Greg Thompson

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the motion before us today because it fits in very well with our platform leading into the last election under the leadership of Mr. Charest.

Obviously we support this motion. We think it is critical that funding be restored to deliver good quality health care to Canadians.

One of the things I want to note, Mr. Speaker, and I think you have probably noted this as well, is that the health minister is not here for this debate. Can you believe it? The health minister is not here for this debate.

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know we must speak to the technicalities of the bill. We are talking about 40,000 deaths per year in Canada because of smoking. We have to do everything in our power to address that issue.

I make a point that goes back to a precedent and I do not think it has been mentioned today. Canadian practice provides a precedent based on British cases. This proves it is possible for a ways and means resolution should it be deemed required to be moved to the bill post-second reading. Mr. Speaker, that is an option you should consider because that would allow the bill to be on the floor of the House of Commons and debated for its merits. Obviously that has to be part of your consideration.

I hope your ruling is based on the arguments and precedents we are hearing today. If your ruling is based on anything other than that I think it would be grossly unfair to this House. I do not think you will do that, but I want to put that on the record.

Looking at both sides of the House, we want to have the opportunity to discuss those because I know from time to time in the past rulings have come down in the House where technicalities or arguments have been used which were not based on what we have heard on the floor of the House. I hope when the ruling does come down it is on the merits of some of the arguments you have heard today.

I hope at the end of the day consideration is given to the bill and that we will have the opportunity to debate it on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will go through it as quickly as I can. It certainly speaks to the issue at hand. It is very specific.

One of the arguments raised by the House leader is this is a tax and not a levy. I want to step through here for the Canadian public. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that through your examination of this you have discovered some of this on your own, but to put it on the record I think is important.

A tax is generally defined as a compulsory contribution levied on a person by a government body with the intent to transfer resources from the private to the public sector. A tax is imposed to finance public sector goods and services and to redistribute income among different economic groups in society.

The issue of whether a charge imposed by a government is or is not a tax has been examined by the courts in relation to section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 in determining the status of various charges, some of them federal and some of them provincial.

Since pursuant to section 92(2) a province or the federal government may impose a direct but not an indirect tax, if the charge were an indirect charge it would be invalid.

The Supreme Court of Canada has examined this issue in the following cases and I will use the appendix of some of these cases to explain in more detail: the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, 1978; the Exported Natural Gas Act, 1982; Allard Contractors v Coquitlam, 1993; the Ontario Home Builders' Association v York Region Board of Education, 1996.

In the agricultural products case the Supreme Court of Canada held that marketing levies imposed by a marketing board were regulatory charges intended to deal with the expenses of the marketing board. The marketing levies were not a tax because they were not imposed to raise revenue for the public purse. The member for St. Paul's articulated this very clearly in her argument, that it is not moneys for the public purse.

In the Allard Contractor's case the Supreme Court of Canada held that a fee imposed by a municipality on companies engaged in the extraction of gravel was not a tax, as the fees raised were intended to be used to repair roads. The fee had a specific use. The key is specific use and because that was a specific use it was a valid regulatory charge.

In The Ontario Home Builders' Association case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a charge imposed by school boards on land developers, which was intended to be used to fund the construction of new schools, was a regulatory charge and not a tax.

The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the probate fees levied by the province of Ontario were part of a regulatory scheme relating to the maintenance of the Ontario court. The levying of probate fees was part of a general revenue raising program and as such was not a tax.

In the natural gas tax case, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the charge in issue was intended to raise revenue for general public purposes and as such was a tax.

The result of these cases is that a levy imposed by a public body can be characterized as a regulatory charge and not a tax if the amounts received pursuant to the levy are to be used for a specific governmental service and the amount of the levy reasonably relates to the cost of providing that service. That was articulated very well by the member for St. Paul's in terms of what would be raised by this levy, where and how it would be spent, how much of it would be spent and what would happen if all the money were not spent.

The levy intended to be imposed pursuant to part two of Bill S-13 is a levy that is clearly intended to provide funds to defray the cost of providing the services and products referred to in section 5 of the proposed act. It is not intended that the levy provide revenue to be transferred to any public authority to be used for general public purposes. The levy is to be specifically applied toward the needs of the foundation.

