Maurice Vellacott

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would again agree with my hon. colleague. I do think this sends a signal with respect to the activities and competence of the previous minister as well. It taints the record of when he was there. It was on his watch over a period of time when a significant part of the program began and then changed over to the Canada jobs fund. He was able to skittishly get out of there just in time. Some might say that he was lucky or fortunate, but perhaps it was planned. I am not sure. I think it also sends a signal in terms of the competence of the minister who was in that position previously.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right. Words fail, at least in this place, in terms of words that are allowable to use. Without a doubt, in terms of just the scan of it so far and in the research that we have done, it shows that a disproportionate amount of those dollars have gone into Liberal-held ridings. It would certainly bolster what has been said before in terms of being used, being levered for contributions to the Liberal Party and so on. I think that is what outrages the public in the whole matter.

The Liberals are now trying to minimize it by saying that it is just a few projects, when in fact this is a representative sampling of a far bigger piece.

Yes, we do have a problem. Frankly, the whole system needs to be changed or started from scratch again where we deal with handicapped people and provide the resources and so on there. We need to get away from the kinds of things that are subject to political interference, patronage and the kind of pork-barrelling that has been used by the Liberal government over the course of a number of years.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

It is called a shakedown, as the member said. He was charged with that and there was a conviction. These programs are rife with that stuff. It would not be surprising if many more instances of that turn up.

As I understand it, a special assistant in the justice minister's riding of Edmonton West by the name of Greg Fergus handled these special representations by ministers, which led to grant approvals in areas that did not strictly qualify. Justice Minister McLellan's riding received $1,350,000 and $888,000 from the transitional jobs fund even though the unemployment rate was lower than the TJF rate.

There is no accountability to taxpayers and the records are poor. This is not just sloppy, it is systemic. If a dot or a decimal is missing, that is sloppy. If it is patterned like this throughout, that is systemic. The problem the government has is that these are not just a few isolated cases. They run like a thread in terms of patronage and pork barrelling throughout the government. It is endemic.

Let us look at the recent TAGS program: 34% did not contain any proposal to support the project; 83% did not have any supporting documentation; 80% were not checked to see if recipients owed money to HRDC; and 76% did not show any evidence of financial monitoring. That was under the Atlantic groundfish strategy. Other examples could be cited from across various departments.

We believe some cover-up is going on. We have said before that the minister appeared to have misled the House. On November 17, 1999, she would have had the information in hand and had been fully briefed, yet subsequent to that, on December 1 and again on December 7, she talked about the wonderful and extraordinary job being done to make sure Canadians got back to work. What a wonderful play act. On December 7 she talked about how Canadians approved of this when she was withholding information that would have pointed to the contrary and would have exposed this whole thing.

One would have to ask, and I believe some have rightly done so, whether the minister is staying in that role because of bloodlines or genetics because her father did not fiscally manage things accurately. Significant dollars were in question when she was in the aboriginal affairs department.

The Prime Minister's spin on this whole thing is that there are only a few cases. Let us consider that the scathing audit of 459 projects is a representative sample of between 50,000 and 60,000 projects. According to Ms. Brigitte Nolet, a spokesperson for the ministry of human resources, the sample of just under 500 projects represents about 60,000. With that proportion, we still have about 4,800 that have been badly mismanaged.

This is a major problem. We cannot just minimalize it as the Prime Minister does. It is endemic. It is systemic. It is a pattern of the government and deserves to be dealt with in this manner on this day and rebuked for the good of the Canadian taxpayer.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to stand in the House to talk today on a subject of this sort that represents what we would expect to be the very best for Canadians in terms of their use of tax dollars.

I have come to sleuth and to understand more of this big scandal which some would suggest is certainly major mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. I do definitely, individually, have major concerns with the management and the minister's and the whole government's lack of competence in this area.

