Michael Chong

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, rumours are flying outside of the House in the coffee chatter circuit. Rumours are flying around Ottawa about who will be the next immigration minister. The member for Beaches—East York and the member for Parkdale—High Park both have been rumoured to be the next minister of immigration.

The immigration department is directionless, as the current minister spends all her time in damage control. Liberal caucus unity is in disarray, as members openly campaign for the job.

When will the Prime Minister put an end to this uncertainty, put some order and discipline back into his own caucus, and appoint a new minister of immigration?

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister has proven she is not competent to hold office. She let a campaign worker jump the queue ahead of 700,000 other applicants. She accepted a $5,000 illegal donation from a member of her riding executive who also obtained eight special ministerial permits. Her office used thug tactics to dissuade MPs from further questioning any of these matters, by threatening to withhold special ministerial permits for real cases.

When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and fire the minister?

[Ken Danby, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this past October and November Canada's foremost realist painter, Wellington--Halton Hills resident Ken Danby, unveiled 51 new works at his exhibition at the Carrier Gallery in Toronto. This exhibition was one of the premier arts events of the year.

In addition, the National Portrait Gallery, across the street from this very House, just added Ken Danby's retirement portrait of Wayne Gretzky to its series of window banners. The Great Farewell is featured on its own large banner at 100 Wellington Street across from Parliament Hill, depicting Wayne as one of several Canadians honoured for their contributions to the country over the past 200 years.

I hope that all members in this 38th Parliament since Confederation will join me in congratulating Ken and his wife Gillian on the great success of the exhibition in Toronto, for the portrait at the National Portrait Gallery, and for their contribution to the artistic and cultural life of Canada.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-21, an act respecting not for profit corporations and other corporations without share capital.

The not for profit sector in this country is made up of approximately 18,000 not for profit organizations that collectively have over $100 billion in revenue, which is a significant part of the third pillar of our economy and something that this bill addresses but not without major flaws.

I want to speak to four aspects of this bill, some of which are good and some bad. Those four aspects concern the streamlined incorporation process, improved financial accountability, the rights and responsibilities of directors and officers, and the ability for members to appeal or seek redress for actions that a board has taken.

In terms of the streamlined incorporation process, the government has done a good job in replacing the letters patent system of incorporation by an incorporation as of right system. That will allow many not for profit corporations to more easily incorporate than in the previous process. It eliminates the current requirement for ministerial review of applications and replaces it with the standard filing specified forms and the payment of a fee. If this system were also implemented via an online form, it would also be advantageous.

However, the second element of this bill that I want to speak to is the improved financial accountability, which creates too many different classes of not for profit corporations to regulate themselves in terms of financial reporting requirements. There are five different classes: first, a low revenue soliciting corporation; second, a medium revenue soliciting corporation; third, a high revenue soliciting corporation; fourth, a low revenue non-soliciting corporation; and fifth, a high revenue non-soliciting corporation.

I think there are far too many levels of categories for these not for profit corporations to determine what their reporting requirements are and as one not for profit moves from year to year into one category and the next, it is going to create a lot of confusion as to what category they are in and what level of reporting they require.

For many larger soliciting corporations, the threshold for not reporting a review engagement, in other words, for them not to have to file with Industry Canada a review engagement, is the consent of all their members. In this particular situation, for these not for profit corporations, that have a significant number of members, this may be too onerous a threshold for them to forgo the review engagement that in some cases can cost upwards of $1,000, which may be a lot of money for a corporation that does not have a lot of revenue.

The third area which creates an onerous burden on not for profit corporations is the rights and responsibilities of directors and officers. The government has said that it wants to create a framework under this act to ensure that not for profit corporations can more easily go about their business, especially with regard to the standard of care that must be taken into consideration by the board of directors.

This is something that many not for profit corporations will find difficult to deal with because many of them do not pay their board of directors. Many not for profit corporations approach people of stature in the community to see if they are willing to lend their names, to sit on a board of directors, and to lend their expertise. Most community leaders are more than willing to lend their names and time to a not for profit corporation because they know that the standard of care is not the same that applies to corporations engaged in normal for profit business.

