Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

Yukon Surface Rights Board Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my speech will be short if not particularly sweet for those across.

As has been mentioned many times already, Bill C-55 is a continuation of Bills C-33 and C-34. This places the Reform Party and myself in somewhat of an awkward position. Any support we may give at some point on Bill C-55 should most certainly not be interpreted as support for the previous ill-conceived legislation.

During his initial presentation of Bill C-55, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that just before the summer recess we dealt with the legislation of Bills C-33 and C-34. That is false. We did not do that. What happened just before the summer recess was that the Liberals invoked closure, the very thing that when they sat on this side of the House they said was such a contemptible thing. It is interesting how their perspective changes as they walk across the floor. I sincerely hope it will not change our perspective when we walk across the floor three years from now.

The legislation contained in Bills C-33 and C-34 is absolutely incredible. They place us in the position we are now when dealing with land in the Yukon. If land settlements were made with all aboriginal people in Canada on the basis of the settlement made in Bill C-33, we would be looking at a land settlement area four times the size of my province of British Columbia. I believe that is absolutely unacceptable to virtually everyone.

On the matter of the intent of Bill C-55, I would first have to state that I support the slogan of the mining industry which is: keep mining in Canada. Certainly we would want to have some settlement of land disputes in the Yukon and we would like to see this move through the House quickly. However there are many flaws in Bill C-55 which must be corrected before it can proceed.

The government talks of consultation. It even lists in its presentation the consultation that supposedly took place in the preparation of Bill C-55. This is another of the Liberals' sleight of hands or flimflams. When one says they have consulted or have provided a list of people they have consulted someone looking at that document says: "This is good. Here are all the people they have consulted with. I guess if they have used what these people have told them and come up with this, it must be okay".

There is absolutely nothing in the process of consultation especially with the Liberals that says they have listened to anything they have received as a result of these consultations. The very fact they have gone out and spoken with some people means absolutely nothing.

Recently, after coming in from a rally on these very grounds of people concerned about the impending firearms legislation the justice minister said that this government will not base its legislation on head count. In other words: "We do not care what the people say. We know what is good for them". That certainly is a problem.

Another of the problems in this bill that must be addressed are patronage appointments by the minister. Once again their perspective changes when they walk across the floor. These are the same members who sat in opposition and lambasted the former Prime Minister and the Tory party for patronage appointments. It seems however that they learned at the feet of the master. Now that they have formed the government they are anxious to show that they are bigger and better at everything, including patronage, than the former Prime Minister.

The appointments being made to this board are going to be made by the minister. Is that not nice? He gets to put together a little patronage haven of his own so that now people can pay homage and maybe support him so they can get one of these plum positions. The board gets to say who they want and then the chairman appoints them, but remember who put the people on the board in the first place.

I would like to remind the House, those who do not know can learn from this, of comments of a senior Liberal campaign official from a western riding who was anticipating his patronage appointment to the board of referees. When questioned on the fact that he had announced prematurely that he was getting this appointment and that it was clearly a patronage appointment, he was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as stating: ``What's wrong with patronage? How else can we attract people to our party?'' What a disgusting turn of events that we now find ourselves in, a patronage appointed board to do the bidding of the minister so that the minister can claim that the government is no longer directly involved.

What about the composition of the board? This is really interesting as well. The composition of the board is racially motivated. It is interesting. Why are the Liberals doing that? If we assume that there are going to be 10 on the board-if the minister has the opportunity to appoint why not appoint the maximum number and that way he gets the maximum benefits back-five are going to be aboriginal people and five are going to be non-aboriginal.

This brings into question first that they are dealing with all lands in the Yukon. That means that it should be Yukon people. There should not be a particular makeup that says there has to be a certain number of a certain type of people when they are dealing on land other than aboriginal land. If it were aboriginal land only, I agree that it should be aboriginal people who decide on their own land. When we are dealing with all of the Yukon it should be people in the Yukon, period.

One side asks: "Why should there be an arbitrary number of aboriginal people deciding on non-aboriginal land?" On the other hand it is argued that aboriginal people are competent. I am not arguing that. In fact they are the ones who live on the land and may in fact at times be the best qualified to make the decision for land use in the Yukon. Why then should the board be limited to five aboriginal people if in fact they may be the best qualified people? If seven of the best qualified people are aboriginal, why should two of them be denied so that it can go the other way, just the same as it works in reverse.