I would ask this more as a question and the members in the House and people in the gallery and those watching in TV land would be the ones to respond. This government vaunts and boasts often of its competence, managerial ability, fiscal prudence and sound government. We see quite the contrary it would appear. I ask a question and I do not prejudge the outcome but everyone can draw their own conclusions. Is there something of a fraud in the Prime Minister's brag of managerial competence, fiscal prudence and sound government? As I lay out my understanding of what has occurred here I will allow the audience to draw its own conclusions today.

In a very considerable way what has happened over the last number of weeks, or at least what has been exposed, has drawn into question the jobs fund as a matter of principle and whether it is effective in creating jobs. That is sad in a certain sense. I am a believer that there can be tax dollars targeted for social programs for individuals who are disabled and so on. They need equipment and special access. That maybe is another matter. That is a social program. That is policy set in place to help those who need that leg up in society.

Government handouts are very poor at creating jobs in the general sense. If that were not the case then the maritime provinces would obviously be booming, as might other parts of our country.

Generally speaking, when we are not talking social programs—and there is need for that with respect to disabled and other people—job creation, for the most part, should be done by the private sector. It is the engine that drives job creation. Studies have shown that. It is beyond dispute. Reducing corporate tax, payroll taxes and those kinds of things provide incentive and release money for investment.

It is a real shame that this $1 billion or more boondoggle seems to be endemic and systemic in the government. It is money that could well be used in other areas. When we have had significant cuts in health and post-secondary education and we have not had the kind of support for farmers in terms of a subsidy war across the world, it is a real shameful thing in my view.

Tax dollars are justifiably used for things like health care, post-secondary education and a basic social safety net. After that we do have a consensus to break down from there. What is so preposterous about this is that tax dollars have been used for things that they should not be used for and on the other hand we have had a deficit in respect to health, education and basic social needs.

We do need social programs that help people with disabilities and so on, but we do not need them as the driving engine to create jobs. This is a fundamental flaw. They do not create jobs as effectively or in any proportion as the private sector would if it was left to do that.

When seats throughout the west were held by Reform, we did not say, as some people may have thought, that we did not want our share. We said that we had enough of these kinds of programs. We have had enough of the old way of doing things, the dark ages' way of doing things, by patronage and pork barrelling which comes out of the 1800s and 1900s. In a modern democracy, we should not be doing programs in this manner. The west was not asking “Where is our share?” It was saying “Enough of this kind of stuff, enough of these fiascos”, which are now very apparent.

The government failed to create jobs in many cases. It gave $14 million to 32 companies but no jobs were created. We can list many of them and we will over the course of the days ahead. Companies in my own province that created zero jobs were Clifford Smith Trucking, $72,000, and Saskatchewan Dutch Elm Disease Committee, $100,000. No jobs were created. I could go on with a list of companies and projects that received money but where not a single job was created.

We could list companies that have closed. A Cape Breton coffin factory received $400,000 to make fibreglass coffins that would float or last forever underground. Only three of those coffins ever sold and the factory closed.

We could list companies that have wasted money. In the 1988 audit we found, among other ridiculous kinds of examples, that a road that went nowhere was built through the riding of the then revenue minister Elmer MacKay. Two bridges were built but no roads connected to them. It goes on and on. As a matter of principle, the government has clearly not been creating jobs and in fact cannot do that.

The government has used this fund and the grants and contributions to give politically motivated handouts. Some have called it a slush fund. I will leave that for others to state. However, the minister certainly did not keep her own rules. There are 15 pages of grants given to the minister's Brant riding, a riding which should not have qualified for grants. Since April 1999, she has approved other projects. Her riding did not have an unemployment rate of over 10%. The earlier qualifying rate had been 12%. She was signing cheques for her own riding contrary to the most basic rule of the Canada jobs fund criteria, which was to create permanent jobs, new jobs, sustainable jobs and so on in areas of high unemployment, areas where there was more than 12% unemployment, later relaxed to 10%. She clearly violated that rule.

How can Canadians put their trust in a minister who mismanages the money that goes into her own riding?

