David Iftody

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West concerning Canada's fiduciary responsibility toward its aboriginal people.

The federal government takes very seriously its fiduciary relationship with aboriginal people. However, in a legal context, there is much uncertainty within fiduciary law on what the specific duties or obligations of the federal government are because of this relationship.

The Supreme Court of Canada has begun to outline Canada's specific obligations in this complex area, beginning as far back as the Calder case. Mr. Calder was one of the elders of the Nisga'a clan with whom we have just signed a very historical agreement. The Sparrow case is another one reaching the Supreme Court of Canada, and most recently the well known Delgamuukw case in which the supreme court outlined a broad context by which the federal government must interpret the specifics in each arrangement with its first peoples.

The government has studied these decisions carefully to ensure that Canada's actions conform to the principles articulated by these esteemed courts. Among these principles is Canada's fiduciary responsibility to ensure that surrenders of reserve lands reflect the intentions of the first nations for whom the reserve has been set aside.

The courts are one process chosen by aboriginal people to resolve outstanding grievances, as they should from time to time. In some instances the Government of Canada has intervened in courts cases to which aboriginal people are also parties. Crown intervention decisions like other positions in court are taken carefully, considering the implications for aboriginal people as well as for government policy.

With our special relationship with aboriginal people and with the Gathering Strength initiative, the government encourages the use of negotiation rather than litigation.

[Transport, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Rail line transportation remains an integral feature of agriculture in western Canada. What is the minister doing to ensure that abandonment of rail lines or the transfer of short line operators will serve the interests of all parties in western Canada?

[Manitoba Floods, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic floods that occurred in Manitoba last spring devastated the people of the Red River Valley.

One year ago today the town of Ste-Agathe was completely flooded, creating grief, family breakdown and attempted suicides.

Even today 100 families live in trailers or garages because their homes remain uninhabitable.

This is not a question of merely, as was stated in the House yesterday, flooded basements or having no lights. This is about people who are suffering. We have a duty in this House and I have a duty to say that we must continue to support the people of Provencher, the people of the Red River Valley, as this government has done.

[Port Moody—Coquitlam, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Lou Sekora on a solid victory in yesterday's byelection.

The voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam have put their confidence in a Liberal member to represent their interests in the House of Commons. We will not let them down.

The Reform Party claims that it is the only voice for British Columbia, but yesterday the voters rejected Reform's divisive, narrow politics.

The fact is that Liberals have increased their percentage of the vote in this riding consistently since 1993. Clearly British Columbians want good government and will vote for members who represent their day to day concerns.

Finally, yesterday shows that no Reform seat is safe in western Canada. Together with other Liberals from western Canada and from every part of the country, we will build a strong British Columbia and therefore a strong Canada.

[Petitions, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present this morning from a number of communities in my riding, Niverville, Steinbach and the Grunthal area, all dealing with the same subject matter.

These people are concerned about amendments to section 43 of the Criminal Code dealing primarily with the discipline of children.

It is their view that the rights of parents are to be protected under these circumstances, that the best interests of the children are protected by parents and not the state.

May I conclude on their behalf by saying therefore the petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.

[Trade, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, international trade is a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. While we often hear criticisms from the other side of the House about job creation and wealth creation in this country, we hear of no alternatives, particularly from the Reform Party.

In the face of the Asian crisis, can the government and the Minister for International Trade advise this House what the numbers are and how we are doing in the face of this crisis in Asia for creating wealth for Canadian people?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House and to join with my colleagues on both sides of the House to discuss this important piece of legislation.

I shared what I want to say with a couple of the Reform Party members outside the House this afternoon when we were discussing this. My interest in this bill of course is as a rural member in Manitoba on behalf of the farmers there. It is also of particular importance because I shared with them my own family background where the Iftody family came to this country 100 years ago. This year we will be celebrating 100 years of being in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

My ancestors came here as farmers. They were clearing the land as grain farmers. Those good people and their successive generations, like many immigrants from eastern Europe, cleared that land and planted primarily grain. That evolved to a much more sophisticated system but all of them will tell, if hon. members will listen on both sides of the House, of the changes that have occurred in the industry in the past 100 years.

They will tell, and some have told me, of the monopolies in the 1920s and 1930s of the large private grain companies that were gouging the farmers, controlling that process.

I find it absolutely surprising, strange and odd indeed that some of these members of Parliament are advocating a return to that place where invariably with the break-up of the wheat board we would have a companion, parallel process of monopolization with one grain company buying the other and buying the other until we are left with one or two large companies again in Canada competing against the small farmer whom these folks ostensibly are trying to protect.

That is the background to some of the comments I want to make on this. First, in the small business sector, or perhaps a farmer in a small farming operation, where would he or she today in the free market find an underwriter for exporting their product overseas? Some of the members have raised that question most recently about moneys owed to Poland, Russia or Asia because they need forward financing in order to buy the grain. Who would do that? Would the farmers be expected to pay the premiums on that and the risk of exporting in insurance as other manufacturers? Who would cover that? We have not talked about that.