The final point that I have some concerns about is access to court. In the document it narrows and extremely limits access to court on appeal from the outcome of this board belonging to the minister of Indian and northern affairs. Why would one want to limit a person's access to court? Obviously the Liberal government is sort of predisposed to that. We have already seen the Minister of Transport do that in the Pearson deal.

It comes to a matter of property rights-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Very wisely.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Oh, yes, very wise indeed. Of course the more control you have, the more you can put in your own patronage people and have things the way you want totally unchallenged.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You and the Tories wanted it.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

We have property rights in Canada, at least we think we do. The reality is we do not have any property rights at all. All land belongs to the government. All we have is the right of continued possession. If the government starts limiting our access to the court, the government can bring out more and more arcane laws all the time and have its own people in place and ram them through, no access to the courts, no appeal.

There are many flaws in this bill. I trust sincerely that if this bill makes it to the committee that the Liberals will do what is right. They will correct these injustices in the bill. They will start dealing with the accusations they made when they were on this side of the House. They will get rid of patronage. They will

get rid of all the other ill-tasting things that are in this bill and bring out something that is legitimate, meaningful and justifiable to the people of the Yukon.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question that I would like to put to the hon. member.

He is opposing this bill as is his party. It seems to me that every time the government has brought forward a bill dealing with aboriginal claims or aboriginal interests or dealings in land in any area that is inhabited by aboriginal peoples in this country, he and his party members have opposed the bill.

I wonder if he is in a position to reconsider his party's opposition and realize perhaps their opposition is not based on reason but on a bias or prejudice that is coming through in opposition to these bills. Would he not want to rethink his policy and take a little more fair view of the entire thing and realize that this bill is in fact good for the Yukon territory as was the case with the two previous bills which we heard announced earlier this afternoon in another speech and turn it around and support this legislation?

[An hon. member]

Good question.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that whenever the Liberals take a page out of the Reform policy book to introduce legislation, they always seem to take only half a page and get it wrong.

It seems that when the hon. member listened to my presentation he only listened to half of it. I would first point out that he should check back in his records on the Split Lake agreement and see which way the Reform Party voted on that.

Second, I would point out that I said here that there is a bias, not by the Reform Party but on the part of the government on the racial makeup of the very board we are discussing here. It is limiting the number of people from any one race, and that includes the aboriginal people. If they are the best qualified, why are they limited to 50 per cent of the board? If they are the best people, let them be the the major part of the board. It is only because the minister wants to have absolute and complete control.

We need something that is fair and totally honest. We are not going to have honesty when those numbers on the committee are both manipulated and appointed as personal patronage plums of the minister of Indian and northern affairs.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak briefly with respect to Bill C-55 because like much of this government's legislation it resembles the Bishop's egg. It is excellent in parts, but it contains a lot of tainted material.

The administrative clauses of the bill are well drafted. They are quite similar to legislation in some provincial jurisdictions. The rules are comprehensible. I am perfectly aware that many mining industry executives regard acceptance of C-55 as preferable to continued regulatory uncertainty.

Having worked in that industry for many years, I think I understand the corporate mind. If a company is effectively blocked by bureaucratic stalemate, it will accept almost any compromise in order to survive. As the crofter said: "It is better to sleep with the devil than to lie a'cold".

My objections to the bill are based on the proposed composition and terms of the reference of the Yukon surface rights board. Like its evil older sisters, Bills C-33 and C-34, this bill is tainted by racial bias. The board will consist of a chairperson and from two to ten other members. Since these will be prize patronage appointments you can be sure that the higher number will prevail. At least half of the members shall be appointed, and I quote: "on the nomination of the Yukon Council of Indians" or to express it more crudely and directly: "They shall be Indians". As my hon. colleague has just said, this is a double-edged sword. Not only is it expressly directed that five members of a ten member group shall be Indians but it is also expressly directed that five of them shall not be Indians.

I thought I lived in Canada. Can anybody imagine the uproar that would ensue if the articles of a quasi-judicial provincial board, let us say in Ontario, required that a certain percentage of its members be Caucasian?

Just in case the board is not sufficiently biased, there is provision in clause 23 of the bill to budget funds for and again I quote: "cross-cultural orientation, education and other training". That is to say for social brainwashing.