This bill creates a standard of care that is significantly higher than the existing standard of care that private enterprises are obligated to follow. This is going to do two things. It is going to make many people seriously reconsider whether or not they want to take on the liability of sitting on a board of directors for a not for profit. Also, it is going to lead to increased costs for the not for profits because many of the boards will now elect to take out directors liability insurance. That adds another burden on the not for profits, many of which are without a great deal of revenue.

The fourth area I want to speak to, and one which I think is onerous for the not for profits, is the provision in the bill that allows members to enforce their rights and to appeal to a court. The bill allows members to seek relief from a court if they believe their rights have been oppressed.

In this case the bill does allow religious organizations an exemption based on a tenet of faith. In other words, if the organization made a decision based on a tenet of faith, the members could not appeal to the courts to seek redress for whatever action the corporation had taken.

However, this tenet of faith is not clearly defined in the bill. My worry is that this will potentially infringe on religious freedom when appeals are made because the bill is not clear as to what exactly is a tenet of faith. For that reason also, I think this bill should be opposed.

Most important, this bill should be opposed simply because it is a travesty. It has been five years since the government engaged in the voluntary sector initiative, and this is all it has come up with. In 1999 the government announced the initiative as a result of its commitments in the Speech from the Throne.

This voluntary sector initiative at the time was announced as a five year action plan at a cost of $94.6 million. It was to examine the regulatory framework of the voluntary sector, to examine capacity building measures, relationship building measures, and to do this in strong and in-depth consultation with the voluntary sector.

One of the commitments made in this voluntary sector initiative was to clarify the guidelines on allowable expenses. It was to streamline the process and make the process more transparent for the regulation of charities under the Income Tax Act. It was to make more transparent the method by which charities receive their charitable status, and to possibly examine whether or not the rules that are currently in place and which have been in place for centuries dating back to Elizabethan law, should be broadened for charities. In other words, it was to see whether or not the rules for which charities should be recognized should be broadened to include not just those religious organizations and those organizations whose intent is to educate, but also to broaden it to advocacy work and other areas.

However, the bill is absolutely silent on that aspect. The government has fallen far short of what the voluntary sector was expecting. For that reason I oppose sending the bill to committee before second reading.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the agreement and I do understand that the agreement specifies that federal legislation, in its general application, is paramount. However what is troubling is that specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho nation is not paramount. As a matter of fact, it is subject to Tlicho laws and to the Tlicho agreement. That is our concern.

There seems to be a potential for a very confusing set of jurisdictional questions as to whose authority is paramount. What is specific federal legislation?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to see an agreement that sets out a different layer of sovereignty for the Tlicho First Nation. I believe that as this country moves from its past history of having three founding cultures and peoples, that being the French, the English and the natives, into a country that becomes increasingly diverse and multicultural and whose urban areas are increasingly reflective of the worldwide mosaic that Canada has now become, these kinds of agreements will not stand the test of time. These kinds of agreements will not fit into what this country will look like in 50 years.

For those reasons, I think it is important for the federal government to take a leadership role in these issues. It should set out a framework of policies that state to Canadians that they all fall within the jurisdiction of the charter, that they are all equal in front of the law and that they all will be treated equally by the federal government.

There will be areas of jurisdiction that are different, certainly between the provinces and the federal government, and there will be different ways of implementing policies across such a vast geographic expanse, but at the end of the day Canadian citizens deserve to be treated equally whether they live in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Ontario or the maritimes.

What is lacking in the agreement and in the government's broader approach to many of the policies that it enacts today is that it does not seem to have this vision of a Canadian identity. The government does not seem to want to enact policies and legislation that would treat all Canadians equal, regardless of their racial backgrounds, their geographic locations and their languages.

I think that is what has been lacking in this agreement and it is troubling. Over time this slow erosion, this slow whittling away of Canadian sovereignty will come back to haunt, not the present government, because it will have long passed into history, but future Canadian governments.

In a country that was already so fragile and already, in so many ways, an impossibility when Confederation was formed in 1867, our country needs strong federal governments to ensure that it stays together, not simply for the sake of staying together but to ensure peace and tranquility in the land, to ensure prosperity for all its citizens and to ensure a uniform set of services, laws and rights that Canadians have come to expect from their governments.

