Nelson Riis

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my friend's question in terms of the debt. I appreciate his mentioning the progressive policies that in a sense led the country in some ways over the years, coming from the province of Saskatchewan, to things like medicare and others.

When Tommy Douglas was the premier of the province he said they would not spend a whole lot on a number of programs until the debt was eliminated. That was a long time ago. Ever since Tommy Douglas said that there has been a pattern in Saskatchewan politics, and I think my friend would have to agree with me.

The NDP would come in, or the CCF before it, and would eliminate the debt. Then it would get on with delivering the kinds of programs to which he referred. As long as we are paying out those big premiums or debt payments to bankers or foreign bankers and others, we are not using taxpayers money to invest in social programs and the quality of life that Canadians want, or in this case Saskatchewan residents wanted.

His theory was to pay down the debt. For years and years there was an interesting historical sequence. As a Canadian historian I used to love telling my students about it in class. The NDP-CCF would be elected and would work hard over a period of time to pay off the debt, to get rid of the indebtedness. Then they would be kicked out of office and the Liberals would come in and bring the province under extreme indebtedness. The Liberals would be kicked out and the NDP-CCF would come in, wipe out the debt again, get all the books balanced, and then Tories and Liberals would be elected and whip up the debt again.

Today in the province of Saskatchewan we are debt free after we inherited a massive debt load as well as a number of other things from the previous Conservatives.

My friend is right. We have to pay down the debt. The question is how rapidly and this is where we may have a debate. I think my friend would say that we should put a fairly massive amount on debt reduction. With all due respect to my friend, because I know he is serious when he says that, when in our country, the richest country in the world, the number one country by the United Nations standard in terms of the quality of life, 1.4 million children have to live in poverty, that is something we cannot ignore.

It requires action and action requires some form of financial outlay. I say yes to debt repayment. But let us not be so overly zealous in our debt repayment that we forget the children who are living in poverty today.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

It is called rolling targets, as my friend said. Small, medium or large businesses need business plans before they can do anything. The first thing asked is whether there is a business plan and whether the elements of their old, new or renewed venture have been thought through. Organizations such as a boy scout club or the Red Cross and others need business plans. They need plans. They need goals and a strategy to meet those goals.

What is our plan as a country? We do not have one. We are a plan-free zone. We do not have plans in Canada. If we asked Canadians from coast to coast what they think the federal government's plan for the future of Canada was, we would get the wildest mishmash of commentary imaginable because we do not have a plan. Surely therein lies a portion of our success, a reason for our success, if we could bring the major stakeholders of our country together and develop a plan.

With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, who is setting health care policy? Is it the health care business? Is it the health care sector? No. It is the Minister of Finance seeking advice from his financial advisers who are basically deciding some of the fundamental health care policies of the country. We are waiting for the budget to see what the health care policy of Canada will be. This is wrong.

The same is true of education. Crucial to the knowledge based economy of the 21st century is having a decent educational training system from coast to coast to coast. Who is deciding basically on the new thrust or if there is to be a new thrust in education? It is the Minister of Finance and his political and financial advisers.

With all due respect, he knows a lot of stuff but I do not think he knows that much about health care or education. Therein lies the reason we need to plan. By planning I do not mean the Minister of Finance planning everything for us. The appropriate people should be brought together to come up with a plan that people can accept and move forward with.

Let us look at the successful economies around the world today, those economies with growth rates of 7%, 8% or 9%. I guarantee the one commonality in all those economies is that they have a plan. They have come together in one form or another and have a plan in terms of how they will grow their economy to create employment.

Simply growing the economy does not necessarily help people. It might help shareholders but it does not necessarily help people. We have to grow the economy to help people.

From our point of view health care should be a priority. We want to see at least $2.5 billion put back into health transfers. Then we need a substantial down payment on repairing the damage done to social programs. I think all Canadians would agree with that. That is certainly what we heard during the finance committee tour.

The unemployment premiums must be spent on improving the employment insurance program, to say nothing of the aid package for the agricultural sector and the pay equity obligations that we must keep.

