Do the right thing.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 28% of the vote.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
Do the right thing.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-57, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 4, with the following:
"8.(1) Subject to this section, the Agreement is hereby approved.
(2) In subsections (2) to (6), "law of Canada" includes laws duly enacted by any province or territory in Canada.
(3) No provision of the Agreement shall apply where its application or enforcement would result in contravention of any law of Canada.
(4) Nothing in the Agreement or in this Act shall be construed
(a) to amend or modify any law of Canada, including any law relating to
(i) protection of human or animal life,
(ii) protection of the environment, or
(iii) worker safety;
or
(b) to limit any authority conferred under a law of Canada, unless specifically provided for in this Act.
(5) As may be required, the Minister shall consult with the governments of the provinces and territories for the purpose of achieving conformity with the provisions of the Agreement.
(6) No law of Canada may be declared invalid on the ground that the law or its application or enforcement in a particular circumstance is inconsistent with any provision of the Agreement."
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this motion amending Bill C-57.
This amendment writes into Canadian law precisely the same measures that have been written by Congress into American law regarding the implementation of the World Trade Organization agreement in the United States. Congress has feared that the WTO will seriously compromise American sovereignty.
We have heard many of the newly elected American politicians talking about their desire to remain an independent and sovereign nation capable of making their own economic decisions for Americans. This sort of statement is something we should be hearing from the front benches of our own government and from the other members in this Chamber who wish to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their profession, vocation or status in life have an opportunity to succeed with the support of their government in their endeavours.
As I indicated, Congress fears that the WTO will seriously compromise American sovereignty, It has therefore included several clear statements in its legislation to ensure that American law will prevail over any WTO decision. In looking at the American legislation which defines the relationship of the agreement to United States law and state law, in section 102(a)(1) I read this:
United States law to prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay round agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.
Incredible. Section 102(a)(2) states:
Construction. Nothing in this act shall be construed
(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States including any law relating to:
(i) the protection of human animal plant life or health;
(ii) the protection of the environment; or
(iii) worker safety; or
(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The United States is one of the largest if not the largest trading nation in the world. Again the Americans are ensuring that the agreements they are reaching on the international stage protect the interests of the people within their borders. Surely we in Canada deserve to be negotiating and agreeing to no less.
We are familiar with the behaviour of the Americans under the North American free trade agreement especially with regard to durum wheat which I am very familiar with and softwood lumber which all members of my caucus are familiar with. We can assume that the Americans mean business when they say they will not let any international agreement stop them from harassing the trade of their trading partners if they feel it is in their interests.
It is not that I am trying to say we can learn a lesson from the Americans in this regard. The Americans will defend themselves right or wrong. We know from durum wheat, softwood lumber and other matters that even when they are wrong they will take every measure they can to ensure that their interests are protected and the people whose interests need protecting are supported.
Even in our own case where we know we are right on durum right we caved in. On the Crow benefit, transporting grain to port for sale in the international marketplace, we know we are right to maintain that benefit for our producers. Even before the agreement is signed here in Canada or the legislation implementing the agreement in Canada is concluded, the Liberal government across the way is giving away the Crow benefit.
The government is negotiating right now on the prairies how to change that benefit for Canadian producers. The people who are best served by that benefit are being let down by this government in the absence of even an agreement through this legislation to proceed, whereas our trading partner is going to every length it possibly can to protect its producers even though it is wrong. This is unbelievable.
Canadians have to take note of what is happening not only through this debate but through this whole WTO practice. As we know, in such circumstances we believe it is not only right but also proper for Canada to arm itself with the same legal weapons containing the effects of the WTO agreement until such time as the Americans will demonstrate goodwill in making a rules based trading system work.
The member for Winnipeg Transcona, our party's trade critic, has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and has carefully thought through many of the provisions. As a result he has written a letter a portion of which I would like to read into today's record of Hansard and for the benefit of all those who are watching. This letter appeared in the Washington Post on November 6. I quote the last two paragraphs of his letter:
The apparent failure of a rules-based trading regime is rich in irony. Canadians and Americans, like others around the world, have been asked by the multinationals and their allies in governments to sacrifice considerable national sovereignty over investment policy and social, labour and environmental standards in exchange for this rules-based regime. If it becomes evident that the rules do not work as a result of either American ideological arrogance or American self-interest masquerading as ideology, informed voters around the world may feel that there has been a breach of the contracts their country has entered into through the various trade liberalization agreements. Such voters may demand that their governments try to take back some of that lost sovereignty, until such times as a real global community can be established as an alternative to the moral anarchy of the current "globalization".