I can think of other examples that have been mentioned in the House during question period. I refer to the Grand-Mère Inn in the Prime Minister's own riding, the Pierre Corbeil story, an enterprising young Liberal, an individual who thought that he could lever some money for the Liberal coffers by going to them and saying “If you give me a donation, we will make sure your TJF application gets approved”.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to present a petition today from citizens across Canada. They are noting a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and conscience rights in our country.

They draw attention to the fact that health care workers and those seeking training for a career in the health care system have had some of those rights stripped away from them in medical facilities and educational institutes. Examples are nurses and others who have been required to assist in abortion procedures against their deeply held religious and moral convictions. The petitioners ask that parliament enact legislation against such violations of conscience rights by administrators in medical facilities and educational facilities.

[Employment Insurance, December 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns my NDP colleague has brought to the House. It is truly a very important issue that needs to be addressed by the government. We will go along and take some second thought on the amendment. I am not sure that it is an adequate response to the problem of the incomes of seasonal workers. I will relate some of the reservations I have about it. I acknowledge that it is an important issue and the member is to be commended for having raised it in the House this evening.

As was already said, it is a given that we have the reality of seasonal work in Canada. Certain businesses and industries in Canada have seasonal ups and downs regardless of the business cycle which means that fewer workers are needed at predictable times of the year. The result is that workers in those industries will apply for benefits at predictable times of the year on a repeated basis year after year.

Seasonal work is a reality in Canada, perhaps more so than in other countries because we have so many resource based industries compared to other countries around the world. As has been brought to our attention by the two previous speakers, the problem we have before us and the reason the motion is here today are because of the 1995 act and how it has affected seasonal workers. That is the reason we are debating this motion today. Seasonal workers are getting less in the way of benefits as a result of those changes to the unemployment insurance program introduced by the 1995 Employment Insurance Act.

The government member who spoke prior to me referred to the intensity rule which the act introduced. That rule in its first time coming into effect distinguishes between frequent and infrequent recipients of benefits under the EI program.

Frequent users of EI receive reduced benefits based on their previous use of the EI program. They are reduced by 1% when 20 weeks of benefits have been collected and may go as low as as 50%. They are not wiped out altogether but there is a significant 5% reduction depending on the frequency of previous claims. The lowest possible rate of 50% is in contrast with the standard rate of 55% for regular claimants. That has had an effect on real people, on Canadians, those who work in seasonal industries in Canada.

The 1998 EI monitoring and assessment report produced by the Department of Human Resources Development acknowledges that communities with high levels of seasonal employment were more likely to have industries that showed declining benefit levels.

What did the government intend to happen? What was the motive of the government in all of this? What did it hope to accomplish by means of this intensity rule?

It would seem that it hoped workers would move out of seasonal industries and seek employment in industries where they would be able to be employed year round. The reasoning is pretty simple. Since seasonal workers would get less in EI benefits, they would be in a position where they would seek employment that would not be seasonal, that it would have that effect upon them.

Seasonal workers are not doing anything different despite what the government assumed at that point. Unfortunately it did not have that effect on a wide scale. Most seasonal workers, at least during the time of the study that led to the 1998 monitoring report, said that the intensity rule would not affect their work patterns. That is their plain statement on the matter. When asked about their plans, they said that they had few employment opportunities outside of their existing seasonal jobs and that they would remain with their existing employment and continue to apply for EI despite the intensity rule.

There may be some different ways to deal with this but I do not believe we should go the route of what has been proposed today by my colleague from the NDP. There are arguments for leaving EI as it is if that is the only solution or proposal on the table.

First, Motion No. 222 would move EI away from pure insurance principles which the Reform Party supports for the employment insurance program. EI is supposed to protect workers against—and I underline it—the risk of “temporary involuntary unemployment”. The member who introduced this motion mentioned that, but I think we need to get the context here and underline that it is for those where there is risk and it is temporary and involuntary.