In terms of tax relief we are suggesting a 1% reduction in the GST as a way to provide tax relief for every citizen. Even children will benefit from a GST reduction. When kids go to buy their CDs or whatever they will benefit.

In closing, debt reduction is something we have to consider. We must not be overly aggressive at this point, but obviously it is something we have to pay attention to as well as a number of things on which we will comment later in the process.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to say a few words regarding the upcoming budget that we expect on or about February 16.

We all saw in the media in the last few days accounts from some speakers in Davos, Switzerland, where world leaders congregate annually to speculate and comment on the future of the world and the major issues of the day.

I noticed with interest that a number of the speakers referred to the unequal distribution of wealth in the world and the concern they had regarding the gap between the haves and the have nots, the increasing disparities and the pace of disparities occurring not only throughout the world between have countries and have not countries but within nations as well.

In the last few weeks in Canada we have heard a number of people comment on their concern regarding the gap between the rich and the poor. As a matter of fact I even recall the Prime Minister referring to the concerns that he had when evidence was presented to him on this growing gap.

It seems to me that as the finance committee toured the country and listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, one of the themes that came through loud and clear was that they wanted a level playing field not only for companies, not only for provinces, but for people so that Canadians, no matter what their backgrounds, no matter what their economic situation, no matter what their health and so on, would have an equal opportunity to develop into the citizens of Canada as they should.

Now that the government has surplus funds for the second time in many years, it is mandatory to take steps that would go toward equalizing and levelling the playing field for all Canadians. Whether youngsters are growing up in British Columbia, on an Indian reservation in Saskatchewan or in a small coastal community in Newfoundland, they would have the same opportunities in life to develop into the citizens they wish to be.

Another thing that became clear as we toured the country were the number of people who cautioned us as a finance committee about accepting a simple solution to the economic problems of the country. We hear that today. We hear in the House day after day what I think are simplistic grand or macro solutions to the economic problems.

I remember when it was felt that if inflation came down to 1% or 2% the economy would pick up and get really hot. We all know that did not take place. If we could just get the interest rates down from those high levels of the teens and even beyond and into 4%, 5% and 6% levels it was said that would kickstart the economy back into life. That happened and the economy continues along in its sluggish fashion.

Then the deficit was the problem. The Tories had it up to $42 billion and said that getting the deficit down to zero was the key point. We got the deficit down to zero and again the economy did not take off as in the Rostowian thesis. Now we hear that if we had mega tax cuts it would be the solution to kickstart the economy back to life. That is the new mantra.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance is here. He will remember how unsuccessful Ronald Reagan was when he tried that in the United States. He made massive tax cuts, but did the economy of the United States bounce back into high gear economically? No way. The debt went up and the deficit went up. It did not turn it around.

I know some colleagues have been guilty of saying that full employment would be the solution. The solution is to have everybody working. As Jesse Jackson from the United States reminds us, when they had slavery in the south everybody was working. Slavery was slavery but they had full employment. Is that the kind of solution we want? Let us be cautious about coming up with a macro solution to the complex economic world we have inherited and are living in today.

I want to make a quick comment on foreign investment. I know foreign investment coming into a country is something that cannot be spoken against, that it has to be good for the country. Statistics Canada indicated the other day that the hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign investment which came into Canada and actually resulted in a new plant, a new factory or a new venture, was only 1.5%. The rest came in and was used for takeovers and that sort of thing, which I might add often costs us jobs.

Whether it is foreign investment, tax cuts, deficit fighting, inflation fighting, interest rate fighting or so on, they are simplistic solutions. We must not be seduced into accepting them as somehow the way to deal with this issue. The Tobin tax is another one we hear about. We had a tax on international currency speculation. Therein lies a major solution.

The reality is that we need all these things together in some sophisticated matrix to create the kind of economic synergy that will get the economy moving again in the right direction so that people can have full employment with real, meaningful, sustainable jobs.