In this sense, any American sabotage of a rules-based regime may be the great hope for those opposed to globalization on the terms set out by the multinationals. America may yet be the undoing of free trade, either by harassing others into despair about its sincerity, or by exiting such agreements themselves if they prove to be too effective in cases where fair trade conflicts with American self-interest.
It is very clear here that the Americans in attempting to protect their own economic interests are taking steps that could, if they scuttle the agreement in the United States, benefit Canadian interests in ensuring that those engaged in our economy receive a fair shake for what they are doing.
The amendment in front of us today does nothing less than ensure that our legislation is exactly the same or carries exactly the same interests forward as what the Americans are doing in theirs.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, the purpose of the amendments brought forward by New Democrats today is to commit the government to reporting to Parliament regularly on its activities in the World Trade Organization and especially on the progress toward the development of a social clause to the WTO. In this way we can keep the momentum going for a social clause by ensuring that the public spotlight is kept on the government's policy on this important issue.
A social clause is needed so that the WTO can address not only classic trade disputes between nations but also the problem of what has become known as social dumping, that is a nation's competitive advantage that results from unregulated labour markets and lack of environmental protection regulations.
During the Marrakech conference where the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations drew to a close, expectations were high that the final text of the agreement would include a social clause.
Although the Americans and the French were pushing hard for one, nothing came of those negotiations. The Minister for International Trade was quoted in the press at the time as saying that he was lukewarm to the idea.
The purpose of the amendment is to get a categorical commitment from the government to be actively involved in the development of a social clause in the WTO agreement.
The idea of a social clause is one which enjoys wide support around the world as a necessary counterweight to the liberalization of investment. As a constitution for the new world order of the global marketplace, the WTO agreement as it stands is remarkably one sided in its defence of the rights of investors and silent on the rights of workers. It pretends that labour, social security and the environment are not trade issues.
It is eloquent about the multinationals' right to intellectual property and to the free movement of capital but says nothing about the workers' rights to form trade unions or to have a safe workplace. It speaks loudly about level playing fields but is silent about the most important playing field of all, the one between the employer and the employee.
A social clause is needed to strike a balance between the market efficiencies of liberal trade and investment practices and the social solidarity of all communities that want basic human rights and decent employment practices enforced everywhere where capital is free to come and go.
The multinationals can and do now operate outside the regulatory reach of individual states. We must in partnership with our trading partners establish some way of restoring the abilities of communities to set the ground rules for the marketplace. An unregulated global market effectively allows the multinationals to hold an auction to see which countries will bid the cheapest and least regulated labour and the most lax environmental standards in order to get their investment.
If we do not establish some basic rules about the labour markets and environmental protection, globalization will certainly remain what many observers have called a race to the bottom.
This is the view of the International Labour Organization secretariat which earlier this month recommended to the governing body of the ILO that there should be a social clause to the WTO. This is also the view of the joint committee that recently reviewed Canada's foreign policy. Its report included a recommendation that there should be a co-ordination of international labour and social standards.
I look forward to hearing the views of the members of the committee who can support this amendment as a way of putting their recommendation into action.
During the recent visit of Team Canada to China and the Prime Minister's attendance at the APEC conference in Indonesia, the Prime Minister claimed that the best way to address the problem of human rights abuses in China, Indonesia and elsewhere was to engage in trade to open up these societies. There is nothing in the WTO that prevents countries from joining the WTO, trading with member states and continuing to abuse human rights,
denying workers the right to join independent unions, or allowing child labour.
Support for a social clause which would link trade benefits to basic human and social rights is the only way for us to begin a true commitment to using trade as a way of improving human rights situations in many countries. Without such a clause, the WTO legislates a turkey shoot where the multinationals and their allies in some developing countries can exploit the most vulnerable.
Support for a social clause is the obvious response to globalization by anyone who is not hypnotized by the neo-Liberal rhetoric that the development of world markets unfettered by democratic control is the inevitable and unstoppable result of new technology.
The new technologies in telecommunications and in information technology certainly make it possible for capital to move instantly around the globe or for technologies to be transferred between states very easily. It does not mean that it is necessary for us to let the elites in the multinationals use that technology without any obligations to the communities where they operate.
