Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.
Committees Of The House December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 4, 1995 the committee has considered Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, and the committee has agreed to report it without amendment.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear comments from a member when he refers to oozing around this. Unfortunately I do not know what he means by the term oozing. The reference that we are not relegated to fourth class but to third class is absolutely false and shows a complete misunderstanding of what is in Bill C-110.
Under the existing constitutional formula the province of Saskatchewan could only stop a constitutional amendment with three other provinces. That would require all four provinces in the west to stop a constitutional amendment. Under this legislation, Saskatchewan with three of the smaller provinces in western Canada could stop the legislation or Saskatchewan and British Columbia could stop an amendment.
This is a tremendous improvement for the province of Saskatchewan. I simply ask that the member perhaps look at the legislation first.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this particular matter today, especially in light of some of the comments that were made earlier today by different members, in particular from the Reform Party.
In discussing this piece of legislation we have to look at what has already taken place and the rules that are presently in place. We have to look at the existing rule, the seven, ten, and fifty rule, requiring seven provinces out of ten to agree, with fifty per cent of the population. Under this particular rule, the Atlantic provinces, if they all agree on not supporting an amendment, have a veto. Ontario has a veto simply by virtue of population. The western provinces, if four of them get together, effectively have a veto as well. The only region of Canada that does not have a veto under the rule is Quebec.
It is not a matter of fairness when one region of Canada does not have a veto when three regions already can effectively veto legislation. We have to look at rectifying this situation.
Under Bill C-110 there are four regions, which have been referred to many times. One has to read Bill C-110 closely to determine that it does not deal with vetoes; it simply deals with the consent that is required to effect a constitutional amendment. Under the bill the consent of Ontario is required, the consent of Quebec is required, and two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have a combined population of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces, as well as two or more of the western provinces that have a combined population of at least 50 per cent. The rules change somewhat when moving to the second step.
I would suggest that the people of Saskatchewan now are better off. Under the previous rules it was quite difficult for Saskatchewan to stop legislation. It was difficult for Saskatchewan to deal with legislation because to exercise the veto all four western provinces had to agree. Under this rule, however, Saskatchewan along with B.C. or Saskatchewan along with three of the western provinces can stop legislation. It is much more effective for the province of Saskatchewan than in the past.
For a small province like Saskatchewan this is most helpful. The population of Saskatchewan is small, but it is being treated very well by Bill C-110. Saskatchewan's position has improved, but it has not improved at the cost of any other province.
I have listened to the speeches of Reform members. They indicated that there should be five regions, with B.C. having a veto, or even six regions, with B.C. and Alberta having vetoes. It appears that they are willing to cut loose Saskatchewan and Manitoba because there should not be two provinces in one region having a veto with such a small population. I find it interesting that the Reform Party would cut loose those two prairie provinces by having vetoes for the two most westerly provinces. It would cut them loose and they would not have a say in constitutional amendments. Are the occupants of these two provinces simply chopped liver?
The federal government has considered all the regions of the country and all the provinces, no matter how small the population. Saskatchewan was considered, Manitoba was considered, and provinces such as P.E.I. were considered.
To hear Reformers speak, it certainly appears that the Reform Party is willing to abandon Saskatchewan. The Reform Party has not proposed anything for Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It has not proposed anything because the Reform Party has abandoned us. Let me remind the Reform Party that in the next election the people of Saskatchewan will not forget what Reform has done.
The suggestion has been made that British Columbia may reach 50 per cent of the population in western Canada. That is a possibility. If any more people from Saskatchewan move to British Columbia, it should reach that sooner than we may think. That has certainly happened in the past. However, Saskatchewan can hold its own and may attract a few people back to Saskatchewan from British Columbia and may hold its own for the next number of years.
If British Columbia reaches the level of having 50 per cent of the population, some of the speeches made today by the Reform Party indicate that in effect British Columbia would have a veto and none of the other provinces in the west would have any effect. This is absolutely not true.
Two or more provinces with 50 per cent of the population in the west must consent to a constitutional amendment. Yes, British Columbia may get a veto if it has 50 per cent of the population, but even if British Columbia wants to consent to legislation, the other
three prairie provinces can stop that legislation even though they do not have 50 per cent of the population. In effect, both areas have a veto. British Columbia has the veto and the prairie provinces have a veto.
Again, it appears this is a little too much for some members of the Reform Party to indicate in the House. They want to show that we have not given any consideration to the prairie provinces, which is absolutely false. All areas of Canada have been considered by the Liberal Party. In particular, all small provinces have been considered, whether they are in the prairies or elsewhere.
