Gerald Keddy

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we can scrap the Indian Act by snapping our fingers. I think it is much more complicated than that. The exact reason the P.C. Party supported Bill C-49 is that it takes first nations out from under the Indian Act and allows them to have control of their own resources on their own reserves without going to the minister and without going through the Indian Act.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. Both questions of the hon. member are excellent questions. They are exactly the types of questions we need to ask in this debate.

On the third level of government, I agree we are establishing a third level of government. It is something beyond what has been discussed in the Parliament of Canada or in the treaty process previously. It is not a municipal style of government similar to what the Sechelt agreement or the Musqueam agreement brought in. It is a step further that we all need to look at very carefully and cautiously. We must all recognize exactly what it is.

On the first question, I do not think we can judge the treaties signed or not signed in eastern Canada. All of eastern Canada does not have a treaty process in place. We cannot judge treaty 8, treaty 6, treaty 4 or treaty 2, but we can look at first nations communities across the country.

I ask the hon. member whether the problem is the treaty process or the lack of some type of completion in the treaty process. Has it been the restrictions of the Indian Act, which at best has been a piece of prejudiced legislation and at worst probably supported an apartheid type of regime?

I would tend to put more blame on the Indian Act and less on the treaty process. If we bring in treaties that have some finality to them and we give some empowerment to first nations that allows them to carry on in some economic regime and build some power base for themselves to benefit from the fruits of their labour, as all Canadians benefit from the fruits of their labour, then I think we have done something.

I would agree that both questions are good questions. I am not answering completely the first one because I think it is a part of future debate.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Nisga'a treaty and to address the motion before us today.

I will make one prefacing remark on what the minister said, and I think we should all remember it. All debate is legitimate. All of us may not agree on debate in that we may have different points of view coming from different areas of the country, but all debate is legitimate. I welcome this debate even though I do not agree with everything that has been said today.

The motion deals with a number of issues affecting not only the Nisga'a treaty but also other tangential aspects that have been discussed in relation to the treaty, issues such as the Musqueam first nation in British Columbia, a subject I want to touch upon later.

I have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Nisga'a first nation on two occasions to discuss this treaty. It is my intention to travel to British Columbia this summer to look at the situation on the ground in B.C. and to speak not only to members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council but to Nisga'a members themselves and to the non-native population in and around the Nass Valley. I am hoping to have the opportunity to meet with all members in the area.

The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern day treaty to be signed in British Columbia and represents the end of a long process by which the Nisga'a people want to have their own land claim recognized. The treaty will provide the Nisga'a people with an opportunity to gain greater self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Moreover, it recognizes their inherent right to self-government.

The PC Party supports initiatives that advance these objectives. That is why we have supported legislation like Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act. That bill will allow 14 first nations to take control over the management of resources on reserves. It removes them from the overbearing and restrictive requirements of the Indian Act, something that is taken even further in the Nisga'a treaty.

The Nisga'a treaty covers a wide range of issues since it will provide the Nisga'a people with not only 2,000 square kilometres of land but a Nisga'a only commercial fishery and salmon allocation, jurisdiction over the judicial system, a police force, and an environmental assessment and protection authority. At the same time the Nisga'a people will begin to pay taxes on a phased in approach over eight and twelve years.

The motion before us today specifically mentions the Musqueam first nation and the problem which has erupted between the tenants and the first nation regarding third party leases. This problem is obviously contentious and has been generating significant amounts of attention.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development I have had the opportunity to listen to the concerns of representatives of the Musqueam park tenants. Their problems are to a great extent due to the lease rates established in their lease agreement. This is the kind of problem that could occur anywhere in Canada and is not restricted to first nation agreements.

Anytime someone enters into a lease agreement it is important to understand the implications of the terms of that agreement. On the other hand, the Musqueam park tenants are now faced with significant financial obligations. Obviously no one wants to see the same situation repeated on Nisga'a land.

A dispute like the Musqueam one hurts all parties involved since the negative publicity decreases the value of the land. This is a problem for both the tenants and the landlord because it is a source of revenue for first nations to be able to lease land to third party members.

