Debates of Oct. 27th, 2004

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, a couple of times today I heard a concern about certainty being achieved with the Tlicho agreement and whether the Tlicho citizens will be surrendering their aboriginal and Treaty 11 rights?

The simple answer is that an alternative to the traditional surrender technique is used in this agreement. The Government of Canada created a new technique for achieving certainty with respect to land and resources. Rather than accede, release and surrender aboriginal rights, the Tlicho agreement applies a non-assertion technique whereby the Tlicho agree not to assert any land rights other than those agreed to in the Tlicho agreement.

Should the courts determine that an assertable land right exists that is not in the Tlicho agreement, the Tlicho agree to release this right to the crown. This fall back release ensures that the agreement achieves a final settlement on land rights. That is as certain as we can get.

This fall back release technique applies only to the land rights however. For non-land rights, for example various self-government rights, the Tlicho agree to only exercise those non-land rights set out in the agreement. However the Tlicho can seek recognition of non-land rights. If such a right is agreed to by the parties or confirmed by the courts, this then can be added to and exercised through the agreement.

When there is certainty in the land rights and there is only action through the courts on non-land rights, which must then be agreed to, what further certainty could the member want? What else would be expected of the Tlicho at this stage in a modern treaty?

What would the member have these three parties to this agreement do that is different than has been done? This is a very important issue. He has raised it as a problem. I want to know what his problem is and what solution he would offer.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest some solutions are out there if the member would look at agreements or parts of agreements that we have approved. The Nisga'a agreement has a way of dealing with this under section 35 and it does not compromise that section. There are ways in which we can agree to that. There are other agreements which have been brought forward that offer answers to the kinds of questions we have posed.

What the member is talking about is opening up again an unpredictable array of court challenges which, as the member well knows, can go on interminably at a cost that can run up to astronomic amounts. She does admit in the whole area of assertion or non-assertion that this is a relatively new approach. Why move into this area of uncertainty when areas of certainty can be applied and have been applied before?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a bit of this debate. First, the thing that struck me just now is the hon. member mentioned something about approving the Nisga'a agreement. I was not of the opinion that the hon. member's party approved that agreement.

Second, if this agreement clearly improves the lives of the people, why not allow them the chance? I heard the long speech about we are rich, we are lucky and we have done so well. Why do we not allow them the same chance we have had and from which we have benefited?

It may not be perfect. Nothing will ever be perfect. Let us move ahead, but let us especially let the people move ahead themselves. Please support this agreement. It is very important to them.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member was listening and perhaps I did not speak slowly enough, but when I was responding to the other member--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I am saying that in a positive sense. Sometimes I speak too quickly. When I responded to the question from the member over there, I said very clearly that there were other agreements or parts of agreements that we accepted. There have been times when we have been unable to embrace a certain agreement, though we have identified certain parts of it that have been effective.

Please let us not have the member suggest that when we are unable to embrace legislation that it is because we have rejected it in its entirety. In fact we have not. I have named other agreements where we looked at certain sections and we said there was a way to approach this.

I hope I have made myself clear. Perhaps I went over that too quickly for the member.

The member also said something else. It is fine to stand here and give a heartfelt plea and say that the only determinant to whether legislation is good or not is if it helps or improves the lives of people. My personal revenue flow on the property I own would be greatly improved if I built a hotel on it. However, there are certain jurisdictional conflicts to that. I cannot build a hotel on the land the I own at this time, but it would help my revenue flow.

To simply to get up and give a heartfelt expression that if it improves lives, everything I said is directed toward improving the lives of people.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, last week, I had the pleasure of asking a question in this House on the fate of the 6,000 correctional officers who have been without a collective agreement since June 2002.

They have had 80 negotiation sessions. They are currently at the conciliation stage, but the process has been suspended because the conciliator is not available to meet with them before November.

When I asked my question, I was told that the CSN was in the process of learning how things worked. The CSN is one of the largest labour unions in Quebec. The response was quite arrogant and unfounded.

As we know, correctional officers have the right to strike but the entire work force provides essential services. They work under very special conditions and do very difficult work. They encounter verbal, physical and psychological violence and abuse on a daily basis.

Penitentiaries are also places where infectious and contagious diseases are prevalent, diseases such HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, as well as tuberculosis. Inmates, who have exchanged bodily fluids with correctional officers, cannot be tested without their consent.

And as I said, it is a very violent environment. For example, among the 2,600 inmates in maximum security, there were five murders in one year. That is a murder rate 100 times greater than average.

It is also an environment with a great deal of harassment. It lends itself to harassment from the inmates. The stress is constant; aggression is a necessary part of the work. The negative environment has an obvious impact.

Proportionately speaking, the incidence of violence is greater in prisons than in the general population.

This level of violence and this atmosphere in which anything can happen combine to add to the stress of the correctional officers. There is twice as much depression among correctional officers as in the general public, that is, 22% instead of 11%.

A survey of 2,432 Canadian correctional officers, including 710 in Quebec, showed a very clear association between the level of work-related stress and years of service. Thus, 34% of officers with 15 or more years of service thought their work was stressful, while only 14% of officers with less than two years' experience thought so.