In the case of seasonal workers we are not talking about risk, will I or will I not. They well know that come that certain time of year, they will be laid off. There is that predictable pattern of unemployment. For this reason EI as an insurance program based on insurance principles is really compromised when workers come back year after year at the same time of year for benefits.

EI no longer functions as an insurance program, but rather it is a wealth distribution program. That is not to say that wealth distribution is not appropriate during a transition phase, but that is perhaps another debate for another day.

My point here is that the EI program as it was originally intended and as I quoted here would not be honouring true insurance principles if we used it to address the problem of seasonal workers.

The report of the Forget commission on UI stated on page 60: “Although it transfers money from the employed to the unemployed and to some degree from the rich to the poor, unemployment insurance is not a very effective income redistribution program”. There are other ways of doing it if that is our intent.

Second, Motion No. 222 would subsidize certain industries but not others. Companies that lay off workers at the same time every year have a huge benefit if those workers do not move away to find work elsewhere but stay in the area, collect EI and then are available to return to work when that work season begins again. This in effect means that such companies are being subsidized by the EI program.

If such companies were forced to pay higher premiums than other companies, then things might be fairer. Those companies might also be motivated to extend work seasons to avoid those higher premiums. That might be administratively difficult, I acknowledge.

Third is why we should stay as is as opposed to the motion of the member, unless there is some other proposal on the table. We do have an amendment to which we will have to give some thought and consideration. Some seasonal workers have not been as affected as regular workers by the 1995 changes. That needs to be brought to our attention.

Neither of the previous members made note of the fact that some seasonal workers have not been as affected as regular workers by the 1995 changes. In fact, the hours based system has actually helped some seasonal workers who work longer than the average hours per week, which is often the case with seasonal work. They work from sunup until sundown. They work long hours and they get lots of hours in over a short period of time. They are thus able to qualify for benefits in a shorter period of time. On the other hand non-seasonal workers who tend to work normal hours were not helped by the switch to the hours based system as some seasonal workers were.

Fourth, I would maintain the status quo or at least the present system as opposed to the motion under discussion here, because changing the rules for seasonal work might create an incentive for people to enter seasonal industries. We usually hear of the person who already has a seasonal job, but what about the person looking for a first job or looking to make a job switch? They might be more tempted to try to get a seasonal job than a long term employment option if they know that EI will supplement their income. Clearly we want some incentive in place that will make a person prefer the non-seasonal yearlong job. We need to have that in our EI program.

Can we affect seasonal patterns? I think to some extent we can over the course of time. Seasonal patterns themselves have changed over time. During the 1970s, seasonality in employment declined somewhat, primarily in the primary industries mainly due to the decline in the size of the agricultural sector relative to the rest of the economy.

Seasonal variability in unemployment has declined even more. In 1966 the difference between unemployment in the highest and lowest months was 46%. By 1980 the difference had declined to less than 26%.

We might ask how a government would go about affecting work patterns. One excellent proposal is that of experience rating. A fundamental reform which could help us is a proposal by Professor Jack Mintz contained in a taxation on business report. He talked about experience rating which relates to insurance premiums. This is used in the United States in cases where an insurance scheme penalizes those companies which lay people off more than the industry average. This is relevant to our situation today.

In a situation where there are many seasonal employees such as the forestry industry, a pulp and paper outfit which lays off more than the norm in that particular industry would see its premiums go up. This would create a disincentive to lay off people.

A couple of years ago I was struck by a situation in a Wal-Mart store in Maine. It hired a number of people before Christmas and then laid them off normally, but it hired people to do a variety of other things and kept them on in the long term.

We should pursue these types of possibilities in some of our other seasonal industries. It is doable. We need to use some creative minds in terms of our approach so that we go after experience rating as a possibility for seasonal workers.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be designated or established for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to the House of Commons.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 Every six years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wished I did not have to speak on a topic like this today because it would really never have come this far if we had had true democratic debate across the country. If there had been a referendum in B.C. I dare say that this would not be in this place today.