We have a guarantee of $6 billion by the Government of Canada for the Canadian farmers. I think that is significant.

The Export Development Corporation, for example, does provide insurance policies as well for farmers who are exporting. Even in my own riding, if they are shipping overseas they do not know whether that receipt will come back void, that the company has shut down and they will lose that shipment. They need those guarantees. They are well placed companies, some of them doing $55 million or $100 million worth of exports. They need that insurance. They seek that insurance. It is provided through instruments of the Government of Canada.

With respect to the democratic process of the election of the board members, I cannot understand how it is, after the whole history of the wheat board and talking to farmers in Manitoba, grandfathers, sons and daughters who have farmed, that somebody would argue that for the first time in history we would allow and elect 66% of the members of that board, freely and duly elected, by the farmers. This is the first time. Yet we have opposition to that. We have members of parliament who will stand in this House and vote against that democratic process and that principle. I find that really puzzling and troubling. This is a historic moment.

For the first time these farmers lobbying in the coffee shops in my riding of Provencher, for example, will have the opportunity to talk to their colleagues about their plans for the marketing of grain in Canada, outside of Canada, to the U.S., to the Asian markets, and they will seek the approval of their peers. They will lobby and they will put their ideas forward in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

If they have the guarantee of those people and have the confidence of their brother and sister farmers they will get that vote. They will get that vote and they will become a board member. How can anyone argue against that?

There is now emerging a charter challenge against the wheat board under the rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister of Canada, at that time the minister of justice, brought in the charter of rights and freedoms. He argued for it in the House of Commons. The very people now who want to use that were arguing against the charter. They did not want the charter. They were arguing for the notwithstanding clause in the charter which eventually they got. The notwithstanding clause in the charter generally says that any rights that may be abridged or abrogated in the charter, notwithstanding the collective good, may be overridden. What some of the members are forgetting to discuss is the larger question of the collective good.

I found it curious that they would apply to the human rights commission to invoke the charter of rights and freedoms to be able to accomplish we do not know what, but a charter of rights and freedoms that they attacked in 1980, in 1983 and that they continue to attack today. I find that puzzling indeed.

There has been some discussion about the inclusion clause. I too have some concerns about it. My bottom line for the farmers in my riding of Provencher is that I want them to prosper, I want them to do well, I want them to have a fuller say in the marketing of their grain, but we look at it in the long term.

Everyone is talking about the spot market and rushing over the border with a load of grain. We saw what happened in the Durham wheat question when our farmers were bringing grain over into Montana. There were almost fist fights at the local elevator prompting them to go to their congressmen and senators. Then they imposed an arbitrary cap on the kind and amount of wheat we could send to the U.S. Is it not logical and clear to some of the members in the House? How long do they think we will ship our grain over with our trucks to the U.S. before the American farmers are on the phone to their local politicians? Do we want to be beholden to them? I do not think so.

I do not argue that we do not need changes to the wheat board. We need some fundamental changes to the wheat board. It must be responsive to Canadian farmers. I asked and requested it to be responsive to the farmers in my riding. To suggest that we blow it open and disband it and put it in the hands of a short term interest is not wise and it is not prudent. Ultimately it would hurt farmers.

I do have some concerns with the inclusion clause. I share some of the views of my colleague from Brandon—Souris. I appreciate his views. I too met with a number of people to discuss this.

I met with canola growers. I met with western wheat growers following their meeting with the hon. member I had mentioned. They said to me that they would support the bill if the inclusion clause were removed. They said they would support the bill.

I said I will meet you half way if you give me a letter stating that is a public position of yours. I would take it to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the Prime Minister and say look, we have some movement here. I am still waiting for the letter. I was hoping to have received it today. I have not received the letter and the member for Brandon—Souris said that if there were some changes, he would support the bill.

I think there is still some area for discussion here. But the bottom line is this. With the underpinning of the 66% of the board and the members having control over that process, how would it be possible that they would violate the will of the farmers they are ostensibly elected to represent and they would include something in the board, canola for example, without the approval of those farmers? I think it is inconceivable. It cannot happen.

The member was asking those rhetorical questions. Could it happen? I think very unlikely. It is a safety measure, but you cannot look at these structural changes in one year, three year. We talk about five year and ten year corporate plans. In something this important to western Canada, we need a 25 year plan.

In summary, I think we can support the basic intent and spirit of this bill, which is to bring a democratic reform to the Canadian Wheat Board, that regular farmers, men and women, can sit on that board and make long term decisions which are in their best interests and in the best interests of their children.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there was an error in the last counting of my vote. I would like my vote to be recorded as no on the last motion. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have it recorded as no.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak briefly on the motions before the House and the debate about the Canada pension plan in general.

Having sat on the finance committee and having heard from Canadians both on the larger question of the general finances of the country leading up to our budget and on the CPP, it has provided me with an opportunity, I believe, to speak to a number of points and to add some clarifications.