Globalization as it is now occurring with multinationals glorying in their freedom from democratic responsibility is not an impersonal force of technological innovation. It results from the deliberate choice of governments to liberalize trade and investment policies, to hand over to the multinationals a carte blanche to design a world order that suits their wants and interests. We should not let the free market rhetoric blind us to the fact that we can choose to win back some measure of our ability to impose some community standards on the trade and investment practices of the multinationals.
The idea of a social clause to the World Trade Organization has been opposed by some governments of developing countries as a baldly protectionist measure to deprive developing countries of their competitive advantage in low labour costs and general lack of regulation.
If it is protectionist to protect children from exploitation as virtual slaves, to protect workers who do not enjoy the basic human rights of forming unions or having a safe place to work or to protect the environment from rapacious multinationals then we have no embarrassment in saying that we are protectionists. We have to resist the way that the rhetoric of free trade has perverted the word protection so that any public intervention to protect any public good whatsoever is deemed to be a threat to prosperity.
A social clause to the WTO however would not even fall under the conventional definition of protectionism as regulations that unfairly restrict the legitimate economic opportunities of another country. The proposals that have been made by supporters of a social clause, like the ILO, France and the United States, simply call for a set of minimum standards of the rights of workers to form unions. The effect of such a clause would not only be to respect the rights of workers around the world but also to bring economic benefit to the entire world economy.
It is astounding that advocates of market liberalization trumpet the growth that supposedly results from open world markets during a time when liberalization has led in the developed countries to chronic high unemployment and falling income for workers.
The introduction of a social clause would be an important step forward in raising global demand, thereby stimulating investment and consumption. The advocates of the liberalization of world markets assumes that as developing countries become more prosperous internal social pressures are generated from a maturing and self-confident workplace to insist on higher wages and better working conditions as happened in the industrialized countries.
This assumption fails to recognize that the vast pool of unemployed workers in rural sectors in the economies of east and south Asia for example creates a huge drag on the ability of wages to rise at a reasonable level. Moreover it ignores the fact that workers in many developing countries do not enjoy the basic democratic right to form unions that would allow them to improve their condition. An essential ingredient to raising global demand is therefore to intervene in the world labour markets and to let natural economic forces raise wages. We can thus begin a process of transforming globalization from a race to the bottom into an upward spiral in the living standards of all people around the world.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-57, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 29, on page 5, the following:
"(2.1) The Minister shall consult with the appropriate House committee before any vote is taken by the Ministerial Conference or the General Council authorizing or approving any one or more of the following actions by WTO:
(a) the adoption of an interpretation of the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement to which Canada is a party;
(b) the amendment of the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement to which Canada is a party;
(c) the granting of a waiver of any obligation under the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement to which Canada is a party;
(d) the adoption of any amendment to the rules or procedures of the Ministerial Conference or the General Council;
(e) the accession of a state or separate customs territory to the Agreement; or
(f) the adoption of any other decision if the WTO action described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) would substantially affect the rights or obligations of Canada under the Agreement or any other multilateral trade agreement or would require a change of any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada.
(2.2) Not later than 30 days after the end of any calendar year in which the Ministerial Conference or the General Council authorizes or approves any WTO action described in subsection (2.1), the Minister shall submit a report to the appropriate House committee setting out
(a) the nature of the WTO action;
(b) the efforts made by the Minister to have the matter decided by consensus in accordance with paragraph (1) of Article IX of the Agreement and the results of those efforts;
(c) which WTO Members voted for and which voted against the WTO action;
(d) the rights or obligations of Canada that are affected by the WTO action and any law of Canada or of any province or territory in Canada that must be amended or repealed, for purposes of conforming with the WTO action; and
(e) the measures, if any, that the Minister intends to take in response to WTO action and if the Minister does not intend to take any measures, the reasons therefor.
(2.3) Where the World Trade Organization grants a waiver as described in paragraph (2.1)(c), the report under subsection (2.2) shall also describe the terms and conditions of the waiver and the rights and obligations of Canada that are affected by the waiver.
(2.4) Where the World Trade Organization approves an accession of a state or separate customs territory to the Agreement, the report under subsection (2.2) shall state whether Canada intends to invoke Article XIII of the Agreement.
(2.5) Promptly after submission of a report under subsection (2.2), the Minister shall consult with the appropriate House committee with respect to the report."
