John Harvard

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I did not think I was going to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon but it has availed itself. I am pleased to make a couple of observations during the budget debate.

As the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, which is a west end riding of the city of Winnipeg, I was naturally interested in how my constituents would react to the February 16, 1999 budget.

I am happy to say that the budget is going over extremely well, in fact, so well that very often it is difficult to find reaction out there. When voters, constituents, are generally happy with an initiative by government, they do not say a lot. It is when government is seen to be doing something negative, something that is a mistake that we hear it from voters. I have not been getting an earful from constituents in the past week or so; in fact it has been quite the opposite.

What are they saying? First of all, they are very happy with our health care initiative. Most Canadians, and I think I can speak for most of my constituents—

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Manitobans, some of whom are my constituents, who are concerned about the possible sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Turkey.

The petitioners point out that the reactors would be located in a seismic area known for frequent earthquakes. The petitioners are concerned about a possible nuclear accident that would affect not only Turkey but neighbouring countries.

They also contend that Turkey is a state that does not respect the human rights of its citizens, represses its minorities and has used force and military aggression against its smaller neighbours, and that giving nuclear technology to such a country will give it the ability to produce nuclear weapons of mass destruction and destabilize the whole region.

The petitioners call upon parliament to oppose this sale and to take all possible measures required to stop it.

[United Alternative, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too attended the so-called united alternative convention in Ottawa and I will share with Canadians a couple of enduring images from that gathering.

The convention was little more than a Reform Party annual meeting. Before it was minutes old up popped David Thomlinson, a Reform Party activist better known as president of the radical National Firearms Association.

If the delegates were trying to remake the image of Reform they failed miserably with the likes of Thomlinson at the microphone. With Reform Party members as the majority of delegates, the new UA is just the same old extremist Reform Party by another name.

The second enduring image left with me was the one of a keynote speaker. A convention supposedly committed to uniting the right invited someone like Rodrigue Biron, a prominent separatist.

The Reform Party will stoop to any level to gain power.

The last time the Conservative Party went to bed with separatists, Canadians ended up with Lucien Bouchard.

[Division No. 319, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. In particular, I would like to address Motion No. 6, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. This amendment would require the 14 first nations signatories to consult with their neighbouring jurisdictions on their land codes.

Neighbouring municipalities would not be consulted when the land codes are developed by the first nations. For one, neighbouring jurisdictions have not been defined. We would have to define and limit who is included in neighbouring jurisdictions which would create an unworkable consultation requirement.

More important, these land codes are beyond the jurisdiction of neighbouring jurisdictions. Why should municipalities have the right to review what is the internal working document of a first nation? Would we expect any municipality to accept such a paternalistic system? Of course not. Therefore this proposed amendment from the opposition suggests it believes that first nations cannot be trusted, that they must be held to a higher standard than other communities in Canada.

This is not the first time the opposition has suggested during debate of this bill that first nations need to be subject to a different set rules from other Canadian jurisdictions. This is not the first time the opposition has said that the 14 signatories to this bill cannot be entrusted with powers of governance. In particular, the opposition has voiced exaggerated claims regarding the powers of the 14 signatories to expropriate reserve lands.

In the course of second reading and again in committee questions arose about the ability of first nations to expropriate any existing interest in their reserve lands with the recourse available to individuals whose interests are being expropriated.

Currently the Indian Act gives authority to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to expropriate reserve land for the first nation's benefit under section 18 for the general welfare of the band. The bill before us delegates similar expropriation powers to the signatory first nations.

I would emphasize that expropriation powers are an essential power of governance and are a necessary facet of land management. As such, these powers have been provided for in Bill C-49. The power of expropriation being delegated to the signatory first nations is similar—and I emphasize similar—to the expropriation power that is delegated by the provinces to ministers, to municipalities or to boards of school trustees.

It is important to emphasize that the expropriation power provided for in this bill is not mandatory. Each first nation community will decide whether or not this power will be an element of the first nation's land management powers.

