37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 031
CONTENTS
Monday, March 19, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| SUPREME COURT ACT
|
| Bill C-234. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1125
1130
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1135
1140
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1145
1150
| Mr. John Maloney |
1155
| Mr. John Bryden |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Allotted Day—Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion
|
1205
1210
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1215
1220
1225
| Amendment
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1230
1235
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1240
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. John Finlay |
1245
1250
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1255
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1335
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1340
1345
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1350
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1355
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| JULIETTE HUOT
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
1400
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
| MARIE-FRANCE PILON
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1405
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| SEMAINE D'ACTION CONTRE LE RACISME
|
| Ms. Pauline Picard |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| COMMONWEALTH DAY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1410
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| JULIETTE HUOT
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| BASKETBALL
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1415
| FUEL TAX REBATE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1435
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1440
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1450
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. John Finlay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1455
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1500
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1505
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
|
1510
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| PETITIONS
|
| Income Tax Act
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1515
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-302. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-303. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-304. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Bill C-15—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1520
1525
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Motion
|
1530
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1535
1540
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1545
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1550
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1555
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1600
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1605
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1610
1615
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1620
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1625
1630
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1635
1640
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1645
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1650
1655
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1700
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1705
1710
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1715
1720
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1725
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1730
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1735
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1740
1745
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1750
1755
| Mr. Andy Burton |
1800
1805
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1810
1815
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Trade
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1820
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Coast Guard
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1825
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 031
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 19, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
SUPREME COURT ACT
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-234, an act to amend the Supreme Court
Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the
bill today. I am only going to address one-half of the bill
because the motion is not votable and there is only one hour of
debate. So in the interests of time I am going to only look at
the second clause of the bill that would limit the application of
charter decisions by the supreme court. If a decision is not
unanimous on the part of the supreme court judges, then the case
at hand would apply only to the case at hand and would not be
broadly applied as is the usual case now.
The bill arises from the fact that so often when an appeal is
brought before the supreme court that has charter implications,
when the supreme court rules, whether it is a unanimous decision
or a majority decision, the government, Mr. Speaker, usually
applies its decision universally. It takes it as a direction in
law and a charter direction, and it usually has enormous impact
on Canadian society.
My concern for this issue arises out of the Marshall case about
two years ago. In that case, Donald Marshall and several other
aboriginals were caught by fisheries officials with 464 pounds of
eels that they had taken out of season and were selling. They
had even used an illegal net. In other words, these individuals
were poaching.
They were brought before the courts and would have been subject
to a considerable fine but their defence before the lower courts
was that they had a right to take the eels under a treaty of 1760
between the British crown and the Mi'kmaq. That went through two
levels of courts, the provincial court and then it was appealed.
Finally, it came before the supreme court.
Members must bear in mind that the convictions were upheld by
the two lower courts. However, when it came before the supreme
court, seven justices sat, five ruled in favour of the accused.
In other words, they overturned the decisions of the lower
courts. Two ruled in favour of the lower courts and upheld the
conviction.
Members have to see how it works. The appeal process that goes
to the supreme court chiefly consists of bringing before the
court, and the court accepts the particular case at hand. The
supreme court reviews all the evidence of the lower court and
allows one hour for each side to present its case. There is a
certain provision in time for interveners who the supreme court
can decide to allow to intervene or not. All in all the entire
decision making process takes less than three hours in open court
and for the most part the deliberations are done in camera with
the justices using their law clerks to prepare a digest of the
evidence. They make their decisions based on that.
Where in this place it may take many days and many levels of
debate in order to pass legislation; first reading, second
reading, report stage, third reading and the Senate. In the case
of the supreme court, it is a matter of only a few hours of open
court and the rest by law clerks and individual justices
themselves.
1110
In the case of Marshall, this decision to uphold the rights of
Mr. Marshall and others to gather the eels out of season, it is
not really the problem of how the justices came to that decision
which concerns us here today. If we put 100 people in a room and
asked them whether they would agree with the decision in the
Marshall case, I think we would probably find only 3 or 4 would.
The implications of the Marshall case were that it allowed
aboriginals to not only fish out of season but to fish for
commercial reasons, for sale. The five supreme court justices
who upheld the appeal cited reasons that we find difficulty
following. They said it was the honour of the crown. They had
to read into the treaty of 1760 that which was not there because
they had to put it in an historical context. They admitted that
they were doing something historians were expected to do. They
were at odds with historians but they took it upon themselves to
be the historians and set the expert testimony aside.
The justices also admitted that while they did not hear all the
particular testimony, they still felt that they could come to
this conclusion regardless.
They even made a political decision. They said in their
conclusion that the aboriginals were entitled to make a moderate
livelihood and they said that regulations could certainly be made
to make this work. Where we in the House would spend days to
devise a policy with respect to the fisheries, just to devise a
policy, and have extensive debate to establish the rules
pertaining to the fisheries, the five judges in the Marshall case
determined that it could be done just like that.
I do not want to get into questioning the decisions of the
justices. The point is, Mr. Speaker, is they came down with
their decision with the two judges dissenting and the two judges
who were dissenting simply said that the treaty of 1760 applied
to 1760 and we could not apply it to the present. We would agree
with that. So they rejected it and five accepted it.
That is not the issue. What happened right after that, which
concerns us here and is the reason for this legislation, is
immediately the Department of Fisheries and Oceans issued an
internal memo. One of the clauses of the memo about the
implications of the Marshall decision, which I remind members was
a split decision, said:
While the immediate focus is on access to the fishery, the
judgement will have application to other resources. Development
of a comprehensive response will involve many departments of the
federal government, and provincial governments as Treaty
beneficiaries pursue harvest of wildlife and timber.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the federal government immediately
saw in Marshall a broad application to aboriginal rights to all
resources to not only gather it for sustenance, but to gather it
for a moderate livelihood, in other words, for sale. It is no
wonder that a few days later the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs came out publicly and said that this was a decision that
was going to entitle aboriginals across the country to have
special rights to natural resources, to not only exploit natural
resources but to sell them.
We know what happened. There was a terrible conflict around
Burnt Church in Nova Scotia. That conflict continues. There has
been a tremendous unease across the country with the thought that
there could be a situation where aboriginals have rights to
natural resources and rights to the exploitation of natural
resources based on race alone.
It did not need to be that way. In fact, there is nothing in
Canadian law anywhere that says that a decision of the supreme
court, any decision for that matter, has broad application when
it is a charter decision. It just does not exist. What has
happened is that a myth has been created since the charter was
passed in 1982 that somehow the supreme court in Canada has the
same context in the interpretation of laws and the application of
laws as in the United States.
1115
In fact this is not so at all. For the supreme court, or high
courts as we have, interpreting constitutional law, is basically
something that has evolved since the second world war. For the
most part, most countries prior to the second world war
functioned on a parliamentary democracy system. What has
happened since the second world war, and probably as a result of
the second world war, is many countries, including Canada, felt
there should be some restriction on the opportunities of the
executive. Thus high courts were implemented, including our own.
Nothing in the constitution that was brought back in 1982
actually defines the role of the supreme court. There are a few
passing references only, but nothing dictates that the federal
government should interpret split decisions of the supreme court
as being broadly applicable across the country. We do not need
to go down that route. One of the sad things about this entire
situation is that there has never been a serious parliamentary
debate examining the role of the supreme court's decisions and
its application to charter law and how charter law should be
applied to Canadians. I think it is high time that this
situation was brought forward.
The other classic case involving the supreme court, just to give
another example of what has happened, is the charter was passed
in 1982 and in 1986 a challenge was brought before the charter
that led to the Singh decision. It involved seven convention
refugees who were all in Canada illegally. One in fact had come
in on a visa with a forged passport. The refugees were caught
and the court ruled, after various levels had suggested that they
should be expelled without a full hearing and according to the
legislation at the time, that they were entitled to a full
hearing and upset the lower courts' rulings.
What a lot of people do not realize is the Singh decision was
not a unanimous decision. Three judges only found evidence in
the charter that suggested that the existing immigration law was
not charter compliant and was unfair to the accused. The other
three justices came to their decision based on the Canadian Bill
of Rights.
It is very important to understand that the Singh decision was a
split decision. Indeed, the three justices who chose the
Canadian Bill of Rights to argue that the seven should have a
full hearing specifically said that they were not considering the
charter in their decision. There we have a classic example where
a split decision of the court has had manifest impact on Canadian
society.
Not only has it made it very difficult for Canada to control
aliens coming into the country who perhaps have criminal
connections or whatever, but every one of us in the House has a
problem with people seeking visas to come to visit their loved
ones and relatives in the country. Every office has this
problem. What we need to do is turn those people back because
according to the Singh decision there is every possibility that
if they decide not to return according to their visa then they
have recourse to due process. Tens of thousands of people are
denied entry into Canada because of the Singh decision.
It is very important to realize that the Singh decision was
confusing. The three justices decided on the basis of the
charter that the seven accused were entitled to an oral hearing.
However it was the other three, in terms of the Canadian Bill of
Rights, who cited section 2(e), which said that no law should
“deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination
of the rights and obligations”. It was that section which led to
the problem where we are turning back all these visa
applications. It is not a charter problem at all. It is the
problem of the interpretation of the Canadian Bill of Rights in
the Singh decision.
The irony is that at the beginning of that section it says that
there is a notwithstanding provision in the Canadian Bill of
Rights, that the government has the choice under the Canadian
Bill of Rights to suspend 2(e) in special circumstances, and yet
the government has never done it.
1120
The problem is simply that it is not the supreme court with
which we have difficulty. It is not the charter with which we
have difficulty. The problem is we have difficulty with
successive governments that have interpreted the decisions of the
courts more broadly than anything in law requires them to do, and
indeed more broadly than anything in parliamentary tradition that
Canada, the United States or Europe requires them to do.
We need to review the situation with respect to how government
interprets the decisions of the supreme court. It is high time
that parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, took a
look at what the government is doing and set rules whereby, in my
view, it should be only unanimous decisions of the supreme court
that should be broadly applied, not split decisions.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for bringing this matter
before the House today. I will be asking for unanimous consent
that this matter be deemed votable and referred to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The member has articulated his comments very succinctly. As he
indicated, this is an issue that has not received much discussion
in the House or in committees. The member, in bringing this
forward, does a great public service not only for the House but
for the courts and for the people of Canada.
There are a number of issues that I would like to raise. I do
not necessarily agree with everything in the bill but I think
that is why we need to have discussions.
This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act by adding a number
of paragraphs, the first being that when the question heard by
the court is of a constitutional nature that the court consider
parliamentary and other extrinsic materials, such as the
Debates of the House of Commons, the Senate, legislatures,
and law commission reports.
The second is when the question heard by the court is of a
constitutional nature and the decision of the court is not
unanimous, the decision should not be considered a precedent in
other circumstances in which the same constitutional issue
arises.
I do have some concerns with respect to the first matter. The
courts in many circumstances routinely consider this type of
information when it is presented to the court by one or more of
the parties. The courts hold that this type of information is
admissible and then consider the weight of this evidence.
I am familiar with this evidentiary issue. In my former life I
was a constitutional lawyer. I was the director of
constitutional law for the province of Manitoba. The legislative
evidence to which my colleague referred provides an important
context in assisting with interpreting the legislation. As a
director, I often referred to this type of evidence, which is
important in order to give the court a clearer understanding of
this legislative background. This type of evidence was called a
Brandeis brief. That is an American term but is utilized quite
extensively in Canada.
The bill would not only allow the introduction of Brandeis
briefs by counsel but, in addition, puts a positive onus on the
court to consider the intent of the legislators and not simply go
off on a frolic of its own, as has often been the case with some
judicial activists on the court. It is a very important and
positive onus on the courts which I think should be there.
With respect to the second paragraph in my colleague's bill,
there is some concern that it may cause some confusion to the
principles of precedent that have been established in Great
Britain, in Canada and, to a lesser extent, other Commonwealth
countries, and indeed the United States.
1125
However, I am sympathetic to this provision because the intent
is clearly to get the judiciary to focus on the issues before
them and to attempt to arrive at greater uniformity and clarity
in the judgment. This is so important given the fact that the
rights and freedoms of Canadians hang on the interpretation of
these words. Multiple judgments only serve to cause confusion
among those who are required to carry out, enforce and obey the
laws. Again, the examples my colleague brought forward to the
House are very germane to the discussion.
It is ironic that when the courts criticize legislation for
being vague and over broad, the courts often do so in language
that is itself vague and over broad. My colleague has brought a
few examples to the attention of the House. There are many more.
We read judgments of the court where they criticize legislators'
language and yet the language that they use and their conclusions
are so hopelessly over broad and vague that they have done
nothing to assist in the administration of justice or the
enforcement of laws.
The only beneficiary of these multiple types of judgments are
the legal profession. I, too, am a lawyer so I include myself in
this as well. However, the only beneficiaries of these multiple
judgments are the legal profession who are then free to embark on
a new, fresh round of litigation involving the same issues.
This type of discussion, whether the bill is accepted as such or
otherwise, is very important for us to try to have the courts
focus on what is important, on the issues that are in fact before
them.
Generally speaking, I would express my overall support for the
bill. Despite my concerns, I think the intent of the bill is to
grant elected members of parliament a greater voice in the
constitutional decisions that influence the laws of Canada. I
would also say that the bill is in part a reaction to the
phenomena of the judiciary substituting its legal and social
preferences for those made by the elected representatives of the
people in parliament and the legislatures.
Decisions made by the supreme court have a tremendous impact on
the principles and institutions of our democracy. We want to
preserve our democracy. We want to live in harmony with the
courts. We recognize the very valuable function of the courts
but our respective roles as parliamentarians, as those who pass
laws that implement social and legal policy are interpreted by
the courts in their proper legal context. We do not want that
straying of the courts into the area of social and legal policy.
There are the dangers of legal and constitutional anarchy that
are reflected in some of the former judgments of the Supreme
Court of Canada, and I cannot think of a better example than the
Singh decision. This decision certainly created difficulties for
our bureaucrats and others who want to see fair laws.
The member opposite made the point about this depriving
legitimate visitors to Canada who would like to see their
families but are denied access because there is now an
overabundance of caution that parliamentarians have to exercise
because of some very misguided and confusing decisions. Perhaps
confusing is a better word than misguided. I am sure the courts,
in going through these judgments, are also trying to do their
best. We need to focus more clearly on the real issues.
I indicated earlier that I would ask for the unanimous consent
of the House that Bill C-234 be deemed votable and referred to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Failing that,
I would move that the subject matter of the bill be referred to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I commend my colleague opposite for bringing the matter forward.
It deserves the support of all opposition members and certainly
all members from the party that the member opposite represents.
1130
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to make the bill votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
actions such as these show us that the system has become a bit
outmoded. Sometimes we get to make fine speeches here without
even any chance to vote. We are not even able to really have a
finger on the pulse of the government.
An additional aberration: the bill is presented by a government
MP and it is the members of the government who are refusing to
have it made votable. That is a pretty special situation.
Independent of whether people are for or against such a bill, I
believe the House should be allowed to vote on it.
A vote would allow us to make it very clear that we in the Bloc
Quebecois cannot support such a bill.
This would at least show the consequences of such actions and
would also make the government's position known. We have a bill
being presented by a member of the government side and the
government is saying no to making votable. This is rather
unusual.
That said, I will address the bill directly since I have only
10 minutes or so to discuss it and to tell the House what an
extremely dangerous bill it is.
I cannot support such a bill since it mixes up some key
principles which provide Quebec and Canada with a justice system
that works overall. We agree that there is always room for
improvement.
Generally speaking, however, Quebec and Canada have a justice
system that has developed over the years into something that in
large part meets the expectations of the public.
One of the reasons it does work is that Canada has a
separation of powers which and this is important for a balanced
justice system. In other words, we have the legislative, the
judiciary and the executive components of the one state called
Canada. That is why we can end up with decisions that may not
suit us, decisions from the higher courts that we might have
liked to see otherwise, but when the rules and the law are being
applied, the system generally works.
For those who lack familiarity with the rules I have just
mentioned, the legislative system is us.
People pass legislation that applies to everyone. Especially,
since the arrival of the charter of rights and freedoms, the
laws have applied to everyone, unless parliament decides,
through the use of the notwithstanding clause, that a law does
not apply to a particular category or, more specifically, to
others. Let us be clear that up until now, no legislature has used
the notwithstanding clause. The laws apply to everyone,
as the legislative system provides.
The judicial system comprises people who apply the laws passed
by the legislative system. How do they do it? By interpreting
each of the sections of the law. There is a principle of law,
of justice, which provides that the legislator is not deemed to
speak in vain.
Therefore all the clauses of a bill have significance and they
are interpreted one after another by the judicial system. It
is however possible to not agree with a given decision.
1135
It would be a free for all if parliament intervened whenever the
Canadian constitution was involved or whenever the rights set
out in the charter were involved. In nearly all decisions the
supreme court examines, one of its criteria for agreeing
to examine them is that the matter involves the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms or, very specifically, the interpretation
of a statute of significance to Canada and a province, such as
Quebec, for example, if the decision comes from Quebec.
One of the most important points the supreme court addressed in
recent years was the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
If Bill C-234 came into effect, the House would always have to
deal with issues and interpretations relating to the
constitutional validity of an act. The issue is whether or not
the act respects the Canadian constitution or the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would always be ruling on
issues, thus depriving the supreme court of one of its
responsibilities so as to keep us parliamentarians busy doing
something. This is not how the system works.
The executive branch is the third level of power. It is the
government that sets in place the judiciary and the executive
branches. The separation between these three branches is
extremely important and must continue to exist.
The hon. member drafted his bill in a way that would obviously
jeopardize the balance that currently exists. The Bloc Quebecois
cannot support that.
Regardless of the fact that we are sovereignists and that we
support Quebec's sovereignty—this is the best thing that could
happen to Quebec in terms of the legality of the justice
system—over the years, Quebecers have made major contributions to
improve Canada's justice system. I want to preserve that system
and I will fight to protect it.
A bill such as the one just introduced by the member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot does not make sense. I might
have understood if it had been proposed by the Canadian
Alliance, but I am very surprised to see this from the Liberals.
The sponsor of the bill could easily cross the floor and join
the Canadian Alliance. I hope he represents only a very small
minority among government members. This is dangerous
legislation.
More important, did members listen to his speech? His
intentions were barely veiled. He said that supreme court
justices make rulings without even examining the substance of
the issue and that they render repetitive judgments. We know
that supreme court justices are extremely competent and they are
serious when they issue rulings. They have clerks working for
them. They have access to a whole staff of researchers and to
libraries. The supreme court makes Canada proud, and even Quebec,
as there are Quebecers who sit on the court.
The hon. member said that members should draft our laws because
we review them very thoroughly. I want to give him an example. I
am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. There are Quebecers and members from other regions of
Canada who sit on that committee.
Just to give one example of how ridiculous the member's
arguments are, in the case of the young offenders bill, the
committee heard from 60 or so witnesses from Quebec. No one
in Quebec supports the minister's bill. During clause by clause
study, all members from Quebec present voted in favour of the
bill. What is the point of spending hours and hours going over
something if the ultimate decision lies with the Prime Minister
anyway?
In all sincerity, I would far rather have competent judges
handing down rulings on a case by case basis in light of existing
statutes and regulations, independently of the legislative arm.
Cases such as Shaw may involve treaties and customs but we also
take these into account when we pass legislation here.
1140
As I said, decisions are, in the main, consistent with the
thinking of parliament and of Quebecers and Canadians.
I could go on and on. I will discuss at length the two
clauses in the bill to amend the Supreme Court Act in order to
rebut, as it were, all the arguments brought in support of this
bill, which does not really deserve our serious attention. We
should move on to something else as quickly as possible.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this private
member's bill, and I commend the hon. member for bringing it
forward. I think we all agree that the subject matter bears
consideration in the Chamber. It is an issue of critical
importance to the way we do business as a nation, to the way we
engage in debate, and to the role the Supreme Court of Canada
would play.
Looking at the substance of the bill for a moment, it refers to
the ability of legislators to demand or to mandate that the
supreme court should take into consideration debates of the
Chamber and debates that may transpire in committees. That is
not a bad idea in and of itself. The difficulty I have is
perhaps in the way it is worded, in that it would require or
demand that the courts do just that.
A previous speaker, who is a former attorney general of Manitoba
and a constitutional lawyer, succinctly summed up best what is
currently at work: the courts, the supreme court included, have
the ability to look at legislative debates. They have the
ability to ponder the background of how decisions were arrived at
when legislation was drafted. They have the ability to go quite
far afield. It is critical to say that in that context it is up
to the lawyers who may be arguing the case, or the parties to the
matter before the courts, to bring the matter forward.
It is not unheard of for the supreme court or superior courts
throughout the land to have researchers delve into this field. I
have difficulty with the mandate to tie the hands of the courts.
I understand the background reasoning, but it is basically saying
that we are important and have to be considered by them in their
deliberations. There are many members, myself included, who have
some difficulty with imposing that upon the courts.
On issues of constitutional considerations or charter cases the
bill would require, in essence, a unanimous decision. That would
be required in all cases where the charter came into play. We
know that charter issues seem to be predominant in the number of
cases before the courts. We would very much be curtailing the
way the courts function, the way the courts have independently
acted since the mists of antiquity, since the times the courts
were assembled to preside over and to protect citizens from an
unruly or dictatorial legislator. I will refrain from making any
references to the current administration.
To say that in every case there has to be a unanimous decision
troubles me. There have been many instances of important dictum
or comment by the court in the context of a judge who did not
agree with the majority. Looking at the circumstances and the
way in which decisions are arrived at by the courts, I would say
that this would perhaps unduly constrain the way judges react and
interact with one another.
I am reluctant to delve into the tying of the hands of judges in
what some would argue is sacred ground. The impartiality of the
courts would be impugned to a degree, to say they had to be
unanimous in each and every case where constitutional issues were
before them.
1145
I also recognize, and as part of the debate I think it is
important to recognize it, that there has been a number of
decisions. The hon. member opposite referred specifically to the
Marshall case. I say to him with the greatest respect that a
great deal of responsibility for the way this case was decided
rests in the hands of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
in the hands of the department of aboriginal affairs.
The Marshall decision, which incidentally came from Antigonish
county in Nova Scotia, dealt with native fishing rights as they
pertain quite narrowly to eels. What we saw resulting from the
Marshall decision has opened a huge debate in the country. An
enormous chasm has occurred when it comes to natural resources,
because we know this case will have application or that at least
there will be an attempt to apply it to all natural resources and
to land rights.
We have already seen references to the case throughout the land
where native rights are currently before the courts. That is not
to say that because of what transpired in the Marshall case we
should react quickly in somehow rejigging and reconfiguring the
way the courts operate. I agree that it is an important issue
that must be debated. Perhaps what we need to do as a matter of
course is look at the entire Supreme Court Act.
Very much behind the sentiment of the hon. member is the idea
that we should be looking at the way the courts have currently
construed their powers. To a large extent we have seen instances
where legislators were sidelined or completely put to one side
and instances where, the Chair will recall, the supreme court has
told legislators that they must come back and fix something, even
within a specific time period. We have known instances where
legislators did not comply, much to the chagrin I am sure of the
Supreme Court of Canada.
The implications for any changes to the Supreme Court Act are
long term. For that reason alone I do not think we can trundle
into this exercise with any degree of levity. We must look very
carefully at what we are mandating the courts to do, because
again there are very distinct roles. The hon. member from the
Bloc Quebecois set out quite succinctly the different roles that
are to be played by legislators, the executive branch and our
courts, our judiciary.
The Marshall decision is probably not the best starting point
when we enter into this exercise because, for any number of
reasons, emotions are certainly running high at this point. I
have one correction for the record: Burnt Church is in New
Brunswick, not Nova Scotia. I say that with the greatest
respect.
The bands are currently facing a situation, not to get off into
a separate debate, where the interim agreements will expire this
month. That certainly brings a real sense of urgency to
resolution of the issue of natural resources and access to them.
I also agree with the commentary in the debate about the
language that is often used and the need for clarification. We
saw that occur in Marshall. We know that rulings which contain
specific references to things such as moderate living are open to
a great deal of interpretation and misinterpretation.
Another case comes to mind where the supreme court talked about
exigent circumstances in police pursuits. It resulted in a great
deal of consternation in the law enforcement community. We have
seen ample evidence of supreme court decisions where legislators
are either implicitly or very directly called upon to come in and
fix what their decisions will result in because of the confusion
that can reign from what the supreme courts have handed down.
We cannot, I would suggest, take out certain sections of the
Supreme Court Act and attempt to try, in what is often an old
legal maxim, to do through the back door what one is prevented
from doing through the front. We cannot try to somehow, in a
roundabout way, get the courts to behave differently.
In a broader context, either at committee level or perhaps in
some sort of broader study, we must try to examine the role of
the courts vis-à-vis elected officials who, I would suggest and
certainly many in this place would agree, have a much broader
mandate. They have the same constituency, but a much more
specific mandate as to what their role is to be.
1150
I commend the hon. member for bringing the matter to the floor
of the House. This is the proper forum for the discussion. I am
reluctant to support the legislation in its current form,
although I realize that it is brought forward for debate and to
flesh out a problem that currently exists in the courts of
Canada. We must preserve the independence and the separate roles
and look at the issue again perhaps in a broader circumstance in
the near future.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the Minister of Justice to address Bill
C-234, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, introduced by the
hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
It is healthy in a democratic country such as ours to have
debate about the respective roles of the judiciary and parliament
and the dialogue between those institutions. I thank the member
for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue before the
House of Commons.
After consideration of Bill C-234 and the effect of the proposed
amendments on judicial independence, it would be impossible for
the minister to support the bill. Allow me to explain.
Bill C-234 proposes two amendments to the Supreme Court Act.
Both amendments would apply only in constitutional cases. The
first amendment, section 52.1, would require the supreme court to
consider parliamentary and other extrinsic materials that deal
with the purpose or intended effect of a provision or act when
the constitutional validity of a statutory provision is at issue.
The amendment lists commission of inquiry or law commission
reports, debates of the House of Commons or Senate, and debates
of the provincial legislatures as examples of the types of
materials the court would consider.
The proposed amendment at best simply codifies an approach that
has been adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada since at least
the Anti-Inflation Act reference of 1976. In that case, Mr.
Justice Ritchie wrote that it was not only permissible but
essential to consider the material the legislature had before it
when the statute was enacted. It is expected that parties before
the court will bring evidence of the purpose and intent of the
impugned legislation to the court's attention. Such materials
indeed form an integral part of the government's arguments under
section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, there is a danger that the provision could be more
broadly interpreted as requiring the court to independently
research any such evidentiary materials that have not been
brought forward by the parties. Such an application of the
provision would significantly increase the court's already heavy
workload and could result in possible delays in the
administration of justice.
Furthermore, the reading of the proposed section would run
contrary to a basic tenet of our common law and adversarial
system: that it is for the parties alone to decide the issues and
the evidence that will be brought before the court. As a result,
the Minister of Justice is unable to support the proposed
introduction of section 52.1.
I now turn to the second proposed amendment in Bill C-234 which,
in only a couple of sentences, would create uncertainty in the
law and raise serious questions about equal access to the law.
The proposed amendment would make only unanimous supreme court
decisions on constitutional matters binding on all Canadians.
Where the decision was not unanimous the judgment of the court
would be deemed to be only applicable to the case being heard. In
other words, the decision would not be considered a precedent in
relation to other circumstances in which the same constitutional
issue arose.
The Minister of Justice is equally unable to support the
proposed amendment. The amendment is clearly contrary to the
doctrine of precedent that underlies Canadian constitutional law
and that supports the need for certainty in the law. Pursuant to
this doctrine, the decisions of a court are binding on courts
lower in the judicial hierarchy regardless of whether the
decisions are unanimous or by majority.
Not only Canada but all common law countries have accepted the
doctrine of precedent which enables parties to rely on a court
judgment with the knowledge that people in like circumstances
will be treated alike. Adoption of the proposed amendment would
result in confusion, uncertainty and increased litigation within
the Canadian legal system as parties, including governments,
would be required to repeatedly contest or defend the
constitutional validity of legislation whenever a unanimous
decision was not reached.
The enactment of section 52.2 could have the further consequence
of creating an unequal application of laws. Under the proposed
provision, the circumstances of individuals or organizations
other than the parties before the court would not be covered by a
majority decision and further litigation would be required for
redress. However not all those affected by the challenge
legislation have the necessary means to assert their rights in
court and consequently would not enjoy the same benefits of the
law. The minister cannot support such unequal application of the
law.
1155
The Minister of Justice is further compelled to oppose both of
the proposed amendments to the supreme court act as they will
quite likely be construed as violating the constitutional
principle of judicial independence.
The amendments impinge directly on the decision making process.
Judicial independence is a fundamental principle under the
Canadian constitution. Its dominant requirement is that judges
be completely separate in authority and function from all other
participants in the judicial system, including the legislature.
One of the three essential elements of judicial independence is
the constitutional independence of the court with respect to
issues bearing directly on its judicial functions.
The process by the which the court reaches its decisions is
clearly an integral aspect of its judicial functions. That
process includes the evidence the court is required to take into
consideration, as raised by the proposed section 52.1. Section
52.2 of the hon. member's bill could be seen to even more
directly infringe upon judicial independence if it has the
purpose or effect of forcing courts to make unanimous decisions.
The provision would contravene the individual as well as the
institutional independence of judges to make their decisions
impartially and free of extraneous influence. Such interference
with judicial independence could only serve to erode public
confidence in Canada's judiciary.
Together the two provisions raise serious concerns regarding
both their constitutionality and their legal efficacy. In light
of these considerations the Minister of Justice is unable to
support the bill.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me sound a warning. There is a myth
that exists here in this place, and perhaps in the bureaucracy as
well, that our supreme court is mandated in the same way as the
U.S. supreme court under the constitution.
I just heard the parliamentary secretary's remarks and I must
have missed something, but in fact I do not see anything in our
constitution that describes the role of the supreme court and
judicial independence. It only gets a passing reference. The
role of the supreme court is in fact defined under the Supreme
Court Act rather than our constitution.
The warning I would like to sound is this: in fact, our supreme
court has no protection from parliament. In fact, we can change
the role of the supreme court. We can do whatever we want with
the supreme court by changing the Supreme Court Act.
Moreover, we can basically nullify the impact of the supreme
court by the use of the notwithstanding provision. We do not
want to do that, but I am afraid that if the supreme court's
decisions continue to be interpreted in a way that is out of sync
with Canadian society the supreme court will lose its
credibility. It only exists in the parliamentary system because
we believe in it. I believe in it here in this legislature, but
it has no protection.