The relationship between the levy and the expenses of the foundation is indicated in section 36(3) of the proposed act in that if the number of young persons in Canada who are smoking tobacco products declines to 5% or less in the fifth or the subsequent year of the foundation, the foundation may reduce or eliminate the levy imposed pursuant to section 36(1) of the proposed act for the particular year. It is to be presumed that the expenses of the foundation would decrease if there were fewer young persons in Canada smoking and as such the need for a levy to satisfy these expenses would be correspondingly reduced. That is articulated very clearly in the bill. It is my opinion that the levy to be imposed pursuant to part two of the proposed act is not a tax.

I have another two or three pages to go. In the interests of time I would like to table them.

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want an idea of how much time I have because I want to go through some supreme court rulings in relation to the topic today. They are somewhat detailed and will take more than a minute or two of your indulgence.

[Drugs, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, November 15 to 22 is Drug and National Addictions Awareness week. Ironically, it is also the week that the Minister of Health brings into this place the bill allowing tobacco manufacturers to lure our young Canadian people into a lifestyle of addiction, specifically tobacco usage.

The tragic use of tobacco and illicit drugs by young Canadians is clearly on the rise. For example, in Nova Scotia the number of students using illicit substances has doubled in the past seven years. In my home province of New Brunswick a survey conducted last spring of 3,925 public school students reported that 31% had used cannabis and 56% had used alcohol. What is even more frightening is that most of the students when asked said they did not need help.

The Government of Canada must take a leadership role in combating youth addiction. We can begin today in this—

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the government House leader relating to the Minister of Health and Bill S-13, a bill that obviously originated in the Senate. We often call it Senator Kenny's bill.

It is an anti-smoking bill that would place a 50 cent levy on every carton of cigarettes. In a sense it appears as though the government will attempt to derail that bill. In other words, the government does not want that bill to come to the House of Commons.

I take exception to this because today in the House we were debating Bill C-42, amendments to the Tobacco Act. We were saying the bill does not have enough teeth in it. It does nothing. At the end of the day we will still have 40,000-plus Canadians dying each year from smoking. The point we are attempting to make is that Bill S-13 addresses some of the very problems we know exist with regard to the acceptance of smoking.

Bill S-13 does something about this. It would levy 50 cents per carton of cigarettes at the manufacturing level. The money would go into a foundation to educate Canadians, particularly young Canadians, on the dangers of smoking.

I mentioned that 40,000 Canadians die every year. Senator Kenny and many members on both sides of the House agree that it is a big problem, particular with our youth.

I have a very simple comparison but very graphic. If 100 people a day in Canada died as a result of an airplane crash, we would have slightly fewer than 40,000 Canadians dying a year. To be exact, 36,500 people. That would be absolutely unacceptable if the government did nothing about it but instead sat back and let it happen.

If a recurring problem such as an airliner going down every day in Canada killing 100 people occurred, the transport minister would have to resign within days. At the end of 365 days, there are 40,000 Canadians dying because of smoking. The government sits back and simply lets the tobacco giants control the agenda.

We want to see something done. We are saying that Bill C-13 would do something about that. Senator Kenny's bill does something about it. We are asking the government to give this bill some consideration, at least get this bill on the floor of the House of Commons so that it can be debated on its merits.

I am hoping the government will be receptive to this bill, consider it and debate it openly and honestly in the House of Commons where all members can express their points of view.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Winnipeg Centre speak highly of him and show that he is very sensitive to the issue before the House.

In terms of sensitivity, I will go back to what the member said on the human tragedies that result because of some of these developments. That is something I do not think we have ever, regardless of what colour or stripe the government is, considered in the sense of how it should be considered when it is the environment and human tragedies that play out. Those are things that are left for others to clean up and deal with. It goes back to what some of the other members have mentioned. It goes back to planning, talking to the human beings who are affected by some of these developments.

This is a legacy we do not want to leave. We want to show that we are compassionate, that we have to act in the best interests of all Canadians. Disrupting people and the environment is not the answer.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member more. It is a good question to ask.

I see that we do have the justice minister in the House this evening. She is probably in a better position to answer on behalf of the government than I am. More precisely hopefully the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in the House before the evening is over.

Those are legitimate questions that have to be answered by the government itself.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of clarification and going beyond the member's question, I mentioned the historical impact of this bill. It goes back to the principle of negotiation and how these agreements are established in the first place.