In the case of the Chippewas of Georgina Island the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, these communities have both decided not to exercise their expropriation powers in their land codes.

The Muskoday First Nation has chosen to implement expropriation powers and has addressed the issue in accordance with the framework agreement.

When a first nation chooses to implement the power of expropriation it must do so through its community developed land code. The land code sets out the specifics of the new land management regime for each first nation.

The land code includes basic laws that will govern land and interests in land and resources after the land provisions of the Indian Act are withdrawn from the community. It will also include the rules and procedures that will apply to the use and occupancy of first nation land and to the transfer by testamentary disposition or succession of any interest in the land. As well, it will include provisions related to first nation lawmaking, land exchange procedures, conflicts of interest, dispute resolution, procedures for amending the land code and expropriation.

In other words, the responsibility and procedure for expropriation is being removed from the minister and placed, along with other aspects of land management, in the hands of the communities where they belong.

A first nation with a land code in effect has the right to expropriate interest in first nation lands without consent if deemed by the first nation council to be necessary for community works or other first nation purposes.

In exercising any power of expropriation the first nation must meet the test of community purpose. A first nation with a land code in effect has the right to expropriate interest in first nation lands without consent only if it is deemed by the first nation council to be necessary for community works such as roads, water, sewer treatment facilities and hydro transmissions or other first nation purposes such as hospitals, day care centres, fire halls, schools and health centres. This does not allow for arbitrary expropriation.

First nations must justify any expropriation, just as provincial and municipal governments must. Further, any expropriation must be justifiable before the courts and Canadian jurisprudence.

The bill before us requires that in exercising these powers first nations provide fair compensation based on the rules set out in the Expropriation Act. This act provides that compensation is based on fair market value and that this value will be determined based on the value of the interest prior to the knowledge or expectation of expropriation. In other words, an expected expropriation will have neither positive nor negative effects on fair market value. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are available to those persons who want to challenge the rationale for first nations expropriation. The court is also available for the same kind of challenge.

I want to repeat that the power of expropriation that is being delegated to the signatory first nations is no different from the expropriation power of federal and provincial governments and public and private organizations such as municipalities, school boards, universities and hospitals. Canadians know that this power is invoked in the interest of the community. They know that those who have property expropriated will be compensated.

The expropriation regime for first nations is different in that the community is consulted extensively during the development of the rules and procedures that will be applied for the expropriation.

Under this bill and the framework agreement a first nation wishing to implement expropriation powers will have to develop the specifics of their powers in consultation with the community and then seek the community's approval of the proposed powers in a community-wide vote. The powers are not automatically in place. This approval process is by far the most stringent approval process in Canada respecting the development of governance, expropriation powers and land codes. It allows every member of the participating first nations a voice in deciding if a proposed land code meets with the values of their individual communities.

I remind all members that the first nations communities themselves will decide in their land code whether they will exercise the power to expropriate and how it will be exercised. As stated earlier, we have already seen some cases, namely the Chippewas of Georgina Island and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, where first nations have decided not to implement expropriation provisions in their land codes.

I emphasize that both the first nations and Canada have ensured that the framework agreement and this legislation provide for the protection of third party interests. Both stipulate that any existing third party interests will continue in force according to their terms and conditions. As is the case now, upon expropriation of the existing terms and conditions, the disposition of those interests will be subject to negotiations between the first nations and the third party. However, third party interests will not be exempted from expropriation. Everyone in Canada is subject to the power of expropriation.

I urge the House to support Bill C-49.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. I know when she was living in Winnipeg she was a fine contributor to the broadcasting community.

The hon. member touched on a critical issue. I do not think anybody can be proud of the aboriginal problems in this country. They exist widely in my city of Winnipeg and in the province of Manitoba. Nobody is proud of these problems. We are trying to aggressively attack them.

When we went through program review and through deficit reductions in program cuts over the last few years, the one department that was not affected was the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We did not cut the budget of that department.