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-57, be amended by adding after line 36, on page 5, the following new Clause:
"13.1 The Minister shall, twice in each calendar year after the proclamation of this Act, report to Parliament on any negotiations that take place under Article III(2) of the Agreement, including negotiations that pertain to the labour, social and environmental dimensions of the multilateral trade relations of member states.
First Nations Housing November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Crow debate has been with us for some time. It is an important debate that has a great deal of meaning for thousands of prairie farmers. It is a debate that these thousands of farmers want to be a part of. In fact, these farmers have already demonstrated that when asked they are more than prepared to participate in the debate.
For example, when the previous government talked about changing the Crow benefit they hosted hundreds of regional and community meetings across the prairies. These meetings were promoted as transportation talks. They attracted hundreds of participants. In almost every case across Saskatchewan the response of those participants was to ask the federal government to maintain the Crow benefit.
Farmers across the prairies time and time again have impressed upon the federal government that the Crow represents economic fairness in the transportation of grain destined for export. Saskatchewan farmers in particular are producing grain on land that is further from port than any other grain farmers in the world. Since the price of the product is based on its port side distribution, obviously the farther one is from port the more uncompetitive the product is for sale to the rest of the world.
The Crow benefit simply recognizes that with the benefit all Canadians receive from the sale of Canadian grain into overseas markets, all Canadians will assist in the cost of getting that grain to its port of sale. Without the national subsidy, and I would argue it is an internal not an external subsidy, the revenue that would return to the prairies from the sale of grains would be much reduced. The cost of the loss of this transportation support to the prairies is therefore likely to be greater than the savings the Department of Transport and the federal government would accrue from the dismantling of the Crow benefit.
The Minister of Transport has toyed with prairie farmers about this issue for months. Last week be betrayed a long held Liberal commitment to prairie farmers and the communities that they support when he announced that it is no longer a question of whether the federal government plans to change the method of payment, it is only a question of how it will be changed.
In making the announcement the minister argues that new GATT rules and the pending world trade organization requires that Canada make the change. This is shocking. At the same time as the Canadian Minister of Agriculture is abdicating Canada's role in making economic decisions for Canadians, the newspapers are running articles quoting American politicians saying that the GATT cannot be accepted there because (a) the treaty is a threat to its economic sovereignty and (b) the new trade organization will have the power to change its national law or regulation and impose fines and sanctions if it wants to.
Here we are in Canada blindly accepting the international treaty without challenge while one of our trading partners, one I might add which is hurting us in the marketplace, is openly resisting the imposition of the terms and the agreement on them.
Canada should be challenging the interpretation of the GATT deal affecting the Crow benefit and we should be resisting making unilateral changes until all the partners to the agreement have taken steps to ensure that a fair marketplace for all exists.
It is obvious to all of us involved in the grain trade that without the Crow benefit and without specific changes to the U.S. export enhancement program, Canadian farmers are left at a significant disadvantage in the international marketplace. I argue that it is an artificial marketplace.
The federal government should stop using the GATT deal as an excuse to cut the Crow benefit. As my friend Mr. Art Macklin the president of the National Farmer's Union has said: "It is apparent that the federal government's agenda is to cut the deficit and they view the Crow benefit as a large budget item".
Mr. Macklin has also said: "If the federal government really wanted to level with the people of the prairies, it would acknowledge that there does exist ways within the framework of the GATT agreement to retain the Crow benefit as a transportation subsidy".
In conclusion, late last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has failed to understand the importance of the Crow benefit to the economic viability of the prairies or has he just decided to ignore the views of thousands of farmers who have made their views known at various times during the past 10 years? For the record, I ask again.
First Nations Housing November 23rd, 1994
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of improving housing for First Nations people, and in particular First Nations elders.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present to the House for consideration and debate a motion that I consider to be of utmost importance.
It almost goes without saying that the living conditions endured by many of Canada's first peoples are deplorable. Study after study have established mountains of facts to support the need for addressing this serious problem. Year after year the federal government has found a new reason, a new excuse not to take the action that is required. The House's own standing committee said exactly that in its December 1992 report to Parliament "A Time for Action".
I would hope that MPs from all parties here today would support this motion so that the weight of Parliament can be added to the voices from First Nations communities calling for action on housing.
Before this debate today I called around to some of the leading voices in Indian country to get an up to the minute reaction to the current state of Indian housing. Briefly, they all speak in unison: not much has changed, the federal government must act immediately.