However, over the last number of years the present government, in particular, has slowly whittled away at the idea of a Canadian identity and of a consistent set of standards across the country. It has done so through agreements like this and through the implementation of the policies it has enacted. I think this, in the long run, will come back to haunt a future government. That is why I think the government needs to answer questions as to the erosion of sovereignty and the absence of finality in this agreement.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims agreement, is worrisome. Before I get into the reasons why I believe it is worrisome let me first say that it is a generous agreement and so it should be.

It gives the Tlicho nation 39,000 square kilometres of land and grants it $152 million over 15 years. It recognizes that there has been no final agreement between the Crown and the Tlicho nation. In that respect, the fact that the government has attempted to address this inadequacy is also good.

However, there are two problems with this agreement. First, it erodes Canadian sovereignty, and second, the agreement lacks finality. Our party believes in aboriginal self-government but within the confines and framework of the Canadian Constitution. This agreement however goes well beyond that and grants self-government to the detriment of Canada.

This agreement has three chapters in it which are to the detriment of Canada's sovereignty. In this country we have two sovereign layers of government, federal and provincial, that along with the charter vest all the power in these three different areas. This agreement changes that fundamental structure of the sovereignty in this country to include a fourth level of sovereignty which is contained within this agreement.

The erosion of sovereignty has to do with two chapters in the agreement that deal with international treaties and one chapter in the agreement that creates a substantial amount of jurisdictional confusion which could potentially lead to erosion of Canadian sovereignty. The two articles in the agreement that I refer to that erode Canada's ability to be a sovereign nation have to do with international treaties. One is article 2.2.9 in the agreement which states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend any authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial, and inter-territorial agreements.

This suggests by implication that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements. Article 7.13.2 states:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho first nation or a Tlicho citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

The right to enter into international treaties or agreements is the exclusive purview of the executive of the federal government. In this agreement, the inclusion of these clauses erodes that sovereignty and may have far-reaching and long lasting implications in decades to come.

The second area of this agreement which may erode Canada's sovereignty has to do with jurisdictional confusion that will be created because of articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4. In these articles there is a hierarchy of authority that is prescribed, five rankings of authority which seem to conflict with each other.

We in this country, since Confederation and the Constitution Act of 1867, have had enough confusion about intra or ultra vires areas of jurisdiction when it comes to federal-provincial areas of jurisdiction. The last thing we need is to add another area of confusion into this relationship.

One of my questions for the government is, why did the government allow this erosion of Canadian sovereignty to be built into this agreement? International treaties are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Why would the federal government allow for a third party to have a say in international treaties when this authority is an exclusive area of federal jurisdiction?

I wonder whether or not this fits into the government's new framework of asymmetrical federalism where provincial cabinet ministers are allowed to speak at international conferences on behalf of the federal government. This seems to me to be playing right into that new framework.

My other question is, who speaks for Canada here? This is the federal government and it should be protecting its areas of jurisdiction and speaking on behalf of all Canadians, not slowly whittling away its authority through agreements and different approaches to international treaties.

Another area of concern in this agreement, as I mentioned before, is the absence of finality. One of the things that puzzles me about Bill C-14 and this agreement is that it is quite different from the Nisga'a final agreement that the government agreed to recently. The Nisga'a agreement was full and final. There are four sections I would like to read into the record from the Nisga'a agreement that illustrates this. Section 22 states:

This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Section 23 of the Nisga'a agreement states:

This Agreement exhaustively sets out Nisga’a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of those rights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed--

Further on, in section 26, the Nisga'a agreement reads:

If, despite this Agreement and the settlement legislation, the Nisga’a Nation has an aboriginal right, including aboriginal title, in Canada, that is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga’a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement, the Nisga’a Nation releases that aboriginal right to Canada to the extent that the aboriginal right is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga’a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement.

Section 27 states:

The Nisga’a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga’a Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga’a Nation.