With some regret I speak on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final agreement act. I share with my colleagues on this side of the House, the official opposition party, some of the concerns with this implementation legislation that would be brought to the province of British Columbia. I do not believe it will be good for the native people in that province, nor the non-native people there and across the rest of the country, especially if it is the template pattern for what occurs in my own province, my backyard and throughout the rest of Canada.

I reiterate some of my concerns with some that have been expressed by my colleagues, about the implications this treaty would have for how the Canadian constitution functions. The position of the Reform Party, and I read it for the record, states that:

—any form of Indian self-government will be a delegated form—

In other words, like unto a municipal form of government.

—and all lands within the borders of Canada will remain part of Canada. The laws of Canada (and the Provinces and Territories) including the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to Indian governments. Any laws enacted by Indian governments must conform with the laws of Canada.

In chapters 2 and 11 of the treaty, the provisions for self-government undermine this common sense understanding of how Indian governments must operate in conformity with Canadian laws. In the treaty, Nisga'a governance powers are considered an aboriginal treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the Canadian constitution.

Entrenching of Nisga'a powers in a treaty will in effect create a third order of government in Canada. In concrete terms the treaty grants the Nisga'a government paramount power in 14 different areas and shared jurisdiction in another 16 fields. That is a constitutional change.

It is irresponsible on the part of the Liberal government to bring about such a fundamental change to our country, to the constitutional structure of Canada and to do it in such an undemocratic manner as it has been. It is incredible when one thinks of it that a de facto constitutional change would be made without input.

Too much of that agreement was hammered out in secrecy behind closed doors. Even certain members of the government of the province of British Columbia were unable to receive information with respect to the details of it. It was hidden from them.

When all was done, a fait accompli, it was brought to the government by the NDP in British Columbia and it was rammed through. Closure was invoked there as well. It was invoked halfway through the debate in that province.

At the federal level the official opposition represents 24 of the 34 seats in the province of British Columbia, the largest number of course. Again we see democracy being trampled on.

If this bill before us becomes law there is a clause in the agreement that will cripple the official opposition federally and provincially. That clause will ensure that no party to this agreement may challenge it once it is ratified. It is a very important clause because it will completely hobble the government in waiting once it becomes the government. Simply, many of those issues have not been addressed.

One of the major problems is that at least in a modern world power resides here with native government in a collective sense and not with native individuals.

I am also saddened to see the way this Nisga'a treaty conforms to the Liberal pattern of showing only respect, if one can even call it that, only to aboriginal band leadership and not showing the same respect for the ordinary person on the street, the grassroots, the ordinary band member in those communities. The treaty bypasses the individual and instead concentrates the economic and political power in the hands of the Nisga'a government, a collective sense. Individual Nisga'a people have no reason to be excited about this treaty and they are not. They do not have property rights in this treaty. Nor are their individual freedoms protected in the way that other Canadians have their freedoms protected.

It is unclear whether all the rights in the charter will even apply to the Nisga'a people. Under the terms of section 25 of the charter the courts must defer to collective aboriginal rights if they are deemed to conflict with charter rights. This places collective rights over individual rights and that means aboriginal government rights over the rights of individuals.

Also it was brought to our attention out there when hearing individuals that there are conflicting claims on the same land from other bands. The federal government must reach agreement with surrounding bands, including the Gitksan and the Gitanyow. We have overlapping claims against land proposed to be conveyed now under this Nisga'a treaty. Such agreement must be an accommodation satisfactory to the Gitksan and the Gitanyow leadership.

Briefing notes from the B.C. minister of agriculture show what state of anarchy it could create in terms of the whole of agriculture in the province of British Columbia. If it is used as a template for future land claims, it will cause significant disruptions to individuals ranchers, orchardists and farmers throughout the Okanagan. Over 1,000 farms in the Okanagan Valley, represented by my colleagues here, will be greatly affected by this. Not only does it threaten the commercial interests of those ranchers, orchardists and farmers, but it threatens the whole B.C. agricultural land reserve.