To do that there is one thing missing. I do not think a single person in the House of Commons today would say that as an individual he or she could have a successful life without any kind of plan, without any kind of goal, without any kind of strategy, and just bumble along day by day. Nobody believes that.

[Freshwater Exports, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals applaud this acknowledging that ministers of the environment for years and years have promised this legislation. This government has been promising it for five years and has done absolutely nothing. When will it do something to protect the water of Canada?

[Freshwater Exports, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thought Canada was a sovereign nation and that we did not have to ask permission from the United States to pass our own legislation.

Canadians are concerned because the government caved in on the MMT issue. Now the Americans are coming after water. Not one company but a number of companies are interested in water exports.

This government has been in office now for five years. Previous ministers of the environment—

[Freshwater Exports, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House will appreciate that natural fresh water is a resource like no other. It needs to be protected like no other natural resource. It is the essence of life itself.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. We now recognize that the Americans are anxious to get hold of our fresh water to the extent that they have launched a suit under NAFTA in order to get it. The fact that British Columbia passed legislation against water exports and the province of Ontario passed legislation, why has the minister not passed legislation in this House to protect Canada's most valuable natural resource?

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion of Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management.

I listened with interest to my friend who represents an adjacent constituency to mine. As in all matters I certainly respect his views and appreciate all the work he has done. I have been very supportive of a number of initiatives he has taken. I suspect my comments may be somewhat in opposition to his. On the other hand I acknowledge that many of the points he makes are the concerns of people certainly in the areas that he and I represent.

As my friend indicated, I believe the issues surrounding the relationship of aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples will probably be the most crucial issue in the early part of the 21st century. We are beginning the long process of enabling first nations peoples to take their rightful place in Canadian society. The sooner we see the demise and ending of the Indian Act, the sooner I will be happy.

I always thought it was very ironic that a copy of the Indian Act has a longer title in brackets which reads “an act respecting Indian people”. If ever there were a piece of legislation that did not respect Indian people, it is the Indian Act of Canada. We all agree that the patronizing nature of the Indian Act should be replaced as soon as possible. Replaced in what way is what this discussion and debate is all about.

From my perspective and that of my party and of the hon. member for Yukon, our critic, Bill C-49 is a step forward in bringing self-government to a number of first nations.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding the issue of self-government. There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated about self-government. I do not suggest for a moment that people are doing this or being motivated for anything but the right reason. Sometimes I am suspicious of that. Nevertheless, it is a difficult issue to discuss because of the varying interpretations of self-government.

When first nations' people are asked what self-government means there are many variations and definitions. I do not expect we will ever find ourselves in a position where we will agree on a single definition of self-government.

In terms of moving to the principle of self-government and how it might be defined differently from place to place in Canada, this is a major first step. It would replace the Indian Act and the minister's discretion under that act for these 14 first nations.

There is something rather insidious about a country where a minister of Indian affairs and northern development is asked to make decisions on probably an hourly basis about the lives of first nations people. I just got off the telephone moments ago from talking to an individual who is doing business on an Indian reserve in the constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. He asked me to intervene with the minister of Indian affairs to have her approve a certain element of economic development.

I thought it an odd situation that a minister or a bureaucrat sitting in Ottawa would be required to sign off on a small piece of economic development in a distant Indian reservation in British Columbia. What kind of goofy system is that?

The bill is an attempt to get away from that goofiness and to suggest that as smart as the minister Indian affairs is she probably does not know much about running a little economic development project on the edge of the Shuswap Lakes in British Columbia. The fact that it requires her signature to begin this project reflects the sort of lunacy of the way the system presently operates.

This is a step in the right direction. Others perhaps may not think so. It gives first nations law making powers with respect to their land and resources, including the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of land. The first nations, however, will not be able to sell their land but may develop or lease it to others. The first nations may acquire land for community purposes. That is an obvious thing to do in a free country. The bill sets out conditions for accountability between first nations and their various members.

The government retains fiduciary responsibility. I appreciate fiduciary responsibility is something that the federal government has under the Constitution of Canada, but therein lies one of the problems. I do not suppose this will change very much. It is a redraft of Bill C-75 from 1996 which died in the last parliament.