But there are strategies laid out in this budget. There will be a significant health care announcement regarding the aboriginal community in my province next week.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that this is only our sixth budget. This is only the sixth year that we have been in power in Ottawa. Things are getting better.

When we came here in the fall of 1993 we were staring at a deficit of $42 billion. It is all gone. When we came here we did not have the luxury of surpluses. Now we have modest surpluses. Because of the kind of fiscal management that has been brought to bear by the finance minister, we can do things like restore health care funding, not only that but deliver tax cuts.

Over the next three years Canadians will enjoy the benefits of a tax cut exceeding $16 billion. That is better than what we had six years ago.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I point out that our esteemed Minister of Finance comes from the province of Quebec. If there is any minister well known for consultation, any minister known for reaching out to his fellow politicians from his own Quebec caucus and his entire province, it is the Minister of Finance.

Whether it is the chairman of the Quebec caucus on this side or all members, they are fully consulted and they have been full participants in the budget process. I can assure the hon. member of that.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to address the House in today's budget debate.

Before I go any further I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, on the presentation of his sixth budget. I have had the honour of representing my constituents in this place for more than 10 years. In all that time I have never seen a budget that was so well received by Canadians.

Average Canadians support the measures in the budget. I know frustrated members opposite are wondering why Canadians are feeling so good about budget '99. I will take the opportunity to explain it to them.

It is about balance. The budget builds on and continues the tradition of responsible, prudent fiscal management of its five predecessors, and provides the balance and fairness that Canadians want and expect.

It is not skewed to the left with incomprehensible spending, as some of the NDP would favour. It does not provide for the irresponsible withering away of the federal government, as the Reform Party demands. It certainly does not manage the nation's finances in the capricious manner the Tories were famous for.

The budget is balanced, balanced both fiscally and in what it provides Canadians. It is a good news budget for all Canadians. That is why it is being so well received across the land, in Toronto, Regina, Edmonton and in my home city of Winnipeg.

Since I have only 10 minutes to speak to this important issue, I will not spend too much on the minutia of the budget. Rather I would like to concentrate my comments on what the budget means for the average Manitoban and the good citizens of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

First, let us look at health care. The budget increases federal cash transfers for health care to the provinces by an incredible $11.5 billion over the next five years. This is significant. It is a significant reinvestment by any measure and is the single largest investment ever announced by the government.

This cash infusion into our health care system fully restores the health component of the Canada health and social transfer to its level in the mid-1990s before the attack of the deficit curtailed expenditures.

As a result of this initiative, the Manitoba government will receive an additional $425 million in federal transfers to fund health care throughout the keystone province.

I would hope the provincial government in Manitoba would use some of that money to reduce waiting lines, augment staff and improve services at the Grace hospital, the main hospital servicing the needs of Winnipeg and Headingley.

Manitoba's health care system would also benefit from an additional $1.4 billion that this budget sets aside for new investments in health pilot projects, prenatal care, aboriginal initiatives and health information programs like the screening assessment and care planning automated tool recently announced by the health minister during a trip to Winnipeg.

Whether they live in the Courts of St. James or the Kiwanis Courts, well known senior citizens complexes in my riding, Manitobans want and deserve reasonable access to good quality health care. This budget goes a long way to securing that access.

Whether it be reductions in EI premiums or the introduction of the child tax benefit, every budget this government has introduced has included some form of tax reduction. In the past all these measures were targeted for special needs or to low income Canadians.

Last year, however, we began the process of introducing broad based tax relief. This year, I am happy to say, we have built on that.

This budget eliminates the 3% surtax introduced by the Tories in their unsuccessful attempts to reduce the deficit. It increases the basic personal exemption to $7,131 for every Canadian taxpayer. It also enriches and broadens the child tax benefit by a further $300 million. Combined with the measures in last year's budget, the 1999 budget delivers $16.6 billion in tax relief over the next three years.

The best news is that this is only the beginning. With the nation's finances firmly under control, this Liberal government is committed to reducing taxes further and will do so over the rest of this mandate and into the next.