If we do not do something as parliamentarians to ensure that
public confidence, instead of being eroded as is the case now, is
enhanced in the supreme court, then maybe another justice
minister 10 years from now will act in the public interest, or as
a result of public sentiment, and fall down upon the supreme
court and reign it in, in ways in which we on all sides of the
House would not want to see. Once public confidence in the
supreme court is lost it can never be recovered.
The problem is that the supreme court, when it comes to
legislation, can only make a decision based on the information
presented before it. If the government lawyer or the government
side, for example, does not present a full case, the justices
will come to a decision that is in error because they have not
heard the full case.
In Marshall, the justices said that there was no representation
made by the government on whether the 1760 treaty rights had been
extinguished. Had the government made that representation the
court would have considered it. It did not make that
representation because the government was convinced that it would
win just basically because the treaty itself was not applicable.
In Singh it was a similar situation. The justices there said
that had the government made an argument under the reasonable
clause or the reasonable provision in section 1 of the charter of
rights, that might have changed its decision with respect to the
seven convention refugees, but because it was not presented it
was not considered.
1200
This is why we have to come up with some sort of plan whereby if
it is a unanimous decision, it is acceptable, and that is fine.
If it is unanimous, then obviously there has been sufficient
evidence before the court that we as the Canadian public—not
just members of parliament but the Canadian public at large, if
there is unanimity—can believe or have reasonable reason to
believe that the court has sufficiently considered the issue and
that should be the last word.
When it is a split decision, when some of the justices in their
wisdom have gone on the other side of the case, as in
Marshall—if we read the two decisions they are like black and
white—I would say the majority of Canadians would agree with the
minority decision. So we have this terrible situation arising in
which there is a split decision that has been applied to all
Canadians forever and the government has interpreted it to apply
to all aboriginals across the country, all natural resources.
This is an intolerable situation. The answer is not just to
debate. I realize the government can never accept a change such
as I was proposing. Never in a month of Sundays would it have
ever accepted some radical change like that, but as the members
opposite have suggested, there has to be debate. I suggest that
if a debate cannot be had in the House of Commons, then this is a
subject matter that should be sent to the Senate and the senators
should consider this for as long as it takes.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find
unanimous consent to substitute the motion on the order paper
today for the following:
That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements
between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ALLOTTED DAY—ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That the government stipulate that in all contribution agreements
between the federal government and individual Indian bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon.
colleague from Wanuskewin. In addition, all other Canadian
Alliance members who will be speaking to the motion today will be
splitting their time.
It is my pleasure to begin today's supply motion debate. In
doing so, I say by way of preamble that as far as we on this side
of the House are concerned and as part of the official
opposition, we believe that over a period of time the Liberal
government has a lot to explain regarding the handling of public
taxpayer dollars and its very lax accounting methods toward the
allocation and handling of both private and public aboriginal
funds.
1205
Once again I put the motion on the record:
That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements
between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.
Throughout today my colleagues in the official opposition will
identify many reasons why the present policy of the federal
government concerning in this regard is simply not working.
As the debate develops, it will be clear that the motion is
intended to speak out on behalf of all taxpaying Canadians as
well as the many aboriginal Canadians who are not receiving the
answers to their questions from their own chiefs and councils
when it comes to matters of accountability.
At the present time aboriginal people do not have the tools to
hold their chiefs and councils accountable, the tools necessary
to track either public or private funds. Our motion today asks
the government to bring in legislation. In so doing we hope the
government will realize that there needs to be a separation of
the revenue streams of public and private moneys going into the
bands and the expenditures derived therefrom. This is so
important so that when audits are performed they clearly track
this money, how it is being spent and where it is going. In this
way band chiefs and councils can be held accountable for their
own spending habits.
This is all part of the kind of accountability for which people
are calling, people such as the Assembly of First Nations
National Chief Matthew Coon Come, the Canadian Alliance, of which
I am a part, and many other Canadians.
There are accountability issues such as the monitoring of band
elections by Elections Canada, self-government issues in terms of
greater democracy and transparency at the band level, and even
public consultation on the owning of private property on
reserves. These issues continue on and on.
Let me be very clear from the outset. We on this side of the
House understand fully the 1989 federal court Montana ruling.
However, we believe that the federal government has fallen far
short of its obligations to the Canadian taxpayers who demand
full public disclosure and accounting for all of their tax
dollars, not just some of them, regardless of what department
they are being used in.
In addition, band revenues earned by band interests should be
reported in a timely, accurate and transparent manner to all band
members. I have even heard from aboriginal people who believe
that these funds should also be publicly reported.
Quite frankly, the Liberal government has been derelict in its
duties to the Canadian public on this matter. It has been 12
years since the Montana ruling came down and yet the federal
government has not taken the necessary steps to clarify, define
and separate the reporting of public and private funds. Today's
motion provides a solution to the government's pathetic response
to the problems of band financial accountability.
Just for the benefit of members of the House and those who may
be viewing this on television, let me be clear on the scope of
the budget we are talking about. The 2000-01 estimates for
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada show that the department will
spend $4.9 billion directly and that Health Canada, CMHC, Human
Resources Development Canada and other departments will supply an
additional $2.13 billion, for a total operational budget of $7.03
billion. We are not talking about change here; we are talking
about huge amounts of money.
All Canadians have every right to know how one of the largest
government departments not only spends its tax dollars but what
kind of return it is getting on its expenditures. It is not a
fiscal return necessarily. We are talking about the social
return: the betterment of health for first nations and the
improvement of housing conditions, levels of education and all
kinds of things. These are some of the things that are really
important to all Canadians.
1210
Canadians are not blind to the plight of aboriginal people. Yet
they consciously wonder why, when over $7 billion is allocated to
the department and to the government, many of our aboriginal
brothers and sisters live without proper housing, without running
water or proper toilet facilities, without full educational
opportunities, and why they live with soaring unemployment, poor
health, high suicide rates and epidemic substance abuse.
These are real live flesh and blood issues which are singularly
killing aboriginal people, killing the body and wounding the
soul. For far too long they have been ignored by government and
even by their own leadership, and this simply has to change.
The time has come for truth to be spoken in the nation in this
regard. The truth very often is not politically correct. There
are people who do not want to hear the truth because of their own
vested interests. The truth, however, is not ambiguous. The
truth is not something to be feared. The truth is clear and
concise. The truth is to be embraced because it is unchanging.
However the truth will do no good at all if it falls on deaf ears
and is never acted upon.
Over the past several decades the Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada has moved to divest itself of the direct operation of
programs. To a certain extent I agree with this. All people
need to be seen to be as responsible as possible for themselves,
but we all know that not everyone is able to take full
responsibility until one given the tools that will equip one for
the job.
To ask a council at the band level to suddenly take on the
housing or health care issues facing its band is irresponsible,
unless that chief and council have all the tools in place to
ensure that they are able to meet the needs of their people.
Surely this is only common sense, but very often in the
department common sense is not to be found. Time after time in
report after report we hear that INAC is not ensuring that the
goals are attainable by all of the bands across the nation. The
department has been long on talking the talk but very short on
walking it.
Small bands with limited personnel, expertise and other
resources cannot be expected to meet all the immediate needs and
demands placed upon them if change is to occur. Without extra
assistance, it is not feasible to expect the necessary social
programs will exist and be delivered to all band members
efficiently and effectively to bring about the desired results
for change. Yet because of the current disclosure policy
concerning accountability, all we can base our opinions on are
our observations and the reports that come to us from many people
across the country. Unfortunately many of those reports are not
very encouraging.
Consider the plight of the Dene Tha first nation of northern
Alberta. Here is a band that in addition to its INAC funding has
oil and gas reserves. The people should be happy. They are not.
They have many concerns over the governance of their band. They
are concerned about where their money has gone. They are
concerned that they cannot find answers. They are concerned that
their chief and council have let them down. They are concerned
that the minister of Indian affairs and the Prime Minister have
let them down.
How about the words of Verna Soto of the Sturgeon Lake Cree
nation, also of Alberta? She wants to have better health and
education opportunities. The health of her children and others
on the reserve is of serious concern to her, so serious that she
is willing to step forward and publicly call for change. These
people have put their lives on the line for change.
We have with us today in the gallery Leona Freed, who has formed
the First Nations Accountability Coalition working on behalf of
grassroots aboriginal people, and I salute her. Leona is one of
the many people across the nation who are calling for
accountability.
The motion we present today is a small step forward to the
public, transparent accountability of taxpayer money. We urge
all members of the House to support it.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know it is sometimes more customary
to move an amendment at the end of debate, but our party would
like to move that the motion be amended to read that the
government immediately stipulate that in all contribution
agreements between the federal government and individual Indian
bands, the use of any public funds be publicly reported and
audited.
That would move immediately into the mode of the motion that we
anticipate or hope to have passed at the time of the vote.
1215
There are a couple of things to which I would like to draw
attention to before I move through my main thesis. What we mean
by publicly reported and what we understand that to involve is
being available to anyone through access to information, such as
members of bands much more readily, sometimes they are
stonewalled and put off from getting this information, and also
to members of the general public because it involves tax dollars.
In terms of the unanimous consent to a change by our House
leader at the top of the hour, and why we allow it to be
stipulated in all contribution agreements that they be publicly
reported and audited, is because if we just used financial
transfer agreements there are seven older methods which would
escape untouched. Because the government has dragged its feet
for so long on moving to financial transfer agreements for all
its dealings and all the mechanisms, we are quite glad to
acknowledge this and consent to all contribution agreements being
publicly reported and audited.
I would like to focus for the most part on the way in which the
government has hindered the development of financial
accountability over the years, how it has stopped that from
happening, intentionally in some cases and in other cases maybe
more by neglect, and how it has allowed some very poor handling
of allegations.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure that there is
financial accountability among Indian bands. One way this is
done is by handling allegations of financial mismanagement and
wrongdoing in a proper way. Yet in this area, the government and
past governments have done very poorly. It has failed to address
adequately allegations brought by band members in particular but
others as well. I would like to address this important aspect of
the government's failure to promote financial accountability, and
the key word is accountability, among Indian bands.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs reported that it
received over 300 allegations relating to 108 Indian bands during
the two year period preceding the auditor general's report in
1999. Those allegations related to matters like social
assistance issues, mismanagement of funds and other concerns.
Because the department's data is incomplete, as found by the
auditor general, there could be many more allegations. In fact I
am of the strong view that there are many more.
I had people come to my office with affidavits and documented
supporting evidence in what seemed to me like very clear cases of
allegations, but the cases went nowhere. We will talk about that
later. There are probably many more allegations which have come
to various members of parliament on all sides of the House.
The question we need to address is this. What has the
government been doing to address these allegations? If we ask
the government, it would say that it is doing its job, maybe that
it is doing a fine job.
In 1996 the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs published
certain principles of accountability including principles of
redress. In its guidance to Indian bands and how to complete
accountability and the management self-assessments, the
department elaborated on redress as a key principle of
accountability in the following words:
Formalized review and appeal rules and procedures are in
existence for operating programs and key governance functions
that impact on the rights/entitlements of individuals and/or the
community.
The auditor general noted that the government's position, as
reflected in the statement, was that mechanisms already existed
for objective review and resolution of allegations. However does
this reflect reality? Is the government really living up to its
words when it comes to appeal and review processes? The short
answer is clearly it is not. On the contrary, the government
deserves a failing grade.
I would like to mention three things that lie behind the
government's failure in this regard which enable the government
to avoid enforcing accountability measures in dealing with Indian
bands.
The first way is that the government can pass off responsibility
far too easily. Essentially, it can pass the buck in this way.
The department said that often the proper action for it to take
would be to refer the allegation to other parties and that the
ultimate responsibility for addressing an allegation may lie
within an Indian band.
1220
This is bizarre. It is nonsense. To say people who have grave
concerns and documentation in hand about misappropriation of
moneys, wrong use of moneys and so on by band chief and council,
and to be told that they have to go back to them to present that
information and they will decide whether or not there is anything
to pursue, is the height of ridiculousness. It is ridiculous to
think that could resolve something and get redress.
The department skates around this stuff because it does not want
to look silly or incompetent, and it is not doing its job.
Therefore, it sloughs it off as well. In some cases the
department has said that they should go to another funding
agency. This other funding agency does not want to be shown up
as being incompetent either. Maybe it has not vetted or screened
it properly, so it passes it off and pushes to the side. Perhaps,
it has said for them to take it to a law enforcement or
investigative authority.
Many band members in their situations have gone with the
evidence, as I see it not being a law enforcement person, which
looks like pretty serious stuff. The paper trail is there. Yet
these RCMP officers and so on will say that it is like nailing
jello to a wall. As long as there is a resolution on the band
books saying that $50,000 can be spent on the trip to Las Vegas
to maybe check out casinos, or economic development or attend a
meeting, then there is nothing wrong and they can do that.
It may be clearly inappropriate when we think there will be a
shortfall of funds to health, education and other areas, and
sometimes a very significant shortfall because of this
inappropriate use of dollars. However, it is not technically an
illegality. RCMP officers would say that we could not go to them
because it was really difficult to nail this down. It is like
nailing jello to a wall.
For those reasons, the end result is the government washes its
hands of responsibility and nothing gets done. The buck gets
passed and allegations disappear off into thin air.
It is not an accident. I believe the government has purposely
left itself with a lot of wiggle room. Maybe its lawyers have
told it to leave it loose and very broad and to leave a big
escape hatch there. That is exactly what has happened. The
government left this big nebulous open no man's land escape hatch
for itself.
The second way in which the government avoids having to enforce
accountability measures in its dealing with band members is by
having no set guidelines on how to evaluate allegations. That is
laid out in detail in the auditor general's 1999 report. I find
this very shocking. In February 1998 the department issued a
national guideline to senior officials on how to deal with
allegations. The guideline defined and categorized the type of
allegations, outlined the procedures to be followed, discussed
the importance of departmental follow up and related matters.
The auditor general expected, he said in his report, to find in
that guideline direction on the following topics, which I think
are reasonable. He said he expected to find something about how
to evaluate the merit of an allegation, how to decide what
additional information was needed, who should collect any
additional information and how to decide whether the allegation
should be resolved by the department or referred to other
authorities or Indian bands.
The auditor general found little or no guidance on these topics.
What he found instead was instructions on how to control the flow
of documents and communications. The department seemed more
concerned with public relations than in taking allegations
seriously and doing them justice.
The government's complete lack of substantive guidelines on how
to address allegations shows that the government has
intentionally, it would seem, left itself wiggle room to avoid
addressing an allegation. The government does not have to ignore
its own guidelines because it has no guidelines. There are none
out there.
The third way in which the government avoids having to enforce
accountability measures in dealing with Indian bands is by not
collecting information on allegations and referring it back so it
can learn from specific cases.
We find when we do not learn from history we are bound to repeat
the mistakes of the past, so there is a problem there. One
office said it did not know how many allegations. We have a
major problem there. That is why we need to take these steps. To
sum it up, we have to take steps that move us in the right
direction toward greater accountability and, therefore,
improvements to the lives of average Indian band members.
1225
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Wanuskewin indicated when he started his speech that
he would propose an amendment. Is it still his intention to do
so?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I did it at the
beginning of my speech. The motion on the floor earlier was put
by our House leader, and we want it to be immediately stipulated
that we move to that end. Therefore I move the following
amendment:
That the government immediately stipulate that in all
Contribution Agreements between the Federal Government and
individual Indian Bands, the use of any public funds be publicly
reported and audited.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the amendment
in order.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
I would also like to thank the member of the opposition who has
proposed replacement of his initial motion by the following:
That the government stipulate that, in all contribution
agreements between the Federal Government and individual Indian
Bands, the use of any public funds be publicly reported and
audited.
With this new wording, I am pleased to inform the House that the
government intends to support the motion.
I must indicate, however, that another member proposed addition
of the word “immediately”, which of course means that the
practice would be implemented right away. With the end of the
fiscal year coming up in 12 days, needless to say we cannot
support this amendment. I fear the President of Treasury Board
would be alarmed at a motion that would give her 12 days to put
certain of these measures into place.
As far as the initial motion is concerned, we fully intend to
support it.
[English]
Let me now put the discussion about first nations governance and
accountability into context with a few basic facts.
All members opposite will be familiar with the budget process.
The Government of Canada tables the estimates in the House and
then a budget. I am sure that my colleagues realize that moneys
spent by the Government of Canada are publicly disclosed and
publicly audited by the auditor general. Indeed, we saw how the
management of the country's finances was key to the change in
government in 1993 and in the re-election of the government in
1997 and again in 2000.
We on this side of the House are fully aware of the dividends
that sound fiscal management and accountability pay to any
organization, and indeed to a government.
We have received 98% of the audits from first nations for the
year 1999-2000. The vast majority of these audits were accepted
without any qualification whatsoever. This means that an
independent auditor found them to be entirely acceptable
according to generally accepted accounting principles.
1230
Another fact I would like to put before the House is that only
some 4% of reserves were placed under third party management last
year. They require our attention and of course they are
receiving it, particularly under the very able leadership of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In speaking to the motion today, I would also like to pay
considerable attention to those first nations people who
Canadians rarely hear about. I want to talk about the vast
majority whose success reflects the determination of first
nations to manage their finances responsibly, to improve their
accountability and increase their capacity to govern themselves
responsibly.
Any changes or new initiatives will have to be developed with
first nations. Notice that I said with and not for. I am proud
of the degree of consultation we have had with first nations.
The Indian Act never contemplated first nations managing large,
sophisticated programs to the benefit of their members or that
they would be owners and operators of large, successful
businesses.
Many first nations have large and successful businesses which
they operate to give their members a share of the Canadian
economy as equals with other Canadians.
There are many examples of success, not the least of which is
the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which is a powerful economic
force in northern Saskatchewan. There is the Fort McKay first
nation, which is made up of important members of the Alberta tar
sands development. The Dogrib first nation up in the Northwest
Territories are major partners in the diamond industry, supplying
services and labour to this industry.
There are three topics I would like to address in responding to
the issue brought before the House by the hon. member who placed
the motion before us.
First, I think it is important to look back and consider how
first nations and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have put in
place funding agreements and other policies to support strong
first nations governments and programs.
Second, I want to tell members of the House how Canada and first
nations are working together to realize effective first nations
government. I also want to explain the safeguards that we are
building together to ensure the responsible use of public funds.
I also want to outline how this process is leading us toward our
goal of first nations self-government in Canada.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has looked for ways to permit
more streamlined funding arrangements with greater local decision
making and accountability. Further, they stressed the
accountability of first nations governments to their people,
while recognizing a continuing accountability due to government.
These actions were taken with the full understanding that
Canadians should know how these funds were spent.
Canadians, including members of the House, who want to know more
about how first nations funding arrangements are conducted in
Canada have opportunities to learn more. Allow me to address
some of the fundamentals.
Accountability is a critical issue. First nations know that
their long term interests are best served by taking firm control
of their finances and continuing to improve their management and
accountability practices. This was related in the document
entitled “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”.
Regarding deficits, improvements in the quality and timeliness
of first nations audits in recent years and a requirement for
consolidated audits have shaped Indian Affairs and Northern
Development Canada's ability to identify solutions where the
debtload should cause concern.
Deficits are not unique to first nations government.
Anyone sitting in the House should remember the days,
particularly under a previous government that I will not name,
where deficits were rampant.
1235
Like other governments, first nations are required to prepare
their audits in accordance with the public sector accounting and
auditing standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants. The results of these audits are shared with members
of the community and the Government of Canada.
Today's funding arrangements between first nations and the
government range from a basic model known as a comprehensive
funding arrangement to the first nations funding agreement. In
the latter, there is more flexibility for program and service
delivery. Capacity and willingness of first nations to accept
additional responsibilities is included in the agreement.
In either case, all agreements are prepared using a generic
template that ensures the equitable treatment of all first
nations. The general trend in transferring funds has been toward
negotiated global budgets that create an incentive for sound
management. The objective is to find the right mix of
flexibility and accountability.
As I mentioned, agreements contain strong provisions to address
the terms and conditions of funding agreements. They include
requirements to maintain accounts in accordance with accepted
accounting principles as set out by the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants.
As I pointed out, the large majority of arrangements are working
as they are intended. The goal is to ensure that the band can
develop the in-house capacity to manage its own finances. The
auditor general has identified a need to be more proactive in
addressing allegations and complaints of wrongdoing. Indeed,
that is true, the auditor general is quite right in saying that
the mandate of the minister's department poses a highly complex
and sensitive challenge. Despite the many challenges, our
resolve remains to ensure that aboriginal people in Canada attain
a quality of life similar to that of other Canadians. That
should be paramount for all of us.
In the Speech from the Throne our government affirmed our
commitment to strengthening our relationship with aboriginal
people, supporting effective and accountable governance and
taking action on the basic quality of life issues.
These objectives are clearly consistent with the auditor
general's observations. In our effort to continue to promote
good governance for Canada's aboriginal people, we will support
the new motion that was placed before the House today.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what does the member see the motion
doing? Does he see it doing something that the government
presently is not doing or is it one and the same as what the
government has been doing all along?
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, the
government supports the motion. Apart from the amendment the
member himself proposed at the end of his speech, we are
prepared to support the motion.
I indicated as well that we are aware of the comments made by
the auditor general, and of the way they were presented.
That said, it is our intention to ensure an element of
flexibility, naturally, in the government of native communities
in Canada. I have said that there are two categories, in a way,
depending on the ability of the group to manage.
There are two sorts of agreements and it depends as well on the
general agreement between the Government of Canada and the
native community in question.
1240
That said, we want to ensure that there is a public audit
report, as well. The member opposite knows that the
complication arises from the decision in Montana, which, need I
remind all parliamentarians, requires that, if the government
contributes to a project and a third party contributes to the
same project, if I have properly understood the scope of this
case, the government is bound and cannot release the audit,
because it would involve making public figures belonging to a
third party.
What we want is to do is release audits in all cases in which
the government contributes under similar agreements. This is
what the motion provides, and we support it.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member said in his
response and we are glad to hear that the government will be
supporting us on the motion.
The member mentioned that from his perspective and the
government's perspective they have indeed been good stewards of
taxpayer money. There is a huge amount of money that is spent on
Indian affairs at the moment.
Is the member aware that the statistics tell a different story?
Unemployment rates in many bands across the country have soared
to 85%. The incidence of HIV and hepatitis C on reserves, as well as
diseases, like tuberculosis, which is re-emerging among native
people, has increased. Diabetes has increased by four or five
times the national average. The suicide rate among native people
on reserves is four or five times the national average. Substance
abuse among the James Bay Cree and others is rampant.
Why is all this money going toward supporting our native people
not working? Could the member please enlighten us? Why are our
native people still suffering?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am a minister but not
the minister of aboriginal affairs. He would certainly respond
to this far more eloquently than I, but for the hon. member
across to pretend that the entire sociological phenomenon by
which some of our aboriginal people are having difficulty has
something to do with accounting practices is oversimplifying a
problem that is far more complex than that.
The hon. member across knows as well as I do that the
destruction of the many ways of life that aboriginal people had
without the replacement them with other meaningful ways of
earning a livelihood and so on, has nothing to do with the issue
that is before us today.
The fact that many traditional livelihoods of aboriginal people
have been so badly affected by a whole series of issues that have
nothing to do with this is outside. That is not an excuse for
saying that we should tolerate bad accounting practices. Of
course not. However it is not the same as saying that the issue
of accounting practices, of disease, of unemployment and of
everything else in aboriginal communities are somehow synonymous.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to respond to the motion put forward by my
colleague from the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. For clarity, I am
talking about the motion as it was first read and not as amended
by the addition of the word “immediately”.
First, I would like to set the record straight on the
accountability of first nations' governments across Canada. I
want to focus on the issue of first nations governments and their
accountability, both to their communities and to the House. We
need to ensure that first nations citizens and all Canadians have
the facts.
Like the Liberal government, or any other government for that
matter, first nations chiefs and councils must be accountable to
those they serve.
They have primary accountability to their members for leadership
decisions, sound management of council affairs and the efficient
and effective delivery of programs and services. They are also
accountable to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada as well as
other departments for the use of public funds provided to them.
1245
I would like to provide the House with examples of how first
nations are taking hold of and driving the accountability agenda.
This discussion is one that is being played out across the
country and it is being fuelled by a desire among first nations to
break free of poverty and economic dependency. As the grand
chief of the Assembly of First Nations put it about a week ago,
the chiefs had to lead and they had to lead by example and
accountability. The capacity to indicate to their people what
they were doing was something else that he strongly advocated. He
will lead the first nations in that direction.
The Government of Canada recognizes that paternalistic
approaches in the past have done little to improve the standard
of living for first nations people.
More than a few years ago, fed up with the growing perception of
the media, and in certain political circles that first nations
were not financially accountable, the Alberta chiefs' summit
launched a solemn undertaking. Chiefs from treaties 6, 7 and 8
in Alberta began work on the financial accountability initiative.
The ultimate goal of this initiative was to address honestly the
legitimate concerns of first nations people in Alberta about the
issue of financial accountability.
The financial accountability initiative demonstrated to the vast
majority of first nations in Alberta that they already had strong
financial accountability systems in place and that the summit
chiefs were committed to further improvement. This meant
strengthening those systems to benefit both community members and
to improve relations with government.
Since then, the financial accountability initiative has produced
two significant developments. First, the proposed undertakings
by the chief steering committee on financial accountability which
describes undertakings designed to meet or exceed the Government
of Canada's own standards for financial accountability.
Second, the establishment of working groups for financial
officers and trial administrators from first nations across the
province of Alberta. The summit is equally committed to meeting
or exceeding these standards while respecting the cultural
diversity and unique needs, values and traditions of first
nations.
The summit produced a newsletter called Council Fire to
explain and communicate to the members of their communities
important news on financial accountability. I would like to
quote the editors of the inaugural edition of Council Fire.
As leaders, we—your Chiefs—must make greater efforts to
communicate and demonstrate the financial accountability measures
in place, and continue to work hard at improving and enhancing
them. As leaders, we must also actively listen to your concerns
and the wisdom of the Elders.
I will tell members about the Blood first nation. It is the
largest first nation in Canada. Over a year ago it enacted the
Blood financial administration act bylaw which outlines and
formalizes the accountability traditions of many generations.
The bylaw defines policies, procedures and structures for the
prudent financial management of community funds. It codifies
procedures to implement the accountability principles of
disclosure, transparency and redress.
The Bigstone Cree nation of Alberta has also implemented a
policy by which any community member can examine the financial
books at any time and request the services of a financial officer
to explain the principles and details. With more than 5,000
members living in a number of communities on the reserve,
effective financial management is especially challenging.
Community meetings are held monthly at Bigstone to explain to
community members the various decisions of council and to provide
a forum for the discussion of any concern of the members.
1250
Additionally, once a month council doors are wide open for any
member to come in and meet on an ad hoc basis with any member of
council. Far from avoiding responsibility to be accountable to
membership, this first nation would like more people to come to
the community meetings to learn about financial concepts and the
budget allocation process.
This is all in the interest of expanding and developing the
capacity for self-government and for the self-management of first
nations funds and of those moneys that the public pursue provides
for the basic necessities that for many years have been provided
to these reserves and communities.
We know that it is not always done this well but we must build
upon the good things that are going forward. We must enhance all
bands' efforts and wishes to know what is going on and to involve
their people in the expenditure of funds.
In recent years the Alexander first nation in Alberta, with
approximately 1,300 members, made great strides in the area of
financial management. In 1994 it entered into a global funding
agreement with the Government of Canada, which included health
funding.
The annual report has grown in that time from a letter to all
members to a newspaper listing the salaries and expenses for
chief, council and senior personnel, and it is hand delivered to
each household. The newspaper format was so well received that
it was used successfully by the chief to educate and encourage
strong participation in a vote on whether to ratify a treaty land
entitlement settlement.
I want to talk about the Whitefish Lake first nation. It passed
a deficit bylaw calling for the removal of the chief and council
for exceeding budgets approved at annual general meetings. The
chief and council can also be removed from office for other
reasons, including committing an indictable offence, failing to
remain a resident of the reserve while in office, or
inappropriately or illegally using funds. It has also appointed
a senate of elders which is working well as an advisory
committee.
I can point to examples of accountability in action in any
number of first nations across the country. We should recognize
that many first nations are making great strides to open
accountability to their membership and to parliament. More and
more of them are being invited to support band council
resolutions and to adopt the undertakings I spoke about moments
ago.
I want to point out that the government is committed to a path
of partnership framed by the principles of “Gathering
Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. I would urge all
members to support the flexibility and accountability that the
department is hoping for by trying to involve and to deal with
our Indian communities so that they have the in-house capacity to
deal openly and carefully with their money.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the matter of a specific
type of financial accountability that I have experienced.
As the hon. member may know, I practised law in northeast
Saskatchewan for 24 years. Over the years I ran into particular
difficulties with trades people and suppliers who worked in good
faith with band councils and so on. However, when the job was
completed and the contract fulfilled, they had problems
collecting their money.
1255
It is certainly not good for business. It sends out a message
that is not good either. It is difficult to get people to
participate in band related matters because of this problem. In
most commercial transactions where one party defaults one can
attempt to garnishee bank accounts, to enforce a sheriff's writ,
seizing and selling the assets, or to register a builder's lien,
but too often these folks have no remedy whatsoever.
A small plumbing operation in my constituency has finished a job
and is basically out $20,000. He provided all the materials and
labour on the project and I cannot see a remedy available to this
gentleman. It seems to me that there is a defect in the system
of accountability if this practice is still carrying on. I could
see that sort of thing happening 20 years ago but this is 2001.
Does my learned colleague on the government side have any
suggestions on how that sort of problem could be sorted out so
that people dealing in good faith with bands will receive payment
for the work performed?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's question. Even today there are cases similar to the
ones he is talking about.
The recourse in many cases has been the courts. I presume he
may be suggesting that the department should stand behind the
things first nations do, but that would completely destroy what
we are trying to do. It would destroy the responsibility of
first nations to deal with such things.
If the hon. member wishes to provide me with some details then I
could get him a reasonable answer. I know there are cases where
this sort of thing has been dealt with through the courts and
people have been recompensed. In some cases, the case goes the
other way and the courts find that the builder or contractor from
outside the reserve has not fulfilled the requirements of the
contract. As I think the member would agree it could go either
way. We cannot always be sure the builder employed will do the
job properly.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister
know, as he should know, whether the practice by Indian bands of
issuing cheques, welfare cheques in particular, to natives who
live off the reserve has stopped or whether it still continues?
I believe the auditor told the bands to stop issuing cheques to
natives who live off Indian reserves. Could he tell me whether
that practice has stopped?