The Reform Party has complained that B.C. does not have a veto now, and then says that if it does the prairies will not have any say. As I have indicated, this is not only wrong, it is false and a misrepresentation of what is in Bill C-110.
It certainly would help if the members of the Reform Party, before they start speaking in the House on a bill like Bill C-110, read the legislation. It is very short; it is one paragraph and two subsections. It is not very difficult to go through. It would maybe take a minute if they concentrated on it, half a minute if they went through it quickly, five minutes if they wanted to reread it. Simply going through it in that manner, they could and would determine that both areas have a veto built in. British Columbia, when it reaches 50 per cent of the population, would have the equivalent of a veto. The three prairie provinces together would also be able to stop legislation, because consent requires two provinces in the west.
We have accomplished what the Reform Party has been talking about. Unfortunately the Reform Party has not seen this today.
That is a perspective from a small province in western Canada, the province of Saskatchewan, which is benefiting from Bill C-110, as do many other regions of Canada. And it is benefiting not at the expense of any other province.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act October 26th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my comments perhaps will be somewhat limited, because I plan to deal with only one aspect of the legislation. That aspect deals with Motion No. 19 and the suggestion that the defence of due diligence should apply to the legislation.
As much as I believe in the system of justice we have and that we must always put in all defences possible for the enforcement of laws and the defendant should have defences such as due diligence, et cetera, available, I am suggesting that the motion should be defeated and that such a defence should not be allowed and not be applicable in a bill such as Bill C-61. There are a number of reasons why I suggest this. It comes from looking at the system we have in Canada in the food processing industry, which is perhaps one of the best in the world. If we allowed such a defence of due diligence to apply, we would be diluting the system we have. We would be regressing rather than progressing.
Let me give an example of a possible occurrence. I have earned money in the past by defending individuals using defences like this. Let me give an example of why the system perhaps should not have this particular defence.
If an importer brings in a particular product, whether it be cheese, bread or whatever, and there is something wrong with the product and it is contrary to the legislation and therefore subject to penalty under this statute, the person could be brought forward and could claim due diligence. He could say: "I contacted the manufacturer and he absolutely guaranteed that there was nothing wrong with this product. The foreign processor told me that every precaution was taken to make sure this food was safe. The foreign processor told me that spot checks, et cetera, have been done on this food and it is fine. I have used all due diligence in making sure the product is safe."
If the defence is available, the person should not be subject to the penalties. That certainly does not help the consumer who may be ingesting this food and getting ill or perhaps even dying from that food. The importer must go further.
If the importer is subject to the penalties in this act, the importer must be in a position to say: "I did spot checks. I tested this food and I made certain it was safe". It is not good enough because if due diligence applied, the importer could always rely on it and always bring in unsafe food although the processor in the foreign country indicated it was good enough.
We require this rule so foreign processors cannot bypass the safety standards of our country. We require it so that if the importer is in violation of this act, the importer can go back to the foreign processor and say: "What you told me was not good enough. You must take other steps to ensure and guarantee this product is good. If you do not do that, I will change suppliers because I do not want to be brought forward again and punished for being in contravention of the act". That is why due diligence should not apply.
Due diligence is applicable in many other areas of our justice system but should not be in the food processing industry. Again, this shows why Canada has one of the best food systems in the world. If we allow such a defence we are going to be regressing rather than progressing in the future, regressing because errors will not be corrected and the same problems will arise. If we allow it, this would be small comfort to an individual who might ingest an adulterated food that might cause serious injury or possibly even death.
The system put in place by Bill C-61 is a quick system. It is effective but it will not be painless. It cannot be painless. There has to be some pain but it does not have to be overly excessive. The person who violates the provisions of the bill must be brought to task for what has been done. However, Bill C-61 does not provide for imprisonment. It does not give the person a record of conviction of an offence and the penalties are rather modest but they are punitive to some extent and therefore serve the purpose required. The person who is contravening the legislation does not want to be brought back over and over.
Absolute liability offences are absolutely necessary in the food industry. They are absolutely necessary to protect people. Everyone knows this. I am sure the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster knows how important it is that any grain produced on his farm is not adulterated, that it has not been treated or accidentally adulterated with some chemicals, then sold and put into the food processing chain for someone else to eventually consume. It is as important there as it is in the processing industry. It is as important there as it is in the importing business.
How do we deal with it? Do we adopt a system where a person ends up going through a regulatory system with charges laid and the process going on and on? People like me in my other world relish such a system where things would work well for me. Or do we put in a system that is effective and efficient? I suggest when it is contraventions in the food industry, it has to be done quickly. It has to be done effectively because we cannot afford to have contraventions that continue over a period of time with adulterated food that keeps entering and maintaining itself in the food system while the possible contravention is being dealt with in the court system. It has to be quick. It as to be effective. The health of our public is too important.