Contrary to observations in the work force as a whole, where the more experience and skill one acquires, the less stressful the job, in the world of corrections, it is exactly the opposite. They say the last years are the most difficult.

Special working conditions require a special collective agreement. That was the original justification for the correctional officers having their own union. Their main demand is a pension plan where 25 years of service at age 50 would bring 70% of salary.

Far be it from me to do their negotiating for them. Far be it from me to imagine we can reach an agreement, but I just wanted to make members aware of the necessity to negotiate special conditions.

I would like to ask once again what positive steps the President of the Treasury Board intends to take so that the corrections officers get a properly negotiated collective agreement?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, it is true that these people work very hard and we really appreciate it.

The collective agreement for the Correctional Service CX group expired on May 31, 2002. The 5,500 employees in this bargaining unit are represented by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Syndicat des agents correctionnels du Canada.

Negotiations started when the bargaining agent served notice to bargain in March of 2002. Although the parties have met about 75 days at the bargaining table to negotiate the renewal of the collective agreement, several major issues remain in dispute.

On several occasions during the negotiations, the employer suggested that the two sides might benefit from the services of a conciliation officer, but the bargaining agent always ruled out that option.

Finally, on March 3, 2004, the employer asked the Public Service Labour Relations Board to appoint a conciliation officer to help the two sides settle outstanding issues. Despite the fact that the bargaining agent was opposed to this request, which he deemed to be premature, the Public Service Labour Relations Board appointed a conciliation officer on June 7, 2004.

The employer's representatives made sure they were available to meet the schedule set by the conciliation officer. Our bargaining team met with him and the bargaining agent on August 17 and 18 as well as on September 8 and 9 and worked diligently with him to find a solution to the issues in dispute.

The parties are currently scheduled to meet again on November 15 and 16 of this year and I am hopeful that these sessions will allow the parties the opportunity to resolve their outstanding issues.

Treasury Board's ultimate goal in the collective bargaining process is to reach a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to the employer and to our employees as well as to the Canadian taxpayer.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed by the reply is an understatement: I am extremely disappointed. I did not expect a chronology of events. That, I could have provided myself.

I did not get an answer to my questions as to what the President of the Treasury Board intends to do and what concrete efforts he intends to make to reach a negotiated settlement. Perhaps the answer lies in an expression containing three words, namely “nothing at all”, because this is what we understand right now. The President of the Treasury Board plans to make no effort whatsoever to reach a negotiated settlement.

Moreover, I am sure that CSN people would be very pleased to be told by the President of the Treasury Board how to sign a collective agreement.

I put my question again to the parliamentary secretary: what specific action does the President of the Treasury Board intend to take to reach a negotiated settlement with correctional officers?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the bargaining process, we have to let the people talk to each other. We have to begin by encouraging them to talk to each other. As I said in my speech, they are supposed to meet again in November, and we really want to see them succeed.

They are supposed to meet on November 15 and 16. We want to allow this meeting to take place and we shall continue to encourage them to reach a decision that will be good for the Canadian taxpayer, for the employees, and for the Government of Canada as their employer.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Madam Speaker, last week I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, which was responded to by the Minister of Finance, about negotiations with Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to a promised deal by the Prime Minister as it concerned offshore revenues.

The response from the minister was a little hazy. Instead of saying the deal is done, which everyone thought at the time, he said there were negotiations with the minister of finance, a great fellow by the way, Loyola Sullivan, my local MHA and hockey playing partner, who had done a magnificent job on this. The minister left an element of doubt. We in the House thought the deal that the Prime Minister had promised was progressing suitably.

Let me give a bit of history. Leading into the election our leader promised to give Newfoundland and Labrador, if we were elected, 100% of its share of the offshore revenues. There would be no clawback and equalization would continue until we were a contributing province, which is common sense. The Prime Minister promised the same thing. In fact, in the deal which Mr. Williams was offered, the Prime Minister said that there were different provisions. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said on June 6:

I had a discussion…with the premier this morning, and I have made it very clear that the proposal that he has put forth is a proposal that we accept.

The Minister of Natural Resources, in a letter circulated to his constituents, said “the Prime Minister has given me the responsibility of finalizing the deal on the Atlantic accord as soon as possible. That will bring Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore oil royalties without affecting the provinces equalization payments”.

The deal was offered Sunday, two days before the imposed deadline, as promised by the Prime Minister. He promised Premier Williams the deal would be done by October 25.

On October 24, for the very first time, despite a litany of letters and phone calls from the province, the first response in writing from the federal government was two days before the official deadline with all kinds of little provisos put in: caps, sunset clauses, the fiscal capacity of other provinces, et cetera. It was very complicated. Of course, it was rejected, as we know, by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and, more importantly, by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The rest is history.

The Minister of Natural Resources was summoned, briefed thoroughly, and ran down to the province to sell the government's deal that he did not understand, but saying in the process, “Take it or leave it. This is it, no changes”. However, in response to a question two days ago he said:

--this government is allowing 100% revenues and 100% equalization.