I think the point the member was making was that before we go into this we need long term planning. In other words the government sometimes goes into these negotiations in the wrong way. We have seen it happen so many times and it is something we could accuse the government of doing almost on a day to day basis. We have to put some of those mistakes behind us. We have to proceed with the only process available to us. Recognizing that there have been mistakes in the past, hopefully we will minimize mistakes in the future as we hold the government's feet to the fire. Again I go back to the opportunity we will have at committee stage with regard to this bill.

Taking the member very seriously, he is absolutely right. So little planning has gone into some of these mega projects, developments and settlements that impact on a good many Canadians. Sometimes those projects and the disruption of the lives of families happen close to home.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-56, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

This omnibus legislation deals with two issues, the Norway House Cree Nation's master implementation agreement resulting from the flooded land which we refer to as part one, and reserve establishment particularly in reference to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement of 1997, part two. I will be speaking on these two issues separately and in the order I have just outlined.

I express my reservations about the combination of bills this legislation represents. While I certainly realize the issues are related, I feel these issues should be addressed separately to provide each bill with the attention it deserves.

With regard to the Norway House Cree Nation and the master implementation agreement that was signed by the first nation, the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the federal government on December 31, 1997, while it was 1997 before the agreement was signed it was more than 20 years earlier that hydroelectric projects changed the way of life for the aboriginal people living in northern Manitoba.

In the early 1970s the Churchill and Nelson Rivers diversification projects and the late Winnipeg regulation project flooded more than 212,000 hectares in northern Manitoba. The flooded area included 4,800 hectares of reserve land and an additional 200,000 hectares of land used by the aboriginal people for traditional purposes such as hunting and trapping. This affected five first nations, the York Factory, Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson House and Norway House Cree Nations, comprising approximately 12,000 aboriginal people.

Recognizing the severe impact of the hydroelectric projects on the first nations in the area, Manitoba Hydro, the province of Manitoba, the federal government and the affected first nations signed the northern flood agreement. The flood committee incorporated was formed to act on behalf of the five first nations in the area affected by the flooding. It was this organization that signed the northern flood agreement on behalf of the first nations.

The purpose of the northern flood agreement was to provide a framework for compensating the first five nations affected by the hydroelectric projects.

These projects included the construction of up to 14 power stations, four which were constructed by the mid-1980s and 10 which will not be finished until the year 2050, a full 73 years from the signing of the agreement.

This is a long process and the results of the projects are far-reaching, both in terms of the amount of land flooded and the future impacts these developments will have on the life of the aboriginal people.

Since its signing on December 16, 1977, the northern flood agreement has been fraught with all kinds of problems. This has led to the failure to implement many of the provisions contained in the agreement and the first nations have been forced to seek restitution through a dispute resolution program. This was noted by the auditor general in his 1992 report as a major fault and something the federal government should address since adversarial positions seldom assist those groups most affected, in this case the five first nations.

It is not my intention at this stage of the process to go into any detail about the advantages and disadvantages of this legislation and the agreement it represents. That is best left for the committee stage when we will hopefully have an opportunity to hear from those individuals impacted by the flooding and the subsequent agreement. If it is anything like the tobacco bill, that process will not unfold to the satisfaction of many of us in this House.

Speaking to the terms of the agreement, under the master implementation agreement the Norway House Cree Nation will receive $78.9 million in cash and hydro bonds, and approximately 24,000 hectares of new reserve lands. The settlements of the other first nations range from $47 million and almost 14,000 hectares of new reserve land as well as 1,100 hectares of fee simple for Split Lake to $62.5 million and 22,000 hectares of new land reserve for Nelson House. York Factory received more than $24 million and 7,700 hectares of new land reserve as well as a segment of fee simple land.

The money mentioned in these settlements is being placed in trust for the first nations. In the case of Norway House, Keenanow Trust will be handling the proceeds. This is an important revision of the agreement since the money will not come under the terms of the Indian Act. Instead, first nations will have greater control over how and where this money is spent.

In order for the federal government to negotiate settlements individually with the first nations it was necessary for the parties to negotiate the proposed basis of settlement. Since the first five nations were at various stages of agreement this was the only way for the government to bring to closure the northern flood agreement.

Cross Lake, the only first nation that has not signed an implementation agreement, remains opposed to doing so and has been active in seeking support for treaty recognition of the northern flood agreement.

The Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry of 1991 stated that the governments of Manitoba and Canada recognize the northern flood agreement as a treaty and that the two governments should honour and properly implement the terms of the northern flood agreement. While the master implementation agreement signed by the four other first nations will ensure that they begin receiving the compensation promised under the northern flood agreement, the question of treaty status for the agreement has never been completed to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

The community of Norway House voted in a referendum to accept the master implementation agreement. While questions have been raised about the validity of the process, the community members voted to accept the agreement in the second referendum. This should reflect the community's acceptance of the terms of the agreement and their satisfaction with it, or at least a desire to move on.

This legislation is not necessary for the implementation of this agreement since it has already been going ahead. Instead, this legislation is another step toward implementing terms of the northern flood agreement and the federal government's obligations under the agreement with regard to the first nations which have signed implementation agreements. This does not apply to Cross Lake as I mentioned earlier.

This issue is one I look forward to studying more closely at committee stage, particularly in terms of the first nations' views of the agreement and the northern flood agreement. One advantage of this legislation should be the opportunity to move away from the dispute resolution process to a more conciliatory form of negotiation and discussion.

I would like to take a look at the second part of this legislation to establish reserves in the province of Manitoba. Part 2 of this legislation is expected to assist in establishing reserves where an obligation exists in a current or future agreement to set aside land for this purpose.

This has particular relevance for the signatories to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement. Treaties signed between 1871 and 1910 and, in particular, the claims of 19 first nations affected by these treaties make up the treaty land entitlement framework agreement. These 19 first nations signed the agreement in May 1997.

Under the original treaties of 1, 2 and 5, each family of five was to receive 65 hectares of land. Under treaties 3, 4, 6 and 10, 260 hectares of land was to be provided for each family of five.

Problems arose, however, when the first nations claimed they did not receive their full entitlement. Some of the band member counts were inaccurate because members of the first nations were away hunting when the surveys were taken. It sounds like what happens to us when we attempt to set up a voters' list. The same problems occurred there. In some cases insufficient land was selected by the first nations when given the opportunity to claim their land under those very treaties.

These entitlements have never been settled with some of the first nations. In fact, only seven of a possible twenty-six first nations that did not receive their full allotment under the treaties have since settled their claims.

The land to be allocated to the 19 first nations who signed the agreement last year is 445,400 hectares. That is slightly less than 1% of the land mass of Manitoba and about 8% of the province of Nova Scotia. The province of Manitoba will provide most of this land from crown land that the federal government and Manitoba agreed would be used for this purpose. The remainder will be provided from private landowners on a willing-buyer/willing-seller basis. In other words, private landowners who do not wish to sell their land will be not be forced to do so.

What this legislation is attempting to do is make it easier to establish reserves from both the federal government's and first nations' perspective. One of the ways the legislation will achieve this is by providing the minister with the power to confer reserve status. That is an important point.

This eliminates the need to obtain governor in council approval, thereby reducing the time the process takes in facilitating full implementation.

In addition, changes are made in the legislation to address third party interests. If agreements currently recognize third party interests in the land, these interests would typically fall under provincial jurisdiction. With the creation of a reserve, however, they would fall under federal jurisdiction.

Accommodating this change in jurisdiction is a very time-consuming process. This has been mentioned as one of the major delays in processing land selections for reserves. With the legislation, reserve status will be conferred subject to that third party interest so the easement or right of way of the third party would be able to continue as the jurisdiction changes.

Perhaps of greater importance or significance, especially for the first nations, is that this legislation allows first nations to establish new third party interests, not just those existing at the time of reserve establishment.

This also allows first nations to take advantage of economic development opportunities as they become available instead of being forced to wait for the land to be given reserve status.

I would like to mention again that this legislation, both parts 1 and 2, requires greater research and consideration on the part and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada. This is something we look forward to doing at committee stage.

At the same time, I certainly realize that the agreement is already in place and functioning. The purpose of the legislation before us is to provide the government with the authority to implement some of these provisions.

Part 2 requires further study as well. It appears to be beneficial to first nations by allowing them to take advantage of conditions on a timely basis and speeding up the process of reserve creation. Obviously, this would be beneficial to the first nations, but again it needs to be examined very closely.

I look forward to studying this legislation, along with my colleagues, at committee stage and learning more about these issues. At this time I still have some serious reservations, as does my party, about this legislation.