The health of the people to which we export is too important. Canada's reputation is too important. We cannot afford to tarnish it by having our food system in any way hampered and looked on by people in this country and foreign countries, saying: "We do not know if we can rely on it. It is generally a good source, but it is not that good a source". We cannot afford such a reputation. The reputation has to be that ours is superior to everyone else, or as good as the best that there is.
The policy obviously is to maintain a very high standard. We must maintain it. It helps exports in the future and it certainly helps in the production and the processing of products.
As indicated by the hon. member for Malpeque, other common law defences are still available to a person. Due diligence is not the be all and end all if we do not accept it.
For the reasons I have given, I suggest that due diligence should not be a defence. Motion No. 19 should fail.
British Columbia Treaty Commission October 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker it is nice to know that members of the third party recognize that this uncertainty is having an impact on industry in Canada. Hopefully, rather than being critical of what is being proposed, the third party will propose whatever it believes may be better. If its proposals are better we can discuss them.
It is interesting to note the land claims, overlapping claims and the problems with them. Of course it is voluntary and entrance is voluntary. However it is hoped that as we proceed the parties and other groups in British Columbia will see the process is working. Since it is voluntary, hopefully other groups that are somewhat reluctant will join the program.
A step has to be taken. We cannot throw our arms in the air and say that we have this problem but will do nothing about it. We cannot say that. We have to try to bring the matter to a resolution and help industry and people in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada bring the matter to a head. I just wish the hon. member had some constructive suggestions on how this matter could be dealt with if he is not happy with the process we have introduced.
British Columbia Treaty Commission October 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-107 today.
In 1990 Price Waterhouse estimated, as the hon. member who just spoke indicated, that about $1 billion of expenditures involving up to 1,500 jobs in the mining and forestry sector were likely to be affected if claims were not resolved. When we hear these numbers we must keep in mind that these are only two industry sectors and this study was over five years ago. In that report Price Waterhouse indicated that comprehensive land claims generate uncertainty for companies operating in British Columbia. I will get back to the factor of uncertainty.
Factors creating uncertainty include right of access to land and resources, possibility of production or shipment disruptions affecting reliability as suppliers, and possibility of unsatisfactory compensation if a company is affected by a land claim settlement.
Forestry and mining companies reported that they required a premium to invest in British Columbia rather than elsewhere because of the uncertainties related to comprehensive claims. Currently the premium is generally less than 1 per cent but it is expected to rise in the future. As indicated, the economic impact on the province of British Columbia is substantial.
The report goes on to indicate that uncertainty surrounding settlement of the land claims issue will ultimately have an impact on the provincial economy. It is estimated that almost $1 billion of currently proposed mining and forestry industry investments could be affected by the non-settlement of comprehensive land claims, although land claims are generally not the only issue to be resolved before development can proceed.
The economic impacts of such delays or cancellations could be summarized as follows: $50 million of capital expenditures could be lost each year; $75 million of capital expenditures could be delayed resulting in both lost opportunities and continued operation of less than efficient plants; and some 100 jobs stand not to be created each year because of the economic uncertainty. Such loss of growth of primary industry jobs means that the service sector will also be impacted and grow more slowly. Using generally accepted employment multipliers this is equivalent to a further 200 jobs not created throughout the province each year which might otherwise materialize.
The report indicates based on the projects identified in the survey that ultimately some 1,500 permanent jobs could be impacted, together with related indirect and induced employment.
It is important to refer to particular parts of the report because of the details contained therein. It is important to look at different aspects. There is reference made to the mining industry. The situation is a bit different at the mining development stage. A number of the participants indicated that they expected difficulties from unsettled land claims. Together the projects the participants indicated they had problems with represent about $680 million in capital expenditures.
Extrapolating the results and analysing expected impacts, Price Waterhouse estimated that the mining investment of about $100 million a year was likely to be affected by uncertainties related to comprehensive land claims in British Columbia. This represents about 12 per cent of annual private and public capital investment in the British Columbia mining industry. Based on the survey results about half the projects affected were expected to experience delays of about three years. The other half were expected to be cancelled.
Along with these losses one has to look at another ancillary loss, legal costs. Comprehensive land claims in British Columbia result in legal costs to governments, companies and native organizations estimated by Price Waterhouse at about $5 million a year.