Perhaps in so far as the board's duties will deal partly with disputes involving native settlement lands, a little well-intentioned genetic bias can be justified, but why in the name of common sense should the colour of a person's skin determine eligibility to rule on disputes concerning non-settlement lands, that is to say on public lands?

Even if the biases were applied only to settlement lands, it should be remembered that the board will arbitrate compensation for expropriation of these lands. Yet half of its members are required by law to be beneficiaries of such compensation. Does that make sense?

Remember, this unaccountable board will have wide ranging powers and its decisions will have the force of law. Should not its independence be protected?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief opposition whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division of the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday, November 14 at 6.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite you to seek unanimous consent to determine if we could defer this vote until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Social Security Programs

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

When I first had the chance to review the amendments contained in this bill it was immediately apparent that a good deal of time and effort have gone into determining ways in which the application rules for income security benefits could be made more flexible.

It is obvious that clients have complained about some of the application requirements and certain restrictions in the current legislation. Undoubtedly each of these requirements or restrictions had a reason for being at the time they were introduced. However, by listening to the public the government has found ways in which both the client and the integrity of the programs can both be well served.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight some of the amendments where this is most obvious. Under the Old Age Security Act the 60 to 64-year old spouse of a low income old age security pensioner can, on application, receive the spouse's allowance benefit. Also eligible for this income tested benefit are low-income widowed persons in the same age group.

The only requirement for the spouse's allowance apart from age and income is that the younger spouse must have lived in Canada for a minimum of 10 years after age 18. Because residence is a qualifier for the spouse's allowance benefit, applicants for the allowance provide a history of their residence in Canada after age 18 and up to age 60.

When spouse's allowance recipients turn age 65 they become eligible for the old age security pension in their own right. However, the amount of their old age security pension is dependent on the total number of years they have lived in Canada after age 18. For those who were in Canada prior to July 1, 1976, 10 years of residence in Canada immediately prior to age 65 entitles them to payment of the full pension.

For those who came to Canada after July 1, 1976 the amount of their pension is equal to one-fortieth for each year they resided in Canada after age 18.

For the most part the administration knows from the information provided on the spouses allowance application combined with the payment history of the spouses allowance how many years of residence the client has at age 65. Therefore it is possible to calculate the old age security pension entitlement without going back to the client.

Currently, however, the client is required to apply for the basic old age security pension and to provide the administration with much of the same information and documentation that the individual provided with his or her spouses allowance application.

Given that in the majority of cases the administration already has the spouses allowance recipient's residence history in Canada the requirement that this individual apply for old age security is unnecessary.

Therefore I am pleased to see that this bill proposes to give the Minister of Human Resources Development discretion to deem an old age security application to have been made by the 64-year old recipient of spouse's allowance. In addition, given that the administration already has the income information it requires the income tested guaranteed income supplement form will also not be required for the remainder of the GIS payment year.

Approximately 20,000 recipients of the spouse's allowance turn 65 each year. As the majority of these clients have lived in Canada for the required number of years to receive a full old age security benefit, this amendment will benefit a great many people.

This automatic conversion from spouse's allowance to old age security is not a new concept. Currently under the Canada pension plan 64-year old disability recipients do not have to apply for their retirement pension to commence at age 65.

A Canada pension plan retirement application is deemed to have been received because the administration already has the information necessary to put a retirement pension into play.

I am pleased that we are now offering the same quality service to 64-year old spouse's allowance recipients.

Another provision of the Canada pension plan is also being mirrored in the amendment in this bill which recognizes that some individuals because of incapacity are unable to apply for their old age security benefits on time. Specifically, the minister will be able to deem an application to have been received earlier than it actually was received if the lateness is due to incapacity.

Benefit entitlement to the basic old age security pension and the income tested guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance is contingent on an application being made for these benefits.

If this bill becomes law retroactivity for all of these benefits will be a consistent 12 months. Therefore anyone applying more than 12 months after the first month in which they could have received benefits loses some benefits.

For the most part a limited period of retroactivity is considered fair.

Individuals have a certain responsibility to come forward in a timely manner to receive their correct benefit entitlement. However, there are cases in which the individual is mentally or physically incapacitated and this incapacity renders them incapable of making an application. Unless these individuals are fortunate enough to have someone who realizes that application can be made on behalf of such an incapacitated person, benefit entitlement can be lost.