With the Nisga'a people facing unemployment levels of around 60%, I assume all options for revenue generation will be considered. In fact that is one of the advantages of the treaty not only for the Nisga'a people but for the surrounding communities. With a compensation package of $190 million there should be economic spinoffs for neighbouring communities as well as for the Nisga'a people.

Looking at specific aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, I have some concerns about things like the salmon allocation and the commercial fishery for the Nisga'a people. This was something I raised at the meeting with the Nisga'a people. I understand that they have a vested interest in ensuring that a sustainable and a healthy fishery exists. At the same time, however, I question the impact it will have on future treaties which will be negotiated in British Columbia and on the commercial fishing industry in general.

The Nisga'a treaty may not be a template for future treaties but it will nevertheless set a benchmark against which to compare agreements. The Sechelt first nation has recently reached another step toward its own final agreement and it is different in many aspects from the Nisga'a treaty.

There will be future treaties that will look at what the Nisga'a treaty has and has not accomplished and be negotiated based on that information. The impact this will have on the commercial fishery in British Columbia is something that will be determined some time in the future but should be considered now.

The motion suggests that the question of the Nisga'a treaty changing the constitution and therefore requiring a referendum in British Columbia should be addressed by the supreme court. While I do not have the legal background to address this issue and do it justice, I suggest that past events would point to other avenues.

Parliament has been criticized for giving greater power to the judiciary. It is interesting that the Reform Party in particular has been quick to state on a number of occasions that the judiciary is too involved in the shaping of public policy in the country. It has stated that judges should not legislate yet the motion today calls for a reference to the supreme court. Is this a double standard? It criticizes using the supreme court on issues of public policy yet when it is something it does not like it is quick to propose using the courts.

I conclude by saying that the Nisga'a treaty is a step in the right direction. The supreme court made it clear in the Delgamuukw decision that negotiated settlement is the way to proceed with land claims. This is an example of such a process, one that the Conservative government recognized in the 1980s when the process was ongoing.

It will be an interesting debate when the legislation for this treaty is introduced to parliament. I look forward to addressing it at that time.

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite speaking about the motion and her idea that she could support the principle of the motion but not the motion itself. I think there is something wrong with that logic.

I also listened with interest to the member of the NDP who talked about a similar NDP motion and how they supported this motion in principle.

I think it should be made very clear to the members of the House and to all the people listening to this debate that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough filed this private member's bill during the first month of parliament. The New Democratic Party waited a full six months before it filed a similar bill. It is important to get that on the record.

I am pleased to rise for the second hour of debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to discuss Motion No. 455, a motion introduced by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I would like to explain what happened on that dreadful morning back in May 1992. It may help everyone in the House gain a better understanding of what provoked this motion. On May 9, 1992 at 5.20 a.m., a violent explosion ripped under the tiny community of Plymouth, just east of the town of Stellarton, Nova Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of the Westray coal mine, instantly killing the 26 miners working there at the time.

Motion No. 455 was introduced to ensure that something like this never happens again. Workplace safety must be the norm across the country no matter what profession one chooses. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe at work, and every corporate executive must take the initiative to ensure those standards are met. Motion No. 455 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Recommendation 73 in the report of the inquiry commissioner, Justice Peter Richard, reads as follows:

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

I see nothing in that proposed bill that would prevent any member of parliament from supporting this excellent piece of proposed legislation.

Recommendation 73 does not endorse any particular legislative action by parliament. However, I will proceed by stressing that Motion No. 455 wishes to address the concerns referred to by Justice Peter Richard in his report, with an emphasis on the personal liability of key corporate officials.

The proposal to create a new criminal offence for corporate officials for failing to maintain safe workplaces would, by definition, require adding new provisions to the Criminal Code. This could be done by adding new sections to the Criminal Code under sections 467.5 and 467.6. Section 467.6 would extend criminal liability for this corporate failure to every officer or director of the corporation who knew or ought to have known, based on their experience, qualifications and duties, about the unsafe conditions in question.