In 1987, it is important to note, forestry, logging and wood products, manufacturing and pulp and paper manufacturing accounted for about 30 per cent of the GDP of the goods producing industries of the province of British Columbia and about 10 per cent of the province's GDP. In 1988 the industry was responsible for 87,000 direct permanent jobs representing about 6 per cent of total employment in British Columbia. The multiplier effect creates at least two more jobs for each direct job. Thus 261,000 jobs in British Columbia can be attributed to the forestry industry, 17 per cent of the total provincial workforce.
Mining, oil, gas and related manufacturing account for about 15 per cent of goods producing GDP and about 5 per cent of the provincial GDP. This is half the size of the forest industry in terms of GDP contribution.
We must note the Price Waterhouse study was completed over five years ago in March 1990. A lot has happened in the resource industry and on the land claims front since that time. However the one thing that has remained consistent is the need to establish certainty in the province of British Columbia through the negotiation and settlement of land claims.
The study conducted by Price Waterhouse involved leaders in the mining and forestry industries including senior executives, presidents and vice-presidents of companies, as well as general managers, chief foresters and managers of exploration and woodland operations. This is a critical point to understand the real impact of the lack of certainty on the land claims front to resource development and the impact the study has had in the industry. It signals the very broad recognition by industry from the boardrooms out to the field. The issue cannot be more emphatic. The settlement of land claims is long overdue.
Price Waterhouse reported that unresolved, comprehensive land claims generate uncertainty to companies operating in British Columbia, as I have already mentioned. I will mention it again to emphasize it for third party members and get through to them that it is an important factor.
Factors creating this uncertainty include the right of access to land and resources. For these companies the most important factors affecting the premium include future uncertainties regarding the outcome of injunctions related to land ownership or access, the possibility of production disruption, and future considerations regarding royalties and taxes.
The respondents to the Price Waterhouse survey generally agree that companies, employees and governments all pay the cost of uncertainty related to comprehensive land claims. The survey respondents also agreed that generally the higher cost could not be passed on to consumers because the resource sectors in British Columbia sell on world markets and are price takers. None of the respondents reported having considered compensation for comprehensive claims when applying for federal-provincial government funding. Very few respondents actually reported having applied for government incentive programs in the past.
These are very real concerns in resource based sectors in the province of British Columbia that consequently the economic stability not only of that province but the rest of the country as well.
There has been considerable action on the claims front since the study was done. The province of British Columbia has entered into the negotiation process and over 47 nation groups in the province of British Columbia have submitted statements of intent to negotiate.
The federal government is committed to resolving the uncertainty issues caused by the lack of treaties in B.C. The tabling of legislation for the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission is one step toward the resolution of uncertainty.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Price Waterhouse numbers demonstrate a clear and resounding indication of the impacts and the costs associated with not resolving land claims in the province of British Columbia.
We know we are losing over $1 billion in investment and over 1,500 jobs in mining and forestry. The door is open to resolve the land claims issue, to achieve certainty and to move forward. We must act. The opportunity is here today with the B.C. Treaty Commission legislation.
Corrections And Conditional Release Act September 28th, 1995
You are on pension already.
Corrections And Conditional Release Act September 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to a particular case and read a letter. I take it the hon. member is well aware that laws are made by the federal government but the enforcement of these laws is strictly in the hands of the provincial governments. Barking in the Chamber is the wrong place. Comments have to be made to the provincial attorneys general to make sure matters are taken care of.
The John Howard Society has put out statistics showing that a substantial number of young people are convicted of offences, and 31 per cent of the young offenders are incarcerated but only approximately 20 per cent of adults are incarcerated. Proportionally there are more young offenders being incarcerated than adults. Yet we can see the Reform Party is clamouring for stronger sentences. As well, it appears that more young offenders are being charged but the crime rate of young offenders is not going up.
With the position the Reform Party is taking, is it indicating there should be more incarceration facilities built in this country for young offenders and perhaps resort to a system similar to what is developing in California?
Leader Of The Reform Party June 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks we have learned the hon. leader of the Reform Party has designs on becoming the leader of the opposition. Apparently the leader of the third party has decided he needs a car upgrade. Chevys are great cars and lately he has found his accommodation not to be to his liking.
Having made these discoveries he felt it was easier to become leader of the opposition than to get the Reform Party to increase his expense account. Therefore he has initiated a feeble attempt to get backbench Liberals to defect to the Reform Party. Such unrestrained political ambition is so blatant it is embarrassingly dangerous.
I have a message for him on behalf of my colleagues. There will not be a stampede, so do not hire the interior decorator for Stornoway just yet.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 June 14th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking about keeping the number of seats as they are at present. Under such a proposition the province of Saskatchewan would lose about two seats, which would mean that almost 20 per cent of the seats in Saskatchewan would be lost.
Does he agree that the province of Saskatchewan should lose almost 20 per cent of its representation in the House?