The NDP briefing note went on to say that the majority of a crown agricultural land reserve would likely be consumed by land claims for a total of approximately 2.5 million hectares. Using Nisga'a as a template, and God forbid, it will not only create economic uncertainty in certain parts adjoining there, but throughout the rest of the province as well. They know this. The Liberals, the NDP and the Tories know this, but they insist that their extreme measures are best. They know what is best for British Columbians and have not even given them a referendum to indicate it themselves.

If the Nisga'a treaty were to be a template, and we believe there is every possibility that it will be and in fact it is already becoming that for some, it is the first of 50 or more treaties in British Columbia. There is no clear way to know exactly how much these treaties will cost.

One 1999 study by R.M. Richardson and Associates estimates that the total cost of these treaties could be as high as $40 billion. That is a pretty powerful big sum of money.

As I said, the Nisga'a treaty is already serving as a precedent in other treaty negotiations in B.C. where other people are not being consulted about these very sweeping changes by way of referendum. In fact B.C. law does require that a referendum be held to approve constitutional changes. There are lawsuits presently pending before the courts on this issue. With the creation of 50 or more governments in B.C., economic development in much of the province will be severely restricted, hamstrung. It will be economic anarchy. Long term economic development will take a pretty heavy hit.

The Nisga'a treaty has also served as a model for the Inuit agreement in principle, negotiated in Labrador and some of the provisions in that agreement, which covers more than a quarter of Labrador, mirror unfortunately those found in the Nisga'a agreement.

The fact that it will be a model for treaties yet to be negotiated as a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court in the Delgamuukw case in 1997, existing treaties in the rest of Canada may also be reopened to renewed negotiations. They will be opening probably the Treaty 8 in Alberta. I understand that has already begun. The Nisga'a treaty will certainly be an important model for other bands, reopening negotiations since their own settlements of a century ago are very modest by comparison.

I want to state some of the Reform Party's policy for the record again. It has perhaps been heard but needs to be said again. The Nisga'a final agreement strongly contradicts one of the key founding principles of the Reform Party, namely that we believe in true equality of Canadian citizens with equal rights and responsibilities for all.

Another Reform Party policy found in the blue book states that the Reform Party's ultimate goal in aboriginal matters is that all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in Canadian citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians.

Householders and 10 percenters have been sent to 534,000 households in British Columbia. Thus far, about 10,000 have been returned, which is a very good response rate. Of the results tabulated 89% of the respondents do not believe that the public has had adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty; 92% believe the people of B.C. should have the right to vote on the principles of the treaty; 91.5% want their member of parliament to vote against the Nisga'a treaty.

I could go through Liberal members' ridings which indicate a very high percentage, upper 80% and 90%, who want their member to vote against the treaty. Poll information tends to support the fact that a majority of British Columbians oppose the Nisga'a treaty. Surveys done by our own members corroborate that. All around we are very clear on that.

In closing, I want to indicate some of the important principles as far as Reform is concerned here. We believe that the Indian Act discriminates against aboriginal people. It sets them apart from other Canadians. We recommend the Indian Act be abolished, that a new relationship between aboriginals and governments be established so that we encourage less dependency on the federal government and more control by aboriginals over their own affairs, but under a municipal level, a delegated level of government.

Reform calls for open negotiations, public, unlike the secret negotiations that happened with respect to the Nisga'a treaty. With regard to self-government, as I said, it needs to be a delegated level of government. It needs to be democratic, accountable and subject to the laws of Canada.

With regard to self-reliance Reform believes that the improvement in the standard of living of aboriginal people can be achieved by removing the barriers to full and equal participation in Canada's economic life. Too many impediments over the years have been imposed on the creativity and the diligence of native people. They should have the option of receiving government benefits directly. They should have access to the auditor general to make sure that local governments are accountable for management of their finances.

I believe we will rue the day that we allowed this bill to go through. Of course, we as the opposition have done everything we could to stall this bill so that we would get a better deal for native people, for Indian people, across the country of Canada.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1.