Another way to address the matter would be to amend the Criminal Code provisions which define criminal negligence, section 219, and culpable homicide, section 222, in a way which specifically addresses death or bodily harm caused by a failure to maintain workplace safety on the part of a director or an executive of a corporation.

The drawback to this approach, however, is that it does not deal with situations where death or injury do not result. As well, if one wished to strengthen the accountability of corporate officials for workplace safety violations of their corporations, one could amend section 149.2 of the Criminal Code to include additional circumstances in which their liability would be triggered.

I am sure members are aware that most corporate officials support and foster safe working conditions. However, others have a more cavalier attitude toward fair labour practices and workplace safety. This approach cannot be condoned in any capacity. As Canadians and as workers, we are entitled to wake up and go to our place of work, wherever that may take us, and know that our well-being as individuals is protected and our workplace safety is reinforced and upheld on a daily basis.

However, in many situations the almighty dollar overshadows the secure working environment to which we are all entitled. Of course, the bottom line of any business is to make a profit at the end of the day, and that is a very normal mindset for anyone who operates a business, large or small. If there is no profit at the end of the day there will be no business shortly thereafter. In short, profitability equals sustainability.

However, we must not let employers allow profits to take precedence over workplace safety. This mindset is precisely what sets the tone for workplace tragedies and creates unsafe working conditions. Businesses must ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and consistently updated on safe work practices. Sadly, in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained officials doing jobs they were not properly trained to perform.

It is essential that companies take the time to train employees so that additional risk is limited for that employee and those around them. Management must also ensure that their employees have an appreciation for any special dangers inherent at the job site.

In the case of the Westray coal mine specifically, many of the tradesmen were prone to perform unsafe tasks or to take dangerous shortcuts in their work. In many cases there was no question that management was well aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed.

As stated in Justice Richard's report:

—there was no question that Westray management knew that the levels of methane underground at the coal mine were hazardous. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, such conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from the affected area, and that is the primary reason, management in this instance chose to ignore the fact.

As a case in point, to make matters even worse, this same management purchased farm tractors to work underground in a potentially explosive environment. These same farm tractors went directly from the lot to the mine and were not explosion proof.

In this situation, as in all situations, the open door policy of management could have helped prevent the death of 26 coal miners that devastating morning. No employee ever wants to feel as if their safety concerns are falling on deaf ears. A collaborated effort between upper, middle and lower management must be invoked to create an environment that is hazardous free for every employee in Canada. Of course, accidents happen, but measures must be in place to minimize the risk of death and injury.

No single environment is 100% danger free but in most cases the risk of danger can be significantly less with a bit of common sense.

Referring to the Westray coal tragedy, the inquiry set out the following: the occurrence of the explosion that resulted in loss of life; whether the occurrence was preventable; whether any neglect caused or contributed to the explosion in any way; and finally, whether the mine was in compliance with the applicable statutes, regulations, orders, rules and directions.

These questions that were investigated at the time of the inquiry are many of the same questions that should be reviewed with business executives on a daily basis to ensure that they are operating a safe company. As well, it would be a good opportunity to ensure that businesses are in compliance with the current regulations.

As representatives of the federal government, we have to ensure that accountability is upheld in the country so that situations such as Westray and others do not repeat themselves.

The devastation of Westray will be felt for many years in the tiny community of Stellarton and indeed in all of Nova Scotia.

Today, on behalf of every individual affected by this horrible tragedy, I ask members to lend their assistance to this motion and give it their strongest consideration and support.

It is incumbent upon every member of parliament in the House to look at the motion as it has been put forth. It is a very strong attempt to curb such an accident from ever happening again in Canada. I think the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough deserves our support and the support of the House for the motion.

[Taxation, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of Natural Resources on many occasions if he is considering a carbon tax. The answer has repeatedly been no. Yet a 25 member transportation panel looking at ways to reduce greenhouse gases states that transportation bureaucrats, lobbyists and business representatives are closely examining a fuel tax.

My question is fundamental. If the government is not interested in a carbon tax, why is a 25 member panel examining a fuel tax?

[Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House to discuss proposed amendments to Bill C-64, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act.

I speak to these amendments on behalf of our heritage critic, the member for West Nova, and on behalf of museums in Nova Scotia, many of which are in the riding I am fortunate enough to represent: Ross Farm Museum, small museums like DesBrisay Museum in Bridgewater and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic in Lunenburg.

As we discuss these amendments to Bill C-64 let us keep in mind the importance of this piece of legislation to our museum community. Let us focus some attention on the reasons why the legislation has become so necessary.

Ever since the Liberal government discontinued its cost sharing insurance arrangements with our Canadian museums, curators across the country have been calling for some kind of federal government assistance to help offset the huge costs associated with insuring travelling exhibitions.

What is the indemnification for travelling exhibitions? In essence, it means that the Canadian government will assume all financial risks for damages to contents contained within travelling exhibitions. Not only will this indemnification program relieve some of the financial burden that is affecting most of Canada's museums, but it will help them to negotiate the loan of other prestigious foreign exhibitions.

In 1972 the initial budget for the museum assistance program hovered at around $8 million per year. By the early 1990s the budget was increased to a maximum of $15 million, despite a Canadian Museum Association recommendation for a budget of $25 million annually.

Last year the Liberal government reduced this amount to a paltry $6.5 million, leaving the museum industry reeling to find alternative financial resources. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has since announced subsequent increases to the MAP of $2 million and $1 million respectively, putting the 1999 budget at $9.4 million.

This amount does not come close to responding to the grave concerns expressed by museum representatives. As it now stands our museum directors barely have the resources necessary to maintain present exhibits, let alone to expand their collections.

Museums are more than just an historic account of time and place in Canadian history. Museums contribute enormously to our local economy. According to Mr. Robert Janes, president and chief executive officer of the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Alberta, museums in Canada contribute $1 billion annually to the gross domestic product which includes 35,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, as well as $650 million in labour income. These figures suggest that this cultural industry is a very significant contributor to Canada's economy.

The Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act could be a very effective tool in helping Canadian museums bring in more attractive exhibitions, enticing a greater participation from both Canadian and foreign audiences.

Already current statistics indicate that over 55 million visitors a year enter Canada's approximately 2,000 museums. This is a very impressive number of visitors. The credit for this success belongs to our dedicated museum staff along with the over 50,000 volunteers who devote their time and energy toward helping maintain an important element of Canadian history.

As I mentioned previously, the bill responds to certain needs within our museum industry. Therefore I believe we should proceed with the passing of this piece of legislation as quickly as possible. The proposed amendments will not weaken the bill but instead will open the door to greater participation and greater input from all parliamentarians.

[Fisheries, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian oysters are presently being exported to Europe and stored for sale. The European Union is now asking area specific oysters to be sold on a same day basis. This would be a blatant non-tariff trade barrier and could spread to other shellfish. What is the minister of fisheries doing to ensure a continued European market for Canadian oysters and all other Canadian shellfish?

[Devco, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Northside Futures Group states that since 1968 a 25 cent per tonne royalty has been set aside on every tonne of coal mined by Devco. These moneys were set aside to benefit workers upon eventual closure of the mine.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. What has happened to these millions of dollars? Were these millions of dollars included in the package offered to the Devco miners?

[Competition Act, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to second reading of Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act which deals specifically with negative option billing. My caucus colleague, the member for Markham, has already spoken as PC Party industry critic on the bill at second reading.

As most members have noted, Bill C-393 had a previous life in the 35th parliament. In that parliament the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, which would have amended the Broadcasting Act. The legislation was sparked by public outrage at the cable companies imposing negative option billing through the addition of specialty channels at the beginning of 1995. As such, Bill C-216 dealt solely with cable television and passed the House despite opposition from many powerful interests.

Unfortunately for the member's efforts Bill C-216 was still under review by the Senate when the Prime Minister called the 1997 federal election. The bill was effectively killed by the member's own government, which was not under any pressure to go to the polls only 3.5 years into its first mandate. There may be some, perhaps even the member himself, who would blame the Senate for the death of Bill C-216. This is a misguided view because the Senate was playing its constitutionally mandated role to review legislation from the House.