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to
say that I am aware of this situation and that I know for a fact
it has stopped, but I am afraid I have to tell my hon. friend I
am not. I will make myself aware of the surrounding facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois to speak to the motion as unanimously amended by the
House.
Every year parliament approves more than $4 billion in funding
for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
for a broad range of programs and services in aboriginal
communities. This money is intended for such things as capital
investment, primary and secondary education, social services,
housing, health services and economic development projects.
These services and programs are, in most cases, administered
directly by first nations.
1300
In his April 1999 report, the auditor general indicated
that allegations of improper financial administration had been
made to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. In fact many people are concerned about the
effectiveness of the existing standards for first nations
accountability vis-à-vis federal funding.
Following allegations of financial mismanagement on certain
reserves, some politicians urged the federal government to put
in place more transparent financial agreements with first
nations and to improve accountability mechanisms with respect to
aboriginal communities' use of federal funds.
Despite the controversy, the extent of the financial
difficulties of first nations communities is not really known.
In his 1999 report, the auditor general said that approximately
one-third of the 630 first nations communities were experiencing
some degree of financial difficulty. The Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development indicated that the majority of
aboriginal communities were managing their finances well and
that only a few, 4%, were being managed by a third party because
of serious financial problems.
Politically, however, the requirement that first nations
communities be financially accountable to their members seems to
be generating increasing controversy. Two general concerns are
emerging: first, to whom are first nations accountable, and,
second, are the existing accountability standards good enough?
The Bloc Quebecois recognizes that accountability is an
essential component of sound management. All administrative
bodies must ultimately be responsible and accountable to those
whom they represent. In other words, they must be accountable
for their decisions.
Aboriginal peoples have a responsibility to their members to use
all the funds allocated to them by the department of Indian
affairs in the most effective and efficient manner. Similarly,
the department must be able to show Canadians, through the
minister and the Auditor General of Canada, that all the funds
allocated to aboriginal communities are used properly while
allowing them to achieve strategically targeted objectives.
In the past, specific programs defined by the federal government
were funded for a relatively short period, often on an annual
basis.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the annual levels of
funding of these programs, it was difficult for aboriginals to
establish long term community development programs and to
gradually build their infrastructures. That uncertainty also had
the effect of restricting the ability of aboriginal people to
strategically pool their resources and concentrate them in
important areas such as the creation of long term jobs because
resources were strictly allocated to a series of patchwork and
separate programs.
More recently, financial transfer agreements have provided
greater flexibility to aboriginal people, allowing them to
manage their own affairs, including when it comes to setting
their own priorities.
This transfer of responsibilities to the aboriginal communities
must not, however, mean that the government abdicates its
responsibilities. It is still the responsibility of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to ensure
that the programs it finances produce the planned results, with
commitment of the appropriate funds.
It is true that there is considerable risk of failure when
complex programs are transferred to communities that have had
decades of total dependency on the federal government. That is
why the federal government and the aboriginal people must share
responsibility for the effective administration of transferred
programs.
The auditor general has stated in his report that the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had not put enough
effort into helping native communities prepare to administer
transferred programs.
He said repeatedly that the department must be answerable to
parliament and to the public, like all other federal
institutions.
Regardless of program transfer, the department still has a duty
to account for the way federal funds are being used and to
ensure that acceptable results are obtained. Through its
fiduciary obligations, the government must retain the ability to
audit aboriginal financial statements and provide tools for
correcting situations of mismanagement. This control by the
federal government is essential.
In several of the auditor general's reports during the 1990s
comments were made on the aboriginal peoples' obligation to be
accountable for the public funds received. The 1990 report
indicated that the department's funding mechanisms did not
include a satisfactory reporting method.
This had significant ramifications, in particular making it
impossible to know with any certainty whether funds had been
spent for the intended purpose, were likely to attain the
expected results and had been spent as efficiently as possible.
In his November 1996 report, the auditor general pointed out
ongoing shortcomings relating to the implementation of funding
agreements.
1305
In this report, the auditor general pointed out that the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs had a number of
options at its disposal to encourage first nations to meet the
standards agreed on, including the inclusion of specific terms
in modes of funding, periodic and official supervision of
financial performance and program implementation, the use of
critical threshold indicators and the implementation of remedial
action plans as a consequence. He added that these measures
were useful but that it was not always apparent they had been
successfully implemented.
In response to this report by the auditor general, the
department of Indian affairs adopted three principles in 1996
with respect to accountability. They involved transparency,
disclosure and corrective measures. In addition, it decided it
would strengthen the band councils' requirement to be
accountable to their community.
That year, the department even wrote to the chiefs and band
councils to have those receiving federal funds examine their
accounting and management systems and develop a plan of action
to correct discrepancies. It also informed first nations that
these systems would have to be evaluated in the future in the
case of all funding agreements.
In his follow up report of 1999, the auditor general looked
primarily at the way the Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs had implemented his 1996 recommendations.
The report included the following points, among others. The
department of Indian affairs was to establish a better
relationship between the level of flexibility of the modes of
funding and the desire and ability of the first nations to
assume responsibility for the billions of dollars the department
paid out to them every year. The Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs failed to take the appropriate measures to
ensure proper resolution of allegations of impropriety and
complaints and disputes concerning the modes of funding.
Corrective measures—resolution mechanisms—had to be improved as
elements of reporting.
In response to the recommendations made by the auditor general
in his 1999 report, departmental officials informed the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development that a
national data-bank had been established to collect complaints of
inappropriate conduct and examine any emerging tendency in that
regard. In addition to this national register, each regional
office of the department now has access to a co-ordinator
responsible for allegations and complaints. Moreover, a national
co-ordinator develops standards, policies and guidelines on
appropriate corrective measures.
On May 15, 2000, in response to requests by politicians and
members of the public demanding the disclosure of more financial
information, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development wrote to the first nations to require that audits
include the salaries, fees and travelling expenses of elected
officials and leaders.
Any first nation not complying with these requirements would
stop getting discretionary funds and funds earmarked for non-essential
services.
At one time, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development was directly managing the delivery of these numerous
programs in aboriginal communities. Later on, in order to break
the cycle of dependence of aboriginal communities on the federal
government, the latter began to sign financial agreements with
the communities. These agreements were very specific and
detailed as to what had to be done, how and what expenses were
eligible for refund.
In 1983 the Special Committee on Indian
Self-Government released its report, known as the Penner report.
In that report, the committee severely criticized the financial
agreements for leaving very little decision making power to the
first nations to apply programs and funds according to their
specific capabilities and needs. It was suggested that
agreements be signed, which would have more to do with what had
to be done than with how it should be done.
Over the years, funding arrangements have evolved to take into
account the relationship that exists between the Government of
Canada and aboriginal peoples. One of the major features of that
relationship is the government's official policy announced in
1995 recognizing the inherent right to self-government, a right
that had long been claimed by aboriginal peoples.
In response to the 1996 report of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, in the document entitled “Gathering
Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, also undertook to
implement a new financial relationship with aboriginal peoples
and to develop stable funding mechanisms which would encourage
the accountability and self-sufficiency of aboriginal
communities.
Now, contribution agreements are the primary mechanism through
which first nations receive funding. These agreements set out
spending conditions, including standards of service to
communities, and accountability and performance objectives.
At the present time, first nations are managing 85% of the
program budget of Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
directly.
The department is responsible for the nature, type and
enforcement of funding mechanisms. It is therefore responsible
for demonstrating to parliamentarians and to the aboriginal
peoples who receive the funding that the most appropriate
funding mechanisms have been used.
1310
The Bloc Quebecois understands that self-government consists in
giving aboriginal peoples authority for managing their own
affairs, and making them accountable accordingly. We have
absolutely no interest in covering up aboriginal mismanagement,
but first nations must be given the opportunity and the means to
attain a reasonable level of effectiveness.
The Bloc Quebecois is also aware of the existing shortcomings in
accountability.
However, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the solution to these
problems lies not in requiring separate accountability for
aboriginal communities, as the Canadian Alliance called for at
the very beginning of the debate, but in establishing a better
link between the degree of flexibility necessary in funding
mechanisms and the desire and ability of aboriginal peoples to
assume responsibility for government funding.
What we are proposing is that the federal government implement
all the recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada;
that it improve the management and follow up of financial
transfers, and that it develop guidelines for the management of
these programs in consultation with aboriginal peoples. Finally,
we suggest that the government and the various first nations in
Canada to give serious thought to the creation of a position of
auditor general for first nations.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to stand today and join the debate on this opposition day
motion dealing with the transfer of funds and the fiscal
relationship between the federal government and aboriginal
communities.
Frankly, I cringe when the Canadian Alliance Party raises
aboriginal affairs issues. I am always kind of apprehensive and
nervous as to what the real motivation is and why it would choose
this particular issue for their opposition day motion.
My apprehension is well founded when we look at the history of
some of the positions taken by that party on aboriginal affairs
and aboriginal issues. The first that comes to mind, of course,
is the ratification of the historic Nisga'a treaty. I should
probably thank the Alliance for all the stubborn obstinacy that
it showed during the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty because
it gave me the satisfaction of one of the most gratifying moments
that I have had in the House of Commons, and that was being able
to stand up 473 times on behalf of aboriginal people, on behalf
of self-government, and on behalf of the emancipation of
aboriginal people. I found that personally very gratifying . I
still have the T-shirt that says “Nisga'a 473: Reform Party
0”. I also find it very satisfying when I wear that T-shirt to
the gym.
My apprehension is well founded when we look at some of the
comments of former aboriginal affairs critics in the Reform Party
and Canadian Alliance Party.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think our NDP colleague is way off the mark here and he
should get on the topic to help native people instead of this
rant that he is into. He is becoming like a member of the
opposition in terms of his tactics at this point. Could we get
him back on topic?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The point is well taken
and we also anticipate that at some point the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre will tie up everything to the subject at hand.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly my
intention. I have a 20 minute speech and I would like to set the
basis for the tone and content of my remarks by giving a bit of
recent history as to why I am apprehensive about this particular
motion and the motivation of the Canadian Alliance in introducing
the motion.
It is a matter of record. It is a matter of Hansard, when
we look back at the remarks of previous aboriginal affairs
critics in the Reform Party, like Mr. Herb Grubel, former adviser
to fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet and currently a member of
the board of directors of the Fraser Institute. In his comments,
Herb Grubel likened living on an aboriginal reserve to living on
a south sea island and being supported by a rich uncle. That
indicates a real sensitivity to the issues facing the aboriginal
people. That is why, frankly, I would argue that the Alliance
Party does not have any credibility when it speaks on aboriginal
issues.
It goes further. The person who sat on the cross country
advisory committee on aboriginal issues when the Reform Party
took a touring task force around the country was Mel Smith, the
author of Our Home or Native Land, the famous book that is
a sort of diatribe against any kind of self-government or land
claim settlements. In fact, it called for the reversal of land
claim issues settled across the country.
1315
Tom Flanagan, associated for a long time with the Reform Party
as a senior advisor, wrote a well known piece called “Why Don't
Indians Drive Taxis?” His argument was that all other new
Canadians who come here and start at the bottom of the economic
totem pole start by driving taxies so why do Indians not drive
taxis? The basic premise of his argument was that they expect
handouts. He said that they would rather have handouts than
drive taxis.
It really shows a sensitivity to the economic development issues
that aboriginal people face when senior people in the Reform
Party talk about aboriginal issues in that way.
The most compelling example I can give is Greg Hollingsworth,
former Reform Party staffer here in Ottawa on the Hill. I
frankly do not think this was how it transpired, but they say
that he quit his job to go and set up BC F.I.R.E. in British
Columbia. BC F.I.R.E. is the anti-Indian movement in British
Columbia. It is called Foundation for Individual Rights and
Equality. It is a horrible, hateful group of people who are
dedicated solely to keeping aboriginal issues and people down.
When I say that I do not believe frankly that Greg Hollingsworth
quit his job, I think he was sent there by the Reform Party. I
will go further than that. I think the Canadian Alliance—
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you have it within your power to ask the member
to get to the point of his question. Is he concerned about
native people and the motion before us or does he want to go on
to something irrelevant from past history? Does he have a
concern for native people? I think he would want to circumscribe
his speech today to that issue, to help native—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Your point is well
taken. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will certainly make a
big effort to tie what he has just said to the motion we are
debating today.
Mr. Pat Martin: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I would be
happy to limit my remarks to the motion we have before us today.
I started out by saying that I believe, and I do not think it is
an exaggeration to say, that the Canadian Alliance is the
legislative wing, the political voice, of the anti-Indian
movement in Canada. That is why I question its motivation and
its true intentions every time it raises aboriginal issues.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member may well castigate groups or political parties as
a whole but when he attacks me personally, as he just did in
terms of where we stand with respect to natives and helping first
nations people, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bring the member
to order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Your point has been
heard. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre to ease
up on the tone of his intervention.
Mr. Pat Martin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy
to do that. In the interest of keeping an elevated standard of
debate in the House, I will take those remarks to hand.
One thing we have noted is that the Canadian Alliance approach
to aboriginal issues, in recent months at least, has been to
seize on isolated incidents of misuse of funds or mismanagement
of funds. The Alliance comments over and over again on isolated
incidents across the country and then tries to thread them
together into an overall theme that there is gross mismanagement
of funds in virtually all aboriginal communities.
That is the message, whether deliberate or not, that is getting
out to the public. The Canadian Alliance says that aboriginal
communities are corrupt, ergo they do not deserve self-government
and we should not proceed any further with land claim
settlements. That is the theme that comes across to the Canadian
people, whether real or perceived.
I guess the same thing could be said about my comments because I
am threading together isolated incidents of Alliance Party
members saying horrible, hateful things. I have come to a broad
conclusion that it is in fact party policy, not just isolated
incidents.
I point out that the member for Athabasca said that of course we
defeated them, and that just because we did not kill them in
Indian wars does not mean they are not a vanquished people.
Otherwise, he asked, why would they accept being driven into
those godforsaken little remote reserves? That was the attitude
of the member for Athabasca who is still sitting in the House.
1320
I have been here longer than the hon. member for Provencher and
I have heard some horrifying attitudes expressed toward
aboriginal people.
The Canadian Alliance launched an out and out campaign to
aggressively stop what I believe is the most historic treaty of
our time, the Nisga'a land claim treaty, which was ratified in
the House of Commons. It was a very proud moment for all of us.
The Alliance launched an out and out campaign to stop and to
block that group of people from taking their first courageous
steps toward independence and self-government. It is opposed to
aboriginal self-government.
The NDP is in favour of the implementation of the
recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The Canadian Alliance Party is not. That is why I think I am
justified in questioning the motivation of that group when it
raises aboriginal affairs issues in the House.
I am very happy to speak to the motion. It is a lot more
difficult to speak to the motion now that it is so watered down
and innocuous. If the Canadian Alliance is harbouring some sort
of resentment about land claims and self-government, it should at
least have the guts to put forward a motion that actually says
that so we can have an honest debate in the House.
We now have a watered down motion that calls for the status quo.
The reason the Alliance got the Liberal Party to agree to vote in
favour of the motion is that it is easy for the Liberals. They
are already doing that. The motion put forward originally by the
Alliance insinuated that there was no auditing or accountability
in aboriginal communities and that therefore we needed to impose
a requirement for auditing.
In actual fact, the Indian Act and the Indian Bands Revenue
Moneys Regulation already calls for that. Articles 8.(1), 8.(2)
and 8.(2)(a) state:
8.(1) Every Band shall engage an auditor to audit its account and
to render an annual report in respect thereof.
(2) A copy of the annual auditor's report shall, within 7 days
of its completion,
If that is not a requirement to have an independent audit and to
publish the findings of the audit, I do not know what is.
Frankly, all the Alliance is calling for is what we already
enjoy.
I object to one thing in the remarks of the Canadian Alliance
member in introducing the motion. I will need to check the
Hansard for the actual words, but he implied that the
Alliance has the support of the grand chief of the Assembly of
First Nations for the motion. I found that very hard to believe,
given the offensive stance toward aboriginal issues that the
Canadian Alliance has demonstrated since it has been in
parliament. I doubt it very much that the grand chief of the
Assembly of First Nations would endorse a motion put forward by
that party because, frankly, that individual, more than anyone,
would have serious reservations about the motivation of that
party.
I called the national grand chief of the Assembly of First
Nations, Matthew Coon Come. His executive assistant just got
back to me five minutes ago. Not only did the Assembly of First
Nations never endorse the motion, it was never contacted about
the motion. It was never called.
The Alliance Party has started this whole debate with
dishonesty. That also leads me to believe that there is more
here than meets the eye. The real motivation of the Alliance
Party is to do everything it can to foster animosity toward the
self-government process because it personally is opposed.
There is no party in the country that has bastardized the word
equal more than the Alliance Party. I am very proud that just
last week an aboriginal judge in the province of Manitoba, Murray
Sinclair, moved up to the Court of Queen's Bench. Murray
Sinclair, in the aboriginal justice inquiry, deals with this very
issue. He says:
—the application of uniform standards, common rules and
treatment of people who are not the same constitutes a form of
discrimination. It means that in treating unlike people alike,
adverse consequences, hardships or injustice may result.
In other words, we cannot treat all people equally if in fact
they are unequal at the beginning. After we have met the basic
needs of people and established a common denominator, then rules
can be applied equally.
1325
That is a very wise statement and I am proud to be able to raise
it in the House of Commons today. Equal rights for all is in
fact unfair when dealing with people who are held back in a
systemic way, as is the case with many aboriginal people.
I come from Manitoba, where we have perhaps more firsthand and
recent knowledge in trying to renew the relationship with
aboriginal people than do many of the members here from other
provinces.
I am not proud to say it, but my province was the home of J.J.
Harper. If that name has not been raised in the House of Commons
before it certainly should have. If it had been me walking home
late one night instead of J.J. Harper, I might have been pulled
over by the police and asked questions. However I probably would
not have died that night. J.J. Harper did. He was killed. That
was one of the incidents that spurred the aboriginal justice
inquiry, which was probably the most comprehensive review of the
hugely disproportionate representation of aboriginal people in
Canada's criminal justice system.
My province was also home to Helen Betty Osborne, a 16 year old
girl in The Pas, Manitoba who was killed. I can assure hon.
members that if it had been my 16 year old daughter walking home
that night kid, she probably would not have been seen as a target
by four redneck hillbillies who would sexually assault and murder
her. After the murder of Helen Betty Osborne, the whole town
took part in a 16 year conspiracy of silence to shield the
actions of those people. We in Manitoba have firsthand knowledge
and very real examples from which to draw.
One of the things that came up during the aboriginal justice
inquiry was the hugely disproportionate representation of
aboriginal people in our prisons, never mind the ones caught up
in the criminal justice system. It came to light that, at
periods of time during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s in two women's
prisons in Canada, the percentage of the population that was
aboriginal was 100%. That was all of them. It was as if we were
trying to lock up a generation of young aboriginal people as some
supposed fix to the terrible situation they were in.
It is galling for me to watch a group of people who are not as
far evolved in their thinking about the new relationship that is
necessary with aboriginal people. It is frustrating to see a
group of people from provinces not far from mine who are so
politically naive when it comes to the new relationship that is
necessary with aboriginal people.
There was a poem spray-painted on a wall near my office in
downtown Winnipeg for many years. It has now been erased. A
street poet wrote it and one of the lines in it said “Racism is
ignorance masturbating”. It was the sort of thing that would
catch one's attention. However, when we think about it, racism
is, by its very nature, born out of ignorance. As soon as people
learn more about other cultures they are no longer threatened by
them and they are less racist. We see that gradual maturing
process happening in every neighbourhood and community across the
country. The more we know about other people, the more we
realize that they love their children as much as we love ours and
that we have more in common than we do that is separate.
Masturbating is, by its very nature, a solitary act. It is not
very gratifying and it certainly is not productive in any way,
shape or form. Neither is racism. Racism feeds on itself and it
does not benefit anyone. That comes from the very solitary
nature of it.
Canadian Alliance members do not consult and they do not learn
from other people. They do not phone the Assembly of First
Nations when they say they do. We know that much as evidenced
today. There is a terrible dishonesty in their approach.
I have already pointed out that the motion we are dealing with
today is really the status quo, is it not?
I have tried to point out some of my reservations about
following the Canadian Alliance's lead on anything to do with any
aboriginal issue ever, because I know who its members are. I
have been here long enough to hear their spokespeople and to
understand what really drives and motivates them. I will say
again, I believe the Canadian Alliance is the legislative arm of
the anti-Indian movement in Canada. I have never seen anything
to dissuade me or move me off that opinion.
1330
Today's motion is so harmless and so innocuous that we do see
fit to vote in favour of it. Everyone is for public
accountability and public financing.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. I believe
governance and accountability are apple pie issues. We need
transparency and accountability.
However, when we go under the surface, that is the root of what
is not being said here today. It is about self-government, about
respecting cultures and about having existing aboriginal rights
under section 35 of the Constitution Act. That is something that
this side of the House believes in dearly.
I believe the NDP also has similar values and goals for the
aboriginal nations in Canada. I would like to explore those
values and goals with the member. Does he believe that the
members of the official opposition have the same goals of
strengthening and renewing the partnerships with Canada's
aboriginal peoples? Do they want to help strengthen aboriginal
governance? Do they it want to develop newer fiscal
relationships and build strong communities, peoples and
economies?
Looking back to my time as chair of the aboriginal committee in
the last parliament, I particularly remember the time when we
dealt with the Nisga'a treaty. During the final vote in
committee there were no dissenting votes. The bill was passed by
all parties, including the opposition. When the bill came back
to the House, the official opposition put forward 467 or so
amendments. That is why I find this motion to be innocuous. It
is different from what is underlying that same position. I would
like the member's comments on this area.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP caucus, I believe,
is very much in favour of renewing the fiscal relationship with
aboriginal communities. The hon. member was alluding to
legislation we anticipate coming down the pike fairly soon that
will revisit the fiscal relationship between the federal
government and aboriginal communities.
We believe that what really needs to be done, instead of just
lobbing potshots at isolated incidents of mismanagement, is to
develop the administrative capacity of first nations communities
so that accountability can become as mainstream in their
administration of offices as it is elsewhere.
I should point out that 95% of all audits done on aboriginal
communities come up squeaky clean. I do not know if the current
government can make a claim like that with all its programs.
Certainly the business community is not held to that high a
standard.
In a sense, we are watching the Canadian Alliance take these
isolated incidents and trying to thread them together into an
overall case that all aboriginal communities are poorly run or
mismanaged in some way.
One thing that is heartening, which I learned about recently, is
that the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada and
the Assembly of First Nations have started a national round table
and a mentoring program to give special national certification to
aboriginal auditors so that within the communities there will be
well trained aboriginal people to ensure that the books are kept
to acceptable best practices of accounting.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I feel very sad in having to rise to ask the member
a question and to make a comment on what he said. He has
impugned my integrity in the House by attributing comments to me.
If he goes back and reads Hansard he will realize that his
statement is completely inaccurate. I never said that I had
phoned Matthew Coon Come or that I ever had his support for the
motion. He is reading something into what I said.
I think it is despicable of him to bring that kind of thing to
the debate when there are such serious problems regarding
aboriginal people across the country. He is still engaged in the
old line debate on partisan politics: who is doing what and who
is getting political points. I have no interest in that.
1335
If the member's party is so intent on helping aboriginal people,
why has his colleague, the member of parliament for Churchill
where the Virginia Fontaine Centre is situated and which has
developed into such a national scandal of aboriginal
accountability vis-à-vis the government, not once stood in the
House and brought public attention to the plight of the people in
that riding who now have no hospital treatment centre and no
school because of accountability issues? Why?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, once again the member is
fundamentally wrong. In actual fact the member for Churchill did
stand and ask the government questions concerning the money that
kept flowing to the Virginia Fontaine Centre even after it was
clear that something was wrong. The member for Churchill asked
that question but got an answer that was not very satisfactory.
However, the main thrust of her question was very different from
the potshots thrown by members of the Canadian Alliance. She
asked if it was true that the money could have been used to
benefit so many more people. Rather than spending $36 million on
one treatment centre, which is a lot of money, a general hospital
could have been built. The government could have helped a lot of
people who are suffering the consequences of chronic long term
poverty, one of which is substance abuse, which was what the
Fontaine Centre was dedicated to addressing.
What the hon. member does not know, because I do not believe he
is well briefed on aboriginal affairs issues, is that the
Assembly of First Nations' fiscal relations secretariat is taking
many of the steps that his party is advocating, and has been
since 1996. I do not think members opposite even read their own
briefing notes. All they are trying to do is whip up some kind
of an anti-Indian hysteria in the country so that they can join
the BC F.I.R.E. movement and the anti-Indian movement to stop
land claims and stop treaty processes.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I felt the speech by the
member for Winnipeg Centre was one of the more ugly speeches that
I have heard in my time here. I did not enjoy the slinging of
tar that went on here.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I know many members of the
Canadian Alliance, the former Reform Party, and while I may
disagree very vehemently with them on some issues, including
aboriginal issues, every one of them, as far as I know, have
acted and argued with the best motivation.
The real reason I am standing is that the member for Winnipeg
Centre attacked a member who is not in the House, Herb Grubel,
who was a member of the Reform Party. He was one of the finest
MPs in the House, even though he sat in the opposition.
What I have to say is that if we throw tar in a small room, it
is bound to splash back on ourselves. I do not think the member
for Winnipeg Centre will gain many points at home.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel the need to
apologize for my remarks. I found that some of the remarks made
in Hansard by Herb Grubel, a former member of parliament
whose name we can use because he no longer sits here, were
offensive. I could not believe people harboured those kinds of
attitudes toward aboriginal people, especially a person
representing a major Canadian political party.
I do not apologize for raising that in the House. I think it
helped to set the base tone of the debate. All of us, even if we
reluctantly hold our nose and vote in favour of the motion, being
the innocuous thing that it is, are very suspect about the
motivation of the Canadian Alliance every time it raises
aboriginal issues.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for
Cumberland—Colchester.
I would like to have the debate on our part finished by question
period so I may take a little less than my 10 minutes for my
questions and comments and then turn it over to the member for
Cumberland—Colchester.
I would like to say that this file originally was held by a very
capable colleague of mine from the South Shore. It has been
passed to me and I will speak to it with pleasure.
I feel very strongly that this is an issue that must be a
precedence of not only the government but certainly the
opposition with respect to our first nations and the issues that
face them today.
1340
Getting up between the member for Winnipeg Centre and the
Alliance Party, I will act as a bit of a mediator, which is
common for the Progressive Conservative Party. In fact we are
attempting to be the mediator of all opposition parties in
concert against the government.
I know some harsh words have been said by the NDP to the
Alliance. It is no secret that hypocrisy sometimes sits on the
Alliance benches. Obviously the member for the NDP felt it was
necessary to bring those issues forward. However, I sincerely
believe that it is best to speak to the motion and the issue put
forward today and hopefully we can resolve some of the very
serious problems that face our first nations.
As the representative for Brandon—Souris, I have the pleasure
of having two reserves in my constituency and have had the
opportunity to work with those bands in the past. I will be
making some comments with respect to both of them over the course
of my speech.
However, I certainly take some exception to the comments made by
the government House leader when he spoke to the motion. I got
the impression that everything was just hunky-dory, that there
were no problems and no issues. He said that 98% of the audits
have been in place and put forward, and that only 4% of the
reserves now in existence have third party management systems.
Third party management is the last resort of any type of
management within first nations. Having 4% under third party
management is quite excessive. This issue has to be addressed by
the government.
I would suggest that not everything is fine on first nations
reserves. There is a very large unemployment ratio compared to
the rest of society. We recognize that there is a housing
crisis, that there are social ills and social problems and that
there are problems with the infrastructure programs that have
been put in place.
The House leader would have us think that the issue today is not
about accountability and audit, and that we should not be dealing
with social issues. That is not true. Quite frankly, financial
administration and financial management, if properly put in place
on first nations reserves, would allow the reserves to have less
unemployment, more housing, better social services provided to
them through the band offices and infrastructure programs put in
place that would allow for water treatment and sewers to be put
into place, along with recreation facilities. It is all one ball
of wax.
The hon. House leader cannot stand up and say that the motion is
insignificant when dealing with those other social concerns
because it is not. They are all put together.
The motion is quite simple. It calls for accountability. It
wants the assurance that audits will be put forward so the bands
will be responsible for the expenditures of capital, public
funds, going into a reserve. I could not agree more.
The member for Winnipeg Centre said that there were a few
examples of this and that we should use those examples because
the majority do not happen. That is not true. Those examples
happen more and more often, but I will let my hon. colleague from
Nova Scotia speak to a couple of those.
I can tell the House that in my own constituency there are
substantially well managed reserves. Sioux Valley is absolutely
phenomenal. The administration, the management, the chief and
the council are there for the right reasons. They are there for
all members of the band. The Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development just signed an historic treaty with that
reserve which put forward the parameters for self-government.
That is one positive example of what all first nations should be
trying to attain.
1345
The other is a negative example. As one member suggested,
certain reserves do not have the financial wherewithal and
viability to pay their bills. That is the case with one of the
reserves in my constituency where tradespeople have gone in to do
work and have not been paid and will not do further work there.
That affects the whole reserve, the whole population of that
reserve.
Those examples are out there. What the motion is simply saying
is be accountable. We must ensure the chief, the council and the
administration of a reserve and band office are accountable to
the people and to Canada. If it is public money, I do not think
anyone here would disagree that it should be transparent. They
should be accountable to the public purse from which they receive
their funding.
I say on behalf of the PC Party that we will be supporting the
motion as it has been put forward. We support the measures to
improve accountability and transparency for first nations. The
measures should help improve the self-reliance and
self-dependence of first nations if their financial management is
controlled, regulated and available to band members.
I also suggest that accountability to band members falls to the
chief and to the elected band council. Such accountability is
extremely important in order to have good management in the band
itself.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate. I did not
have a lot to do with aboriginals or native issues until I was
elected a member of parliament and then I became very much
involved with them. It has been one of the more interesting and
fruitful aspects of my political career since 1988, off and on.
There is no question about the motion. It talks about taxpayer
dollars having to be accountable. People who receive taxpayer
dollars, whether natives or non-natives, owe it to taxpayers to
provide information on where the money is going.
Recently I was involved with a non-native organization that took
over a wharf in a placed called Digby, Nova Scotia. It got a
cheque of over $3 million from the federal Department of
Transport. When we asked the organization where the taxpayer
dollars went, the reply was that they were not taxpayer dollars
once it got the cheque. I certainly disagree with the philosophy
and approach taken by Maritime Harbours Society in Digby. That
is what this is all about.
