Debates of March 22nd, 1996

Summer Jobs For Students

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should send me a copy of the press release he is referring to. All I can tell him is that, this year, we managed, with the finance minister's help, to contribute another $60 million to the creation of summer jobs for students.

In total, $120 million will be spent this summer on jobs for young people attending post-secondary institutions.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister is cutting post-secondary education in Quebec by $150 million this year alone, how can he brag about doubling to $120 million the amount allocated to summer jobs for students, when the former Conservative government used to spend more than $180 million a year?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the amount distributed to post-secondary institutions still falls under the responsibility of the provinces. Of course, some of the money comes from the Canadian government through transfers to the provinces.

How this money is managed is up to each province, since we do not want to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. If he hon. member is suggesting that we revert to the ways of the old administration, I can only tell him not to hold his breath, because we have no intention of acting as the former Tory government did for nine years, from 1984 to 1993.

Nisga'A Land Claims

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, officials from Ottawa, Victoria and the Nisga'a people are scheduled to sign the Nisga'a land claim agreement today.

However, there is widespread opposition to the radical constitutional precedent which will be set here. There has been insufficient meaningful consultation with all of the people who will be affected by this agreement.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the minister of Indian affairs to postpone today's signing?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the signing will proceed as scheduled today.

Prior to this agreement in principle, over 200 public meetings were held, a number of open houses, a number of consultations to keep all of the interested parties totally posted on the process involved.

As I am sure the hon. member knows, the negotiators will continue to ensure that public information is available and that the consultations will continue right through to the signing of the final agreement.

I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to agree with me that this is a major move forward in the history of the country, one I am sure the Reform Party would want to support.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the minister believes there has been consultation.

Here is what a forestry industry representative from the treaty negotiations advisory committee said about the process: "I cannot say we worked on this document because we never saw any of it until February 15, just hours before it was signed; not one page, not one paragraph".

The government has given the separatists a constitutional veto. Why is it denying the people of B.C. a say before this agreement is signed? Postpone it.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. gentleman knows this is an ongoing process. What is being signed today is the agreement in principle.

There have been consultations and public information processes conducted up to this point. That process will continue. In the public interest of the country it is vital that this major initiative be carried through to a successful conclusion. Obviously further consultation which is a part of the process is necessary to ensure that successful conclusion.

Refugee Status

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1992, the current Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce stated: "We do not believe it is reasonable to deport legitimate refugee claimants to the U.S. on the assumption that it is a safe third country". In other words, the hon. member recognized that the American legislation was deficient and objected to any reciprocal arrangement as long as legislation in both countries had not been harmonized.

Could the minister tell us what major changes have been made to the American legislation since 1992 that would now justify his party's about face?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the question of changes to the legislation that would affect this kind of case in the United States would be rather technical and lengthy.

If there are specific parts of the American legislation that she would want to be made familiar with I am sure my colleague, the minister of immigration, would be very pleased to prepare a package of information and allow for a briefing to be held so that she could be familiar with the American legislation.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, in her testimony before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the minister suggested that the arrangement was about to be finalized. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Canada told the same standing committee just the opposite regarding the harmonization of this legislation.

Does this mean that the minister now condones U.S. practices that contravene the international convention relating to the status of refugees, for instance, automatically returning Cubans and Haitians to their country of origin without even having established whether or not they are legitimate refugees?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that the refugee determination rules vary greatly from country to country. The approaches taken by various countries are often very different.

In response to the hon. member's question dealing specifically with the approach taken by the Government of Canada, over the years, we have always seen our role as that of one of the most welcoming countries in the world for refugees. As Canadians, we have a duty to keep playing this humanitarian role we have played on many occasions already.

Regarding practices in the U.S. and elsewhere, I do not think it is appropriate for us or for me to comment on them at this time.

Nisga'A Land Claims

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.

There has been a shroud of secrecy over the Nisga'a deal. The process has been manipulated by the politicians and taken out of the hands of Canadians.

Nisga'a members have said they did not even know they were to vote on this agreement. They were invited to an informational meeting. The vote was by show of hands instead of a secret ballot. This is not democracy, it is a fraud.

Will the government respond to these disturbing allegations and resubmit the deal to the Nisga'a people for real consultation and for a real vote?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of my colleague, the minister of Indian affairs, the hon. member will know that in this process of dealing with this settlement we have been negotiating with representatives of the Nisga'a who are democratically elected under their own processes every year.