The amendments in this bill would allow the minister to deem an application to have been made by or on behalf of an applicant. This would only apply if the applicant were at the time of application incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application.

As I noted earlier, the Canada pension plan already has such a provision and this important protection is now being proposed for old age security clients as well.

Another very interesting amendment contained in this bill would allow old age security pensioners to cancel their benefit entitlement. On the face of it one wonders why such an amendment is necessary. Surely if someone does not want the benefit all they have to do is not apply. For the small number of individuals who do not want to receive the old age security pension the majority do not make application. However, in some cases it is only after becoming a pensioner that an individual decides that he or she no longer wants to receive the old age security benefit. The current legislation, because it does not provide for benefit cancellation, cannot accede to these requests.

As I am sure most people will agree, someone should not be forced to take the application they do not want. Therefore this bill would allow individuals to cancel their benefit. However, recognizing that circumstances can change, the bill will also make provision for a cancelled benefit to be reinstated if the pensioner should subsequently change his or her mind. The reinstatement would be effective the month following the month the request for reinstatement was made. A pensioner would be reinstated on the same calculation of residence that had been used when application for the old age security pension was first made.

A very similar type of amendment is also being made to the Canada pension plan. Currently the Canada pension plan allows for an assignment of retirement pensions between spouses in an ongoing relationship. A Canada pension plan retirement beneficiary whose spouse is over 60 and receiving any retirement benefits he or she is entitled to under either the Canada or Quebec pension plans can apply for and receive a share of the retirement benefits they both earned during the course of the marriage.

The legislation currently provides that the assignment ceases on the death of either spouse, on the twelfth month following the month the couple separates, the month the non-contributing spouse becomes a contributor or the month a divorce or annulment of marriage is finalized. Therefore, even though pension assignment is done at the request of the couple, the couple who remains together cannot cancel the assignment.

While the administration has received very few requests for a pension assignment to be cancelled, there is absolutely no good reason this should not be allowed. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill provides for cancellation at the written request of both spouses.

This type of amendment emphasizes that the government is listening to what clients want and what they have every right to expect.

The last amendment I want to deal with is another obvious example of listening to the desires of clients. As I am sure we are all aware, the Canada pension plan was amended in 1977 to provide for a division of pension credits between spouses should the marriage end in divorce or annulment. While these provisions have been extended and improved over the years, the amendment I want to talk about has to do with limitations that only existed up until 1987.

Specifically because the administration had no experience with this type of provision in 1977 the division of pension credits earned by both spouses under the Canada pension plan during the course of the marriage was only allowed if very strict conditions were met. The marriage had to have lasted a minimum of three years. An application for a division of pension credits had to have been made within three years of the divorce or annulment.

This latter requirement was felt necessary so that divorced individuals would have some idea of what their retirement benefits were going to be when they reached retirement age. It was felt at the time that a CPP contributor should not be left in limbo. He or she had a right to know if the pension credits were going to be divided. In this way the individual could better plan for his or her retirement years.

Three years was considered to be long enough after the marriage was over for one of the spouses to make application for a division of pension credits. Unfortunately, what the original legislation did not provide was for an extension of the three-year time limit.

I am pleased to note that there are many divorced couples who hold no animosity toward each other. These individuals still want to ensure that their ex-spouses are treated fairly.

The administration has been approached by couples who were divorced prior to 1987 when the time limit was removed who would still like to have a division of pension credits. Such persons accept the fact that Canada pension plan contributions are a joint family asset to which both spouses contributed equally during the course of their marriage. Even though for the most part only the male partner made CPP contributions or at least consistently contributed to the plan during the course of the marriage, he recognizes that his ex-wife has as much right to these credits as he did.

The people who are coming forward do not want a three-year time limit to prevent them from dividing their pension credits with their ex-spouse. Therefore, an amendment contained in Bill C-54 will allow the three-year time limit to be waived where both spouses request this waiver in writing.

The Canada pension plan is an income security program that truly belongs to its clients. The plan is totally funded by the contributions that employers and their employees make and the investment of any moneys not immediately needed to pay benefits and expenses. Therefore, this plan should definitely listen to the people to whom it belongs and the waiver of the three-year time limit for spouses who divorced prior to 1987 is proof positive that this government is willing to both listen and act on what it hears.

This government has a commitment to improve the way it does business. This bill before us today exemplifies how this commitment can be acted upon.