to be the basis of a strong and growing economy.

[Carrie's Guardian Angel Law, February 3rd, 2003]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Carrie's Guardian Angel Law, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation is a key step among the legislative initiatives we are taking to clear the way for first nations to play a fuller part in the life of this country. We must move to bring closure to the climate of adversarial litigious debate that has marked the negotiation of land claims for far too long. We must settle the existing inventory of outstanding claims and establish a process that is more independent, impartial and transparent.

The proposed specific claims resolution act would establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. For ease of reference, I will refer to it is as the claims resolution centre.

The claims resolution centre focus is straightforward: negotiation, instead of litigation. The feedback we have had to date shows that we are on the right track to bring certainty to the process of specific claims settlement and bring closure to these historic grievances.

We have before us an amendment calling for the minister to report on the review of the claims resolution centre, which clause 76 of the proposed legislation requires to be completed after three to five years, to be reviewed by the standing committee. However, upon examination of this proposed amendment, a few concerns come to light.

One concern is that the amendment only references the standing committee of the House of Commons, whereas it would be more appropriate to refer the report to the standing committees of both Houses.

A second concern is that the proposed amendment specifically names the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. In light of the fact that committees at times are restructured or renamed and can have changing responsibilities, it would be prudent to refer the report to the “appropriate committee” of each House. In this way future problems can be avoided should the standing committee be renamed or reconstituted.

As a result of the foregoing, I am please to propose an altered version of the earlier amendment which would go beyond that currently before us. The version I am proposing would first, shift the placement of the amendment to subclause (3) of clause 76 instead of subclause (2); second, require that the report be sent to the appropriate standing committees of both Houses; and three, use a generic reference to the appropriate committee of each House to prevent technical problems in the future.

As a result the amendment would change subclause (3) of clause 76 to read as follows:

The Minister shall submit to each House of Parliament a copy of the report on any of the first 90 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister signs the report, and each House shall refer the report to the appropriate committee of that House.

By including the reference “the appropriate committee” of both Houses, a better opportunity is provided for the examination of the report, Allowing for a broad examination of the report will signal the government's desire to have a truly independent claims resolution centre.

In introducing this legislation, our government is fulfilling a pledge. This is truly a win-win for first nations and Canada. Together it benefits all Canadians.

The effectiveness of this proposed legislation would also take us a step closer to resolving historic grievances involving land claims disputes between first nations and the Government of Canada.

With this proposed legislation we are in addition helping to fulfill the vision of Canada's aboriginal action plan which we put in place in response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That vision sees increased quality of life for aboriginal people and the promotion of self-sufficiency through partnership revenue generation, responsiveness to community needs and values, and a place for aboriginal people with other Canadians. In order for that to occur, we need this legislation to deal with claims in a fair and efficient manner, to resolve historic grievances, to remove economic development roadblocks and promote self-sufficiency of aboriginal peoples in a new climate of partnership.

[Auto Industry, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada supports industries across this country through strong research and development infrastructure, and creating a regulatory environment that is friendly to business.

KPMG last year reported that Canada, among the countries of the European Union, North America and Japan, had the lowest business costs in the world for developed countries, 14% on average below the costs in the United States. We have the conditions with lowering taxes, with highly skilled labour, and with low and stable interest rates--

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on second reading of Bill C-19, the first nations statistical and management act. I am pleased to be bringing such an important bill before the House at this time.

The proposed legislation is first nations initiated. Its development has been first nations led and the institutions it would create would be first nations controlled. At the same time, Bill C-19 is fully consistent with the government's Speech from the Throne commitments.

I believe hon. members on both sides of the House would agree we all want to improve the quality of life in first nations communities. Some progress has been made over the past 20 years, but we need to do much more and we need to do it now.

This drives all of the decisions and actions of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The status quo is not acceptable.

Whether we are talking about education, or economic development, about land claims, or governance, about housing, or social programs, we believe that improving the quality of life for first nations people must be a guiding principle for all that we do.

This principle is supported by the Prime Minister and hon. members on this side of the House. Aboriginal issues are at the forefront of our policy agenda, and we are committed to real and concrete change.

The fact of the matter is that the government is proposing fundamental changes in the relationship between Canada and first nations, changes that would help level the playing field for first nations governments and encourage investment in first nations communities.

We believe that in the long term addressing the concerns of first nations is not just a matter of money, but of greater control by first nations people over their own lives and their own communities.