These four sections in the Nisga'a final agreement clearly indicate that the agreement was a final agreement between the Crown and the Nisga'a nation. Contrast that with the Tlicho agreement. The Tlicho agreement has quite the opposite. It has no finality built into the agreement. Article 27.6.1 of the agreement states that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation.

This contrasts directly with the Nisga'a land claim agreement. My question for the government is, why the change in strategy and why do one thing for one aboriginal nation and do another for another aboriginal nation?

What I find most disturbing about this whole thing is the point I first made, the absence of a strong stance from the government on its own erosion of its own sovereignty.

In reflecting on the agreement, I think the former Liberal leader, Mr. Trudeau, would be rolling around in his grave today if he were to see the type of asymmetrical federalism and the type of erosion of sovereignty that we have seen the government engage in over the last number of years.

Canada is a fragile nation with a fragile identity and the federal government must do all it can to preserve that identity and protect its own sovereignty to ensure that the nation can continue in decades and years to come. My fear is that the agreement sows the seeds of a country that will slowly but surely erode its own sovereignty, so that 50 years hence the federal government will be no greater than simply a coordinating body for different sovereign areas of jurisdiction within one geographic entity. That is my party's biggest concern about this agreement.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the criteria in international law for what constitutes a nation. One of the elements of that criteria is geography. Could the member comment on the fact that a significant portion of Quebec's geography is occupied by native peoples, specifically around James Bay by the Cree nations. How does he see this issue relating to the territorial integrity of Quebec?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cambridge.

In rising to give my address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I am giving my maiden speech in this hallowed House. I want to thank the people of Wellington—Halton Hills for giving me the privilege of representing them here, as well as thank my wife Carrie for all she has given. I will do my best and work my hardest for my constituents.

I also join with other members in congratulating the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their elevation to the Chair.

I hail from the great riding of Wellington—Halton Hills. My predecessors include Alf Hales, Perrin Beatty, Otto Jelinek and Garth Turner. I am proud to serve along with my provincial counterparts, Ted Arnott and Ted Chudleigh, as well as their predecessor, Jack Johnson. I want to recognize all of them for their dedication to public service. I will strive to do the same for the people of Wellington—Halton Hills.

Wellington—Halton Hills is made up of Wellington county and Halton region. Halton region recently received recognition as one of Canada's top 100 employers. I wish to congratulate Chairman Joyce Savoline, Halton Region Council and all of Halton Region's 1,700 staff for this recognition. This award recognizes that Halton has attracted and retained skilled employees to the public sector, employees who are a big part of the reason that Halton is such a great place to live.

As we embark on this 38th Parliament since Confederation, I hope that all my colleagues will join me in congratulating Halton region on this award.

Like many new Canadians who come today and those who came before, my late mother and father came to this country with nothing but dreams and hopes. Through perseverance and hard work they blazed a path so that their children could pursue opportunities unbounded in this vast and inchoate land. We owe much to these pioneers who came before and began to build this country. Their project is not yet finished and we must carry on.

I believe in one Canadian people and in one Canada. To be sure, there are a myriad of ethnic groups, there are the different regions, there are the two founding cultures and languages, and before all of these there were and are the native peoples. Each in their own unique and important way has contributed to the fabric and diversity of this country. However, above all of these, there is one Canadian identity, fragile as it sometimes may be. An identity forged out of war, out of history and out of tribulation, but above all, an identity forged out of an encounter with a vast and inchoate land.

It was this vision of a common Canadian identity that moved Sir John A. Macdonald to forge the mergers necessary for Confederation. He united the French Catholics of Canada east with the English Protestants of Canada west to form what would become the Conservative Party of Canada. He joined with his most hated nemesis, George Brown, to make this happen. It was in this spirit of nation building that our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, and our deputy leader, the hon. member for Central Nova, forged a coalition for the betterment of Canada.

As it was once said by a great member of this House, political capital is not meant to be hoarded but spent on great causes for one's country. It is in this spirit of bettering my country that I criticize the throne speech on two issues: agriculture and funding for municipalities.