We need an open process. We need transparency when it comes to
taxpayer dollars. After all, a lot of aboriginals and natives
are taxpayers and they want accountability too. A lot of the
questions raised in this great debate have come from aboriginals
who see from within what the problems are in a particular band or
group. They are perhaps in the best position to know when there
is a problem and to blow the whistle. In some cases they have
done that.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris mentioned earlier that I
might bring up an issue in Nova Scotia. Recently the Eskasoni
first nation was questioned when it was revealed that the chief
collected more than $400,000 tax free and got in excess of
$293,000 in honorariums, a great big Christmas bonus, $67,000 in
travel expenses, $12,000 for automobile reimbursement and so on.
Meanwhile people on the reserve go without housing and even food.
The natives in that case brought it to the attention of the
government. The government stepped in appropriately, demanded
accountability and changed the rules at Eskasoni. It is now
trying to establish a new plan for the future, a new business
plan for the operation of the whole reserve. It will involve
accountability for government dollars, as it should have done in
the beginning.
As I mentioned earlier, my first experience with native issues
was with the Millbrook band in my riding. One of the first
things I did as a member of parliament in 1988 was visit with the
chief. He and I went from house to house all through the
community. People needed a great deal of help and were obviously
not getting it. The housing situation was the most obvious
shortcoming.
1350
Chief Lawrence Paul was the chief in 1988 and, I believe, is
still the chief. I believe he has been elected 11 times in a
row. He has taken great steps to improve the lifestyle and
living standard of members of his band. Perhaps the most
important thing he did was make a deal with the province of Nova
Scotia on gaming arrangements. He was able to set up a small
gaming facility on his reserve with access to the non-native
community. It has been very successful. He has raised some
money and has given the money back to his constituents.
Chief Paul has been very aggressive in establishing a shopping
centre. The reserve is split by the Trans-Canada Highway, so he
has great exposure to the Trans-Canada Highway between Truro and
Halifax. He has established a power centre. Three or four first
class businesses have been established to serve the native and
non-native communities.
Another issue he has been very aggressive in is the native
fishery. He has established the Millbrook fishery and is
training his members to become fishermen. He is helping them to
establish facilities at wharves and to have the proper boats and
equipment, and especially the proper training, to operate safely.
As a result, it is a success story. It is not all success, but
very seldom is any operation perfect. It probably is not
perfect, but I have seen a great difference in the standard of
living of the people of Millbrook Band, and I take my hat off to
Lawrence Paul. He ruffles feathers quite often. He is very
outspoken but has done a good job for his people. I do not know
what more one could ask.
As a result of those efforts, the operations turn back cash to
every member of the band every year. Every band member receives
a cash rebate from the resources of the successful businesses
that have started up. In addition, the band has established an
education fund and a health care fund for every person in the
band. That has gone a long way to alleviate the problems of the
band and it bodes well for the future. It gets better and
better, and Chief Paul is more successful and aggressive as he
goes. I think it will be a wonderful change for the members of
the Millbrook Band.
We support the motion. We obviously and certainly support
accountability for every cent of government money. We think that
when taxpayer dollars go into a project, they should be
accountable and the benefits should go to all the people in a
specific band, not just a small group.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague who just spoke in favour of
the motion. There is a very real need on the part of government,
Indian bands and all people in Canada to recognize that one of
the most important things to develop in parliamentarians and in
people governing at the municipal or band council levels is
integrity, honesty, truth, openness and transparency.
The hon. member just illustrated exactly how that could work.
He made reference to the Millbrook Band, and I commend him for
doing so. I wonder whether he could expand on his concerns about
the lack of transparency and integrity on the part of certain
people in not allowing their books to be opened. There seems to
be an assumption that if there are public funds as well as
private funds then a band council is only responsible for the
public funds. It seems to me that a band council that manages
private funds should be accountable for those as well, although
perhaps in a different way. I wonder if he would comment on
that.
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, he raises a good point.
Where there is a mixture of public funds and private funds, it is
often hard to say which dollar comes from which source. In that
regard, I believe that if there is any linkage at all to federal
or provincial government dollars they should be accountable.
There is no question about that. The whole purpose of this
exercise is that government dollars be accounted for. If there
is any linkage at all to them, or any possibility that we are
talking about federal dollars as opposed to money generated from
the private sector, then they should be accountable.
1355
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I likewise thank the member for supporting the motion
that is on the floor today.
Would the member mind sharing a little with regard to some of
the reserves in his own riding? One point mentioned by the
government was its concern about improving the quality of life of
people on the reserves. I want to believe that is something that
will come out of this motion.
Having travelled across the country, been into many reserves and
seen the deplorable conditions that exist, I wonder how it ever
got to be that way. When we have responsible government, how
could it possibly happen? In 1999 Canada was named the number
one country in which to live. Of course there was an addendum
stating that if the reserves were included Canada would be number
38. That is not a mark of which to be proud.
In travelling in my riding and visiting different reserves in
Alberta I see terrible, deplorable conditions and little effort.
I also notice that in New Brunswick there is one nation, the Big
Cove first nation, with 2,200 people who are $8 million in debt.
Would the member mind talking about the conditions as he sees
them when he tours his reserves? Does he see what I see?
Mr. Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member because
he has always taken a very sincere interest in native issues. He
talks about quality of life. In the case of the band I mentioned
in Nova Scotia, I just added it up roughly, the chief in a very
short period of time awarded himself $828,000 while there are
people in the band without houses and without food on the table.
I mentioned earlier the Millbrook band which is a different
story. I started to visit the Millbrook band in 1988 and have
seen a dramatic change in the lifestyle and self-esteem of
natives in that band. It is because the chief and council have
generated businesses for them in which to work. They now have
self-satisfaction. There is quite a change there. All the
problems are not resolved but they have gone a long way to
resolving them.
A former prime minister once said to us, in about 1990, that
members could go home and spend the whole weekend trying to think
of worse ways to treat natives and we could not come up with
anything worse than what we have already done to them. I have
always agreed with him. I have never forgotten his words, and I
agree with those words.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 16, following
question period, a point of order was raised concerning language
used as recorded on page 1769 of Hansard.
I wish to withdraw the word that gave rise to the point of order
and to apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you or
the House.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
JULIETTE HUOT
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec theatre world has lost another great. Juliette Huot died
in Brossard at the age of 89, after a 60-year career in radio,
television and film.
The energy she put into the Little Brothers of the Poor
permanently changed the course of that organization.
Gilles Latulippe remembered her for her incredible sense of
humour.
Madame Huot, we thank you for your presence, for your hard work,
and for your dazzling talent.
We offer our deepest condolences to all those who were close to
her.
* * *
1400
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap a repeat sexual
offender with a long criminal record will serve no jail time
despite being found guilty of sexually assaulting a female member
of his own Indian band.
Citing changes made by this government, the judge sentenced the
man to remain at large in this small community but not to contact
the victim or use drugs or alcohol.
Criminal code section 718.2(e) now tells judges to use “all
available sanctions other than imprisonment—with particular
attention to—aboriginal offenders”. Such race based
sentencing turns aboriginal women into second class victims but,
as usual, the government worries about the offenders and not the
victims.
When I asked the solicitor general about this on Friday, he said
all Canadians are treated equally. Did he deliberately mislead
the House, or is he that unfamiliar with his own portfolio?
Regardless of race, all violent offenders should go to jail.
When will the government end this race based policy in
sentencing?
* * *
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over the past several years the Government of Canada
has consistently demonstrated its commitment to children and
families. For example, there is the allocation of $11 million
over three years for a sustained focus on fetal alcohol syndrome.
[Translation]
Health Canada has undertaken some excellent initiatives to
address this national health problem: two national public
awareness campaigns will be launched this spring; a number of
national committees have been formed to provide advice and
develop recommendations; in the fall, we will be organizing a
national forum for the purpose of developing a national action
plan to combat this problem; Canadian physicians will be
surveyed to find out their information needs in connection with
this problem; there will be increased co-operation with national
and international experts in order to standardize the method for
diagnosing this syndrome in Canada; and finally, local
initiatives which support communities will receive assistance
through a strategic project fund.
* * *
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the attention of this House to the
significant step taken by the Solicitor General of Canada and
the Minister of National Revenue in introducing a bill on March
15 on the registration of charities.
Under the current system, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
cannot either refuse to register or revoke registration of a
charity on the basis of confidential information, even if
national security is threatened. As a result, terrorist groups
are registering as charities.
In addition to making the funding of terrorist groups more
difficult, this bill will make it possible to preserve the
integrity of the Canadian charitable organization registration
system.
This bill is in response to the commitments made by the federal
government in the Speech from the Throne and on the
international scene to combat terrorism. Terrorism is a
world-wide problem and the federal government is proud to be able
to make its contribution to the solution.
* * *
MARIE-FRANCE PILON
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the letter selected in the La Presse of March 18, 2001 as letter
of the week was one written by Marie-France Pilon of Outremont,
Quebec, which appeared under the heading “A salary for mothers:
why not?”
Part of her letter to the Government of Quebec read as follows:
Women's situation would be greatly improved by making it
possible to have a choice between working outside the home and
parenting one's children at home, at least for the first three
years.
We have “evolved” from housewives, who had no choice about their
situation, to working women, who also have no choice, even when
their children are at the age when they most need their
mothers.
A salary for stay-at-home parents? Most emphatically yes, at
least for the child's first three years of life. Is the
Department of the Family in favour of families, or is it not?
Let it learn more about what is being done in Germany, and
implement it here.
This would be beneficial to couples and to
families, and real values would win out, at least to some
extent, over materialism.
Thank you, Marie-France Pilon.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the
attention of the immigration minister the plight of one of my
constituents. Mr. Howard Hall came to Canada from England in
1949 with his mother when he was three months old. She married a
Canadian in 1950, who in turn formally adopted Howard as his son.
In essence, Mr. Hall has lived in Canada his entire life, 51
years. He attended and graduated from school in Kamloops and has
a SIN number and a pension booklet. However, in 1989 an
immigration inquiry ruled Mr. Hall was not a citizen and sent him
back to England. He won an appeal but was still given a
departure order and told to leave Canada for a year.
From England he filed for Canadian citizenship and was denied.
1405
In desperation he re-entered Canada, the only home he has ever
known, on a visitor's visa. He stayed. Mr. Hall is now facing
his 10th immigration hearing in his epic struggle to stay in
Canada.
This true story might make a great movie, but for Howard Hall it
is his real life. Will the minister do the honourable thing,
look into this matter and give Howard Hall a happy ending to this
horrible saga?
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police has a long and proud history of serving Canadian
communities from coast to coast to coast.
In its function as a national, provincial and municipal police
force, the 15,000 uniformed members of the RCMP serve hundreds of
communities in a manner that is respectful of their heritage,
culture and language.
[Translation]
Given that long tradition, I wish to express a sincere wish that
the RCMP will continue to take into consideration the linguistic
diversity of our communities.
[English]
I am sure hon. members know that the RCMP has a policy of
diversity and inclusion that it strives to meet wherever it
serves. That should include a capacity of providing services in
both official languages.
I am sure I am not alone in my hope that the RCMP will continue
not only to meet but to exceed the requirements of the Official
Languages Act, because while benefiting from a police service
that is second to none in the world, Canadians deserve to
continue receiving this service in the official language of their
choice.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE D'ACTION CONTRE LE RACISME
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
semaine d'action contre le racisme, a week of action to fight
racism, represents a fine opportunity to think about ways to
show greater tolerance toward cultural communities and to
tighten the links among Quebecers of all backgrounds.
Over the years, the laws have changed, but the battle against
racism has yet to be won. Unfortunately, racism is a hateful
and contagious evil that continues to grow around the world. It
wounds and denies the right to full enjoyment of life.
In our daily struggle to eliminate obstacles to equality among
all human beings, the question of race discrimination is put to
everyone. We must all work together to make our society fairer
and more democratic. We must carry on this fight at the
individual and the community levels, by sharing our values of
mutual help and solidarity with cultural communities.
I wish everyone a fine week of intercultural discovery.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
announced the recipients of the national recreational fisheries
awards for the year 2000.
These awards recognize those individuals and organizations that
work to protect and enhance recreational fisheries and their
habitats. The efforts of this year's award winners contribute
not only to the development of this important tourism industry
but also to the enhancement and preservation of Canada's aquatic
environment.
On behalf of all members I salute the year 2000 recipients:
Jeremy Maynard of British Columbia, Jack Cooper of Labrador, the
Urban Angling Partnership in Winnipeg, the Conservation Faune
Aquatique Quebec Inc., and the Southeastern Anglers Association
of New Brunswick. I congratulate all this year's winners.
* * *
COMMONWEALTH DAY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, March 12 was Commonwealth Day. The
theme for the year 2001 was “A New Generation”, which was meant
to capture the reality of our young Commonwealth.
More than half of the 1.7 billion people in the Commonwealth are
under the age of 25. As Her Majesty the Queen said in her
address recognizing Commonwealth Day, “Youth are the future of
the Commonwealth and they will inherit the world we leave them”.
With rotating March breaks taking place across the country I
have noticed, as have other members of parliament, many more
young people and their parents visiting the parliament buildings.
Today in the building I have my grandson Thomas and my
granddaughter Danai visiting us from Collingwood School with
their classmates, as well as my son Christopher from West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast and St. George's School in Vancouver.
As I look around today and see young people in the galleries, I
am heartened by their interest in our democracy. I believe our
youth want to build on the virtues and values that are
fundamental in a civilized and caring society like Canada's.
The challenge of all parents is to recognize, nurture and
support the dreams and aspirations of our children. This
institution, the Commonwealth and the world will be theirs.
* * *
1410
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, March 16, the USDA outlined its position on the latest
scientific input with respect to allowing the movement of P.E.I.
potatoes. As we feared, the United States refused to honour its
commitment to science or to fair trade.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has stated that outside a
single field and a half mile buffer zone surrounding that field,
the rest of P.E.I. is free from potato wart, as per the
requirements of the international plant protection convention.
This morning, after months of frustration, potato growers in
Prince Edward Island joined together to peacefully protest
against the illegal United States border closure.
Producers in P.E.I. are calling upon the Government of Canada to
respond aggressively to the United States position by immediately
banning the importation of U.S. potatoes from states with
quarantinable pests.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today in Prince Edward Island over
300 people are protesting the federal government's recent
response to the potato crisis.
The minister last year indicated his appreciation that P.E.I.
potato producers were taking the bullet for not selling their
product anywhere in Canada, as per the rules laid down by the
United States. This resulted in a loss of sales of over $50
million.
Instead of fighting to keep the access markets open to the
United States, the federal government's response is only a measly
$14 million in compensation, causing many producers to question
whether or not they will plant this spring.
Will the minister of agriculture now take the bullet for his
government, resign his portfolio and put somebody in cabinet who
will fight on behalf of P.E.I. potato producers?
* * *
[Translation]
JULIETTE HUOT
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
Quebec lost a pioneer of the stage and a great lady, Juliette
Huot.
Everyone knew her as warm, funny, honest, intelligent, generous
and tender.
Juliette Huot moved generations of Quebecers with style on radio
and television, in the theatre and on film.
Who will forget her grand and rich interpretation of the role of
Madame Sylvain in the series Symphorien or of Madame Plouffe in
the film Les Plouffe.
Juliette Huot was socially committed in the artistic and her own
communities. In an effort to help artists in difficult straits,
she helped establish the Caisse de fonds de secours pour les
artistes and the Chez-nous des artistes. She was hugely
concerned about the disadvantaged, as evidenced by her devotion
to the Little Brothers of the Pour.
All of Quebec pays tribute and offers its thanks.
* * *
[English]
BASKETBALL
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, they have done it again, and I am proud to rise to
congratulate the St. Francis Xavier X-Men on being crowned
yesterday as back to back CIAU national basketball champions.
For the second year in a row, the X-Men defeated the University
of Brandon Bobcats, this time in a thrilling 83 to 76 overtime
victory. The Bobcats put forward a spirited effort, but in the
end could not contain game MVP Dennie Oliver, tournament MVP
Randy Nohr and the extraordinary X-Men.
The victory capped off a magical season where the X-Men went
undefeated in conference play and were 31 and 1 overall. Their
efforts were rewarded with all Canadian selections for Nohr and
Fred Perry, while exceptional coach Steve Konchalski was
recognized as CIAU coach of the year and former X-star Augy Jones
sipped champagne as assistant coach.
St. Francis Xavier continues to be a centre for excellence in
academics, athletics and spiritual growth, and the X-Men continue
to be excellent ambassadors for this world class university.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform hon. members of a recent investment made by the
federal government.
Indeed, the Minister of Industry announced that $73 million will
be used to establish four new centres of excellence: the
automobile of the 21st century, the Canadian network for
research on language and literacy, the Canadian network on water
and the network on the therapeutic and genetic studies of stem
cells.
This initiative clearly shows the federal government's economic
and social priorities: children, research and innovation, health
and the development of strategic economic sectors.
Centres of excellence have already proven their effectiveness.
They promote the interaction between research, the industry and
funding. The measures announced show that the federal government
cares about improving the quality of life of Canadians.
* * *
1415
[English]
FUEL TAX REBATE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the cold-hearted Liberal government has been keeping
Canadians shivering all winter.
My Surrey Central office is flooded with angry calls about the
government's mismanagement of the fuel tax rebate.
The government should have worked with the gas companies so the
rebate cheques could have gone to those who pay the heating
bills. Instead, the Liberals have sent cheques to prisoners,
deceased Canadians and snowbirds.
The heat rebate was announced just before the election. It
turned into a $1.3 billion scheme to buy votes.
The Liberals are to blame for failing to foresee and prepare for
the natural gas price hike this winter. Canadians should not
have to choose between prescription drugs, what they eat or
whether they heat.
Why do the Liberals allow Canadian seniors and those on fixed
incomes to suffer, keeping their thermostats as low as possible?
Are the Liberals prepared to show a compassionate heart? They
should reduce the GST and excise tax.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has proved, by his
words and by his actions that he actually supports a weak
Canadian dollar.
As a matter of fact, on May 14, 1991, as Leader of the
Opposition, he called for abandoning a strong dollar policy. As
Prime Minister, of course, he has abandoned the Canadian dollar,
letting it sink to just above 63 cents last Friday.
Let me reverse the question that he asked about 10 years ago.
Does the Prime Minister not think the time has come to abandon
the current economic policy of a weak Canadian dollar?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that is not the
position of the Prime Minister nor the position of the Government
of Canada.
In a time of global turmoil like this, it is really
irresponsible of the Leader of the Opposition to in fact raise
that allegation.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while he says that is not the
position of the Prime Minister, let me read the Prime Minister's
own words. He has consistently called for a weak dollar. In
1978, when he was finance minister and the dollar started
downward, he said that the dollar had to float downward. In 1984
he said that he could live personally with a weaker dollar. In
1990 he said that Canadians should accept a weaker dollar. The
Prime Minister did say those things. He has what he wanted. The
dollar has fallen by 12 cents since he became Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister think that this weak 63 cent dollar is
good for the economy? If he does, should we be moving to 60
cents or maybe 50 cents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition goes back into ancient
history and reads citations. I have just stated the Prime
Minister's position, the position of the government, which is not
in favour of a weak dollar.
The fact is that for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up in
the House and to start citing numbers is grossly irresponsible.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am not just citing numbers, I am
citing the Prime Minister's own words for a weak dollar.
Let us talk about the words of an economist. Dr. Sherry Cooper
of Nesbitt Burns has said that the Canadian dollar weakness, the
23 year decline in the Canadian dollar beginning when the Prime
Minister was finance minister, is a reflection of our decline in
prosperity and productivity as well as the cause of it.
I am sure the finance minister will stand and start with the
hand waving and get the troops all rising and cheering, but will
the Prime Minister admit that this 23 year pursuit of a low
Canadian dollar has been a failure which has led to a documented
declining standard of living and an erosion of the savings of
millions of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under this Prime Minister, under this government, our
economics on fundamentals have improved substantially. Our
productivity is on the increase and our disposable incomes are on
the increase.
The fact is that if we take a look at what is happening to other
currencies at the present time, given the strength of the
American dollar worldwide, we will find that the Canadian dollar
has behaved better than any of the other currencies outside of
the U.S. dollar.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister prefers a weak Canadian
dollar. For years, his actions and his words have demonstrated
that preference. As for his government, it has been very quiet
on the weakness of the Canadian dollar.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he agree with
the monetary policy of his leader, or does he support an action
plan to finally restore the value of the Canadian dollar?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
fully agree with the policy of the government and of the Prime
Minister, which has given us increased available income and
increased productivity and growth. In fact, we have had the best
growth among all G-7 countries this year. That policy has also
given us four years of employment growth, which is the best
performance among all G-7 countries. It is these fundamentals
that, in the end, determine the value of a country's currency.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a month ago I heard the finance minister say in New
York that the value of the dollar was a reflection of the
productivity of our economy. He said that the fundamentals were
right.
Let us see. We have the highest income taxes in the G-7, the
highest corporate income taxes in the OECD, the second highest
debt in the G-7 and the second highest level of foreign
indebtedness in the industrialized world.
How can he stand here while our dollar continues to go through
the floor and say that it is irresponsible for opposition members
to ask that the government bring in a monetary fiscal policy
which restores real value to our currency that reflects the
wealth of the nation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is really incumbent upon the finance critic for the
opposition to get his facts right. The fact is that our capital
gains taxes are lower than the United States. Our corporate
taxes are going to be lower than the United States. We have just
brought in the largest income tax cuts in Canadian history,
substantially greater than the United States.
The hon. member talks about debt. The fact is that over the
course of the last four years we will have paid down $28 billion
worth of debt. That is substantially more than what the Alliance
called for. We also have the largest decline in our debt to GDP
ratio of any G-7 country. Those are the facts.
* * *
[Translation]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in May 1999,
before the Standing Committee on Industry, the ethics counsellor
was very clear about the Prime Minister's interests in the
Grand-Mère golf club. He said, first, that the Prime Minister
had yet to be paid for his shares, second, that the sale seemed
imminent and, third, that the Prime Minister had decided to hold
negotiations.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the matter of
the Grand-Mère golf club, does he acknowledge that negotiations
involving the Prime Minister were still going on in 1999, as the
ethics counsellor mentioned?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 16, Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor told Newsworld “I
have access to all the documents, I have seen all the documents,
I have been able to examine them. This is a matter of personal
information of the parties, including people other than Mr.
Chrétien. I can, however, confirm, to my complete satisfaction,
that his shares were sold in 1993 and that they were never again
in his possession”.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was all
very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to quote the ethics
counsellor, but, in the same testimony, the same ethics
counsellor said that the Prime Minister had not been paid for
his shares.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the chances of the
Prime Minister recovering his money were much better with the
Auberge Grand-Mère in much better financial health, since it was
financed by the Business Development Bank of Canada, than with
the Auberge Grand-Mère in bankruptcy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
willing to give the hon. member the same information I have just
given in French. I will give it to him in English.
[English]
Last week the ethics counsellor also told the Canadian press the
following:
I am satisfied, and have been for an awfully long time, that the
Prime Minister sold his shares in 1993. I am absolutely certain
that (the Prime Minister) did not own those shares between 1993
and 1999—I've gone through this very, very carefully, seen the
original sale documents from 1993, seen the documents from 1999.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when they have
nothing more to say on the other side, they translate.
The Prime Minister approached the president of the Business
Development Bank of Canada in order to counter an unfavourable
opinion expressed by analysts, who had told the bank not to lend
any money, that it was not a good file. He personally
intervened.
I ask this to the Deputy Prime Minister. When he intervened, did
the Prime Minister not do a good business man lobby, since the
positive outcome of his efforts considerably increased his
chances of being paid and being paid a good price?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by intervening
with the Business Development Bank of Canada, when these shares
had not yet been paid for, the Deputy Prime Minister should
admit that the Prime Minister acted in his own interest. At
that point, he infringed not only the code of ethics, but the
Criminal Code as well.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the hon. member to repeat his unfounded insinuations outside
the House. If he is not prepared to do that, he must withdraw
his remarks, because they are false, false, false.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are concerned about food safety and appropriately
concerned about food additives and their effects on human health.
The government appears to be on the verge of approving a powerful
antibiotic, Baytril, for use in poultry. The build up of
antibiotics in the food chain is a bad idea. Even the U.S. has
said no to Baytril, calling for a ban on its usage. The Americans
have come off the fence on this issue. What is Canada waiting
for?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the use of Baytril in poultry and cattle has not yet
been approved in Canada.
In addition, I must state on behalf of the Minister of Health
that drug bureau evaluators have not been pressured in any way
to give approval. Data can be interpreted differently by
different scientists and there are mechanisms to resolve this.
The public can rest assured that these mechanisms are indeed
preserving the safety of the food Canadians eat.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
cause for increasing concern that the government keeps trying to
shut up our scientists. Despite that, scientists are speaking
out about the risks associated with pumping powerful antibiotics
into the food chain. The government has no time for scientists'
warnings based on solid research but lots of time for
pharmaceutical lobbyists and their self-promotion.
Why does the government not stop beating up on scientists and
start serving as an advocate for scientifically proven food
safety?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of my hon. friend's question is totally
wrong. Scientists in the health department are carrying out
their jobs in the interest of public safety and in the interest of
Canadians.
The member's first question concerns the drug Baytril. It has
not been approved in Canada for use in poultry and cattle.
Evaluators in the Health Canada Bureau of Veterinary Drugs have
not been pressured to approve this antibiotic, nor has there been
any threat of disciplinary action.
The hon. member ought to withdraw her unfounded allegations on
which she bases her question.
* * *
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Between 1996 and 1999 we know the Prime Minister's lawyer was
involved actively on the Prime Minister's behalf trying to find a
buyer for the golf club shares.
The Canadian Alliance has now revealed that between 1996 and
1998 a unanimous shareholder agreement was signed by the
shareholders of the company that owns the golf course.
I have a simple question: Was the Prime Minister's lawyer, or
anyone else acting on his behalf, a signatory to this unanimous
shareholder's agreement?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the question by the leader of the
Conservative Party, at the request of the ethics counsellor, the
director general of the corporations directorate will examine the
records of the Grand-Mère golf course. Once the examination is
completed, the director general will either confirm the accuracy
of the 1997-98 annual return or will ask the company for a
corrected return. I suggest we await that information.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, once
again a non-reply. I would like to put a supplementary question
to the Minister of Industry.
Tomorrow, the ethics counsellor will be testifying before the
Standing Committee on Industry. Is the minister going to
encourage the Liberal members of the committee to allow the
broadest possible range of questions to be asked of Mr. Wilson
in connection with his two key responsibilities, i.e. lobbying
and conflicts of interest?
1430
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how it works in the Conservative Party,
but in the Liberal Party Liberal members use their brains and
their imaginations and ask whatever questions they want before a
standing committee.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I know Liberal members certainly use their imagination a
lot because the Minister of Industry said that the case was
closed. He said that an objective analysis of this issue was
already done. He said that a definitive statement had been made
and that everyone “has closed the file” on it, but that file
has been pried open again.
The ethics counsellor obviously did not look at the books. The
minister just said that. Has the minister instructed him to do a
“corrected return” on that?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker, I have not instructed anybody to do anything. The
directorate will do its job and do it in the normal way, the way
we do with respect to any corporation in the country. It is no
different from any other circumstances.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
That is good news, Mr. Speaker. We await the results. The
minister was wrong, though, when he said originally that the golf
course was in a “blind trust” and he admitted that in the
House.
Now he is wrong again. The case is not closed but perhaps it is
just beginning. Very soon the minister's department in the
investigation will learn the identity of that fourth secret
shareholder between the years of 1996 and 1999, not now and not
away earlier but between 1996 and 1999.
Because it is just a regular review, will the Minister of
Industry say that he will stand and say who that shareholder was
as soon as he learns it?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again we have the innuendo which has been evident
in nearly every question being put forward by the member
opposite. She ought to await the outcome of a normal routine
review of this firm.
It is precisely that kind of talk which cost the taxpayers of
Alberta $800,000. I would suggest she proceed more carefully.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister again says that he has been exonerated by the
RCMP after a cursory investigation relating to his intervention
with the President of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, if the RCMP had known
that the person who approached the president of the BDC was also
the owner of shares in the Grand-Mère golf course, its
conclusions might have been far different?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
RCMP operates at arm's length from the Government. The hon.
member needs to ask his questions of the RCMP.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
that is all we needed. Here he is, like the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, offering us the RCMP's phone number.
Considering the point we have reached, and the fact that the
criminal code is now being invoked, is the Deputy Prime Minister
going to acknowledge that the Prime Minister is the one who
holds the key to this affair and that the solution is for him to
table the record of sale for his shares?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
repeating an incorrect accusation does not make it true. The
accusation is incorrect. It needs to be withdrawn. If he
believes it, I challenge him to repeat it outside the House.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week in the House the minister of immigration said
that the Amodeo file had followed normal departmental procedure.
Yet the Amodeos had to provide with their application documents
certifying that they had no criminal record and were not under
police investigation.
How did Mr. Amodeo and his wife get a meeting with immigration
officials if he had not provided those two police certificates?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite wrong in the
premise of his question. There was no meeting. There was no
interview. In fact the file, as any file, does not proceed
unless all information is attached to it.
What I say to him is that he should be careful about believing
everything he reads in the newspapers, even if it is the
Corriere Canadese or The Hill Times.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that was not the question that I asked. According to
the minister's own application form, in order to get a meeting
scheduled two police certificates have to be provided.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian]
1435
[English]
Once again, let me ask this question very simply. Did Mr.
Amodeo and his wife provide those two police certificates in
order to get that meeting? Yes or no.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no meeting. There was no
interview. Mr. Amodeo is not an immigrant. He is not a
permanent resident. Unless someone attaches all relevant
documents to an application that application does not go forward
in the process.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we
questioned the government on the respect of human rights and
democracy in China, the Prime Minister said that the government
felt that strengthening ties with that country would be the best
way for us to promote these values with the Chinese government.
How can the government justify that, in the case of Cuba, it
adopts a diametrically opposed position and rejects the presence
of that country at the Summit of the Americas? Why this
about-face?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is important for the Bloc Quebecois member
realize that we are also committed to Cuba.
We have trade relations with that country; CIDA has
programs in Cuba. On a bilateral level, we are committed
to China and we are also
committed to Cuba.
The difference is that when we organize a Summit of the Americas
to promote democracy and establish a free trade zone of the
Americas to strengthen democracy, we are talking about a much
narrower context and we are fully justified, as hosts of the
summit, to act as we are doing.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, precisely, the
summit is not just about the free trade zone of the Americas.