The first nations involved are from a number of provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. If I were to identify two or three key points, the first would be that this is an important step in the building of self-government for aboriginal peoples across the country.

A significant issue has been the status of women in the matrimonial home on reserve land upon the dissolution of marriage. The B.C. Native Women's Society and other individuals are pursuing opposition to the framework agreement through the courts at this time. Hopefully when the bill gets to committee we can find ways and means of addressing their concerns. If not perhaps we have to relook the whole issue.

Another issue is non-native people who lease homes on reserve land are unable to vote for those who will be able to make laws which affect them. That is a reflection of the concern expressed by some of the previous speakers earlier today about the rights of non-aboriginal individuals who presently live on Indian reservations and therefore will not have an opportunity to participate in decision making of the band. This is a problem. There is no question about that. It is something that needs serious examination once the issue gets into committee.

My hon. colleague from Saskatoon presented in a very articulate and clear way the reasons we support the bill and some of our very serious concerns at this point. However I want to add one or two short points. Contrary to some comments being made by some of my colleagues, section 15 of the charter which guarantees equality applies to reserve lands and first nation laws. First nations are not above the Constitution of Canada.

Bill C-49 protects the rights of women during marital breakdown. Clause 5(4) of the framework agreement and clause 17 of the bill require the 14 first nations in cases of marital breakdown to establish rules and procedures dealing with two basic rights: the right to possession of the matrimonial home and the right to division of property.

This has been a bone of contention for many years, particularly when it comes to women, and the legislation attempts to address the issue. Whether or not it is adequate remains to be seen. We will see what happens in committee when we hear from some of the witnesses.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I sought that clarification. I was somewhat confused earlier but I am no longer, essentially.

I appreciate having an opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. I want to say at the outset that the legislation establishes and manages a system of national marine conservation areas known as NMCAs which are representative of the 29 marine areas of Canada. The 29 national marine conservation areas represent a unique biological and a unique set of oceanographic features.

These areas include fresh and salt waters. The Parks Canada systems approach has identified the 29 NMCAs within Canada's Great Lakes, internal waters which are tidal and the territorial sea as an exclusive economic zone limit, which is the 200 mile limit.

The debate through second reading stage has revealed many deficiencies in the legislation as presently proposed. We in the New Democratic Party agree there are problems with the bill. As parliamentarians it is our duty to correct errors as we see them and to act on behalf of Canadians to improve legislation. It is in that spirit that I will make a number of comments. We want to enhance the bill. We are not opposing it. We certainly approve it in principle with a great deal of enthusiasm. It is in that context that I make my comments this morning.

This is a fitting year to begin the protection of Canada's 29 representative marine areas since 1998 is the year of the oceans. As Canadians we know there are problems with our oceans which include such things as the impact of pollution in a variety of forms, the reality of overfishing, disappearing fish stocks and general fishing mismanagement. We have witnessed the devastation of coastal communities on both the east and west coasts. There are problems on the north coast and problems in the inland water system.

I say with some regret that evidence suggests the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has largely mismanaged this resource, which is indeed unfortunate. I am not enough aware of the situation to comment on how this mismanagement occurred, but based on the report of the standing committee on fisheries it is well documented that mismanagement has led to some very serious problems on all our coasts including the waters within Canada.

We also know there are problems with our Great Lakes as well as with other inland waters in terms of pollution and mismanagement. This is reflected in the recent revelations of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in its freshwater fisheries report in particular.

Bill C-48 is a step forward in securing coastal and inland waters for future generations and in ensuring they are in a relatively pristine state for future generations. We agree that while there are deficiencies in the legislation—and I will point out some of them in a moment—this step toward marine area conservation is too important to dismiss simply for partisan purposes or rhetoric, as I am afraid to say we have heard in the previous debate.