Given the very broad scope and importance of the negotiations, some disagreement within the Nisga'a community is naturally to be expected. The agreement in principle ratification by the Nisga'a was an internal process which the Nisga'a have designed for themselves to inform and seek the support of their constituents.

After the final steps are taken in the development of a final agreement on the land settlement, that final agreement must be formally ratified according to a formula that calls for 50 per cent plus 1 of eligible Nisga'a voters.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once the agreement is ratified today it will be very difficult to change anything.

This agreement in principle will encode different treatment of Canadians based on race, different constitutional status based on race, different taxes based on race. If this is put into the Constitution Canadians will never again be one people. We will be permanently divided by race. This will affect our children and our grandchildren, all of us.

On behalf of all Canadians, will the government postpone the signing of this agreement until a broad consultation of all Canadians has occurred? This is too important to leave in the hands of a few politicians. Postpone it.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians, I congratulate the parties who after decades of unresolution have finally reached an agreement which should be celebrated by the people.

When the aboriginal people were driven off their lands and when the aboriginal people were put into a situation that was not of their choosing, they asked for justice. Finally we have a minister for Indian affairs who is delivering that justice. We think he should be congratulated. Today should be a day of celebration for the Nisga'a and for Canadian justice.

North American Free Trade Agreement

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

On February 16, Canada and the United States reached an agreement in principle on softwood lumber. The five year agreement seeks to restrict Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S. It provides for an increase in stumpage fees in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, and for the implementation of a quota system of sorts in British Columbia.

Does the minister realize that letting British Columbia set up such a system violates the free trade agreement itself, which is precisely based on the elimination of control measures at the border?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously knows that the question he is posing is based on a false premise and a false fact.

The reality is that agreements have been negotiated with the provinces. Their interests have been totally taken into account. Negotiation is now simply being worked out in detail between the representative spokespersons for the two countries.

The hon. member might want to go back and check what he is saying because it does not relate to truth.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not question the fact that this was done in co-operation with the provinces. We question the federal government's approval of new barriers in a free trade context. The federal government was ill advised in that regard. If you set up barriers, it is no longer a free trade environment. At first it was wheat, and now it is softwood lumber.

Will the minister recognize that the current agreement will not solve anything, since Americans are still not happy with the concessions made so far, and will he also recognize that his government is opening the door to similar agreements in other economic sectors?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of having the agreement is to allow us to have a process through which we can work out agreements so that trade can flow.

There is not some kind of arbitrary ideological perfect world. The reason the NAFTA agreement was put into place was to ensure that the immense flow of commerce between the two countries can be organized by a set rules, a set of practices and a set of institutions. The minister of trade is using those rules and those practices to negotiate a deal that will allow us to continue the very lucrative and very important trade with the United States in softwood lumber.

Francophones Outside Quebec

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I would like to know her intentions with respect to the negotiations with the Franco-Columbians, who are anxious to know what stage the negotiations affecting their future have reached. I am well aware of the importance the minister attaches to francophones, particularly those outside Quebec. As we know very well, there are very nearly one million francophones outside Quebec, and some people at least are concerned about their future.

The Franco-Columbian community is anxiously awaiting the outcome of the negotiations with the federal government. Is the Minister in a position to inform us of the status of these negotiations?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, during this Semaine de la Francophonie, it is important, I believe, to celebrate the agreements already in place between Canada and various communities, and those which are still under negotiation.

We are very pleased today, during this special week, to announce that, within the hour, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women will be making an announcement in Vancouver, at la Maison de la Francophonie. The matter has been settled, and there will be good news within the next hour.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The minister has known about last weekend's hazing incident at CFB Gagetown and has been investigating it since Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. Media reports tell us today that there was another hazing incident in June at CFB Gagetown. The minister has known about this and has been investigating it since July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, March.

Will the minister admit defeat and acknowledge that he is unable to manage this issue?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, after that question, one thing I can admit is that contrary to my earlier opinion, the hon. member does know the days of the week and months of the year.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

These questions were answered yesterday by my parliamentary secretary and earlier this morning. The fact is that an incident occurred last weekend at Gagetown and we view any incident as described to be quite serious. The matter is being investigated not by me but by the military police. The hon. member should know, being an ex-serviceman, how the military justice system works. When the matter is fully investigated, then the judicial proceedings will take place.