Yet, the government's attitude toward Cuba is opposed to that
displayed by all Canadian governments since Pierre Elliott
Trudeau.
Does that sudden about-face not simply show that this government
does not really have a foreign policy but merely follows the
United States, which does not want to see Cuba at the summit?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to now see the Bloc Quebecois use
Pierre Trudeau as an example. Last week, it was Bernard Landry
who referred to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Things are going well in
Canada.
I can assure the hon. member of one thing: Our government has
applied Canada's foreign policy vis-à-vis Cuba in the respect of
the established tradition. We have remained committed to Cuba
and we will continue to be.
The difference with the Summit of the Americas is that when we
host an event, as we will be in Quebec City, it is normal to
respect the consensus that exists through our hemisphere, and
this is how that decision was made.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in June 1999 Gaetano Amodeo and his wife submitted
an application for permanent residency.
Officials from the department stated that 23 months is the
average one can expect to wait to receive permanent residency.
Mrs. Amodeo's application was approved twice as fast as would
normally be the case. Given all the problems with this file, why
was Mrs. Amodeo's application put on a fast track for approval?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is
absolutely wrong. All procedures in this case and others were
appropriate and normal. There were no inappropriate
interventions.
I would suggest to him that he get better researchers, that they
get the facts, and that if they are to ask these questions, they
know what they are talking about.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing routine about this application. On
May 25, 2000, the minister of public works wrote a letter to the
department making pointed inquiries about Mrs. Amodeo's
application.
Did other individuals lobby on behalf of the Amodeo family, or
was it just the minister of public works?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department receives over 40,000
representations from MPs and senators, 6,000 alone in Ottawa. The
premise of his question is wrong. It is inaccurate.
There were no inappropriate representations made on this file.
1440
I would suggest that the representations made by members from
his party and members of the House are very appropriate. My
department takes them very seriously. That does not mean that
following an intervention of a member there is any inappropriate
response from my department.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
recent news articles there has been speculation about more money
forthcoming to our merchant mariners. These veterans provided
priceless service during World War II, and the government has
come forward with a compensation package for them.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs confirm the government
Senate leader's assurances that another $35 million will be
provided to fully compensate merchant navy veterans?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one can give any
assurance of any amount of money with respect to the merchant
mariners at this point in time.
I have consistently said that once we have heard all the
appeals, and we should have that information by March 31, I will
go back to cabinet to see what can be done. Shortly thereafter,
that is after March 31, probably within the next month, I should
be able to do that.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Minister for International Trade claimed the
government will protect education and social programs under GATS,
but in the same breath he is champing at the bit to give Canadian
corporations greater access to foreign markets.
The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Americans are
saying. How will the government protect education with
increasing pressure to allow transnational corporations access to
our public education system?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The GATS negotiation
is a bottom up approach. Some countries may decide to open their
education system. They may decide to open their health system.
This is not something Canada will do. Let me be absolutely clear
about that.
If some other countries decide to open their health and
education systems, we want to make sure there are fair and
equitable rules applying in the trades and services for Canadian
companies that have the expertise and that want to propose it to
the countries that choose to open their systems, which is not the
situation in Canada.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is either naive or he is trying to delude Canadians with
his wishy-washy position.
The real evidence of the government's intent is the fact that it
stood by and watched Alberta give DeVry Institute degree granting
powers. This opens up a huge door for a NAFTA challenge that
would allow private for profit universities access to public
funds.
Again, why is the minister putting our public education system
at risk both under GATS and under NAFTA?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the NDP cannot
accept moving into this century and accept honestly that we are
trying to promote a rules based system in order to help with
where the economy is going.
When we try to have a rules based system in services, we are
only going where the international economy is going. We have
done it for goods.
We know that the NDP just does not like trade. It does not want
to move with the times. It could not even applaud Tony Blair in
the House when he said that free trade was good for the poor.
That is the problem.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1990
the current finance minister said that he would “manage the
decline of the Canadian dollar so that it settles at its true
value of between 78 cents and 81 cents U.S.” Since 1993 the
finance minister has managed the decline of the Canadian dollar
to 63 cents.
Does the finance minister still believe that the dollar's true
value should be in the 80 cent range? If so, what is he doing to
get it there?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would simply remind the finance critic for the Reform
Party of the difference in the Canadian economic—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: Sorry, you never know; you never know.
I cannot help it. He certainly sounds like them.
I remind the critic for the Tory party of the difference in the
situation between 1990 when his party was in office and today. If
he takes a look at employment, productivity, disposable income
and debt reduction, he will see that the fundamentals are far—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
1445
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
unreformed finance critic believes that the minister is again
passing the buck on the very important issue of the Canadian
dollar.
Editorial writers this weekend were referring to the Canadian
dollar as the Canadian peso. The chief economist at Nesbitt
Burns suggested that many Canadians will be asking themselves why
we would even have an independent dollar at all.
Is the finance minister's hidden agenda to manage the dollar out
of existence, to devalue it to a point that it could be replaced
by a common North American currency?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows that we are dealing with a very
serious subject. Under normal circumstances when not insulted by
being called a reformer, he is a serious member of parliament.
I would simply point out that we are dealing with a global
phenomenon, the strength of the U.S. dollar. If we take a look
at what is happening to other currencies, while all of them are
down the fact is that the Canadian currency is performing far
better than the vast majority.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I formerly served on a victims advisory committee to the
attorney general of British Columbia. Years ago that committee
proposed a national registry for sex offenders.
Like Ontario, B.C. is tired of the government's inaction and
will announce its own registry shortly, in fact this afternoon.
At least some children will now be a little safer. The Liberals
shamelessly imply that such a registry exists when clearly it
does not.
Could the solicitor general please explain why the provinces
must create their own registries if one already exists?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's
question. I know he is concerned. The fact of the matter with
CPIC is that anyone who commits an offence is registered on CPIC.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the 30,000 member Canadian Police Association says that
the existing database of CPIC is not up to the job.
With regard to sex offenders, not just parolees but sex
offenders who are no longer under sentence, does CPIC notify
police when such a person moves into a jurisdiction? Is there
any consequence to an offender who fails to notify CPIC when he
does relocate? Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government certainly takes the issue
very seriously and we did discuss it in the House a few days ago.
The fact of the matter is that the United States has registries
in which 50% or less than 50% of the people who actually should
be registered are registered. That is of no value.
The government wants to make sure that we have a national
registry in place and then all who commit criminal offences are
registered on that database.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, the minister admitted that StarLink feed corn had
entered Quebec and had been ingested by Canadian cattle.
However, he refused to give us the list of locations to which
the contaminated corn had been distributed. The public has a
right to know.
Can the minister confirm that the corn was distributed not to
one mill in Quebec, but to 12, as well as to an Ontario
distributor who sold and shipped contaminated corn to two
farmers in New Brunswick?
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any of the
shipments that went as far as New Brunswick happened before the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued an advisory. It has now
issued an advisory that it is wrong.
Our testing is working because we found trace amounts of this
substance. The shipments that went to Nova Scotia or to New
Brunswick were used solely for animal feed. There was no health
risk to these animals and we are testing corn products or corn
flour. Health Canada will take very strict and very strong
actions if any is found.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's audit
protocol leaves much to be desired.
Since StarLink corn made it so easily through the agency's
inspection system, how can the agency guarantee us that other
undesirable and contaminated products might not also have got
through the net and still be in the food chain today?
1450
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of
my hon. colleague's question is absolutely wrong. I will not
accept it at all.
CFIA testing is accurate and certainly we can trace these animal
feeds. A bit of this feed went to animals but that does not in
any way affect the health of human beings, In fact in the United
States this product is licensed for animal feed, but we do not
have that here and we will not have it here.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today we have been discussing in the House ways to give
native people the tools to hold their band leaders financially
accountable.
If the government really supports the motion for public
reporting and auditing, what does the minister of Indian affairs
intend to do to make sure that this actually happens?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The department will continue doing what we have been doing for
some time, that is having audits delivered, checking those
audits, hopefully finding that 97% of them are perfectly all
right, and giving help to the 3% that need it.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is very encouraging news for the hundreds of
aboriginal people who have contacted us with serious
accountability problems.
The minister of Indian affairs is becoming famous for his public
policy musing. Recently he stated to reporters that he wanted to
have Elections Canada supervise band elections. I suspect he has
been reading our Alliance policy book again.
We have heard from many band members, including the Cape Mudge
band on Vancouver Island, who are very upset about the
irregularities that are occurring during band elections. I think
all Canadians would really like to know if this is the minister's
private policy, or will he really bring in legislation to allow
Elections Canada to monitor band elections? What will it be?
Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not privy to exactly what the minister might be planning.
However, many band elections are governed under the customs of
the tribe of the first nation. It is their decision as to who
shall vote and how the records are kept.
The department is assisting in this regard and improving it all
the time. The fact of the matter is that the native first
nations will run their own elections.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
presidential elections in Uganda have ended in recriminations and
calls for new elections.
Opposition leader Kizza Besigye has stated that he will not
recognize results that show President Museveni winning by 70%. In
fact the opposition leader was detained from leaving the country
to go to South Africa for talks.
Would the secretary of state for Africa to indicate what
Canada's position is regarding the results and what steps if any
we are prepared to take to ensure the democratic process has been
adhered to in Uganda?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a Canadian government official
participated as an observer in those elections. Our government
is concerned over reports of intimidation, violence and election
rigging in four districts in Uganda. We have expressed concern
over these reports by both the national resistance movement and
the opposition parties.
The NGO election monitoring group, as the member will know, has
declined to declare the presidential elections free and clear and
the Canadian government is very concerned about that.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the
tragedy of the enormous health problems on Canada's Indian
reserves and of the poverty of health services under which these
Canadians suffer. Yet the Liberals have allowed this terrible
situation to worsen to the point where our country has become an
international disgrace.
How could the government possibly excuse its callous neglect of
aboriginal health and well-being?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question provides us with an
opportunity to recall the very firm undertaking by our
government to develop health services for first nations peoples,
an undertaking which was very recently repeated in the Speech
from the Throne.
1455
A number of programs are now being introduced and are being used
by these populations. The Government of Canada is investing or
spending some $1.2 billion annually for their health.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the reality is quite at odds with all
this pompous talk and self-promotion.
The aboriginal diabetes rate is three times that of the general
Canadian population. At ages 15 to 24, suicide rates among first
nations people are from five to eight times the national average.
Disease patterns in many first nations and Inuit communities
continue to resemble those found in developing countries,
including communicable disease rates. Aboriginal people now
represent 10% of all AIDS cases in Canada, compared to 1.5%
before the Liberal government took office. When will the
Liberal government quit talking and do something?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is for all the reasons given by
the opposition critic that more and better structured programs
are now available to first nations peoples.
I am talking about early childhood, educational assistance,
fetal alcohol syndrome, and water supply programs. These are
not just words, they are achievements.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois has asked for the documents used for the
sectorial negotiations at the summit of the Americas to be made
available to the members of the standing committee on foreign
affairs. The Prime Minister's response to this has been to say
that he would think about it.
I am therefore asking the Minister for International Trade
whether, three weeks after the fact, he knows whether the Prime
Minister has finished with his deep thinking and is now going to
respond to the request by the Bloc Quebecois and make these
documents available to the MPs sitting on the standing committee
on foreign affairs.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as members know, our government's policy is very
clear. We want to be able to make public the texts of the
negotiation with Buenos Aires.
Our government has made a commitment, and I myself have
undertaken to discuss with several of my counterparts from
elsewhere in the hemisphere the possibility of making these
texts public not only to parliamentarians but also to all
Canadians so that all of our fellow citizens may see them. I
trust that in Buenos Aires we will have the opportunity to build
on that consensus and to be able to make the texts public.
Last week I made a commitment in the parliamentary committees
that, if that consensus is not forthcoming, our government will,
as the Prime Minister has said, examine the matter.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many employers in my riding are concerned
with the shortage of skilled workers in today's labour force.
What does the Minister of HRDC propose to do to help increase
the amount of skilled workers?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his question. In the Speech from the Throne the
government recognized that building a skilled workforce required
a national effort.
Today the Minister of Human Resources Development is attending
the second of three national round tables on skills that bring
together representatives of government, business, labour and the
academic community.
The release this morning of the Statistics Canada study
“Literacy and Labour Market Outcomes in Canada” reminds us of
its importance to individual success in the labour market.
Therefore we will continue to work toward supporting lifelong
learning through establishing registered individual learning
accounts and career development loans for part time students.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been several months now since
the government promised action on the gross financial
irregularities of the Virginia Fontaine treatment centre and the
Sagkeeng band.
Could the government tell us specifically what has been done to
address the situation to protect the health care, housing and
education needs of the band members and to respond to the
legitimate concerns of Canadian taxpayers?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these investigations are under way.
We are pleased to now have the co-operation of all parties in
examining the facts.
When the reports are ready, they will be made public, and we
will move to take the necessary action.
* * *
1500
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo and his wife applied for permanent
resident status on June 10, 1999. His name may have later been
removed, as the minister has told us, but it was known to her
department. Although separated, Mr. Amodeo's name would still
appear on the original documents.
Why was there no CPIC or Interpol cross-reference which would
have revealed the name of Mr. Amodeo, who was wanted for three
murders and Mafia involvement, and why was he allowed to enter
and leave the country 17 times after that?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that this individual
is not an immigrant. He was not granted permanent resident
status. As soon as my department had sufficient evidence and
knowledge of the identity and whereabouts of the individual, he
was arrested. He is presently in detention and is awaiting a
deportation hearing.
The innuendo and suggestion from the member opposite are
completely inappropriate.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Girts Vladis Kristovskis,
Minister of Defence of the Republic of Latvia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Oscar Lathlin, Minister
of Conservation for the Province of Manitoba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to a
decision of the chairman of the transport committee which I
believe contravenes the rules of the House. I am bringing this
matter
to the House instead of to the committee because, as Speaker
Parent ruled on June 20, 1994, and again on November 7, 1996:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters
of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which
go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.
Committees receive their authority from the House. In cases
where the standing orders do not specifically outline a rule for
committees, committees are guided by the provision of Standing
Order 116, which states:
In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing
Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable—
The rule of the House that applies to the standing committees
actually stems from section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Section 49 provides that questions arising in the House of
Commons shall be decided by the majority of votes. This is the
rule that was breached by the chairman of the standing committee
for transport. The majority instructed the chair to carry out
its wishes and the chair ignored that decision.
On Tuesday, February 27, 2001, the Standing Committee on
Transport and Government Operations was convened to establish the
future work agenda of the committee. On a point of order I
interjected that it was unclear who had scheduled a briefing on
Bill S-2 for the following Thursday when the purpose of the
meeting was to determine the future work of the committee.
The chair acknowledged that he alone had asked the clerk of the
committee to put together an agenda based on the anticipated work
of the committee for discussion by the members. During the
ensuing debate, numerous committee members indicated that they
were new to the committee and were not prepared to discuss the
future schedule until they had received briefings from each of
the ministries. There was unanimous agreement that the committee
would adjourn and return to hear respective briefings only.
The chair declared the meeting adjourned, at which time an
interjection was made by the parliamentary secretary to the
transport minister as to the status of Bill S-2. The chair
advised the parliamentary secretary that he understood that the
government officials would provide whatever information he
required and reiterated that the meeting was adjourned, whereupon
the parliamentary secretary expressed his concern again that Bill
S-2 might be forgotten in the request for briefings and the chair
advised that the bill would be scheduled for March 20. This was
done without the agreement of the committee, and after two
assertions that the committee was indeed adjourned.
The final briefing and return to the future work discussion was
scheduled for March 15, 2001. On March 14, we received notice
that the last ministry, treasury board, could not appear and was
rescheduled to appear March 22, and that the meeting scheduled
for March 15 was cancelled unilaterally by the chairman based on
his concern that there would not be enough members in attendance
for a quorum.
1505
We were not consulted prior to this decision, nor were we
consulted regarding his decision to proceed with Bill S-2 on
March 20, tomorrow. This was prior to the establishment of the
future work agenda and contrary to the wishes of the majority of
the committee.
We are concerned about the disregard for committee protocol as
it relates to the rescheduling, cancellation, agenda and
adjournment of committee meetings as demonstrated by the
committee chair. He did not have the authority to make the
decision to cancel.
On page 843 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:
Where the meeting has been convened by order of the committee,
the Chair consults with representatives of the various parties
before sending the cancellation notice.
In summary, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport
and Government Operations did not consult with members prior to
cancelling the March 15 meeting and, likewise, did not have
majority support to reschedule the March 20 meeting to hear
witnesses concerning Bill S-2.
The chairman does not have the authority or the power to run the
committee as he sees fit, and neither does the parliamentary
secretary to the transport minister, at least not without a vote
where he can, at the minimum, get the Liberal members of the
committee to raise their hands.
It is important that we must, at a minimum, continue to have the
illusion of democracy at our committees.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not aware that this question would be raised this
afternoon, but I think the Chair should be aware that the
numerous matters which the member has raised are on the agenda of
the committee for tomorrow.
He began by speaking about the powers of committees and, in
fact, their ability to manage their own affairs consistent with
the standing orders, with the exception that in a standing
committee the standing orders shall apply only so far as may be
applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a
Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of
speaking and the length of speeches.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why this issue was brought before you
today, because the hon. member has five motions before the
committee to be dealt with tomorrow when the committee meets at
its regular time of 11 o'clock, which deal with precisely the
issues he has raised in the House today.
In addition, there are two motions from the hon. member for
Skeena having to do with the procedures and the way of conducting
committee business, which again were put before the committee
with proper notice and will be dealt with by the committee
tomorrow.
I would suggest that the Chair should consider that the
committee be allowed to deal with these matters. which have been
placed on its agenda and which are before it tomorrow, and that
if the member is still dissatisfied, he might consider raising
this issue again.
The Speaker: I know that the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River has clearly been reading Marleau and
Montpetit, which is very commendable. I know that he and the
other members of the transport committee will want their copies
handy tomorrow at the meeting to which the hon. chief government
whip refers.
This is clearly a procedural matter of some import that has to
be dealt with by the transport committee and, with great respect
to the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, I do not think
it is one that the Chair should get involved in at this stage,
and probably not ever. Committees are masters of their own
proceedings. I know the hon. member has read that line in
Marleau and Montpetit as well.
The Chair is very reluctant to involve itself in the affairs of
committees unless something quite extraordinary happens. I must
say that on all the evidence I have heard here today—I call it
evidence—there does not seem to be anything that is terribly out
of the ordinary and I know that the hon. member will want to
raise these issues in the committee tomorrow. I encourage him to
do so at the very next meeting and we will see what transpires
there. However, at this point I think it would be premature for
the Speaker to become involved in this matter and accordingly I
decline to do so.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
2000 report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 37th
general election.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
1510
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing hundreds of names of
citizens of Guysborough county, a region that continues to live
in hard times.
Canso, Port Felix, Whitehead, Little Dover, Fox Island, Durells
Island and Tickle all call upon the government to enact
legislation that would widen the definition of intermediate zones
as defined in the Canada Income Tax Act to include communities,
such as those I have mentioned, which are geographically remote
and which, we would suggest, are deserving of special status.
The petition is brought forward with a common sense plea for
assistance in very difficult times, and I am honoured to table it
on behalf of these citizens.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my petition is from constituents who
are concerned that the present laws regarding divorce and child
custody lend themselves to making worse the animosity between
spouses and to increased tension among children.
The petitioners call upon parliament to ask the government to
implement a national strategy to create a non-adversarial marital
separation code. They list five specific and very worthy points
and I look forward to the government's response to this petition.
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to
the House a petition signed by residents of the city of Val-d'Or
and the Vallée-de-l'Or RCM regarding the Sigma-Lamaque and Beaufor
mines.
The petitioners call upon parliament to set up a financial
assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Canada's
resource regions.
Similarly, they call on the government to take action to
increase its presence and its involvement in resource regions
that are having trouble adjusting to the new economy.
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour of presenting the following petition to the House.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
rural route couriers are not permitted to bargain collectively so
that they may improve their wages and working conditions.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section
13(5) of the Canada Post collective agreement.
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would you
be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 5. I ask that it be
printed in Hansard as if read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 5 —Mr. Jim Pankiw:
Of the $1.5 billion assistance the minister of agriculture
pledged to farmers under the agricultural income disaster
assistance program, AIDA, what amount has been paid out to
Saskatchewan farmers as of December 31, 2000?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as of December 31, 2000, $223.4 million had
been paid out to Saskatchewan farmers for the 1998 and 1999 AIDA
claim years.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if the House would be willing to give unanimous
consent to return to introduction of private members' bills. I
understood we would not be doing that until later and I just got
here and would like to do that today.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
introduction of private members' bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1515
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to amend the Criminal
Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this
private member's bill. The concept for it began when Craig
Powell, Amber Keuben, Brandy Keuben and Stephanie Smith were all
instantly killed by a drunk driver on June 23, 1996, near Morley,
Alberta as they returned from a camping trip.
The drunk driver in this case was Christopher Goodstoney who was
charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and
one count of criminal negligence causing injury.
At his sentencing hearing the judge referred to section 718.2(e)
of the criminal code which stated that they must take into
consideration for sentencing the fact that the offender was
aboriginal.
Based on information we have heard lately, we are submitting the
bill for the purpose of removing that section which in our
opinion is very racial based.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment amends the criminal code
and designates several offences under the Immigration Act as
proceeds of crime offences. The offences so designated concern
persons who induce, encourage or aid in organizing the unlawful
entry of persons into Canada.
Under the criminal code, where an offender has been convicted of
an enterprise crime offence and the court imposing sentence on
the offender upon application of the attorney general is
satisfied that any property is proceeds of crime and that the
enterprise crime offence was committed in relation to that
property, the court shall order that the property be forfeited to
Her Majesty. In other words, it takes the profit motive out of
international people smuggling.
It is a general government objective that remains undone and the
bill would fix it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, under this enactment offences related to
prostitution that are provided for in section 213 of the criminal
code from now on would be either indictable offences or summary
conviction offences, commonly known as a hybrid offence.
It is a small technical point that has huge resourcing
implications to keep juveniles from entering into the street
trade. It has been a subject of federal-provincial attorneys
general in the past.
All parties should see the wisdom of this minor but pivotal
improvement.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRIVILEGE
BILL C-15—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question
of privilege raised by the hon. member for Provencher on March
14, 2001, regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held on
a bill on notice that had not yet been introduced in the House.
The bill has now received first reading as Bill C-15, an act to
amend the criminal code and to amend other acts.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville, and the hon. opposition House leader for their
interventions.
[English]
Let me first summarize the events that led up to this question
of privilege being raised. From the interventions of members it
appears that the Department of Justice sent out a media advisory
notifying recipients that there would be a technical briefing
given by justice officials at 11.45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14,
with regard to the omnibus bill, now Bill C-15, that was to be
introduced in the House by the hon. Minister of Justice that
afternoon.
According to the hon. member for Provencher, members of
parliament and their staff were denied access to the briefing.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville added that while his
assistant was denied access to the briefing, the assistant of a
government member was granted entry. In any event, there is no
disputing that the invitation to this so-called technical
briefing went out as a media advisory and was designed for
members of the media.
1520
The hon. member for Provencher indicated that following the
briefing media representatives began phoning his office and
asking for his reaction to the bill, a situation he found
embarrassing, not only for himself and other members of the
opposition, but also for the House of Commons as a whole since
they had not seen the bill and were not privy to its contents.
[Translation]
The hon. government House leader confirmed that opposition
critics were given a courtesy copy of Bill C-15 about an hour and
a quarter before the bill's introduction.
The minister explained that during the briefing, the media had
not received actual copies of the bill or any other
documentation. He went on to indicate that the briefing itself
was under embargo until the bill was introduced, a fact
confirmed by the copy of the original media advisory that the
Chair has obtained.
[English]
The member for Provencher, as well as the other opposition
members who participated in the discussion, argued that by not
providing information to members of parliament and by refusing to
allow members to participate in a briefing where the media were
present, the government, and in particular the Department of
Justice, showed contempt for the House of Commons and its
members.
As I see it, there are two issues here: the matter of the
embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access
to information required to fulfil their duties.
As members know, the use of media embargoes, as well as the use
of lock-ups, have long played a role in the way parliamentary
business is conducted. For example, it has been our practice to
permit briefings in lock-ups prior to the tabling of reports by
the auditor general. Similarly, and perhaps more on point, is
the lock-up held on the day of a budget presentation. Two
features of these lock-ups are that members are invited to be
present and members of the media are detained until the event in
question has occurred; that is the auditor general's report
tabled or the budget speech begun. These are the features one
might argue that have made these lock-ups so successful and so
useful to the conduct of parliamentary business.
[Translation]
It must, however, be remembered that when the different
arrangements have been made for early briefings, previous
Speakers have consistently held that it is not a breach of
privilege to exclude members from lock-ups. I refer the House,
for example, to the ruling of Speaker Jerome, in Debates,
November 27, 1978, p. 1518-9, and the ruling of Speaker Sauvé,
in Debates, February 25, 1981, p. 7670.
[English]
The House recognizes that when complex or technical documents
are to be presented in this Chamber, media briefings are highly
useful. They ensure that the public receives information that is
both timely and accurate concerning business before the House.
In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold
extensive consultations and such consultations may be held
entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect
to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take
precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it
has been presented in a different form to a different session of
parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new
matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice
is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well
informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the
House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the
nation.
Thus, the issue of denying to members information that they need
to do their work has been the key consideration for the Chair in
reviewing this particular question of privilege. To deny to
members information concerning business that is about to come
before the House, while at the same time providing such
information to media that will likely be questioning members
about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot
condone.
Even if no documents were given out at the briefing, as the hon.
government House leader has assured the House, it is undisputed
that confidential information about the bill was provided. While
it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an
essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence
would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.
1525
In this case it is clear that information concerning
legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of
the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of
the House.
I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of
the House and I invite the hon. member for Provencher to move a
motion.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that
were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and
your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted
for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well
thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.
This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are
upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual
members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in
the past the government has got away with some of these issues.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I
want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this
slide. Therefore I move:
That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14,
2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of
Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the
Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled
in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of
parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your
integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few
comments before concluding this matter in the House.
Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in
terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This
ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the
House and the process here is continued.
I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the
committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of
parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of
its members.
What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity
to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and
difficult issue.
1530
I would like to put a few other situations on the
record which I think may form part of the discussions that we
will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that
you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.
I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news
release announced that provincial and federal governments had
constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the
new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating
committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet
been adopted by the House.
Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the
election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as
proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage
by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House
was still in the process of debating how many directors should be
elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the
bill were already law.
We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the
House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it
is essential that members of the opposition, who were also
elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be
given that opportunity.
While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the
government has shown to the institution of parliament, your
ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite
co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind
of situation in the future.
This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic,
have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone
calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for
the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.
With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We
appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look
forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition
members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your
ruling will also benefit.
If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper
conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the
individual elected members. It will remind the members of the
executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime
Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in
the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of
Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the wisdom and the fairness of the Chair
in coming to this decision today.
I think it does bear repeating how it is that we arrived at this
point. There has been a steady erosion of the respect, sadly,
that Canadians feel for this institution. This type of decision,
as the hon. member for Provencher has stated, does go a long way
in restoring some of the lost respect that exists for members of
parliament. It will perhaps buff away some of the tarnish that
has come about under this government's administration.
Members of parliament have the right to be informed first and
foremost. The Chamber should, in most, if not all cases, be the
primary forum for disclosure on the part of the government when
new legislation is being brought in.
That has not been the case for a number of years.
1535
The icon of the Liberal Party, the late Pierre Trudeau, used to
speak of members of parliament as being nobodies 50 feet off the
Hill. The Liberals are certainly reinforcing that sentiment with
the behaviour that we have seen displayed over the past number of
years.
Having members of the press gallery briefed and informed about
important omnibus legislation, changes to the criminal code and
new introductions of amendments to the criminal code, is an
absolute insult to members of parliament.
As was said in a Hollywood movie, “if you build it, they will
come”, if we introduce legislation here, members of the media
will come. We do not need to hand feed members of the media. If
it becomes the practice of the government to introduce
legislation here, to make important statements and pronouncements
on public policy, if it had one, it can fully expect that members
of the media will come. The government should also expect that
members of the opposition will respond and should be given that
opportunity.
Very seldom have we seen in routine business members of the
government get up under statements by ministers and inform the
House as to what they intend to do or what legislation they might
be bringing forward. It is all done through press releases,
through media spin doctoring and through attempts to put an
opposition member very often in the uncomfortable position, as we
saw in this case, of trying to respond to something on which he
or she is not fully informed, and that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I again commend you for having taken some steps to
safeguard the rights and privileges of members with your ruling
today.
The table scraps that we sometimes receive as information are
also insults. Sometimes a full briefing is provided to members
of the media while we receive a fairly complex bill, by
everyone's assessment, an hour before question period, where
members are required to be here to try and concentrate—although
we have seen examples of late where there was little
concentration going on in the Chamber—and then be able to go out
and face the onslaught of very precise, penetrating questions
from the media. It is simply unthinkable and unrealistic to
expect that members of parliament will be able to do that.
I commend not only yourself but the member for
Provencher for bringing this matter forward. I fully hope and
trust that the committee, in its good work, will have an
opportunity to bring forward proposals that would prevent this
type of thing from happening in the future.
I would hope, first and foremost, that the Minister of Justice
and her cadre of lawyers will get the message and heed the words
of the Chair and eventually the admonition and words of the
committee when it has an opportunity to delve into this matter
further. I would also hope that at the very least there will be
a shot across the bow, a message sent and received, that the
department cannot behave in this way. That, first and foremost,
may set an example and raise the bar slightly for other
departments.
It is a disgrace that the Department of Justice, above all
ministries in the government, would partake in this type of
underhanded tactic. With the resources available to it and with
the importance and emphasis on fairness, the very symbol of the
Department of Justice, two scales, obviously was tipped in a very
partisan and partial way toward the government in this instance.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that situations like this can be avoided
in the future, although you will have to excuse my skepticism. We
know that the government has undertaken at least some steps to
look at parliamentary reform. This again may pave the way for
some good intent and, we would hope, goodwill on the part of the
government to follow through on those commitments, but time will
tell.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Progressive
Conservative Party, as all opposition members, will be there at
the gate to watch this process unfold. It is a very important
process indeed as all members of the House and, equally
important, the Canadian public, are watching to see if we can in
some fashion bring about greater relevance and credibility to
this Chamber that we call the House of Commons.
1540
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a member of the government side I too want to express my thanks
for your ruling. It makes a great deal of sense to the House and
that is exactly what the House was expecting from the Chair. I
am sure government members will support the motion that has been
made by the member from the Alliance.