The member for the New Democratic Party, the critic for small business, referred to a number of points with respect to the Canada pension plan contributions and the effect on small business. Indeed, it is true that it will have an effect.

I think it is important to point out a number of features within the tax arrangements between the provinces and the federal government on the CPP question. That is to say, that with some of the tax measures that are currently available, there is possibly a $900 increase in the Canada pension plan between the employer and the employee. After tax it is more like around $700. I believe those features have to be brought out with respect to small business and for the assistance of small business.

Speaking about small business, the member for the Conservative Party, who spoke eloquently earlier here in the Chamber, talked about the plans of the Conservative Party with respect to unemployment contributions and tying that into the CPP. It is important to remind the House—and I am sure it is not lost on all the members here and those who were here between 1988 and 1993—that the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party voted many times and repeatedly to raise contributions to a level of $3.30 per $100 of earnings against the small business people and employees.

What we have done in the four short years on that particular question with respect to employment contributions is lower it, indeed with the most recent changes a few days ago, to $2.70. Taken all together over the past four years, this puts $4.2 billion back into the hands of small business people in Canada and their employees. This is an important contribution. As was pointed out by the parliamentary secretary earlier in the debate, we will continue to work toward that goal.

It is really a false assumption to say that we have this large and looming surplus in the employment fund when, as members know, previously, around 1989-90, we had a deficit. Was it proper then? I would like to ask the opposition if it was immoral, as some had suggested at the committee table, to take money now from the surplus? Was it immoral at that time, for example, to ask Canadians to pay that deficit fund under the EI fund which accounted for billions of dollars?

It is prudent practice in terms of consolidating the revenues of the Government of Canada and to balance those out. Certainly in times of surplus, last week we made a $1.4 billion contribution back to the employees. If it runs into a deficit financing position again, obviously we would be prepared to back that up and to support that.

Referring to the CPP specifically, one of the things the Reform Party has not done to address this important debate is the primary antecedent or variable that shapes this whole discussion on the Canada pension plan. Thomas d'Aquino, President of the Business Council on National Issues, for example, when he came to the table of the House of Commons, specifically asked the opposition parties what they were prepared to do with the $600 billion debt that was on the table momentarily and what we are going to do with this liability over the next 25 to 30 years.

There have been no constructive proposals brought forward in this regard. Most certainly the plan of the Reform Party for this super RRSP may benefit a few but it certainly is not going to help the majority of Canadians who make contributions at an average of $3,000 a year. It certainly said nothing, absolutely nothing, about the $600 billion liability which we are trying to address in this formula.

It is very interesting that even in the province of Manitoba, recent reports from Stats Canada, and reported in the local newspaper in Manitoba The Winnipeg Free Press , that the average contribution in Manitoba for RRSPs was less than $3,000. Surely these contributions are not safe enough to provide that template, that safety net for all Canadians into their future. It is just not there.

In other words what I am saying is that the ceiling we have employed at this point in the RRSP contributions of $13,500 is exercised and enjoyed by only a few. The plan for the RRSP will not do that. This says nothing about the absence of a disability plan or some compensation for widows.

The Canada pension plan and the long term proposals we have put forth to the House and through the committee are responsible plans. It should be acknowledged that yes, the plan has fallen short of its goals and its objectives. No one could have foreseen, certainly the crafters and drafters of these documents could not have foreseen, a reasonable person could not have foreseen in 1965, 1967 and 1968 that successive generations of adults would not be having larger families than we currently have, two or three children per family. This is the central feature. Demographics cannot be lost in this debate in terms of their effect on ability to pay.

This is what we are trying to do by responding to the auditor general, to outside consultants' reports and by looking at the overall view and the long term health and prosperity of the country. What we are doing now will provide that template to make sure those people who are 60 years old now, those who are turning 50 this year and in 10 years will be thinking more acutely about their retirement, whatever their arrangements are and whatever packages are as a combination of their work benefits, family inheritances, RRSPs, are secured into the future for their retirement. Further, the younger generation, those for example between the ages of 30 to 40, can have the degree of certainty to know that they will need to have a secure pension plan into the future as well.

I want to conclude my comments by saying that over the next number of months and in the upcoming budget we are responding to the needs of small business in Canada. The recent reductions in the employment insurance, the changes in the CPP to provide a stronger stability and predictability in financial planning for small business, the reduction in interest rates as well are helping small business and keeping the economy moving and growing. This is particularly so in Manitoba where we are enjoying record growth in our exports.

I believe the amendment is wrong. I believe the motion by the Conservative party to bring these two important programs together is a misleading one. It will not be helpful to small business and ultimately will not be helpful to Canadians.

[Transportation, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Western Canadian farmers are legitimately anxious about the transportation of their grain.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is now delaying necessary investigations into the movement of grain apparently until the spring of 1998. The spring of 1998 is too late.

Will that grain be moving this year, next year and the year thereafter? And what is the Minister of Transport prepared to do about these delays in the transportation agency?