Agriculture is important to Wellington—Halton Hills. It was to my riding, into Puslinch township, that the first Hereford cattle were imported into Canada by Frederick Stone in the 1850s. It is in my riding that part of the world renowned Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph is located. Wellington county and Halton region together have 3,200 farms generating $570 million in farm gate sales.

However the Speech from the Throne does little to address the problems facing these farmers, especially for those farmers devastated by BSE in non-managed markets. It is ironic that 46 years after Alf Hales rose in this very House to speak up on behalf of beleaguered farmers, I now do the same with one big difference: the plight of today's farmer is far, far worse than it was in 1958.

Speaking in January 1958 on a farm bill introduced by the Diefenbaker government, Alf Hales stated in Hansard that the average selling price of steers for the 10 year period was $21.80 a hundredweight. That was in 1958 dollars. Today that would be $150 per hundredweight.

The base support price set by the government for farmers in 1958 was $17.44 per hundredweight. Even then farmers struggled. Today that would be a base support price of $120 per hundredweight.

The government's agricultural policy does not even come close to that kind of support.

Because of the government's farm policy in non-managed markets, the average family farm is no longer economically viable. The average farmer can no longer make ends meet and must rent hundreds if not thousands of acres to achieve the economies of scale necessary for a very modest profit.

We are creating a new kind of feudalism in this country where landowners rent their farmland out to impoverished tenant farmers. This is a shame in a country like Canada. We should and we can do better.

The throne speech also fails to deliver on money for municipalities. While I realize that a throne speech is the broad strokes of a government's plan, this one is so vague as to be meaningless.

It is possible the government will announce funding details by the end of the year but municipalities need details now so they can start budgeting for 2005. The municipalities face huge infrastructure costs. I will give two examples to illustrate my point.

The township of Centre Wellington, with a population of 22,000, has over 100 bridges. In that township alone we are currently facing bridge repair costs of $15 million, is a huge number for a township with an annual operating budget of only $15 million.

In Halton Hills I have been told there is a backlog of $57 million in road work and other infrastructure, an equally big number for a community with only 50,000 people and an annual operating budget of $20 million.

While these numbers may seem small to some, if one were to extrapolate them to a city the size of Toronto with a population of 2.5 million, one would get an infrastructure backlog of $1.7 billion to $2.9 billion. All of which is to say that rural communities, with their more scattered populations and large infrastructure, face the same kinds of challenges on a per capita basis that larger, more densely populated communities do.

We should not forget these rural communities, the lifeblood of our nation across its vast geographic expanse. However I worry that smaller communities will get less of the money on a per capita basis in favour of more densely populated areas.

I am also concerned that the government has moved from a specific to a vague commitment. During the election, 5¢ per litre of the gas tax was promised. In the most recent throne speech we now hear a promise of a portion of the gas tax. I hope the government is not backing away from its commitment to cities and municipalities.

Municipalities desperately need the money. The lack of detail and the lack of action means more closed bridges, more deteriorating roads and ultimately higher property taxes because the money must come from somewhere.

It means that seniors, like Maria Kurath in Erin, may have to sell their homes because they cannot afford the property taxes. These are the real life stories of what happens when a government fails to act.

The gas tax promise was made before the election, during the election and after the election. It has been mentioned in two throne speeches. There is a $9.1 billion surplus. The time for vague talk is over. It is time for action.

In closing I wish to indicate my support for the loyal opposition's amendment to the Speech from the Throne.

[County of Wellington, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 150th anniversary of the County of Wellington. I am proud to say that I live in and was raised in Wellington county.

The County of Wellington predates Confederation and includes great communities steeped in history and tradition, communities like Fergus and Elora, Erin and Hillsburgh, Rockwood and Morriston, Arthur and Mount Forest, Alma and Belwood, Drayton and Palmerston, and communities like Harriston and Clifford.

I want to congratulate warden Lynda White, chief administrative officer Scott Wilson, clerk Donna Waugh, and all the staff of the county for the very successful 150th anniversary celebrations that were held at the Wellington County Museum and Archives, a national historic site.

As we embark on this the 38th Parliament since Confederation, I hope all members will join me in congratulating the county of Wellington on 150 years of tradition and community.