What do these tax measures mean for the average Manitoban? It means that the single person living in an apartment on Portage Avenue and earning $20,000 a year will see his taxes fall by at least 10%. It means that the single mother living on Carriage Road and trying to raise her kids on an income of $30,000 will pay absolutely no federal tax. It means that the middle class family of four on Charleswood Road with an income of $50,000 will see its federal taxes fall by 15%. In fact, every Canadian will pay less federal tax as a result of this budget. Even the members of the Reform Party have to agree to that.

This budget is not only about health care and tax cuts. It is also about securing a strong and vibrant future for all Canadians. This budget invests more than $1.8 billion over the next three years in the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge and jobs. This money will be used to boost funding for the Canada foundation for innovation, a fund that has been used to modernize the research infrastructure at the University of Manitoba, the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg and the St. Boniface general hospital.

Our university students will also profit from increased funding to the research councils and to the network of centres of excellence.

Manitoba's aerospace industry located in the main in my riding has already benefited from a $3 million technology partnership Canada investment at Bristol Aerospace. This investment helped Bristol secure a $100 million contract to supply composite components to Boeing creating nearly 300 jobs. TPC provides fully repayable loans to assist high technology companies develop and market new products. It will be strengthened by an additional $50 million annually.

While Manitoba is fortunate in having the lowest unemployment rate in the country, unemployment in the north remains high, especially among our aboriginal communities. This budget allocates additional resources for job creation and for aboriginal issues.

Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia is also home to CFB Winnipeg and headquarters for 1 Canadian Air Division. The base employs thousands of military personnel who welcome the $175 million increase in the defence budget and who await the implementation of the quality of life package by the government.

I would like to address one other issue that is of major concern to the citizens of Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. That issue is the national debt. This government remains committed to the prudent fiscal planning that has eliminated the deficit and enabled reinvestments in health care, education, economic programs and tax cuts. We will not stray from this course. The nation's books will be balanced for a second year in a row, the first time since 1952 that the federal government has been deficit free for two consecutive years. Furthermore, we are committed to balancing the books next year and the year after that, only the third time since Confederation that the federal government will have introduced four consecutive balanced budgets.

The national debt is falling and will continue to fall in the future. This government has implemented a viable debt repayment plan that allocates the contingency reserve of $3 billion in each budget to debt repayment. This measure, coupled with a growing economy, will see our debt to GDP ratio fall to under 62% by the year 2000-01 and free up more money for programs and tax cuts.

I think Canadians appreciate this budget. They particularly appreciate the course that it sets out for the next few years.

[Agriculture, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10 the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food announced the federal government's commitment to assist financially strapped farmers. The $900 million federal contribution would grow to $1.5 billion with full provincial participation in the program.

This short term relief package will help producers who have been caught by disastrous farm commodity prices and who are in the middle of an American-European subsidy war.

So far all provinces except Manitoba have joined the program. It is time for the Manitoba provincial government to act. The foot dragging must stop. Many Manitoba farmers are hurting. They want a commitment from their provincial government.

Manitoba farmers know they can count on the federal government to do its share. To be fully effective, however, the program requires full provincial participation. The Manitoba government should not take its farmers for granted.

I urge the province of Manitoba to join us today in helping our farmers.

[Justice, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, an article in a weekend newspaper has left me with a feeling of deep concern.

In the article Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Antonio Lamer indicated that judges may avoid making unpopular decisions in cases of heinous crimes rather than suffer severe public criticism. I can empathize with Justice Lamer's comments. No one likes to be publicly vilified. However, I urge our judiciary not to succumb to the kind of bullying that we often hear from Reform Party members.

An essential part of our judicial system is the independence of judges to make decisions according to their understanding of the law. There can be no compromising of that, even in the face of irresponsible acts by the Reform Party.

The recent controversial decision on child pornography offended many Canadians, myself included, but there is an appeal process to deal with that. This is not the time to lose faith in our judges. The rule of law must be respected.