With regard to the comments of the House leader of the
Conservative Party, I found it interesting that he painted a
picture of terrible things having happened here and a tremendous
erosion of respect for the House. I want to know from the member
why it is acceptable to him, then, to simply receive a motion to
refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.
It seems like a pretty wimpy motion to me if this was such a
serious matter.
Does the member not think that maybe there should be some more
specificity to the motion? Perhaps he would comment on whether
the motion should be amended to provide some direction or some
timeframe which might reflect the urgency the House should place
on the matter if that is the member's view.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
question. It sounds to me that implicit in the question the
member opposite is maybe referring to the fact that the minister
might be asked to resign. Or, perhaps we should have the
minister come before the House and explain herself and her
department in a more open and forthright fashion.
With respect to putting time limits on the matter, I certainly
would not take any issue with that. It would be an excellent
suggestion to amend the motion so that there was a certain
timeframe which the committee could be given to look at the issue
and bring it back to the House. Perhaps something could be
included in the motion to have the minister come before the bar
and explain what took place in this instance.
It seems to be a very deliberate act. As far as my reference to
this being something that contributes to the lack of respect for
the Chamber, I would only reiterate that is very much the case
when there are these transgressions on the part of departments
that should know better. Then we hear the government House
leader adamantly defend the actions of his government when we
know that if he were in opposition he would be doing backflips
out of the gallery to condemn the government for the very thing
he was trying to defend. This has become very much a practice of
cynicism and hypocrisy that we should be trying to avoid if we
are to try to raise the standard.
I welcome the suggestion from the hon. member opposite. If he
has a specific amendment that he would like to put forward, I
would certainly consider it and support it if it were within the
spirit of his comments.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to hear whether the member from the Liberal
Party has some suggested amendments which we should consider if
he wants to toughen up the motion.
In my understanding of the motion that it was crafted in that
way because that is the typical motion brought forward on these
issues. When the Speaker rules a prima facie case of contempt we
deal with it in that form of a motion to get it into committee to
examine all the facts.
There is an opportunity to amend the motion, perhaps in this
debate. I do not suppose it will go on all afternoon, but it
would be worthwhile in the next few minutes for someone to put
forward a date when the matter should be reported back to the
House.
I ask the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough what sort
of things should be dealt with in committee. Perhaps we should
give some direction to the committee on whom it should hear from
and give some of the suggestions he thinks should be brought
forward on whether we should develop a protocol for all ministers
on how they handle the presentation of bills to the House?
Perhaps it could be a protocol on the lockup procedure for the
media. I also suggest that is perhaps something we should look
at.
The member may have some suggestions on who should bring forward
testimony, besides the minister who is an obvious one. If he has
some ideas on what specifically we should deal with, I think the
committee could use that direction at this time. Those are my
suggestions, but it would be interesting to hear his suggestions
as well.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I agree that perhaps it is
an opportunity to look at some of the broader issues and how we
should deal with ministries and departments when this type of
action occurs.
1545
There does not appear to be any specific disciplinary action
available to the committee or the House for that matter. I am
sure the Speaker is certainly very learned in that particular
area.
I would very much suggest that the importance in this instance
is to have the minister appear before this particular committee,
armed and surrounded by her cadre of departmental officials, to
explain what exactly they were thinking. This appears to be a
very deliberate act. This is not something that leaked out or
that was put out under some pretence of it going anywhere else.
It was directly an invitation for the media to come and be
briefed prior to members of parliament.
I would be very much in favour of having the minister come
forward and speak to the specific behaviour of her department on
this issue. I would be very much in favour, granted the
privilege to do so, to amend the motion that is currently before
the House by adding after last line where it states “referred to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs” that
there be a full reporting to the House within three months, and
that a witness list be agreed upon by all parties, and would
include the Minister of Justice.
The Speaker: I think the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough knows he cannot move motions on
questions and comments. I am afraid he is out of luck on this
one, unless of course the House wishes to give its consent.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay my respects to the Speaker for his
ruling on this. I would like to put on the record how this
affected me personally. It was indeed my legislative assistant
who along with one of his colleagues went over to the room and
was denied access. When I got back to my office after my own
meetings, I ran into a hornets nest when my LA brought this up to
me.
Could the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough tell us how
he sees these kinds of shenanigans, shall we put it, affecting
the staff? I know the impact it had on my staff when he was sent
packing, particularly when he was trying to do the job I pay him
to do.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the
minister in an instance like this probably was more or less
putting her department on autopilot and probably did not have a
direct hand in what occurred. However, we know through
parliamentary responsibility she is the head of that department.
She should have been fully informed about a decision that was
obviously, as I have stated many times, quite deliberate and
meant to keep members of parliament out of the loop on an
important bill.
As the hon. member knows, this particular omnibus legislation
contained much of the same content of a bill that we saw in the
last parliament, but moved in a new direction on some very
important factors, including the creation of new amendments to
the criminal code pertaining to crimes on the Internet and other
important amendments to the legislation.
Why this occurred and how this came about is something that only
the minister can answer. That is why I would emphasize the
importance that she be given the opportunity to fully answer
before the committee when this matter is taken up by it.
Taking your direction, Mr. Speaker, on what just occurred with
respect to moving an amendment to this motion, I would ask for
unanimous consent that we add to the text of the motion in the
last line “with a full reporting to the House by June 1, 2001
and that a witness list include the Minister of Justice”.
1550
The Speaker:. Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to move this
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I find it most unfortunate that the government did not
approve this amendment, which would have given us an extremely
important deadline, that is June 2001. I realize that the
government is not interested in clarifying these rules,
considering how it has been operating since 1993.
I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member
for Provencher for his vigilance, since this is a very important
issue and it is not the first time that the Department of
Justice has operated in that fashion.
As we have seen in the past, this did not work for either
the minister or the system, since there were all sorts of
erroneous interpretations circulating before a bill would even
be introduced in the House. This is most unfortunate.
Second, I wish to salute your openness, Mr. Speaker, and to
thank you for having entertained this question of privilege,
since this is a very important part of our work as members of
parliament. We must have all the tools and be on the same
footing, so to speak, as all other parliamentarians. The way the
minister operates, we could never be on the same footing as her.
I do hope all parliamentarians will give this issue the
attention it deserves.
I also hope the minister will testify and answer questions.
I believe the whole issue has to do with the fact that the
minister does not control her department. It may not be a major
problem or a problem common to every department, but it exists
in the Department of Justice because the minister does not see
what is going on in her department. She does not know what is
going on and she does not control anything.
I do hope we will shed light on this issue and we can
then have more specific rules, so all opposition members
can have access to information at the same time as, and even
before, the media, so as to be in a position to adequately
answer questions and, more important, do their work properly
as members of parliament.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply like to point out that the member who has just
spoken is mistaken. The government is interested in this issue
and in the committee's taking time to broaden the issues
concerning the Speaker's ruling. Frankly, I think the committee
must be given enough time to do a thorough job.
[English]
The committee, I believe, has done an excellent job in the past
on issues of privilege referred to it. I can assure the member
that we take this issue seriously and that we would like to vote
for the motion right now, get it before the committee and let the
committee decide how it wishes to deal with it. If the House is
not satisfied with it, then the House can deal with that.
However, please let us get it to the committee.
I would ask the member if he would allow the debate to end so
that we could all vote for the motion and get it to the
committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has
just spoken knows the rules of the House as well as I do. She
knows that, just because the government has set a cut off date to
force parliamentarians to at least seriously study this whole
question as quickly as possible, if on the day before or two
days before the cut off date the report is not ready, the House
can still allow more time to enable the House to prepare and
submit the report effectively.
What I was pointing out to the House is that the opposition
wanted to set a date but the government refused. I think
the member said it clearly. In rising and trying to justify it,
she is slightly wrong.
1555
Let us set a date, for example the first of June, for the
amendment. Let us set that as the date. Then, if the committee
has not concluded its work, the government will give it more
time. At least there is a cut off date to oblige
parliamentarians to work on it and especially to oblige the
government to raise this whole issue, take a responsible
approach in questioning witnesses and table its report as soon
as possible. However with no date set this would not be the first
matter that got shelved and covered with dust before seeing the
light of day.
I think my earlier remarks were quite relevant.
Once again the government is refusing to set a cut off date so
that the work gets done quickly and parliamentarians have all
the tools they need to do an effective job.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleagues who spoke on the decision
you have just brought down, for which I too congratulate you,
and listening to the chief government whip, the following
thought came to me: what we are dealing with here is a
government that has made the heaviest use of gag orders to shut
up the opposition in all Canadian parliamentary history. For
once, the opposition parties are the ones saying “Let us gag the
government, for it has the majority in the committees and can
do what it wants in them. Let us give it until June 1 to try
to find a way of giving us a decision by June 1”.
As my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has made so clear,
committees have come to us in the House on a number of occasions
and have asked us for extensions and we have always agreed.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he shares my intuition.
I find it cause for concern that the government is hesitant to
set June 1 as the date. That suggests to me that it will put it off
for a month of Sundays, a treatment it often
gives to things it does not care for.
I feel it is extremely regrettable for the whip to have popped
up so suddenly from behind the curtains, like a rabbit in hat,
with her little no. She was the only one to say it. She had
not even had the time to warn the others that they were supposed
to be opposed. Here we are without the June 1 date we want.
I find that really disgusting.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis knows
very well that I have been in the House paying attention to this
debate throughout, and that she has erred in transgressing the
rules of the House by commenting on the presence or absence of a
member in the House.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It is certainly contrary to the rules to refer to
the presence or absence and especially the absence of a
member. Everyone knows that, particularly the hon. member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, who is very familiar with the
standing orders of this House.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the
member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, who just spoke, is very
perceptive.
In fact, this is a government which is far more likely to gag
the opposition than itself, so to speak.
Of course this is not a real gag but a deadline to force
parliamentarians to submit a report. Once again, if more time
is needed the House has always given its agreement in the
interests of a comprehensive report.
Even though there is a rule of law which says that there is a
presumption of good faith, it looks like bad faith on the part
of the government not to want to set a date that would force
parliamentarians to work quickly and effectively on this report.
1600
This report must be tabled in the House so that all
parliamentarians, regardless of party, government or
opposition, have all the tools they need to do their work.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall that when the Liberals
were in opposition, they had much less to say in this regard.
At the time, the present government House leader had some strong
criticism for the Progressive Conservatives when they imposed
time allocation or did not wish to introduce a particular bill
or tale a particular report.
I suggest they take a look at what they were saying when they
were in opposition and be consistent today.
Although they form the government, they should ensure that
members of the House have all the tools they need to do their
work properly.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
very brief, but I want to put on the record my own support and
that of my caucus for the decision announced earlier by the
Chair. I am not a lawyer, but I guess when the judge agrees one
tends to say it was a very good decision. However, I think it
was in this case. I think it restores some faith in this
institution and, as other deputies have said, allows us to be on
an equal footing and to bring legislation forward in this place
as opposed to our learning about it after the fact.
The other point being debated on the floor is the notion that
the Minister of Justice should be coming before the House as part
of a witness list. There too the New Democratic Party very much
wants to be on record as associating itself in favour of that
kind of action. The chief government whip is saying no, that she
is not in support of it, and I think that is unfortunate.
We have had a very good ruling this afternoon. I recall that
when this was first raised last week by the member for
Provencher, the House leader for the New Democratic Party talked
about an earlier time in parliament when it was automatic that
legislation was brought here, debated here and announced here,
and that the media got their news from here as opposed to it
being the other way around. The House leader also talked about
the erosion we have seen in the House of Commons for members of
parliament over time.
I think the ruling of the Speaker in today's judgment is a sound
one and will help to restore parliamentary democracy in this
place. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on that ruling and look
forward to a continuing debate and more real and meaningful
debate in the House of Commons.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to make a few comments. First, I commend
you, Sir, for the promise you made when you contested the office
of Speaker. You said at that time that you would introduce into
this place a dimension of respect, a dimension of freshness and a
new approach, and you have done that in your ruling here this
afternoon. I thank you for that and I recognize the contribution
you are making to the operation of the House.
I also appeal to all members in the House to recognize the good
intention of the suggested amendment that we put a timeline on
this matter. If we really care about what is happening here, we
will deal with this in a time that is appropriate and in a time
that will help the House.
I know all members on that committee and have a lot of respect
for them, as I do for you, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to
suggest that we pass the motion, honour you for it, take it to
committee, and then expect the committee to act within the
intention and the spirit of the discussion here this afternoon so
that it is dealt with expeditiously and comes forward in time for
it to have a meaningful impact on the operation of the House.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1605
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure
that I rise in the House today to give my maiden speech. What
makes this such an important occasion for me is that my speech
will centre around an issue that is of paramount importance to
the people of my riding of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys.
My riding is home to several native bands and, like the rest of
British Columbia, is subject to many overlapping land claims
which cover every city, town, village, ranch and ski hill in the
area. Since my appointment as deputy critic of Indian and
northern affairs, I have been contacted by numerous native people
and non-native people regarding accountability.
Canada's Indian affairs policy is not working. Forty per cent
of natives on reserves receive social assistance. Fifty per cent
of native children live in poverty. The infant mortality rate
for native children is double that for other children.
Alcoholism, suicide and crime rates are three times higher than
for non-natives. On average, on reserve native men can expect to
live 12.5 years less than the average Canadian male.
In total, the federal government has spent more than $90 billion
on native programs since 1969. This year, spending works out to
about $20,000 for every on reserve man, woman and child. This
money does not get to those who really need it. The government
simply transfers most of that money, approximately $7 billion
this year, to band governments. Misuse and waste of public funds
are common and rampant in the government. HRDC remains a blatant
example of that and it is not alone. There are constant
indications that much of the money distributed by the Indian
Affairs department is being misused.
In 1996, DIAND officials conservatively estimated that 20% was
wasted and spent without proper documentation. Dollar-wise that
works out to roughly $100 million for non-compliance. A 1996
report by the auditor general confirms some of these findings.
The report stated:
Reports do not generally include information on outcomes. There
is inadequate evidence of ongoing department verification.
Information on accountability is incomplete. There is evidence
of substantial implementation failure.
Many band governments do carry out their financial affairs very
well, but it is clear many do not. There are about 630 bands in
Canada. One-quarter of them, 25%, are under remedial management.
In layman's terms, 25% of the native bands in Canada cannot
manage their financial affairs and the department has had to step
in to make sure that the bills get paid.
None of this should come as news to the government. Grassroots
natives themselves have repeatedly complained about this legacy
of waste and mismanagement. We are never more than a few days
away from newspaper stories documenting blatant examples of
waste.
For example, there is the Millbrook Reserve in Nova Scotia.
According to the Chronicle Herald of March 29, 1999, band
councillors on the Millbrook Reserve gave themselves a $4,000
increase in their honorariums in March 1999. Their salaries
totalled $39,000 per year. Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook
band was paid $39,000 in honorariums on top of his salary. His
salary is unknown. Chief Paul denied allegations that many
residents on the reserve were living in meagre conditions in
comparison to council members.
Regarding Indian Brook Reserve in Nova Scotia, the Chronicle
Herald of August 17, 1999, stated that $1.2 million was spent
by the band over five years, yet no one knows what for, since
audits reveal it is listed as “miscellaneous” or “other”. The
audits also reveal that $122,796 was used from the social
services budget to pay the rents of people not eligible for
social assistance. Meanwhile, council salaries have risen 135%
over five years to $21,300.
1610
The social services department of the band also paid council
members $54,307 on top of their salaries. The chief is paid
$47,300 plus expenses. Administration salaries have jumped 68%
in five years. The debt on the reserve totals $3 million.
The National Post of December 2, 2000, said that in the
Sheshatshiu First Nation, Labrador, a community infamous for gas
sniffing problems among its children, leaders gave residents
nearly $750,000 in gifts and loans in 1999. The community of
1,250 received more than $10 million in federal funding in 1999.
Band council members were reported in an audit to have given
themselves $100,000 more in honoraria than they were entitled to.
Band employees owe the council $140,000. As well, $400,000 of
$500,000, or 80%, in loans was estimated in the audit to be
unrecoverable.
The National Post of March 15, 1999, said that in the Saulteaux
Band, in Saskatchewan, former chief Gabe Gopher's honorarium and
travel expenses totalled some $171,000. In 1997 about $600,000
was spent on travel by the chief and band councillors. The band
had an accumulated deficit of $1.2 million as of March 31, 1998.
Most of the $1.65 million fund for treaty land entitlement
purchases was found to have been spent on travel and meetings.
In the Stoney Band in Alberta, 3 chiefs and 12 councillors
received $1.4 million in salaries and benefits. Those amounts
ranged between $65,000 and $167,000 per year. In 1997 the band
had a deficit of $5.6 million. Despite $50 million in oil and
gas revenues in 2000, federal transfers total about $23 million
per year. A probe into abuse launched by Alberta judge John
Reilly resulted in 43 criminal investigations. Only two minor
charges were laid in those 43 investigations. The RCMP reported
that the problem on the reserve was mismanagement rather than
criminal activity. However, Chief John Snow demanded a public
apology from Judge Reilly. The total band population was then
3,300 people. The unemployment rate is at 90%.
In the Tla-o-qui-aht Band in B.C., Chief Francis Frank's salary
and benefits totalled $109,003 in 1997. He resigned in December
of that year. There were only 500 to 600 people on his reserve.
An auditor called in to look at the band books was “unable to
express an opinion on the financial statements due to inadequate
record keeping with revenues and particularly with respect to
expenditures and payroll”. Most of the reserve population was
unemployed.
The Samson Band in Alberta is one of the more glaring examples
of waste and outright corruption. In 1998 the Globe and
Mail reported that the chief and 12 councillors earned almost
$2 million in salaries and benefits in 1997. Unemployment on
this reserve hovers in the 85% range. About 80% of the reserve
residents are on welfare. Although this band is oil rich, it is
running a deficit in the $50 million range.
These are just a few of the all too many occurrences of waste
and mismanagement on some of Canada's native reserves. It would
be a mistake to say that it is just about wasting money. It is
about people's lives. The money being doled out by the
government, which should be used to help improve the lives of
native men, women and children, is instead being misused and is
making their lives a living hell.
There are television stories and pictures of children sniffing
gas out of garbage bags in Davis Inlet and teenagers are
committing suicide by jumping off a CBC broadcast tower in
Labrador. The United Nations itself reports that many natives
live in third world conditions, with a lack of clean water,
deplorable housing and unimaginable unemployment. Many chiefs
and band councillors live in palaces, have huge, tax-free
salaries and fly all over the globe.
To call the government accountable in its handling of the
affairs of our native people would be a perversion of logic in
every sense. The government has systematically abdicated its
responsibility to native people time and time again.
Almost 32 years have passed since the following statement was
made in the white paper on Indian Policy:
Indian relations with other Canadian peoples began with special
treatment by government and society. And special treatment has
been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special
treatment has made of the Indians a community disadvantaged and
apart. Obviously the course of history must be changed...
The Government of Canada believes that its policies must lead to
the full, free and non-discriminatory participation of the Indian
people in Canadian society. Such a goal requires a break with
the past. It requires that the Indian people's role of
dependence be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and
responsibility, a role they can share with all other Canadians.
1615
That statement was made by our current Prime Minister. That
report is gathering dust.
If the government fails today to support this motion, or if it
supports the motion and fails to make the changes that have been
asked for in it, it will have failed the people of the country,
both native and non-native.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I
heard was a litany of newspaper stories being added up. A lot of
that is the exception to the rule. It is like talking about
young offenders in society as if they are all young offenders if
they are a certain age.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the
most audited department in the government. Every first nation
partner must submit an audit to the department every year. The
government uses the audit to look at the financial health of a
community. First nations, like other governments, are required
to prepare their audits in accordance with the public sector
accounting and auditing standards of the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants.
The results of the audits are shared not only with the federal
government but with the community. The end result of the audit
is a need to look at the community to see whether it needs a
management plan to help with its own capacity and capacity
building.
First nations conduct standardized community accountability and
management assessments in order to help identify for themselves
where they require capacity building. In January 2000, 93% of
the community assessments were complete and work was proceeding
in accordance with the management development themes that had
been unearthed.
A speech like the one we just heard lumps together reserves that
are getting help, moving along and have a good governance
mechanism and training with the assistance of the federal
government, with those that are deficient and in the wrong. It
is not true and it is not fair.
A perfect example of good governance was the Nisga'a nation last
year. They had great governance. We worked on the Nisga'a last
year in the House. The Nisga'a is an upstanding community with
great capacity. Members still did not support the treaty and
voted against it.
Would the hon. member not consider the capacity building and
proper accounting methods and methodologies of such bands? Would
she not consider all the different organizations that have come
to the assistance of first nations so that they can move toward
better governance of their own resources? Must we have this
litany of the negative?
Mrs. Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made it very
clear at the beginning of my statement that many bands in Canada
are doing a fine job. I pointed out some of the bands that are
not doing a fine job. It is the people of the bands for whom I
am concerned.
I am not taking my information from newspapers. At the
beginning of my speech I made it very clear that when I was
appointed deputy critic for Indian affairs I received a deluge of
mail. I received e-mails, telephone calls and letters. Any way
in which correspondence can be sent, I received it either in this
office or in my Kamloops office. I have pictures, photographs
and documentation. It does not make for good night time reading.
What is happening with native people in some areas of the country
is very frightening.
1620
Native people deserve the money that governments send to their
bands. It is not getting there right now, and that is the point
we are trying to make. Numerous native people have asked for
accountability. I support what I said, and I support the motion.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity to
congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for his
foresight and motivation in introducing this motion:
That the government stipulate that in all financial transfer
arrangements between the Federal Government and individual Indian
Bands...that the use of any public funds be publicly reported and
accurately audited.
The motion goes to the heart of a serious problem of government
policy, not only toward native groups but to the funding criteria
for all departments throughout the government. One could look at
the funding of many programs and see glaring weaknesses in the
accountability of money transferred from the Government of
Canada.
Four times a year the auditor general releases his findings of
the financial practices of government departments and reports his
findings to parliament. That is accountability and it is what we
expect. That is what it means to have public funds used in a
transparent and reasonable fashion. That is exactly what the
motion addresses. It goes to the heart of financial
accountability.
Native bands receive millions of dollars from the government. It
has been reported that it is something over $7 billion. Far too
often all we hear of is the negative, wasteful spending of
Canadian tax dollars. It is true that often money is wasted and
misappropriated, but often large amounts of money are put in the
hands of those who have no experience and no ability to
administer it properly.
Who suffers because of this lack of accountability? It is the
most vulnerable, grassroots aboriginals who do not get the basic
essentials to live dignified and fulfilling lives. We take for
granted clean running water. We take for granted that people
will have homes in which to live. We expect an efficient sewage
system to safeguard against disease and protect health.
Every remote cabin in British Columbia needs government approval
for its sewage system but reserves do not. Unfortunately, and
far too often, such basic needs are not met on reserves because
the money earmarked for those projects goes somewhere else, is
not administered in a completely professional way or is given
into the hands of those with no experience. Tragically, far too
often it is the weakest of the weak, the children, who suffer the
most.
That is why the motion is so important and why we must restore
financial accountability to grassroots native people. That is
why we must do everything we can as parliamentarians to help
people on reserves, especially children, because those children
are as much the future of our country as the children of
parliamentarians like myself. I have said many times that one of
the main reasons I am here is for the future of my country and
the future of my children. However it is not only for my own
children and grandchildren, it is for the children of Canada.
In April last year, the auditor general reported his audit of
the elementary and secondary education programs that are
administered by the department of Indian affairs. His findings
are tragic. I will take a moment to read to the House some of
the findings of his audit.
First, Indian and northern affairs cannot demonstrate that it
meets its stated objective: to assist first nation students
living on reserves in achieving their educational needs and
aspirations.
1625
For example, the department does not have the necessary
assurance that first nations students are receiving culturally
appropriate education. Moreover, progress in closing the
education gap for Indian students living on reserves has been
unacceptably slow. At the current rate of progress it will take
over 20 years for them to reach parity in academic achievement
with other Canadians.
At present about 117,000 students enrolled in elementary and
secondary schools live on reserves. Current budget costs, not
including school construction and maintenance, are about $1
billion annually. That is about 21% of the money that goes into
Indian affairs. Despite the huge budget, the department needs to
radically speed up reform and accountability practices to meet
increased demands placed on education as a result of an
increasing population on reserves.
There are other things I will briefly mention. The Indian
affairs department does not know whether special needs students
are being appropriately identified and assisted. That is
according to the Auditor General of Canada.
The department has little involvement with first nations in the
development of pedagogical principles and instruments, including
curriculum design, instruction standard and teacher
qualifications. Those are not things that people who are elected
to council can simply do because they were elected.
Again, the department does not generally review the mission
statements, objectives and plans of the schools that it funds, so
it has no idea what is going on. Also, recent evaluations of on
reserve schools disclosed a significant need to improve various
aspects such as curricula, teacher training, equipment and
homework policies. However the department, according to the
Auditor General of Canada, does not monitor the implementation of
evaluation recommendations. There is a great lack of
responsibility on the part of the federal government that is not
appropriately borne by the government.
It is shameful that in our society young native children are 20
years behind the academic achievements of Canadian children
attending public schools. It is a tragedy. A whole generation
of children will be left behind in the rapid technological
transformations our society is experiencing.
We must not fail these children. We must have accountability
not only on the reserves, although certainly there, but in the
department of Indian affairs as well. We must make sure the
resources and tools are there to give these children a well
rounded education and that they are used as they are intended to
be used. Adequate amounts of moneys, properly priorized, are
essential.
We have tried in the past to educate native children. During
the 20th century the Government of Canada created the residential
school system to teach young native children how to cope in
modern society. Unfortunately the residential school system had
its share of failures, although teachers and government officials
at the time, I believe, honestly thought they were doing their
best to help the children. However many judge them today as
having instituted a system that robbed natives of their culture.
The real failure of the residential school system was the lack
of accountability by the government of the time. Some who taught
in those schools did fail the children. Some native children
were abused and those who abused the children went unchecked. The
government failed to hold accountable those who contracted out to
teach those vulnerable children. Right now the government is in
the middle of a multibillion dollar lawsuit as a result of that
lack of accountability and concern.
We must make sure that situation never happens again. Although
circumstances are different, the results as we see them turn out
to be the same.
1630
We are failing the children on our reserves because they are
continuing to fall behind the world in education. Why is that?
It is because the government failed to adequately privatize
aboriginal funding. It failed to insist upon financial
accountability of money sent to the reserves which was earmarked
for education.
The auditor general made this quite clear in his report to
parliament. He told the department of Indian affairs to demand
better accountability of elementary and secondary education
programs because the children were being left behind. We must
not let them continue to be left behind.
By adopting the motion, the government is taking a very
important step to assure better quality education for native
children. The motion makes financial accountability an
obligation, not an option. The motion presented by my hon.
colleague will help better the lives of aboriginal children.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, it is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Lethbridge, Trade; the hon. member
for St. John's West, Coast Guard.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great honour to rise at this time to address the
House but, most important, to address the people of Canada. I
would like to make some opening statements in my first language.
As opposed to preparing a translatable speech, I will translate
it following my statements.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
In a very brief statement in Cree, what I have said is that in
the journey of life on this land we have seen many peoples find a
home here. In searching for this home there have been agreements
among our aboriginal nations and the nations around the world
that found this place to raise our children together. I
understand that relationship, the relationship of how Canada was
created by a treaty process. The treaty was a nation to nation
agreement, that the country we know as Canada was given birth
when the crown of England struck treaties with the aboriginal
nations of this country.
In creating a country as beautiful as Canada is today, and we
talk about the marginalization and the problems that our
aboriginal people are facing now and into the future, I beg all
members of the House and I beg all citizens of the country to
look at restructuring and correcting the relationship that this
sacred treaty was signed on for living together in this country.
Referring to the restructuring, bringing more auditors to
financially accountable programs will not correct the
restructuring and the relationship of this country. I would say,
and I would challenge, and I have spoken of this before, that a
third house in parliament should be seriously considered, a third
house that brings in a unity among all people of the country.
This House is acceptable as a parliamentary house of dialogue of
the country.
1635
We also have the other House, the Senate, that conducts the
affairs and the law making of the country. The third house of
which I speak could take in the parliamentary building that
exists today, the parliamentary library. I offer this today
because it was built with a symbol of unity.
From the time of the signing of the treaties, if we look at the
journey of the country and at the clerk's table as the signatory
of the treaties, the crown came to that table to sign treaties.
All the laws and administration of the affairs of the country
have been taken by the crown. The aboriginal people have not
been given the opportunity to be partners, to be part of the
decision making and law making.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say at the outset that I will be
splitting my time.
I draw to members' attention a treaty that was originally signed
and understood. I should not say signed because it was an
intention. It was called a two row wampum. I do not know if the
ministers here are aware of the two row wampum. The two row
wampum treaty signified that in the journey of life the
aboriginal people and the people who came from all shores could
travel together in harmony and unity. If one vessel
overempowered another vessel in that journey, we would have lost
our way and intent.
We have had hon. members today challenging the mismanagement
of affairs by the chiefs and councils. I have been a witness to
the failure rates, to the high school dropouts, to the
unemployment rates and to the fetal alcohol syndrome. All these
problems seem to be landing on a handful of chiefs who have been
audited for mismanagement.
That is not the debate today. The debate today is about the
public reporting and auditing of public funds under the
contribution agreements between the federal government and
individual Indian bands. That is only a symptom of the problems
that we have today in the aboriginal communities and in the
aboriginal nations.
We have to look at restructuring, at where we will go from here
on in. If we can have a third house in parliament, a council of
aboriginal nations can sit in that house. If we have fiscal and
electoral problems in any of our communities, they would be
accountable to that council, not to the minister nor to anyone
else. It is only right that they be accountable to their own
nationhoods. If we look at self-government, we are not creating
a dialogue of the nationhoods that exist.
Someone mentioned the truth. Let us talk about the truth. If
we talk about the Cree nation, it extends from northern Quebec
all the way to the Rocky Mountains. By no means can I be fooled
if someone were to say that the Cree nation is united. It is
diverse nation and has been dissected by existing provincial
boundaries, Indian agents and Indian district offices.
We need to have a cohesive approach. We must allow these
nations to grow and be accountable to their members. It is not
band membership we are talking about, it is nation membership.
Band members are citizens of their nations and they have to be
accountable to their people. We must allow them to be
accountable to their people. We will then see what the
aboriginal people can contribute to the betterment of the
country.