There may have been many occasions in the past several years where the Senate has undeniably improved legislation. Correcting errors not addressed on the House side in the Liberal government's so-called Pearson airport legislation and more recent amendments to the Judges Act are but two examples. Until the Senate is either reformed or abolished we should stop attacking its members for trying to perform their mandate.

Bill C-216 is history. We are now debating Bill C-393. As previously mentioned, the bill would amend the Competition Act to ban negative option billing in a whole host of sectors, including certain financial institutions, broadcasting undertakings, telecommunications firms and insurance companies. In particular, Bill C-393 protects the basic consumer right to express consent before purchasing a new product or service. In plain language this means consumers cannot be billed for a product or service without their clear consent.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton and organizations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada make a compelling case against negative option marketing practices. Indeed I think many of us will agree that this type of marketing reverses the traditional buyer-seller relationship. With negative option billing customers are offered new products or services and are required to opt out or expressly decline these new offerings to avoid being charged for them.

From a legal standpoint negative option billing relies upon the concept of implied consent. By not responding to a solicitation the consumer is deemed to have given his or her consent. Indeed it is fair to say that negative option schemes rely on market inertia to sell new products or services to an existing client base. It is therefore a justifiable claim that negative option billing further concentrates market share with the dominant industry players instead of fostering competition in an open marketplace.

Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as banks and cable and telephone companies. Under the law selected financial, insurance, cable and broadcasting companies would not be allowed to use a lack of consumer response to negative option billing inquiries as consent to buy. The bill wisely allows provincial governments to prohibit negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Provinces such as Quebec have already taken steps in this direction.

While provincial governments have progressed somewhat in addressing these dubious marketing efforts, there is a noticeable lack of such consumer protection at the federal level. Cable providers are still using negative option billing in regional markets despite previous assurances to the contrary.

In August 1996 Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs warned that negative option marketing had the potential to be an important tool in the financial services sector. Examples cited in the report included the sending of unsolicited credit cards and changes in account structure made without the consent of consumers.

In 1997 the Toronto-Dominion Bank employed a negative option technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The National Bank reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts $9.95 per month.

I am pleased that Bill C-393 recognizes that there are situations in which a consumer benefits from a negative option billing arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers must be able to make informed decisions and give express consent. The bill proposes certain steps to be taken for a negative option scheme to be legal and fines for those who contravene the act.

The bill has received the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada. Although Bill C-393 is strong on consumer protection, the PC caucus would like to know the views of such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute among others.

We must always be prudent as parliamentarians not to impose an excessive amount of laws and regulations on the private sector. Our caucus has already brought forward the concerns of the private sector regarding punitive measures in the federal cost recovery program, which was expanded greatly by the Liberal government in 1994.

Although the move to more user fees for the private sector was initially welcomed by businesses of all shapes and sizes, the government's chosen structure has proven to be ineffective, incompatible and costly. As a result this program cost the Canadian economy over $1.3 billion from our GDP and 23,000 jobs, according to the 1990 report by the Blair Consulting Group. Let us always be careful in bringing in government intervention no matter how well intentioned it may seem to be at the time.

Our caucus would also like to verify that Bill C-393 would not hinder French language broadcasting in Canada. This was raised in 1997 by the chairwoman of the CRTC. I am sure all members of the House, especially bilingualism's newest friends in the Reform Party, would want to ensure that Bill C-393 does not pose a threat to French language broadcasting.

I reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada the qualified support of Bill C-393 at second reading. The overall intent is extremely positive. The legislation would significantly increase the level of consumer protection in the country.

I urge all members of the House to put aside partisan interests and support moving the bill along to the industry committee where it can be given closer scrutiny on issues of concern.

[Taxation, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, downstream petrochemical producers and consumers are fearful of an increased carbon tax being charged at the gas pump.

Can the Minister of Finance assure the House that no increase in federal gasoline tax is about to be levied?