If that is the case, the deal would be signed right away. We would accept it, I say to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who will be responding.

The parliamentary secretary is going to talk about the process, what is going on and whatever. What I want him to tell us tonight is that there is an agreement. I want him to tell us that the deal we offered on this side was the best deal, was the catalyst, and that the government has agreed to that deal. I want him to tell us that the government is going to call the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and say, “We made a mistake. We should have responded in writing. We will correct past mistakes. We will meet tomorrow. We will sign the deal Newfoundland and Labrador wants, a deal like the opposition promised, and a deal like the Prime Minister promised originally”. If he says that, I will not even come back with my supplementary question.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, let us hope we do not have to call upon the hon. member for a supplementary.

I want to put some context around this discussion. At the present time Newfoundland and Labrador receives about $679 million from the federal government, representing about $1,313 per person. With the enhancements and equalizations separate from this particular accord that we are talking about, there will be a further $87 million in additional payments, and I do not have a per person allocation there.

We are talking about a situation in Newfoundland where there are legitimate grievances, frankly. Newfoundland has lost, over the last 10 years or so, about 10% of its population, and its population is aging. I think the average is going to be about 47, where the rest of Canada it is about 43. Younger people earn money; older people do not earn money.

We agree that Newfoundland is in a difficult situation and we have responded. The Prime Minister has responded in a fashion which gave Newfoundland everything that it asked for in the discussions it had during the election period.

As the hon. member knows, we have increased equalization funding by $33 billion over the next 10 years, a significant portion of which will benefit Newfoundland. In the context of these meetings we have also provided the government of Newfoundland and Labrador with greater benefits around the economic growth that is funded through its offshore revenues. This is represented by a long series of negotiations and discussions. The difficulty here is the desire on the part of the federal government to treat all provinces equally and fairly.

The idea is that Canadians should have the same quality of access to their health and social services regardless of where they live. We agree with that and that is a constitutional principle that we adhere to. The way in which we implement it is through the equalization program.

The idea here is to transfer money to the less prosperous provinces in accordance with a formula after a measurement of fiscal capacity. That means that as a province becomes more prosperous, its equalization payments decline. That is the problem here for Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of its offshore revenues, it is in fact becoming more prosperous.

It is important to note that both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia currently receive special offset payments to support the development of their offshore resources and increase their own source revenues. They are getting more revenues out of their offshore resources.

In fact, the existing offshore arrangements have allowed Newfoundland and Labrador to keep 95% of the money that is generated. Newfoundland collected something in the order of about $660 million in offshore revenues over the last while. Equalization brought it down by $640 million, but because of this special accord, the revenues were then replaced by $635 million pursuant to the accord. So Newfoundland, over that period of time, has only lost about $5 million and therefore retained about 95% of its money.

We are proposing that 100% of its offshore revenues be subject to no such provision. The caveat that we have is that its fiscal capacity should not exceed that of Ontario in any given year. Without such a limit the per capita revenues would not continue to greatly exceed those of other equalization receiving provinces, but also those of Ontario. This would simply not be fair to the other provinces because it would be asking them to disproportionately fund another province's development.

One can understand that as a matter of simple fairness, one province cannot continue to receive equalization payments and have a special side deal. Everyone understands that one cannot ask the taxpayers of Ontario to provide equalization payments to a province whose per capita fiscal capacity is higher than Ontario's.

I trust that my hon. colleagues would agree that the new framework to increase stabilization and equalization is consistent with the overall principles of fairness, equity and transparency.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Madam Speaker, I guess this indicates to the member that I was not satisfied with his answer. I wish I did not respect the member so much, I think he is a fine gentleman, because I would like to go after him on this one. However, he does not have a clue of what he is talking about.

We are talking about a province that is considered to be a have not province, a province rich in resources whose resources have been raped and pillaged over the years for the benefit of others. Now we have a major offshore development. We are not looking for sympathy. We are looking to hold onto the revenues generated from our own resources until we reach the point where the revenues will be ours.

Equalization only kicks in when we reach the fiscal capacity of the average of five, it should be ten, Canadian provinces. We want to be a contributing partner. We have the resources to do so. We are being hamstrung and we are being penny anted by a penny ante government.

All we want is fairness. All we want is what is ours. All we want is for the Liberals to deliver on what the Prime Minister promised.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too am quite fond of the hon. member opposite and respect him greatly, but it seems to me that he wants to make a suck and blow argument, and that does not work either in this chamber or anywhere else.

We are not offering him sympathy. We are offering him a considerable amount of money. That amount of money was negotiated between the Prime Minister and the premier, and apparently it is not acceptable to the premier.

The offers which have been made in good faith by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Government of Canada are the result of a complex and detailed set of negotiations among all of the parties. They directly address the concerns expressed by this hon. member and others, that equalization payments provide additional payments to ensure that these provinces will effectively be able to retain 100% of their offshore gas and oil revenues.

These arrangements are much more generous than what other provinces receive. We would not want to create inequities among the provinces for the fear that these provincial governments would not be able to address the legitimate needs of their constituents.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.)