Bill C-19 fits well with this approach. We have taken a number of steps over the past year to begin removing barriers to first nations economic progress, self-reliance and self-government so that first nations can play their full part in the life of this country.

For example, we have opened up the First Nations Land Management Act, designed so that first nations could opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act. We are taking steps to make that possible for a larger number of first nations across the country.

First nations want greater freedom to manage their lands, natural resources and revenues in ways that work best for them. We agree that this is an important and necessary step toward self-government.

First nations need to be able to control their lands to attract investment, break the cycle of poverty, create hope and build better lives in stronger communities.

In addition, the government reinstated the proposed specific claims resolution act in the House in October. The current process for resolving specific claims tends to be adversarial, time consuming, costly and seen to favour government.

We need to replace it with one that is more efficient and more fair. Toward this end, the proposed specific claims resolution act would establish a new independent claims centre that would have two components, a commission to facilitate negotiations and a tribunal to resolve disputes. This would help us to avoid litigation, resolve claims and historic grievances more quickly, and remove an enormous barrier to economic development.

Also, in October the government reinstated the proposed first nations governance act, which would enable first nations to access the fundamental governance tools needed to pursue economic development and create healthy communities.

By restoring first nations decision-making authority and encouraging the development of first nations designed governance codes, the first nations governance act would shorten the distance to our ultimate goal and the goal of first nations, self government.

By strengthening the accountability of first nations governments it would improve conditions for economic and social development.

These three initiatives are building blocks for our new relationship with first nations people. The fourth pillar of Canada's strategy to work with first nations toward self-government and economic self-sufficiency is the legislation before us today, Bill C-19.

Under the Indian Act first nations communities were denied the powers that other governments in Canada take for granted, powers that help to build businesses, roads, water systems and communities. This bill would restore those powers.

Rather than wait for government, first nations leaders took it upon themselves to address these gaps in fiscal powers and institutional support. They have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to developing this initiative.

Many months ago they turned to our government for support in establishing their legal foundation. This is particularly important as first nations seek to attract investors and business development.

This is the purpose of Bill C-19. The government recognizes the merits and importance of the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act. We have worked with first nations to formalize their proposals and now we are fulfilling our part by introducing the legislation to support their implementation.

I would like to quickly review the key elements of this proposed legislation. Once hon. members examine the goals and objectives of Bill C-19, I am confident that first nations and the government will receive their full support.

As a first step, the real property taxation powers of first nations will be removed from section 83 of the Indian Act and the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act, Bill C-19, will define these powers in much more detail than does the Indian Act.

It also features provisions for property assessment, rate setting and budget based expenditure systems that continue first nations provincial property tax harmony while reconciling the interests of first nation governments and those of their taxpayers.

Bill C-19 also provides for the evolution of the existing Indian taxation advisory board into the first nations tax commission. This body will assume what is currently part of the minister's role in approving the growing number of real property tax bylaws being developed by first nations across Canada.

Under Bill C-19 local ratepayers would be assured of a much larger role in policy development and an improved system for hearing appeals and resolving disputes than is currently the case.

This proposed legislation will also clarify certain borrowing powers of first nations and create a first nations finance authority. Through the work of this institution, first nations, like other local governments in Canada, will have access to bond markets to raise long term private capital to finance the construction of roads, sewers, water and other types of infrastructure.

I am pleased to advise hon. members that this first nations finance authority was originally modelled on the municipal finance authority of British Columbia, which has for 30 years had experience and a triple-A credit rating. The proposal has been endorsed by major bond underwriters and credit raters and is expected to raise $120 million in private capital over its first five years of operation.

The third fiscal institution that will be created by Bill C-19 is the first nations financial management board. Its role will be to enhance the financial management capacity of first nations by establishing financial standards, promoting capacity development and ensuring that the rigorous systems and assessment services are in place necessary to maintain the confidence of markets.

We are confident that many first nations, particularly the 90 or so that already have taxation systems in place, will be quick to opt into the borrowing regime and other services. Others may take more time and still others may decline this opportunity outright as participation in this new initiative will be completely optional.

Finally, Bill C-19 would provide for the establishment of the first nations statistical institute to fill the gap in reliable data and well-targeted analysis on first nations populations, economic growth and other matters. Good quality information is needed to support first nations decision making both at the national and local level.

Toward this end the statistical institute will work with first nations, federal departments, Statistics Canada and provincial statistical agencies to help first nations meet their information needs while at the same time building the shared data required to support effective first nations-Canada development activities.