If we look at some available statistics and read some of the recent newspaper articles we can tell that the situation is actually getting worse. The Assembly of First Nations tells us that an assessment of the on reserve housing stock in 1984 indicated that 47 per cent of the stock failed to meet basic standards of physical house conditions, 36 per cent was seriously overcrowded and 38 per cent lacked some or all the components of basic amenities by which I mean running water, indoor toilets, a bath or a shower.
By comparison, a 1991 report by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated that of the 64,402 housing units on reserve 56 per cent failed to meet basic standards of physical house conditions. Of these 24 per cent require major renovation and 10 per cent require complete replacement. Thirty-one per cent have neither piped nor well water and 31 per cent in 1991 had neither piped sewage service nor septic fields.
Among the newspaper reports that I have in front of me is one that is written about a reserve in my own constituency. The headline from the October 19 issue of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix reads: ``Waiting list long for homes on reserve''. It concerns the situation on the Mistawasis Indian reserve just 75 kilometres west of the city of Prince Albert.
After a fire left a family of eight homeless there was no replacement to be found. According to Mistawasis Chief Leona Daniels, quoted in the newspaper article, the band has 52 applications for houses from band members waiting for adequate housing. This number is not unusual says the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the organization that represents most of the province's Indian bands. This number is not unusual because among all the reserves there is likely a shortfall of some 800 houses in Saskatchewan at this moment.
At the Red Pheasant reserve just south of Battleford, also within my constituency, Chief Mike Baptiste says there is a current shortfall of 146 units. The band has a number of young families on reserve looking for their own homes. There are a number of elders who are crowded into the homes with many children. There are many band members currently living off reserve who want their children to be raised on the reserve and attend the band administered school but they cannot because there is no housing available.
The newspapers are also full of stories concerning the situation of the Big Cove Band in New Brunswick where the council has reported that it has more than 500 people on a waiting list for housing. The band council has said that the response of the minister of Indian affairs to their problem-Indian affairs approved the construction of six new units this year, if you can believe this-is criminal.
Earlier I referred to the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, an all party committee that travelled extensively and heard from First Nations people throughout Canada. I urge all members and particularly government members to have a look at this important and definitive report. Despite the fact that committee members expressed a sense of sorrow and helplessness in some of what they saw and heard, they worked to write a report with recommendations "intended to provide a path to resolve the housing problems that exist for native Canadians in order that they may achieve suitable, adequate and affordable housing".
Prior to writing the recommendations the committee noted: "There is inflexibility in federal housing programs, limited economic spinoffs for aboriginal and northern communities, lack of co-ordination between governments and programs, and difficulties assessing programs".
The committee went a long way to resolving these problems. First, the committee recommended that the federal government conclude the review of aboriginal housing that has been kicking around the department of Indian affairs since 1975 and to get on with the business of addressing the problems that are all too evident.
Second, the committee recommended that the government deliver all its funding for aboriginal housing through one agency and then transfer control of housing programs along with sufficient resources to aboriginal people.
An important part of the solution is sufficient resources. To this end the committee recommended that the necessary funding be provided. It particularly singled out the special needs of seniors, the homeless, the disabled and the victims of abuse. I will have more to say about this in a moment.
The committee also stressed that aboriginal people's cultural and practical needs have not been addressed in existing programs: "The committee recommends that the Government of Canada recognize that the only way to provide the flexibility that aboriginal people need to ensure the delivery of the kind of housing best suited to their particular needs is through self-government for aboriginal people".
Every group that appeared before the standing committee urged aboriginal participation and control over housing programs.
Before I leave the work of the committee I want to bring to the attention of this House the words of just a couple of witnesses: "One of the things so very important in community life, whether in Sioux Lookout, in British Columbia, or anywhere else is housing. It is important because it has all the ingredients to make the family work". That is a quote from Mr. Eno Anderson, executive director of the Shibogama Tribal Council.
From Bob Decontie, housing co-ordinator with the Assembly of First Nations: "Many of the communities have large numbers of houses that are overcrowded close to urban centres such as Calgary. We hear stories that there are 20 people in one house. These are things that have to be addressed. We have to address issues such as if you don't have a place to study what are the chances of you going to or doing well in school".
Even Canada's Auditor General in his 1991 report criticized the federal government for its handling of Indian housing issues.