Bill C-48 should be considered as an important step toward the next century. Our country's present day grievous mistakes and mismanagement are recognized. We can learn from them and, more important as the legislation may reflect, we can act upon them. As parliamentarians we must act on behalf of all citizens of the country to ensure this enabling legislation provides the best options for future generations and for Canadian communities in general.

We will continue to support Bill C-48 in principle. However I will make the following points which we would like to see addressed in the ongoing debate, in particular in committee, in terms of securing our support for the process throughout.

The consultation efforts so far must be explored in depth during the committee hearings. These included 3,000 mail-outs and approximately 300 responses which were received by Parks Canada. Upon perusing these responses one recognizes there are serious concerns on the cost recovery aspects of the legislation. There is a compelling need for a better definition of proposed cost recovery measures.

We recognize that access to national marine conservation areas for local communities and fishers must be maintained. This is a crucial element. We must recognize that consideration of and effective measures for ecotourism opportunities must be included in the final legislation. It is fair to say that ecotourism is one of the leading edges of the tourism sector in Canada. We feel strongly about recognizing the attractiveness of the national marine conservation areas for people interested in ecotourism. We look forward to seeing that appropriate access included in the legislation.

Better descriptions and delineation of core areas of the NMCAs regarding preservation, protection and regulation are important as is the need for a two year reporting period rather than the five years proposed. We are moving into a new area and reviewing this on a two-year basis makes more sense.

We also feel strongly that first nations rights and a better explanation and delineation of “reserves” must include full participation of all first nations people. This could perhaps follow the consultation and management design procedures used with respect to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. We hold it as a good template for future consultations involving these kinds of initiatives.

The issue of a joint provincial-federal management and jurisdiction group will require co-operative measures between parties and governments to ensure provincial land and resource rights are not compromised.

The effect on proposed NMCAs in the Nunavut lands ought to be considered with seriousness. We need to address the question of the use of NMCAs to include a reference to conservation methods and ecological principles. Both are fundamental in terms of our support and I suspect they are reflected in the general thrust of the legislation.

Commercial fishers must be fully involved in the designation and parks management design to ensure there is a working relationship. On both our coasts this is obviously an issue of great sensitivity, but it is something we feel can be easily managed and incorporated into either the legislation or subsequent rights.

The impact of river systems on the NMCAs will require adequate resources for marine sciences and ecosystem modelling. There is also provincial co-operation and the degree that crown lands and subsurface rights may or not impact the success of the program. We want to be sensitive about that particular interface.

As mentioned by my colleagues, the no-take zones must be clearly defined and allow for adaptation in future years. This must be written into enabling legislation which would be acceptable for future needs. Mr. Speaker, I know you yourself feel strongly about the no-take zones issue.

Regional concerns were also mentioned in the various responses. In particular west coast concerns will require different considerations and much flexibility as compared to the east coast concerns. We understand and I know my friend the secretary of state appreciates the differences between the east coast concerns and west coast concerns and the obvious differences between the two coasts when it comes to the central fisheries issues as well the conservation areas issues.

The coastal co-ordination between the different departments involved must be defined. A clear, and I emphasize clear, definition between Environment Canada's responsibilities for wildlife and ecosystems adjacent to the NMCAs, Parks Canada's authority to question and if necessary to veto Department of Fisheries and Oceans decisions in management of these areas resources and a clear delineation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans responsibilities are all requirements we ought to consider before the legislation returns to the House.

This may sound a little negative about the DFO. Based on its past record on sensitivity in its involvement, it has not necessarily always been in a productive and positive way. This explains some of the nuances and points that I am making.

I do not think this has to be prolonged. We support the legislation. We certainly support the principle enthusiastically. We hope that with the consideration of some of the points I raised in my presentation that we can see the rapid and expeditious movement of the legislation through the House as well as through the other place.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. Are we debating the contents of Bill C-48 or the motion that has been put forward?

[Petitions, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have an additional petition that deals with international trade. All the petitioners are from Kamloops, British Columbia. They point out that any future trade agreement into which Canada may enter ought to include provisions to ensure actions against child labour and to include environmental standards and labour standards generally.