We should give them the tools and the natural resources they
need to improve the economic cycles in their communities, regions
and territories and that will enhance our country's future. They
will be living partners in our urban centres. Their knowledge
and research in the future technology field, but also embedded in
their traditional knowledge and oral history, will become
examples for the world.
1640
A united nationhood of aboriginal people working in concert with
the treaty negotiations that took place and made this beautiful
country we call Canada is the dream we have for our children, but
we have to work together.
There are only a handful of aboriginal people here in this House
and we represent a huge geography, the huge tracts of lands that
expand to the north.
The debate today incited me to raise the issue one more time.
The accountability issue, the plight and the problems that deal
with the administration of funds that members of the opposition
have raised and looked at for a number of years, will fade away
but the issue of the restructuring will stay. That is where I
would like to see the debate go.
There have been no solutions. The motion does not address the
plight of aboriginal people. It only addresses the problem the
minister has accounting to the treasury of the country. It does
not address the issues of the aboriginal people. When the House
is ready to debate that, I will rise again and make that debate.
Accountability can go both ways. It is a double-edged sword. If
the treaties and their spirit of intent were to share the land,
in light of a handful of funds for housing, for medicine and for
education, these funds are now being allocated because of the
land that was transferred. If aboriginal people want to look at
the accountability of finances they can look at the
accountability of the lands and the management of their
resources.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
It is our journey as Canadians. It is our journey as residents
of our many territories. As an aboriginal person, I am proud
that I am willing to offer a new structured relationship within
this country to build a proud jewel in the globe where Canada can
be a beautiful place for everyone to live. The accountability
issue is just the start of a dialogue of restructuring ourselves.
It could be a bold economic adventure. Research and development
that does not take place now could take place in our homelands.
The chiefs are making decisions that are not based on sound,
long term plans. They do not have their own research development
institutes. That is what I beg to challenge the House on today.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in the comments made by the member
across the way and would like to ask him a question.
The member expressed certain concerns with respect to the lack
of resources the chiefs have to do background research. I was
also very interested in his comments about the use of the
parliamentary library. These were very interesting proposals and
the types of things we should be discussing.
I also noted in his comments that the Liberal government has not
fulfilled a number of outstanding treating obligations. I wonder
if the member could elaborate on what treaty obligations this
government has not yet fulfilled. As we know, the treaties are
based on the honour of the crown. What obligations by the crown
does the member feel that the Liberal government has not yet met?
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, the obligations that
were agreed upon in treaty were signed with the British crown to
create a country called Canada.
Today these obligations have been subject to interpretation. In
the last general election we saw dialogue on and interpretation
of these treaties.
1645
When I first came to parliament, as I went up to the
parliamentary restaurant on the right-hand side I saw a big
pyramid that said all the credit of Canada is heaped on top of
the pyramid. However, all of it would be nothing in my mind, if
we took out the bottom part of the pyramid that is the
territories and lands and of which our country is made.
If the vessels of Britain and France had stayed out on the ocean
there would be no country. There would be no taxpayers and no
credit. It was the territories and lands that were signatory,
created by treaty, that created this country. From that
relationship is where the obligations started fading. It was a
mistake when we left the treaty signatories, let the aboriginal
people go back to their camps and the crown assumed the
administration of the country. Let us restructure and go back to
that table.
Let us bring back the aboriginal people as a part of
administering the country, as a part of making laws, taking
control of them and enforcing them. They have to be part of the
fabric of the country. They cannot be self-governing and thrown
aside to address their own affairs. They have to be allowed to
play a part in addressing the affairs of the country as well.
They are a part of this country. That was their inheritance.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to make a comment and ask a question to the hon.
member for Churchill River.
As we know, Canada's aboriginal and Inuit communities currently
have access to changing economic development programs which,
more often than not, are managed from afar by people in
government offices. These communities must adjust their projects
based on criteria defined by outside authorities.
We know that, as a result of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, a report entitled “People to People, Nation to Nation”
was drafted. For our Cree and Inuit friends from James Bay,
Nunavut, Nunavik and all of western Canada, is my colleague
pleased with what was said in the report of the royal commission?
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, since returning to the
House I have taken great interest in the royal commission report.
It is bound in a number of volumes.
My original interest, because of my previous life in the
educational field, was only the educational chapters. However,
the one thing that existed in the royal commission report, which
I thought was a jewel, was the aboriginal house of
representation. It is hidden inside the royal commission.
If anybody reads the royal commission report thoroughly he or
she will find there are a lot of futuristic recommendations in
it. Some of them did not even materialize as recommendations.
They are written in the body of the royal commission report.
That is where this house of representation for aboriginal people
was written.
I would ask the hon. member who made her maiden speech, and is
now an Acting Speaker, to read the whole royal commission report
on aboriginal people. It is a worthwhile document. It sets a
journey and a vision for our people into the future.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
speak about initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada to
strengthen accountability in first nations and Inuit health
programs and services, one aspect that we have not heard about
today.
I will outline the government's mandate in the area, detail the
provisions contained in Health Canada's new accountability
framework and identify the government's short and long term
accountability goals.
We currently, as a government, provide over $1.2 billion for
non-insured health benefits and community based health prevention
and treatment for first nations and Inuit. Over 600 facilities
across Canada offer a full range of community based health
programs and services which include nursing services, prenatal
and children's programs, public health disease and environmental
health services, prevention programs, the Indian and Inuit health
careers program, the national native alcohol and drug abuse
program and the first nations health information system.
We have also provided a non-insured health benefits program
which supplements the benefits covered by the insured programs
offered by the provinces and the territories.
1650
The non-insured health benefits program serves over 700,000
clients. It includes not only vision care but prescription
drugs, medical supplies and equipment, dental care, medical
transportation services and other care such as short term mental
health crisis counselling.
Anybody in the House from any party would admit there is a long
road ahead to fully meet all the needs. However, the government
is moving forward and we are trying to do it without criticizing
the client that we serve.
Concurrently the Government of Canada has been working
diligently with the stakeholders and across government
departments to address issues of accountability. In the Speech
from the Throne, the Government of Canada pledged to improve the
health of aboriginal people and aboriginal communities by
championing community based health promotion and disease
prevention programs. We do this in partnership with the first
nations. We are working to address the health inequalities which
have plagued first nation communities for far too long.
Illness of almost every kind occurs more often among aboriginal
people than among other Canadians. Consider the statistics, then
move away in our minds from statistics and say that they
represent real aboriginal Canadian people in this country.
Diabetes, for instance, is three times higher in first nation
communities than the rest of Canada. First nations and Inuit
experience a higher rate of almost all chronic diseases,
including heart disease to hypertension to tuberculosis. The
average life expectancy for aboriginal people is at least seven
years less than for other Canadians.
We have introduced concrete measures designed to improve the
health and well-being of aboriginal people throughout Canada.
However, increasing also at the same time the transparency and
accountability of the first nations, as they manage and they
deliver these services, has to be part and parcel of what is
needed here.
Over the next few months Health Canada will launch a series of
new initiatives and processes, both internally and with its
stakeholders, to enhance the financial and program accountability
to strengthen the ability to monitor grants and contributions and
to respond to accountability issues.
Nobody wants to duck any problems that exist. We want to
identify and develop mechanisms that help people help themselves.
At the same time, the Government of Canada recognizes that it
has to maintain the objective of assisting the first nations
people and the Inuit to build their own capacities to allocate
and use the much needed health resources within their
communities.
Since 1999 the first nations and Inuit health branch of Health
Canada has been working with the partners, the Assembly of First
Nations and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to develop an
accountability framework for improved management practices. We
have had assistance from many organizations. In fact, there are
over 100 pilot projects on accounting management and assistance
in place at this point in time.
The accountability framework will clearly outline the roles and
responsibilities of relevant parties. It will also enable Health
Canada to demonstrate results in investments, programs and
services that are delivered. As well, it will identify the gaps
in the service, improve the capacity to deliver the service and
measure performance and improve overall management practices.
They have to go concurrently.
An office of accountability implementation has been established
to oversee the main components of this framework. These
components are designed to build a more transparent
accountability process. They include the programs, health plan
program deliver and administrative capacity, in addition to the
reporting, the evaluation and the audit elements.
An audit and accountability bureau was created which reports
directly to the associate deputy minister of Health Canada. In
addition to the traditional audit functions, it also oversees
Health Canada's responsibility with respect to ethics and values.
A new quality assurance division will ensure that grants and
contributions are well managed.
Within the first nations and Inuit health branch, regional
directors are reviewing all the agreements in place to ensure
that these agreements are processed, administered and maintained
in accordance with Government of Canada policies and procedures.
The ongoing implementation of the accountability framework will
lead and has led to many improvements, not only in internal
management control practices but in the standards, the policies
and the controls for the negotiation signing and ongoing
management of agreements.
We will, on this side of the House, support first nations and
Inuit communities in building good governments, including more
effective and transparent administrative practices.
We are committed to continuing to work with first nations and
Inuit organizations to help them improve their own accountability
practices and to address any outstanding issue.
1655
We will not list the failures. We will support, implement and
encourage all of the success stories in this land. We will
acknowledge around all the parties in the House that there is a
need to be there helping with the health and the accountability
in all programs governing our aboriginal peoples in this land.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my
colleague and for what I believe she has done in her work on the
Hill with aboriginal people. I know that she knows something
about my involvement with aboriginal people.
I think the vast majority of us in the House take very seriously
the work that lies before us in terms of bringing aboriginal
people into some sense of sustainability and economic
development, giving them a sense of self-worth and bringing them
into the Canadian family in every way possible.
I know she has some concerns about our motion. At the same
time, I want to ask her this question. We know the vast amounts
of money that are involved. They are billions of dollars.
Ostensibly the money is set aside by Canadians, through the
government, to help our native people achieve higher levels of
success in every way.
Yet while all this money is going to native people, we still
have the appalling statistics. We have statistics that tell us
that unemployment is very high among native people on reserves.
We have off reserve people in cities who are not able to find
jobs. We have huge problems on native reserves with HIV,
hepatitis C, diabetes and all of those diseases that are also in
the non-native population, but are disproportionately high in our
native population. We have terribly unacceptable suicide rates
among our native young people. I just get sick when I hear about
it. I see terrific amounts of substance abuse. What went on
with the James Bay Cree young people is probably just a drop in
the bucket, and it became a very celebrated case.
All of us have to grapple with this question. We have this
money available and we have the resources to put at the disposal
of native people. If there is not an accountability problem,
what is it that is not working to help our native people to
achieve what we want them to achieve? I would certainly
appreciate the hon. member's elucidation on that.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, it is wider than what I
addressed in this particular 10 minutes. However, the root of it
has to do with the culture and a respective people, their ways
and their ability to govern themselves that historically has been
taken away, maybe with all the best intentions.
Historically, we have done some wrong policy development. We
acknowledged that with apologies. We have a situation where
people of my age have been treated very poorly.
I know in my riding, when I discuss these issues with some of my
constituents, they are ignorant of the facts. They do not
realize the intensity of the depravation. They do not realize
the lack of potential for the education of all the potential
leaders in the community.
It goes much more beyond the accounting concept of
accountability. It goes to a people who have in their own way
been colonized and not willingly so. I think we have great
potential for leadership and change. I do not think we will get
there until everyone acknowledges that there were very wrong
things done, maybe, as I said, with the best of intentions.
1700
However, right now the only way forward is not to withdraw the
finances but to help with all the governance solutions we can
come up with and to address the social inequality, the
educational inequality and the housing inequality. At the end of
the day, if my children in my home faced the same challenges that
I think a lot of young native Canadians have to face—and we know
that their population is growing very rapidly—it would be very
difficult and maybe they would not meet all the expectations laid
down before them.
I sincerely hope that the motivation behind today's motion is
not really about the accountability of the pennies but the
movement forward of the people.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it does give me pleasure to speak to this motion we have
before us today and to speak in regard to the situation for
aboriginal grassroots people, who I really would like to focus
on.
The previous speaker for the Liberals made the point that it is
time to accentuate the positive and I certainly agree. I would
like to be able to do that more and more, because there are some
positives out there. I have seen them. I have seen reserves
where there is 100% employment and where there are excellent
plans, excellent programs and a real honest, hard effort on the
part of a number of chiefs and councils on a various number of
reserves, and that is worth noting. There is no doubt about
that.
However, when we take on a portfolio that leads us across the
country to deal with grassroots natives all across Canada, we
cannot help but notice some very serious situations and problems.
I would encourage all members of the House, whether they have
native reserves in their ridings or not—they should go outside
their ridings if they do not—to make a point of visiting some of
these ridings. Stay out of the elegant administration buildings,
or go there for a little bit maybe, and maybe visit the chief and
councils in some of their fine homes, but get further into the
reserve and really talk to the grassroots people, the individuals
who are living on each and every one, and pass out the bouquets
when they are deserved. When members see good things happening,
they should bring it to the attention of the House. Let us know.
We should know more about them. I agree with the hon. member
that we need to accentuate the positive as much as we can.
However, where I have been and in what I have seen in the over
300 reserves that I have visited, there have been both positives
and negatives. Unfortunately there is an awful lot of suffering
going on across this land that needs to be dealt with.
I agree that this particular motion is not going to answer all
the problems. A lot more has to follow this type of legislation
in order to achieve much, but surely everybody can
understand—and I appreciate the Liberal government supporting
this motion—that in a lot of cases whatever we do will take
dollars. In order to provide the dollars that are necessary, we
need to have some good accountable people making certain that the
dollars are going to and achieving what it is we want to have
happen across this land.
I do not have to spend a lot of time talking about the examples
I have seen, but I have been in their homes and sat on stumps
that were used for chairs. I have been treated to a great deal
of hospitality by so many of these people, who have become very
good friends. We are in contact quite often, either by mail or
phone from time to time.
As for the suffering, I just could not believe that I was in
Canada when I went into a home where there were 12 to 14 members
of a family living in that home, with the very minimum to eat,
nothing to sleep on, no rooms within the shell that they called
home, no running water and no electricity. It was not a rare
thing that I saw. It was quite common and in some very
unexpected territories, areas where one would not think it could
happen.
1705
I was looking at a number of the concerns brought forward by
aboriginal people. Alberta, one of the most fruitful provinces
in the country, had the highest number of people on reserves
asking for help. In a three year period, there were 56.
Manitoba was second with 17. What they were asking for was some
accountability and they did not know for sure what it would take
to get that to happen. They would simply contact their member of
parliament. The member of parliament would direct them to the
department of Indian affairs, which would direct them to the
chief and council. That is where they went in the first place,
without results.
In many cases threats were received. They were told to stop
complaining about the problem or not to bring it to the attention
of the administration any more. They were told that if there
were any more words from them they would wish they had not asked
for help. Those were the kinds of threats that were made. Homes
were burned down on some reserves, with people allegedly saying
that they were purposely burned out because they had spoken out
against the administration of that particular area.
These are serious things. Yet at the same time, a lot of public
money was going into a number of reserves to build some real fine
schools, although I will not tell members where they are, with as
little as 10% of eligible students in attendance. They had the
finest equipment, the best that money could buy, provided by
public funds, yet 90% were not attending those schools. Where
were they?
I investigated further and became more familiar with the
situation. I will use a common name like Jones. What was
happening was that all of these great ideas and programs were
being developed, and the chief would be Jones, and for some
strange reason, the director of education would be Carolyn Jones,
the director of natural resources would be Robert Jones, the
director of public works would be Phil Jones, and the director of
welfare would be Cathy Jones. No one was qualified to even know
what they were doing in terms of offering education and
assistance for various types of programs. The programs were
there and the positions were filled, but no one was doing
anything. They were not solving any problems. They were not
getting young people into the schools. They were not giving
young people the assistance they needed for their addictions and
their problems.
My colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap and I visited Winnipeg. One
cannot help but feel very sorrowful when one goes to a place like
that and visits the streets. We were accompanied by a person who
lives there. His name is Mike Calder and he really knows the
situation and the problem. He is an aboriginal himself. He runs
the St. Norbert centre there, trying to help bring in young
people from the streets and assist them with their addictions and
other problems.
It was sorrowful to see the young people on the streets—and I
mean kids—prostituting, delivering drugs, doing anything they
could. They get sucked off the reserves because of their
situations and the mighty heroes of organized crime bring them in
and exploit them all over the place. We could see them. All we
had to do was get in the car and drive around late at night. It
is not a pleasant sight for Canadians to see, yet it is just one
example of the many across the country now happening in our
cities. Young people are exploited day in and day out.
When we cry out loud and clear that we must do something serious
about these adults who exploit kids, we do not get support. We
get bills like those that have been coming up recently, bills
that say we will take away their tax status and that will show
them. What a very terrible situation.
1710
I believe my hon. colleague from across the way—I am sorry, but
I do not remember from what riding—said loud and clear that this
motion might be something that needs to happen, but that this has
to go a lot longer and a lot further. I consider this motion to
be an excellent starting point. If we can all agree that it is a
good place to start, then we have to work toward solving the
problems that these people are facing, not through their own
fault in many cases. It is not because of them that they are in
the messes they are in. A lot of times the leadership is not
there and the accountability is not there. The requests for
leadership and accountability have not been supported by the
government.
How Mike Calder would love to have the federal government phone
him and say that it is going to support his initiative in
Winnipeg. Right now his initiative is supported by the
provincial government and the city. There is nothing from the
federal government. What a shame that is when he goes around
trying to get young people off the streets, trying to help them
out of their desperate situations.
We have to change our attitudes and this is a good place to
start. I thank the Liberal government for supporting the bill.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member talks about the plight or the affairs of those in
off reserve urban situations. A lot of the public accountability
being called for by the motion is limited to on reserve.
If it is off reserve, if the plight of urban aboriginals is
being brought in, should the accountability of provincial
governments be brought to the House and investigated and audited
for the results of the plight of urban people who are off
reserve? Does he understand the jurisdiction of on reserve and
off reserve and accountability with the federal and provincial
governments?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the questions. Of course I understand the difference. I
also understand that because of things not happening for the
benefit of young people in particular, and for others on the
reserves, they are being drawn off the reserves by certain
organizations and by people who live in the city, people who are
pulling them off the reserves and telling them the people in the
city are the heroes, that they are the people the young natives
need to go to, that if they want answers to their difficulties,
these people can help. They are being drawn off.
The contributions toward the reserves come from many areas.
There is absolutely no reason in the world why public funds of
any nature that go into a reserve should not be accounted for. Of
course they should be, whether they are provincial funds or city
funds. Some cities do that. Calgary is constantly dealing with
the Tsuu T'ina reserve within the city. It happens all the time.
This accountability is not strictly for the location of the
reserve but within the jurisdiction of moneys received.
Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I would be sharing my
time. I hope it is not too late.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to endorse what my colleague from Wild Rose
has just said about the importance of changing the attitude. I
really would like to commend the Liberal government for
supporting the motion.
At this point in the debate, though, I wonder whether it might
not be good for our listeners to know exactly what the motion is
that we are debating. The motion reads:
That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements
between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.
That is the motion. The intent of the motion, the exposition,
if we like, is clearly what the money is being used for, how much
money is being used and whether in fact the money is being
applied in the manner that the original program intended. That
is the technical import of the motion.
However, I want to go well beyond the technical intent of the
motion because the essence of the transparency that is being
called for, the accountability that is being called for in the
motion, really has more to do with an attitudinal change and the
recognition that with receiving funds there is a responsibility.
It is the emphasis on responsibility that I wish to attack.
1715
There comes a point when people are put in charge. At the
present time the government is making a big issue of the fact
that our aboriginal people ought to be given the powers of
self-government. That is a wonderful thing to do. We want to
give our native people the right to determine their own affairs.
Giving them the power and the right to do so has an implicit
sense of responsibility.
Part of that responsibility is to account for what we are trying
to achieve. Are we achieving those things? Is the money we are
applying to those purposes being used for those purposes? We are
not talking about peanuts. We are talking about $4.2 billion or
thereabouts this year. That is an awful lot of money. Where is
the money going? What results are being achieved?
My hon. colleague said that a lot of positive things were
happening. Indeed there are. However, are the bands who are
achieving positive results not the same bands that can show that
there is reward for responsibility, for exercising accountability
and being responsible for decisions that are made?
These are not those groups that go on tours. These are not the
ones that go on cruises. These are not the ones that are paid
exorbitant salaries. They are not the ones who hide where the
money is coming from and where it is being spent. These are the
ones who are telling their people the amount of money they got,
where the money is going and what the results are. They should
be proud of that. When they want to hide facts is when they get
into trouble. That is the issue.
When will the time come when we as leaders in the House can
demonstrate to the people that we are responsible? Will the
Prime Minister, for example, demonstrate clearly that he is
prepared to open the books as to what happened with the HRDC
grants, the Shawinigan affair, his relationship with the hotel
owner and the golf course? Will the Prime Minister tell the
people of Canada what he did, or will he hide it? The Prime
Minister is responsible and it is the duty of the House to call
him to account.
That is what we are trying to do with the motion. We are not
trying to call to account those band leaders who are doing their
job. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to
call to account those who are not doing that. We cannot do this
unless there is a law that works.
Hon. members opposite have referred over and over again today to
the provision of the audit in the legislation and regulations
that apply. Let me read what the legal provisions are. The
Indian bands revenue moneys regulations state:
8(1) Every band shall engage an auditor to audit its account and
to render an annual report in respect thereof.
8(2) A copy of the auditor's annual report shall, within seven
days of its completion, (a) be posted in conspicuous places on
the Band Reserve for examination by members of the Band; and (b)
be supplied to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Obtaining a copy of the audit under Access to Information is
blocked by the 1989 decision of the Federal Court in Montana Band
of Indians v Canada.
This is a court deciding that the people of Canada cannot know
the result of these audits. It is not working. The intent of
the legislation was not to prevent them from knowing how much
money was being spent, where that money was being spent and what
the results of spending that money were. That was not the
purpose of that legislation or regulation. The purpose of the
regulation was to open up and indicate clearly that a third party
objective audit showed how much money was spent, what it was
spent for and the results of the particular program.
Instead, on a technicality the court argued that because the
leaders of particular bands decided to put together public funds
and because those funds came from private ownership of Indian
bands and were somehow put together in one book, we could no
longer tell what the real position was.
1720
There is not a self-respecting accountant performing audit
functions who cannot identify that kind of difference. The only
reason it can be muddled up is by people deliberately muddle the
issue. That is how it happens. It does not happen when people
are honest and truthful. It does not happen when people show
clearly that this is their money and this is money that came from
the public purse. It happens when somebody wants to make sure
that we do not know the truth.
The time has come for the Government of Canada to recognize that
it is responsible, and part of that responsibility is to tell the
truth, to recognize that it has made some mistakes, that there
are some things it can fix and that it will do it.
It is not done by hiding behind a technicality that says one
source of funds is over here and the other is over there so we
cannot tell the truth. That is absolute nonsense. That can be
corrected. The intent of the motion is to make sure that the
kind of legislation presented to the House will enable this kind
of money to be made public so that we can clearly tell what the
facts are and where we can go.
I commend the government for going as far as it has in
supporting the motion. I also wish to clearly demonstrate that I
am committed to the position of our native people, people who are
declared as Indians under the Indian Act. I want them to have
the same self-respect that we have and to have the same kind of
opportunity to pursue their interests as we have. I want them to
be performing in the House just as we are. They are citizens of
Canada. They are Canadians first, just like we are. That is
what we would like in the House.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kelowna alluded
to the mix of public and private funds. A bigger term is used,
the term co-mingling. At the end of the day we are hoping that
is what the government has some understanding about with respect
to the motion.
Would the hon. member expand on that in terms of indicating what
he understands the motion to be doing and, if there is honourable
intent on the government's side, what it intends by the motion as
well?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to
expand on that. A number of Indian bands have extensive holdings
and generate substantial revenues from those holdings. I commend
them for the application of their expertise, their knowledge and
understanding to do that.
Some of it comes from natural resources, from the application of
the enterprise in terms of business ventures, and from the
ownership, development and administration of financial
institutions. All these are examples of where substantial
revenues can be generated and are generated.
It is very easy for these groups to recognize the source of the
revenue and the expenses associated with those kinds of
enterprises. That is not difficult. Many of them are
incorporated as separate and individual entities under the
particular band council. It is not difficult to keep them
separate unless we want to mix it up. It can be done very
simply.
The motion recognizes that the same kinds of regulations and
laws which govern the corporations we run and are involved with
ought to apply in this case as well. When the government
contributes funds from taxpayers it is from all of us. It is not
limited to a particular group. This money comes from the public
purse and should be accounted for in the same way as other audits
are accounted for. The people who pay are the people who should
know where the money goes.
1725
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.
I have listened to a number of speeches today and I read the
Canadian Alliance motion which concerns the financial transfer
arrangements between the federal government and individual
Indian bands. It should have said aboriginal bands.
What the Canadian Alliance members would have us believe in
presenting this motion today is that they are truly concerned
about the effectiveness of the mechanism the government has set
up to ensure the follow up of funds transferred to aboriginal
communities.
They want to have us admit that they simply believe it is
inappropriate for aboriginal peoples to be funded jointly by the
private and public sectors.
Let us get right to the problem. We should look instead at the
ability of the majority of the first nations to provide an
accounting, be they the James Bay Cree, the Nunavik Inuit and
aboriginal peoples across Canada and the Inuit of Nunavut. In
fact, 98% of all audits done last year with aboriginal bands
were submitted to an independent auditor, who accepted them
without restriction.
But if we look very closely, we can get to the real problem.
Today, they are talking about a financial audit, but they have
opposed the economic development of aboriginal peoples in Canada
since the start.
They are either against the economic development of the James
Bay Cree, the Inuit of Nunavik or Nunavut, or against certain
Indian bands in Canada.
What they should do is move a motion telling the government what
it could do for aboriginal housing in Canada. The Canadian
Alliance is calling for audits but does not want the private
sector involved with aboriginals. If we look at housing,
just for the James Bay Cree and the James Bay agreement, there
is currently a shortage of 2,000 houses. Nothing is heard about
this. The Canadian Alliance members go to standing committees
but say nothing.
Right now, Quebec's first nations, whether James Bay Cree or the
Inuit of Nunavik, are taking charge of their own affairs. They
are doing good reports and managing their affairs well.
Companies like Air Creebec, First Air and Air Inuit are
examples showing that things are really going very well.
When it comes to the economic development of Canada's first
nations—this is what it is important to know, and this is what
the Canadian Alliance is not saying—we are going to look after
the health, housing and shipment of food to northern communities
only accessible by airplane. Canada's first nations are
contributing to the economy.
Often, when an aboriginal person receives $1, 97 cents goes back
south to buy a number of things. There is the example of the
nine Cree communities of James Bay. Everything comes from the
south. The Canadian Alliance never speaks about the
transfer between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
In their motion, they are calling for immediate audits.
Aboriginals would say “by the next moon”. Well, the next moon
has come and gone. We will have to wait until next month.
There is one thing the members of the Canadian Alliance ought to
understand, and that is the necessity to be concerned about the
economic development of the aboriginal peoples, the Cree or
Inuit of Canada. We know that at present the aboriginal
communities have access to changing economic development
programs that are for the most part administered at a distance.
I must emphasize that they are administered at a distance from
government offices, by public servants. They have to make their
development projects fit criteria that have been defined by
outside authorities.
If the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs were closed
down completely this very day and the public servants were sent
out into each and every aboriginal and Inuit community, the
change would be evident. That is what is important.
The administration of our departments need to be monitored,
whether they are in Ottawa, Toronto or Quebec City.
To give one example, in lower town Quebec City there are 118
federal Indian and northern affairs employees who look after the
aboriginal people of Quebec. They are rarely seen. There is
the occasional meeting but half of these people ought to be out
in the communities. They ought to be in the aboriginal
communities of Quebec, in the James Bay, Chibougamau or Nunavik,
but they travel there just when the time is right for them.
1730
What must be noted however is that the aboriginal people of
Canada are good administrators. The members of the Canadian
Alliance ought to find a means of working with the government to
improve the situation of our aboriginal and Inuit friends. They
could try to find more funding for housing for Canada's native
people.
The mention of housing cannot help but lead to a discussion of
social problems. For example, a two bedroom house in Nunavut,
Nunavik or in many of the James Bay Cree communities will be
occupied by 18, 20, 21 or 22 persons, while the same sized
accommodation in Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City or even Val-d'Or
will be home to four persons.
This is due to the fact that the government does not consider
aboriginals like homeless people in their communities, since
aboriginals have the decency to invite families that do not have
a home. They invite them during the winter. In the summertime,
they go fishing or hunting. Whether it is Inuit or Cree people,
the story is the same. During the winter, our Inuit and Cree
friends invite other families to live with them.
Like Canadian Alliance members, we all agree that sound
management is necessary. Some day I would like to hear them
talk about the way to co-operate with our aboriginal friends, who
buy all their staples and food in southern communities, whether
it is in Chibougamau, Val-d'Or or Montreal. All governments
should contribute to the transportation of food by air.
I will support the motion but somewhat reluctantly. As my
friend from the Bloc Quebecois says, I will support it but I
will do no more than that. The Canadian Alliance did not choose
the proper words today to help our aboriginal and Inuit friends.
We must find solutions together because we know that social
problems exist in these isolated communities where there are no
roads.
If we really want to help our friends, we should look at the
report of the Cree-Naskapi commission—which was published in three
languages—where it says, and I quote:
A treaty implementation secretariat totally independent from the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should be
created to manage the fulfilment of the Government's obligations
under treaties and agreements.
Whether in the House of Commons or in committees, the report of
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is not consulted
often enough. This report proposes measures for our aboriginal
and Inuit friends in Canada. If we truly want to co-operate with
our friends, we should give them the possibility of directly
managing mining, forest and fishing resources, since this would
allow them to find ways to promote economic development and job
creation.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a letter addressed to
the hon. member, dated June 1, 1998, when he served as chair of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development. The letter is from the assistant deputy minister
and provides information requested by another member of the
standing committee. It refers to the Montana v Canada case
wherein there was a reference to the co-mingling of funds, and
therefore it was difficult to get full disclosure of information
concerning the moneys transferred to different bands.
I wonder, as he recalls the letter, if the member was concerned
about the nature of it in terms of issues of accountability, full
disclosure and the divulging of how funds were used. Does he
feel the motion before us today addresses the issue and that we
will be resolving the dilemma created by the Montana case? Does
he feel the motion before us is good in that respect and that it
gets us past the blockage and obstruction of the Montana case?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, as we know, there will always be
new approaches.
What I said in my remarks earlier is that you come with a motion
to try to talk about all the bands—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I should know, after
a number of years in the House of Commons, that I have to
address my comments to the Chair.