I would like to quote briefly from the Auditor General's report, 1991:
Inadequate and overcrowded housing, among other things, can contribute to societal and health problems, such as sickness, marriage breakdown, alcoholism and child abuse. The financial results can be measured in terms of higher cost of health care, social assistance benefits, policing and penitentiary services. Solving the housing problems on reserve could reduce the cost of health services and social assistance by improving social and health standards.
Again, here we are in follow-up three years later with a new Auditor General's report and still no action in this regard.
My motion today also specifically singles out the difficulties faced by Indian elders. I want to go beyond what has so far been debated on the issue, to look at the special needs faced by the growing population of elders living for the most part on reserve.
Non-Indian society has spent a great deal of time in the past 40 years developing a social security system that benefits our seniors. When it comes to aboriginal elders, we have forgotten they exist. From my own experience, I am proud of the seniors' special care homes that have been built in smaller rural communities across the prairies. When I visit nearby reserves I see nothing that compares. Indian elders who need special living arrangements or special care are often moved off reserve, away from their closely knit families and moved into the completely non-Indian environment in the nearest community with a seniors home.
On reserve where housing dollars are limited elders are frequently unable to obtain sufficient funds to upgrade their homes or move to a newer home because the money is not there to do that. In this case I would like to single out the work of the Sandy Lake or Ahtahkakoop First Nation. Indian leaders have done a fine job of developing the elders' lodge concept where Indian elders are cared for in a family and co-operative way, given independence in their day to day life and included in the
central activities of the band, including support for band government and the youth of the community.
This concept has received praise from every corner of the country but nothing has happened because there is no money and the elders are just expected to remain in their own home or on the couch in the living room of the home of their son or daughter.
The Ahtahkakoop elders' lodge was designed to meet certain needs. Let me quote from its proposal:
Currently the elders are living in relative isolation from each other and the rest of the band due to the remote nature of their homes and they are restricted in their mobility by age or disability. This isolation has resulted in incidents of mistreatment and neglect. There is no capability for native people to service the needs of their elders and infirm within their own communities. As a result the sick and the elderly are removed from their homes and family to be treated or admitted into facilities capable of providing the longer term, higher care required.
The Ahtahkakoop study and proposal was done in 1990. It has had no movement from the federal government since then. I might add that other proposals along the same lines have been developed on numerous reserves in my own constituency and across Canada, concepts that include the ability of the community to best meet the needs of the elders who are living within that community.
We have heard about the money problems in housing. If Sandy Lake or the Makwa Sahgeiehcan Band in my own riding near Loon Lake, or the Sweetgrass Band near Battleford, also involved in wanting to build and support an elders' lodge, want to do this they have to use all of the money that is allocated to the Band for housing for three or four years.
That means that the only means available to properly treat aboriginal seniors on reserve is to take away all the renovation and all the new housing money available to everyone else on the reserve, including new families, returned Bill C-31 Indians and the disabled.
I would like the federal government to do some soul searching today in its deliberations on housing programs and its response to the need for greater aboriginal control and increased financial support. I also ask the government to consider the special and immediate needs faced by Indian elders.
It would be appropriate for the federal government to establish a new program that would make special financing available specifically for the construction and operating of elder's lodges so that the elders do not continually have to compete with others on the reserve for the housing dollars that do exist. The Minister of Indian Affairs has admitted that housing will be his priority in 1991.
We have heard the minister comment in the Chamber and to the media outside the Chamber about the royal commission on aboriginal affairs. When the minister was asked if he thinks the money is being well spent on the royal commission, his response was if he had that money to spend, he would rather spend it on housing. I think that acknowledges that even the Minister of Indian Affairs recognizes the priority nature of the crisis in aboriginal housing.
This is a new Parliament and there is a new government in office. The previous House was told by its own committee that action must be taken on aboriginal housing issues. At this early date, just one year into this Parliament, I urge prompt consideration and recommend that we cannot afford to wait for a better time to act. It is indeed, as the title of the House report stresses, a time for action. Too many people are suffering as we speak.
Department Of Natural Resources Act November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. In the interest of time, brevity is important.
I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of interest. He spent 20 minutes on a wide range of subjects, some of which I am quite grateful for the interventions that the member made. I understand he supports the bill just as I do, but I did not hear anything in his speech about why he supports the bill. I wonder if he might briefly give us some indication why the legislation in front of us-
Global Climate Change November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on November 17 the Minister of the Environment released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in Canada. That discussion paper proposes that the laws protecting Canada's endangered species be strengthened. I could not agree more. In fact there is something in this that most Canadians do not know.