As the House can see, each of these institutions, the tax commission, the finance authority, the financial management board and the first nations statistical institute, has a unique, independent and professional role. Together these institutions will provide the right tools needed to foster a business friendly environment, investor confidence, economic growth and sound governance.

The proposed Bill C-19 will help bring participating first nations into the economic mainstream by giving them the practical tools already used by other governments. It will help to ensure that first nation real property tax, financing, financial management and statistical systems are harmonized with those of other governments. It will provide better representation and more certainty for on-reserve ratepayers and a better return to the community as a whole from the tax dollars raised.

In the longer term the institutions that will be created by Bill C-19 will become the backbone for a first nations public service. Certainly they will support the practical work that needs to be done and assist first nations with a new way of doing business.

As I noted at the outset, the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act is a first nations solution. It was developed through the national table on fiscal relations, a body established three years ago as a consultative forum between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada. Our government has worked closely with first nations leaders in drafting Bill C-19. We have also shared the proposed legislation with first nations communities across Canada over the past few months and their feedback has helped strengthen the bill.

I am confident Bill C-19 will have the support of many first nations leaders and communities in Canada. Likewise, provinces have expressed the view that it opens the door for more co-operative efforts at the local and regional levels. Key players in Canada's financial markets, like the Royal Bank of Canada, Dominion Bond Rating Service and Moody's Investor Service, have also provided valuable input on the structure and operation of these institutions.

The proposed legislation responds in part to the Speech from the Throne commitment to work with aboriginal people to strengthen their business expertise, administrative practices and infrastructure.

I want to conclude my remarks with this thought. Economic development is the road ahead. This is the path that must be travelled by first nations to improve their quality of life. Many first nations have begun this journey but have encountered obstacles. We can help them to remove them. In order to seize control of their own economic future, first nations do not need to have their hands held but they cannot succeed with their hands tied.

These initiatives in the area of fiscal management are aimed at untying those hands. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind and I know that this will help them realize that Bill C-19 deserves their support.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully and with interest to the statements by my colleague opposite on the Kyoto accord.

I would like to ask him a very specific question. How does he possibly think Canada will succeed economically if we do not develop the environmental technologies to meet the ever increasing standards that we all realize around the world need to be met for our health and to reduce energy consumption and therefore energy costs?

For the last 10 years California has been increasingly raising its emission standards and building the environmental technologies to meet its own standards, which it then will sell to the rest of the world. However, as we move into the future and try to meet California's standards we will have to buy its technology. When we raised our pulp emission standards in the early 1990s we bought Scandinavian equipment because we did not have the technology ourselves. We did the same thing with the Japanese automobile industry in the 1970s and 1980s when the first oil crisis occurred.

How on earth does the member think we will become a competitive trading country into the future if we are going to be totally dependent on foreign technologies, largely American?

The member talks about Kyoto not being accepted and ratified by the United States. The American states are raising their environmental standards and developing the technology to meet them, which we will then have to buy from them.

Let us look to the future and not just look to the past in terms of this very backward thinking.

[Western Economic Diversification, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Western Economic Diversification complements the work of Industry Canada on the ground in western Canada in implementing Canada's national industrial strategy of diversification and innovation. Western Economic Diversification is a catalyst for collaboration and leverage financing together with other governments, small start up firms, universities, research institutes and large established enterprise.

Innovation drives the new economy--

[Kyoto Protocol, November 26th, 2002]

Two.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the presentation by my hon. colleague, which of course draws on his long and distinguished experience in the House. There are ideas and observations which we should very carefully consider.

I would like to make an observation with respect to electoral reform. The Law Commission of Canada has currently undertaken a research project on electoral reform, with high levels of public participation. That will be of great assistance to us as it plays out over the next few months.

In my province of British Columbia a citizens' congress is being created to look into electoral reform in that province. It seems to me that coming from a provincial base, perhaps many other provinces might look at and try out different models. It would be very instructive to us over time in the federal Parliament to consider what might be tested and deemed broad public acceptance at the provincial level which can be enacted without any constitutional complexity.

I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague with respect to committees developing and introducing legislation. The theory of the development of legislation through the government--one would hope through broad caucus debate and then cabinet determination and executive drafting is quite different from hon. members in the opposition or members in the news media or people who are advocates for a particular interest group. Government has to bring some cohesion to governance. Different issues have to be traded off.

I wonder, if we developed legislation through committees, experts as they are in their fields, whether they would have the breadth and scope to bring coherence to that legislation as it must balance against other legislative demands and responsibilities.