1735
For the member who has just raised a question, whether it is in
the Montana case or in any other matter in Canada, with our
aboriginal leaders, be it Matthew Coon Come, the chief of the
Assembly of First Nations, Ted Moses, the grand chief of the
James Bay Cree or Pita Aatami, of Nunavik, there will always be
new approaches.
In the Montana case, some things are not hard to understand.
Some things are readily comprehensible, but what is important
for us is to provide funding for aboriginal governments, to
improve quality of life.
I would like to say that I will steer well clear of this motion.
What is important is to improve the quality of life of every
aboriginal community in Canada. Please make the effort. Meet
the leaders of these communities, and we will find solutions
together.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have another
question for the member on a closely related matter. Would he
concur that with the motion before us members of bands and the
general public, if obstructed from getting access to documents,
would as taxpayers have access to the financial audits? Does he
think it would be good for taxpayers to be able, through access
to information requests, to get an understanding of those audited
financial statements?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, we know things are going very
well in 95% of the aboriginal communities. I will not however
be voting for your motion. I am opposed to it.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind hon. members to kindly direct
their comments to the Chair and not directly to one another.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the member was asking me if I was
in agreement with the motion. They have changed it twice today.
They introduced one and then changed it with an amendment. When
I look at it I see there is no mention of the problems of
our aboriginal friends in Canada. There is no mention of the
problems of our Inuit friends. That is what I fault the
Canadian Alliance for.
They could have gone a bit further.
There is reference to public and private funds, to “the use of
any public funds” being “publicly reported”. There will always
be audits. Hon. members are aware that the government always
has access to the books, will always be on top of things and will
always know exactly what is going on in the communities.
There may be one or two examples to the contrary but at the
present time things are going very well in the aboriginal
communities in Quebec. What needs to be addressed above all is
the quality of life, improving housing and health in order to
improve the present situation in the aboriginal communities.
[English]
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the opposition motion regarding a
financial reporting system for Canada's first nations. I want to
put the whole issue into the context of how the government is
working with first nations to create good governance and stronger
accountability.
Across the country individual community members and the Canadian
public are looking closely at first nations as they manage and
deliver their own programs and services. They expect first
nations governments to function in an accountable and effective
way. They expect their tax dollars to be spent responsibly. The
fact that most first nations manage their finances responsibly is
a testament to both the determination of first nations to manage
their resources well and the creation of a proper system of
checks and balances.
First nations management systems are becoming increasingly
important. Good governance brings certainty, stability and
community well-being. Stable and effective government creates an
environment conducive to economic growth. Sustainable governance
structures and policies will ensure that first nations can manage
economic change in an effective and responsible way.
The federal government is working with aboriginal partners to
create and support more stable, transparent fiscal models and
strong accountability processes which will strengthen the
operations of aboriginal governments.
1740
We know that economic development and self-sufficiency go hand
in hand. It is key that we agree on a vision for the country
that includes aboriginal people as active partners in our economy
and that we agree to build a comprehensive plan for inclusion in
Canada's economy, from infrastructure to resources to investment.
A common vision and strategic plan would open up vast new
opportunities for all of us to pursue. One of the hallmarks of
all of our government's policies is that economic and social
success must be pursued together. We cannot lead in innovation
and ideas without ensuring that we have healthy and secure
citizens.
When it comes to good governance many first nations are leading
by example. They are building capacity and putting into place
new policies and procedures, from conflict of interest guidelines
to human resources management policies that support sustainable
and stable governance.
We are working on a number of initiatives to develop with the
first nations sustainable governance arrangements for aboriginal
people that are built on legitimacy, authority and
accountability.
We are working with aboriginal people to explore financial
issues at a national table on fiscal relations. This initiative
could see for the first time the creation of four first nations
public institutions.
First, the First Nations Finance Authority, FNFA, was created in
1995 by the Westbank first nation. Since then it has worked with
an expanding circle of first nations to find ways and means by
which first nations might use bonds, as do other governments, for
access to longer term, more affordable financing. The circle has
benefited from its partnership with an expert in the field, the
B.C. municipal finance authority, which can secure bond financing
at rates lower than the provinces.
The proposal would see the creation of a borrowing pool.
Interested first nations may apply to be part of the borrowing
pool and will need to demonstrate strong governance and financial
management regimes to be accepted.
Legislation would be needed to give stability and legitimacy to
the FNFA, and certainly to potential investors, that first
nations have powers to borrow for these purposes. Qualifying
first nations could look to increase their return on debt by 33%
to 50%, which is a strong incentive for sound financial
management.
The second is the First Nations Tax Commission. In 1988 the
Indian Act was amended to allow interested first nations to enter
the field of property taxation. Since then, 83 first nations
have put tax bylaws into place and $163 million has been
generated for local youth.
This change was realized through the significant efforts of
former chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops first nation and members
of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, known as ITAB. Kamloops
first nation has borrowed against these new long term stable
revenue streams to make its breakthrough in economic development
for its people.
It is now being proposed that ITAB become a tax commission. To
do so, ITAB would assume powers held by the minister through a
more transparent and streamlined management regime with greater
taxpayer involvement.
The third is the First Nations Financial Management Board. The
FMB is a new organization and its initial task would be to
provide independent management assessment services required by
first nations seeking entry into the FNFA borrowing pool.
Its role, however, could grow over time as it interacts and
consults with first nation governments and administrators,
external experts and other governments. It could evolve and
build over time, much as ITAB's role has matured over past years.
The FMB would fulfil the need for a shared, sustained effort in
setting standards and rethinking current accountability
frameworks. Its work would complement the Aboriginal Financial
Officer Association of Canada's professional development and
support role.
Finally there is the First Nations Statistical Institute. As
first nations operate more at arm's length with the Government of
Canada, they need new statistical systems.
1745
There are systems to support community decision making and
accountability, and to relate to other levels of government. They
are a prerequisite to developing new Canada-first nations
transfer arrangements.
The FNSI would be partnered with, but separate from, Statistics
Canada. This partnership would support an integrated national
statistical system which would better meet the needs of first
nations and Canada alike. It would facilitate the transfer of
knowledge, experience and tools to FNSI.
These are exciting and practical developments. We expect to
hear more about these in the months ahead as we seek the mandate
to work toward legislation.
We have also put emphasis on capacity building. For example,
almost all first nations communities completed accountability and
management assessments last year, and the first ever designations
were awarded for certified aboriginal financial managers.
The AFOA has made great strides in fulfilling a critical need
for well-trained financial staff supported by a strong code of
ethics which are fundamental to good governance.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is also leading a major
review of its transfer payment business process by offering
government online. This move would definitely improve the
administration of transfer payments to first nations. The new
system would be capable of handling a wide variety of first
nations funding arrangements. Technology will play a major role
in making this vision a reality.
There will be full automation, full electronic access to the
system, online reporting and electronic access to the data and
information needed to make the system work. The system will be
driven by principles of transparency, disclosure and
accountability. All these initiatives depend on building a new
relationship and strengthening our partnership with aboriginal
people.
It is through partnerships that we can most effectively pool our
talents, our ideas and our resources. It is through partnerships
that we can make real and lasting progress. We are addressing
the issues and giving aboriginal people greater control over
their own lives, and we have begun to see some positive results.
The gap in living conditions between aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people has narrowed. Education levels have
improved. Unemployment has dropped and housing conditions and
basic infrastructure from roads to water have improved.
There is no question that as we try to design this new modern
relationship with aboriginal people, we must balance the past
with the future and meet new economic challenges. We have our
work cut out for us and it definitely will not happen overnight.
However, we need to clear up some myths and misconceptions so
that people understand that first nations people and the Inuit
are contributing members of society and part of the broader
Canadian family.
We need to demonstrate that first nations government are good
governments run on sound principles and accountable to the people
they represent. The measures we are developing to ensure greater
accountability and good governance are a good start, and they are
beginning to show real results. They recognize that all
Canadians have a role to play in tackling the challenges facing
aboriginal communities.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the
constituents of Calgary East to speak on today's supply day
motion sponsored by the Canadian Alliance. I thank my colleague
for Nanaimo—Cowichan for his excellent work in bringing this
motion forward for debate.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to restate the motion before I begin my
comments. The motion states:
That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements
between the Federal Government and individual Indians Bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.
When Canadians look at what happening on reserves and what is
happening with our brothers and sisters from the aboriginal
communities, there is a kind of sadness and puzzlement. We have
a huge amount of money being transferred to assist and to uplift
the living standards of our brothers and sisters from the first
nations.
1750
When we look at what has gone on over the years, when we look at
what is happening and when we look at the conditions on the
reserves, we have to ask what is going on. Something is not
right.
I commend the speaker who just spoke before me. She is from the
first nations. I commend the efforts made by the first nations
in working to bring their communities on par with the rest of the
Canadians. I do not think anyone in the House would dispute what
she said. I would like to be on the record of saying that I
agree with what she said today. That is the essence of the
debate is here today.
This motion is asking that all the public moneys that are
transferred to the first nation bands be accounted for and be
publicly reported and audited. The purpose is very simple. There
has to be transparency and accountability. Without that we know
there is a tendency to misuse funds. There is a tendency to
maybe allocate funds to programs which may not be universally
accessible to the communities or maybe even directed toward a
smaller number. These are things that happen when there is no
accountability and no transparency.
The motion in no way states that we, the Canadian Alliance
members, do not have confidence in the first nations to run their
affairs. We are very positive they have the confidence to do so.
We are positive they can take destiny in their own hands, address
these issues, move ahead and become part and parcel of the
multicultural mosaic. We are rated the number one country in the
world, yet when we look at what is happening on the reserves and
with the first nations, we pause, we stand, we shake our heads
and say that there is something wrong.
Speakers have highlighted ways and means that we can address
these issues. It is time to address this issue. We cannot let
this injustice carry on, not in Canada.
What is the the problem? The problem is not money, obviously.
The total amount of money that is spent by the Indian affairs
department on reserves is close to $20,000 for every individual.
The delivery of the programs and where the money has been spent
is an issue. I do not think we are going to stand up and start
accusing people about where this money is going or that it has
been misused. The motion states that the funds should be
publicly reported and audited. We are asking for accountability
and transparency.
The leaders of the bands have a responsibility to be accountable
and transparent. They cannot hide behind the fact that because
they are leaders they are accountable to no one and that if the
funds come to them they can go ahead and do whatever with them.
The first nations are people of Canada as well. The funds are
going to help them. When we look at fellow Canadians living in
conditions which are deplorable, then we absolutely have every
right to ask why is this happening.
1755
I have had the occasion to talk to many members of the first
nations. A lot have stated that many in their reserves are doing
very well. I commend those who are. I met many individuals from
first nations who are extremely wealthy. They are are seizing
the opportunities that are presented and are moving ahead. This
makes us happy because they are our citizens. That is what we
want. We want our brothers and sisters from first nations to
share in the wealth, to share in the prosperity and to share in
the future that I hope this nation collectively presents.
I heard the members across, who are from first nations, say that
they are part and parcel of Canada. They are Canadian citizens.
We should ask ourselves why can our follow citizens not grab the
opportunities? Why are they not part and parcel of the same
mosaic that everybody else is?
Therefore, we should start somewhere and this motion is a start.
Asking for accountability does not mean that at the end of the
day it will solve all the problems which are occurring. However,
it is a start and we need to carry on. This is what we as
parliamentarians are doing tonight. We have a voice and a say
because these are public funds.
I neglected to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time
with my colleague from Skeena.
In conclusion, I am pleased to state that I am supporting this
motion. I know, at the end of the day, it will help my my fellow
Canadians get out of the deplorable situation which some of them
are in. It will help them become equal partners.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the business
of supply proposed by my Canadian Alliance colleague, the member
of parliament for Nanaimo—Cowichan, which reads:
That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements
between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the
use of any public funds be publicly reported and accurately
audited.
This motion is important in that it asks the government to
ensure that the amount and use of public funds by an Indian band
are accurately accounted for and those details made available to
the public.
This may seem like a normal request but it is not. Currently
Indian band books are exempt from requests under the Access to
Information Act. Members of parliament or any other member of
the public cannot request a band to account for the spending
decisions they made with taxpayer dollars.
This motion, if passed, would dramatically change the way Indian
bands handle their public funding. This would mean a positive
change for the individual band members and an end to the
potential for corruption which currently exists. I am not saying
that every band council in Canada is corrupt. On the contrary, I
am saying that the system is currently set up to allow for, and
some would say foster, that kind of endeavour. This motion
ensures clear accounting and auditing of public funds used by
Indian bands. This should be the norm, but it is not.
Let me talk a bit about accountability, a word that in today's
society is sometimes less valued than it should be. To be held
accountable for one's action should be the norm in society.
Whether we are talking about a government, a corporation or a
member of the general public, we must all be accountable for our
actions. When it comes to the public trust, and as such, public
funds, accountability means much more.
With regard to government spending, the public and members of
parliament have access to the public accounts report generated
each year on the spending of each federal government department.
This report is generated to ensure spending accountability by
each department.
1800
As a member of the opposition I will say that we still do find
fault with some parts of government spending, but at least we
have the ability to review the spending and call the government
to task on it. In the case of Indian bands we do not and that is
the crux of the motion.
Furthermore, a standing committee of the House can call any
minister to its meeting to be held accountable for spending
within his or her department. This is a process which begins
very soon with part III of the estimates being tabled in the
House in April. We do not have this kind of access to the
spending intentions of Indian bands. Since public funds are
being used, we should have that ability.
It is quite simple. An open, accountable process to review and
audit the spending of public funds by Indian bands ensures the
reduction, if not elimination, of abuse. That is an endeavour I
strongly support.
Some may ask why does the public need to make Indian bands
accountable for their spending and to ensure that accurate
auditing takes place. Should we not just trust that funding as
being put to good use and that the individual band members would
ensure their band council which receives the federal funding
spends this money wisely?
That is basically what the federal government has been doing,
and individual band members will tell members themselves the
system does not work. There are cases where band councils hold
open meetings and ensure that band members are advised of and
agree to their spending priorities. Unfortunately it is those
band councils that do not subscribe to such an open process that
have abused the system. That necessitates the change.
I am concerned for the members of those Indian bands when I say
that the system does not work and needs to be changed. Open and
accurate accounting and auditing of federal funds would force
band councils to spend their federal dollars on items deemed a
priority to the entire band and its members, and not just those
of the band council, its chief or other individual members. Such
openness would ensure that the department would be held
accountable if it continued to fund Indian bands which have a
history of misusing their funds.
The situation faced by Indian band members on reserves in many
cases is deplorable. Driving through some reserves we find
absolutely terrible housing conditions tremendously below
national standards. It may surprise some to know that one-third
of aboriginal people on reserves live in overcrowded conditions,
that 50% of aboriginal children live in poverty, and that the
infant mortality rate is twice as high for aboriginal children
and three times as high for Inuit than for other Canadian
children. This is a nightmare.
More than that, alcoholism, suicide, illness and crime rates are
three times higher than for non-aboriginal people. It is
deplorable, and yet with all the funding the federal government
sends to Indian bands on reserves to try to curb these problems,
to address these concerns it still persists.
Why? It is a fact that 25% of Canada's aboriginal bands are
being run under remedial management plans, with a combined debt
of just over $139 million. A survey of 300 band councils done by
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development found
that the most common problem was a lack of control on conflict of
interest. This is incredible. Yet just over $18 billion was
spent on aboriginal specific programming over the fiscal years
1997 to 2000 from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and other departments to create a myriad of programs
exclusively to remedy this situation, but to no avail.
I must ask if the government really believes that sending more
money without the needed accountability will solve this problem.
I do not think so.
Members in the House may wonder why I am so passionate about
this issue. They probably think my only concern is the public
purse. To that I say that in my riding of Skeena there are some
32 reserves, with a total population of just over 30,000 people.
As their elected member of parliament I have a responsibility to
ensure that their concerns and interests are met, along with
those of the rest of the population of my riding.
To that end an ongoing overall level of accountability from
elected on reserve representatives is paramount. I am supporting
the motion because I truly believe it will make a difference, not
only to those 30,000 constituents of mine but to the many
hundreds of thousands of band members living on reserves
throughout Canada.
We owe it to the individual band members, the ones coming to us
complaining about the system, wanting change, to do just that. We
must institute positive and needed change, as well as
accountability where there previously was none.
This can make an enormous difference in the lives of everyday
aboriginal people living on reserves.
1805
With accountability comes proper spending priorities and, as
such, ensures that money earmarked by the department to help deal
with some of the problems I mentioned earlier actually makes it
to those programs.
Yes, we have a huge problem on some of our reserves. Let us
take this opportunity, in the House, with this motion to make a
difference.
I urge all members, particularly Liberal members, to support the
motion. Accountability in public funding to Indian bands can
only help. I urge members to join the Canadian Alliance in
supporting the motion that is truly in the best interest of band
members.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to
respond to a question that occurred to me based on some remarks
that were made by the auditor general.
It has been said that one way in which the government avoids
having to enforce accountability measures in its dealing with
bands is by not collecting information on allegations and then
referring back to it so it can learn from specific cases. In
other words, we need to learn from history or we will repeat the
same mistakes.
The auditor general said that the department does not have a
national reporting system to help process the allegations. It
does not have an overall picture of the nature and the frequency
of the allegations that show the ultimate disposition, the
conditions leading to the allegations and the areas of high and
low risk within and among different Indian bands and their impact
on accountability and funding arrangements.
The auditor general made a request for information on
allegations to various regional offices around the country. One
of the regional offices responded that it did not know how many
allegations it had received during the past two years.
It is fine for members of the House to say that there are really
no problems, but if there is no reporting and regional offices
say that they do not know how many allegations there are, it is
easy to say there are no problems.
Would the member feel it to be a good thing, as the auditor
general infers, to have a listing and a proper process whereby we
know the ultimate disposition of these cases, the conditions
leading to the allegations, the areas of high and low risk and so
on, and the impact on accountability and funding arrangements?
Would he agree with the inferences of the auditor general that we
need something like that so that we can catalogue and learn from
history so we do not repeat these mistakes and Indian people
would be better served all across Canada?
Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are a
number of flaws in the system and questions like that are not
being properly addressed.
I know in my riding the previous member received many letters
from various concerned groups. It happens right across Canada.
Our party is aware of a lot of these problems. Through proper
accounting and proper auditing processes, many of these problems
will definitely be highlighted and will possibly be dealt with in
a better manner.
I certainly agree that the government should institute some kind
of official reporting process so that when these problems occur
they can be documented and dealt with. Possibly, when funding is
being allocated to the various groups, these concerns would be
taken into account and dealt with so that there would be proper
accountability all the way down the line. In this way, dollars
would be properly spent and would go toward the programs for
which they were earmarked.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have for some time had an
interest in charities and the transparency and accountability of
non-profit organizations.
Some years ago, I did an examination of the T3010 tax returns of
all kinds of charities to see how vigilant Revenue Canada was in
examining these returns. These returns require charities to
identify the revenues, how much they are paying individuals, how
much in donations and so forth. They are quite elaborate.
1810
I got returns from all kinds of charities: ethnic groups,
churches, service organizations and, I should say, aboriginal
friendship societies. In surveying these returns, I did find
mistakes and errors. I compared these returns with the financial
reports of the charities themselves and found all kinds of
inconsistencies.
With the aboriginal friendship groups, what I found is that
these T-3010 returns to Revenue Canada were completely blank.
They were sent in and properly addressed to Revenue Canada, but
there was not a single line filled out. Obviously this had been
going on for some time and I had to ask myself the question: is
the fact that these official returns to Revenue Canada, the fact
that they are blank and not checked, is it because they are being
sent in by aboriginals and are they blank because the aboriginals
know when they send them in that they will not be checked?
It raises a very serious question about whether Revenue Canada,
on the one side, and the aboriginals who are responsible for
sending these returns in for these friendship societies, on the
other, whether they had both decided that because we were dealing
with aboriginals, a less high standard of accountability was
expected of them. In fact it was ludicrous because, as I say,
these returns were completely blank so no accountability was
required at all.
Later I became a member of the aboriginal affairs committee and
I spent several years as a committee member hearing of the
problems on the various reserves around the country. Then it
became very apparent that in regard to many of the reserves that
were in trouble, the trouble revolved around the fact that
government money was going into these reserves and was not being
spent on the programs. It also became very clear that for years
earlier, decades earlier, governments had not expected or
required of aboriginal groups to meet the same standards of
transparency and accountability in their financial management as
they would require of just about any other group.
This was a clear example in my mind of the kind of evil
paternalism—and I really mean that—it is an evil paternalism
that sets people aside by race and lowers the expectations of
them. I see no distinction between what has happened to our
aboriginal communities because we as a parliament have required
less of them than what has happened with the residential schools.
We have before us a motion which I believe is going to be
matched by legislation from the Indian and northern affairs
minister that is long, long overdue. On all sides of the House
we should support the legislation because at last we are saying
to our aboriginal brothers, shall we say, “You are just like us.
You are one of us”. But, Mr. Speaker, what we have been doing
for so long is we have been willing to give them self-government.
We have been willing to give them the benefit of control over
large tracts of land, but we have not given them the same
responsibility that we expect of everyone else. This has to end.
I would say that this motion which simply requires of aboriginal
communities to meet the same standards of financial transparency,
to submit to audit, that we would expect of any municipality,
that we would expect of any corporation, of any charity—what we
certainly should expect of a charity—we should expect of
aboriginal groups.
I really do believe that this is one time in which we are very
much all on the same wavelength in the House. I do not know
whether the motion will be supported unanimously, but, Mr.
Speaker, you can be darn certain that I will be voting for it.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
1815
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on the main
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRADE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising today to speak to a question I asked on
February 28 with regard to dealing with trade issues in the sugar
industry. As we all know, the upcoming summit of the Americas
conference to be held in Quebec City will be important to many
Canadians.
As a member of parliament for Lethbridge, Alberta, agriculture
is a vital industry to my constituents. The sugar beet industry
is a large part of that agricultural industry.
The Alberta sugar beet growers and the Canadian Sugar Institute
are very concerned about the upcoming meetings, particularly with
regard to agreements with Central American countries. They are
worried about the minor tariff that protects Canada's domestic
refined sugar industry from outside takeover. They are worried
that this tariff may be lifted during bargaining and used as a
lever in sealing a deal.
They are concerned that any bilateral agreement with Central
American countries would disadvantage our sugar industry. They
are concerned that an agreement would provide no meaningful
export opportunity for them and would actually expose Canadian
producers to trade distorting imports.
Exports of both raw and refined sugar from the C-4 countries
totalled 1.7 million tonnes in 1999. Those countries have a huge
surplus waiting to pour into our already well served domestic
sugar market.
Canada already has the most open sugar market in the world. It
should not be pressured into making further concessions while
other countries intervene in their own markets and transfer those
distortions on to ours.
Canada already imports nearly half the sugar shipped into North
America annually. The Canadian sugar industry is already
competing with imports of refined sugar from Central America and
the imports are growing at a rapid and alarming rate. Any deal
that would see the Canadian tariff lifted would worsen the
current imbalance in sugar policies, intensifying the competition
in the Canadian market while not providing a reciprocal market
for Canada in Central America.
Any reduction or elimination of Canada's most favoured nation
tariff on refined sugar threatens the viability of Canada's cane
sugar refining and sugar beet industry.
The Canadian cane sugar refining and sugar beet processing
industry has made recent capital investments in excess of $150
million. In the context of the current international trade
environment, the way the trade system is now, if the most
favoured nation tariff is removed it would threaten the viability
of our industry's investments. I need to stress that merely a
fraction of current exports waiting to flood in from Central
America would threaten the closure of Canadian refineries.
While paying a visit to my constituency, the Prime Minister's
task force on western Canada promised the Alberta Sugar Beet
Growers Association that sugar would not be traded off again.
Will the government live up to that promise and guarantee sugar
beet farmers and all of Canada's sugar industry that their
livelihoods will not be put in jeopardy at the upcoming summit?
1820
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is aware of the
concerns of the Canadian sugar industry with respect to the
ongoing negotiations with Costa Rica and has consulted with the
industry extensively. We are committed to a process of full
consultation and we will take into account these concerns as we
seek to conclude negotiations.
The Government of Canada is also aware of the obstacles facing
the Canadian sugar industry in the global market, and in
particular, the uneven playing field created by the existing
trade distorting sugar policies. Canada will continue to be
vigilant in pursuing a stabilization of this market through the
removal of trade distorting domestic support in the context of
the ongoing World Trade Association negotiations on agriculture.
As for the status of negotiations with Costa Rica, the last
round of negotiations took place from February 19 to 23 of this
year. The talks were productive and the discussions were
especially helpful in terms of better understanding each
country's particular sensitivities. Minister Pettigrew also had
the opportunity to review the status of the negotiations in a
recent meeting with the Costa Rican trade minister. Some key
issues still have to be resolved, including the area of market
access, and we will continue to seek an agreement that meets
Canada's interests. Negotiators will meet again shortly to
revisit the outstanding issues and see how negotiations can move
forward.
Canada's overall objective in the Canada-Costa Rica FTA
negotiations is to eliminate tariffs on key Canadian exports and
to secure preferential access for Canadian businesses to the
Costa Rican market. Last year we exported to Costa Rica $102.9
million worth of goods and we imported $176.1 million worth of
goods. Costa Rica has one of the most dynamic economies in
Central America and we see room for growth.
Canada is also striving to establish a comprehensive framework
on the competition policy that will serve as a model for the
region, as well as to make trade procedures more efficient in
order to reduce delays and formalities for Canadian businesses.
Side agreements to address labour and environmental issues are
also being pursued.
From a broader perspective, a free trade agreement with Costa
Rica would deepen Canada's bilateral relationship at all levels
with this dynamic Central American country and signal Canada's
continued commitment to the hemisphere, a commitment which
includes the creation of a free trade area of the Americas by
2005.
COAST GUARD
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning
cutbacks to the coast guard services in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister's department has
announced that it is going to be scaling back coast guard
services in the province.
When I raised the question with the minister, he basically said
that it was all part of consolidation and consolidation was going
to give us better service, so that instead of cutting back on the
service to the province, the department was really enhancing
coast guard services.
In a province with a coast line such as Newfoundland has, when
we reduce an already diminished service by taking away a search
and rescue vessel, by taking away one helicopter, I find it very
hard to understand how we are going to improve service. Some
people may ask “What is one helicopter?” However, by taking
away one helicopter, the fleet has been reduced by 50%. We had
four. One crashed a while ago. Now they are taking away one
other.
The government is also going to take away the manning of 11
lighthouses so we will have another 11 automatic lighthouses in
the province. As well, it is going to back away from involvement
in the freeing of whales that get caught up in cod traps in
particular and in other fishing gear around the province.
An hon. member: And this is improved service.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Yes, and this is improved service. The
minister tries to tell us that this is going to improve our
service.
Along with that, a certain amount of the maintenance work was
done in the yards in Stephenville, an area where work has been
reduced significantly over the years. Ever since the closing of
the base, that area has been just hammered.
1825
Governments should try to help wherever they can and add to the
employment potential in the area such as Stephenville. They are
taking away services that are badly needed, and of course other
services being provided within St. John's.
We were told by people involved in the whale industry that there
were services being provided to help free whales, but they
depended upon the back up of the coast guard. If this service is
taken away, its services certainly are not going to be enhanced.
To everybody's chagrin across the country, last week three young
people fell off ice pans in the town of Pouch Cove in
Newfoundland. The coast guard was involved. Along with the
co-ordination of the RNC, the RCMP and the local people, the
coast guard quickly found one of the bodies. However, for two or
three days the coast guard was searching for the others and the
local people were asked to stay out of it. Finally, the
knowledge that local people know best took over and the fishermen
put out their small boats, despite rough seas and stormy weather.
They were the ones who found the two bodies that had not been
recovered at that time.
It was great to know that the coast guard vessels were there for
protection and enhancement. Had one of those vessels been
reduced, it might have meant a boat which was badly needed at
that time would not have been there.
We are getting to the period of the year when we go into the
seal fishery. All around the coast of Newfoundland, particularly
the north-northeast coast, we have fisherman prosecuting the seal
fishery in small boats. Consequently, it is this time of year
that the protection of the coast guard is used quite often and is
badly needed.
I can go on all night with examples. However, I fail to see how
a cutback in services like this enhances the protection of the
people of Newfoundland.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to
the hon. member's interest in the management of marine safety,
service and protection of the marine environment, particularly as
it is carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in
the Newfoundland region.
The Canadian coast guard Newfoundland region's renewal plan is
an example of good management of public funds to produce
essential services for Canadians in an effective and cost
efficient manner.
This is not an overall resource reduction exercise. This plan
was developed over a number of months by the regional coast guard
management team to identify inefficiencies and to redirect
funding to higher and emerging priorities within the Newfoundland
region. These reallocations are made possible by the coast
guard's continuing commitment to utilize modern technology and
management in order to maintain and enhance service to Canadians.
For example, as a result of this exploitation of new technology,
the coast guard has added approximately 600 new navigational aids
to the marine safety system in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has
also added lights to all of the remaining unlighted buoys.
With regard to the essential search and rescue services provided
to Canadians by the men and women of the coast guard, I am
pleased to remind the hon. member that the government last year
allocated an additional $115 million to marine search and rescue
in Canada. Part of this new money will find improvements in the
search and rescue system in Newfoundland. Two new, modern, high
speed lifeboats will be added to the Newfoundland region and
stationed on the west coast of the island. This will enhance the
coast guard's ability to provide search and rescue services in
the area. Established service levels will be maintained in other
areas of the region by using other vessels in the regional coast
guard fleet.
The coast guard is committed to the well-being of its employees
and to ensuring that they have the necessary modern equipment,
skills and training to maintain the high level of services they
provide to Canadians.
An integral part of the regional renewal strategy is the
reinvestment of savings into staff training and development and
equipment replacement and maintenance. I am also pleased to
report that these changes being made in the Newfoundland region
will not result in the involuntary layoff of any indeterminate
staff.
1830
It is also anticipated that many temporary employees who lose
their current employment may well have future employment
opportunities with the coast guard as retirements and the normal
turnover of existing staff take place.
In summary, the Canadian Coast Guard's renewal plan in
Newfoundland and Labrador is good news for Canadians in general
and particularly for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The
services of the coast guard are not only being maintained but in
many cases are being enhanced. Mariners can continue to rely on
the women and men of the coast guard and the important services
they deliver, and know that they will be there when needed to
preserve and protect life, property and the marine environment.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind members that during this
part of our day there are still time restrictions. I was very
generous tonight with the two minute limit because only two
questions were raised. However I hope the message would be
passed on to those able to effect changes so responses could be
fully given without interruption from the Chair.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)