Canada is one jurisdiction in the world that does not have federal legislation protecting species at risk. We do however have provincial laws that have been praised for their efforts. In Ontario I might mention Jim Wiseman. The NDP MPP for Durham West has brought forth a private member's bill that has received broad support. Wiseman's bill which passed second reading with unanimous consent of the provincial legislature last week would promote identification and assessment to conserve, protect, manage, restore and reintroduce as well as rehabilitate endangered, threatened and vulnerable species in their habitats.
In spite of this eight out of Canada's ten provinces and two territories have no specific legislation protecting endangered species. Most provinces do have general wildlife laws, but these are directed primarily at regulating hunting of game species. We cannot forget that Canada is a nation with a strong international reputation for environmental awareness. It is a shame that we still do not have federal legislation dealing with endangered species.
Although Canada does a good job at identifying species at risk and preparing lists of species that require attention, Canada does not have any laws requiring that anything be done once a species is listed in any way. I have heard the situation described as operating similar to a hospital which records the names of its patients, assesses their illnesses, but does absolutely nothing to treat them.
As a member of Parliament from the prairies I want to bring to the minister's attention the example of the burrowing owl. It has been listed as endangered for years. It is a small owl with the unusual habit of nesting underground.
The biggest threat to its survival I am told is the use of a particularly toxic pesticide called carbofuran. There are other chemicals that could be used to do the same thing. Some farmers have joined a World Wildlife Fund program to save the burrowing owl by setting aside certain parts of their fields, but their actions are purely voluntary.
At the same time as this activity is going on at the federal level, the registration of carbofuran is still under review by Agriculture Canada. If Canada had endangered species legislation, alternatives for carbofuran could be mandated to protect the burrowing owl before it slides further toward extinction.
It should be noted that Canada played a leadership role at the Rio de Janeiro international United Nations environment conference in the negotiation of the biodiversity convention now signed by 160 countries. Canada would therefore have an obligation in international law to live up to its terms which include a commitment to establish legislation or regulations for the protection of threatened species and populations.
In follow up, the House Standing Committee on the Environment in November 1992 unanimously agreed to consider the necessary legislation that would act to protect species, habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity in Canada. We have yet to live up to that commitment or the recommendation of the committee.
Canada, we recognize, does have divided and overlapping jurisdictions but it is essential that Canada's federal, provincial and aboriginal leaders work in a co-ordinated way to ensure that this happens as soon as possible.
The Rio convention on biological diversity was signed by Canada on June 11, 1992. The convention stands for the recognition of the value measured as economic value, aesthetic value, value from ecological services and even the spiritual value of maintaining the wealth of plant and animal species and of their genetic diversity found on the planet earth.
It would be most appropriate for Canada's first federal legislation dealing with species protection to be ready for introduction on June 11, 1995, the third anniversary of the signing of the convention.
The Minister of the Environment has indicated in the discussion paper that she and her department will consult with Canadians with an idea to bringing in new legislation. In suggesting that the minister consider June 11 as the target date, I ask that she plan for a specific date for the introduction of what will be significant and important legislation for all of us.
Friendship Centres November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal friendship centre program in the department of heritage improves the lives of urban aboriginal people through the provision of social, cultural and recreational services.
When the former Conservative government cut the program by 10 per cent in 1993, the Liberal opposition MPs rose in the House to publicly condemn the government's actions. Now that they are in government a department of heritage internal working document reveals that the Liberals are considering three proposals for funding reductions, a cut of 25 per cent, a cut of 50 per cent or a phase out of the program over three years.
Members of the National Association of Friendship Centres have been trying since last spring to meet the minister to discuss the proposed cuts, but without success. Because the continued survival of these centres is essential to the future of aboriginal people in Canada, I strongly urge the minister to meet with the National Association of Friendship Centres as soon as possible and I encourage him to exempt the valuable services that friendship centres provide from any planned budget cuts.
Grain Transportation November 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture in announcing that the Liberals will change the Crow benefit has betrayed a long held commitment to prairie farmers and the communities that they support.
Has the minister failed to understand the importance of the Crow benefit to the economic viability of the prairies or is he just ignoring the views of thousands of farmers heard in recent public hearings?