John Duncan

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand a lot of private property owners not involved in the archaeological dispute are suffering as a result of this dispute.

The minister has raised expectation levels in B.C. beyond what governments can deliver. A Penticton band spokesman is now saying that the B.C. treaty process is falling apart as he earlier predicted.

Other than to blame Reform, as the minister did Friday, what is the minister doing to reduce expectations and create a sensible and publicly acceptable set of negotiations in which the rule of law is rewarded and protests and blockades are not?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs met with the B.C. aboriginal affairs minister this morning. The provincial minister is here to insist on greater federal participation in settling native disputes in B.C. A native spokesman has said since last week that Adams Lake residents will have their access blocked today at 5 p.m. unless the federal minister involves himself in the dispute. There is urgency.

How is it the federal department can promote and participate in all land claim and self-government negotiations in B.C., but when the public is held to ransom the minister asserts that he has no legal, moral or statutory obligation to get involved?

[Indian Affairs, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, press reports in B.C. are saying the predictable thing: British Columbians should expect a long, hot summer of blockades, quoting Shuswap band leader Ken Dennis.

Mr. Dennis says blockades will continue because they work-surprise, surprise. Now we have professional consultants, advisers and participants for roving native blockades.

Can the minister assure British Columbians he will commit to consistently involving himself in these disputes rather than passing the buck to the province?

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. I am going to listen to the Bloc.

However I rise to support Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 11. Motion No. 6 deletes the possibility of government bailout of any CN debt. Current CN debt stands at $2.5 billion. Financial and industry experts agree that it will never reasonably sell with that debt level and must be reduced to an amount that would achieve an investment grade bond rating of BBB. A $1.5 billion debt would achieve this bond rating. The House should not give the minister the power to reduce CN's debt to any amount he chooses. This is risky and is not prudent.

First, it allows the minister to reduce the debtload well below the amount for which taxpayers can get a return upon sale. This could cause higher share prices which would appear to be a better deal but return a lower yield for taxpayers. I am quite certain this is not the intent of the minister, but this is no excuse for putting it into the legislation or allowing that kind of free board.

Second, excessive reduction of CN's debt would put CP Rail at a disadvantage similar to the disadvantage when Air Canada was privatized. It is not a simple matter of balancing the debt of two companies. CN has purchased many deluxe assets without normal private sector concerns for debt financing. The most recent example is the expensive buyout package for employees to help reduce CN's workforce. If CN is allowed this strategic advantage without any economic costs, it would have a tremendous and unfair market advantage.

Motion No. 7 would limit the government's ability to reduce CN debt to only the amount necessary to achieve BBB bond rating status after first reducing it by utilizing company funds available and from the disposal of real estate assets; in other words utilize cash and start selling off some of the assets. If members agree to this reasonable motion we will not need Motion No. 6 which deletes all authority for government bailout.

I also support Motion No. 11 which would provide for the continued existence of the CN pension plan to be administered by the CN pension board under current government rules. This is prudent and fair.

All too often employees with little control over the situation end up on the short end of the stick just because of a change in ownership. In many respects this is the most important and considered motion of all to pass through the House. If we all dig deeply in our collective memories we can think of living examples of people who have been treated unfairly by the system.

At this time I should like to move an amendment to Motion No. 7. The amendment is to one small section of Motion No. 7 which I believe was in error. We want the motion to read that it should apply to all CN debt, not just the debt owed to the Government of Canada. Therefore I move:

That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the words "owed to Her Majesty in right of Canada".

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motions Nos. 1 to 4 in Group No. 1 on Bill C-89.

Motion No. 1 calls for the deletion of the head office clause which stipulates that CN's headquarters must reside permanently in Montreal and calls for the deletion of the 15 per cent ownership restriction.

In today's marketplace the stipulation of the permanent location of a head office is absurd and makes a mockery of a bill of serious intent. This whole question of permanence reminds me of a story of a fellow who applied for a job with a previous employer. When he was offered the job he asked whether it would be temporary or permanent. The response was in that company there were no permanent jobs. This stipulation would not occur in a free market and no private sector companies face these same restrictions. This is purely for political reasons and should be expunged from the bill.

As well, restricting the percentage of shares any one individual, corporation or association may own is not sound. Where is the incentive for new investors to bring in a new management style to revitalize this dinosaur? To which latest investor advice fad is the government listening?

This clause also restricts the best price CN could fetch in the marketplace. As one investor put it, the 15 per cent restriction circumscribes the deal. This restriction dampens investor confidence and freezes out the type of investor who looks for troubled, debt ridden companies that can be restructured and made profitable, generating dividends and capital gains. I support Motion No. 1.

Under Motions Nos. 2 and 3 of Group No. 1, I support the introduction of a sunset clause of a five year time limit on the headquarters and ownership restrictions should Motion No. 1 not carry.

Motion No. 4 calls for parliamentary approval on each offer made by the private sector for CN assets. This is redundant. If Bill C-89 passes Parliament has already given its approval for the sale of CN. I will not support Motion No. 4.

If the government cannot attract a good offer it will have to answer for that later.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 15th, 1995]

What was the amount of GST credit paid to eligible on reserve status Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 15th, 1995]

With regard to Indians making purchases off reserve at designated remote stores, ( a ) what was the amount of GST exemption for eligible Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, and ( b ) what are the designated remote stores off reserve by province?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 15th, 1995]

With regard to Indians making purchases on reserve or having purchases delivered to the reserve, what was the amount of GST exemption for eligible Indians for the fiscal years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94?

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 individuals who call on Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two separate petitions.

The first petition is signed by 675 individuals who call on Parliament to halt native land claim negotiations in British Columbia and turn Indian reserves over to the bands, fee simple, and that the land and the natives fall under the same laws as the rest of Canada.