Lloyd St. Amand

[May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for some 15 months the government has done virtually nothing to recognize the crisis that the tobacco industry is in and nothing to alleviate the severe strain being placed on tobacco farmers and their communities.

The dramatic decline of the tobacco industry in southern Ontario has truly devastated communities, affecting the livelihoods of thousands of citizens of rural southern Ontario.

Tobacco farmers are understandably very concerned about the future of their business and the future of their communities. A number of contributing factors have created a veritable perfect storm for tobacco farmers.

In 2002 they were advised by tobacco companies to reinvest heavily in sophisticated new machinery, which is now of little use to them as production has dropped off very substantially. In total, tobacco farmers, and there are only hundreds of them, invested $65 million to keep their industry and their livelihoods afloat. As well, over the past several years both levels of government have introduced legislation and programs to effectively shut down the tobacco industry.

While governments have properly educated consumers about the perils of smoking, governments have continued to benefit from the sale of tobacco, bringing in approximately $9 billion each year in taxes levied on tobacco products. Additionally, with an increase in illegal and contraband cigarettes entering the Canadian market, tobacco producers are unable to financially compete any longer.

Before the government was elected, its members called on the government at that time to provide a suitable buyout package to farmers. In 2004, for instance, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, criticized the then Liberal government's program as too cheap in providing $71 million to tobacco producers. Yet after 15 months of governing, not a single cent has been provided by the government to tobacco farmers.

The harsh reality is tobacco farmers are in a severe financial crisis and a comprehensive exit strategy has been promised to them for some several months. It is time for the federal government to act, not to talk. The so-called high level meetings have gone on and on and the discussions are becoming circular with no apparent end in sight. The federal government should and must commit immediately to a solid exit strategy for tobacco producers and must stop talking about yet another round of talks.

Precedents have been set in other tobacco producing countries. Exit strategies have been provided, for instance, to tobacco farmers in both Australia and the United States. It is time that Canadian tobacco farmers received similar fair treatment.

On March 8 of this year I received a letter from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stating, “The sector's difficulties remain an important concern to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada”. Is that concern, I ask? Nothing was provided in the budget for the hundreds of tobacco farmers who are in very desperate straits. On March 22, the minister stated in the House that he, “realized the very difficult situation for tobacco growers, especially in Ontario”.

When does the minister intend to demonstrate real leadership, real concern for the tobacco farmers and provide a buyout package for them?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Welland, on his speech. He is typically very thoughtful and analytical and certainly his speech today is a reflection of those qualities.

I would like to ask him specifically about feedback, if any, from constituents in his riding. I will put this in the context of what I have heard from constituents in my riding of Brant, which is essentially that there is widespread approval for the passage of Bill C-22. My constituents tell me that the age of consent in fact should be raised from 14 to 16 and that by and large they are content with the five year close in age exemption, recognizing that there has to be some close in age exemption.

I wonder if the member for Welland has heard similar things from his constituents.

[Automobile Industry, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, manufacturers and dealers of Canadian vehicles are disappointed with the government. The feebate policy in the budget levies a tax on Canadian made, advanced technology engines, a tax that will cost GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler $55 million.

The government announced this policy without consulting the industry, without realizing that the policy will punish Canadian manufacturers.

These levies will have an adverse effect in that consumers will keep their older vehicles longer, vehicles not as environmentally friendly as today's vehicles. The levies also penalize those who require larger vehicles for their families.

The measure does nothing to combat rising emissions. Canadians who want to purchase more fuel efficient, alternative fuel vehicles can do so but the infrastructure required to fuel those vehicles does not exist.

Experts note that feebates cost consumers more with little benefit to the environment and hamper our vital auto industry. The government should immediately address this flawed policy.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, OPP commissioner Julian Fantino has had enough of the government's failures in Caledonia. The Ontario Provincial Police are under pressure because it is holding back both sides in the dispute. However, the Minister of Indian Affairs is nowhere on this file.

Residents of Caledonia are wondering why the government is missing in action. The only thing the minister has done is to appoint a Conservative retread with no land claim experience and no mandate to negotiate.

Why will the minister not lift a finger and actually solve the dispute?

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the truth and reconciliation process is a significant component of the overall resolution, but I hope that within not so many days the Prime Minister will be on his feet formally apologizing on behalf of the Government of Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the truth and reconciliation commission is a significant component of an overall resolution of this dark chapter of Canada's past, but it is no more or less a component of the resolution than a formal dignified apology by the Prime Minister of our country to survivors and victims of residential schools.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, hopes springs eternal and I hope that in the fullness of time this motion will pass and the Prime Minister will see fit to apologize to survivors and victims of residential schools. In my view, there is absolutely no rational or logical reason for such an apology not to come from the Prime Minister, not to come from the government.

I do not think we need to overly legalize this situation. Constituents in my riding are telling me, overwhelmingly, that they want the government to apologize to survivors and victims, that they want us to move forward together.

I hope the Prime Minister, as with the Chinese head tax, will see fit to apologize to Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Etobicoke North.

I am pleased to speak in support of the motion brought by my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

The House of Commons, Canada's body of elected representatives of all Canadians, is asked to apologize to the survivors of Indian residential schools.

The House is being asked to apologize to the survivors for the trauma which they suffered as a direct result of policies whose purpose or intention was to assimilate first nations, Inuit and Métis children. The apology is for causing the loss of their culture, their heritage and their language. The apology is for leaving a sad legacy of emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

An apology is entirely appropriate and is ethically and morally the right thing, the proper thing, to do.

For several decades, the Government of Canada was complicit, with certain churches, in implementing a policy toward aboriginal children and their parents, which was cruel, meanspirited, racist and contrary to the principles which govern our nation, and certainly contrary to the moral and ethical fibre which Canadians of good conscience posses.

I was pleased to hear earlier today the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say, “The House should apologize and I am confident at the end of the day that the House will apologize”. I am confident at the end of the day that the House will apologize.

He was further correct when he stated, in response to a question, “Frankly, there are members in every single party in this House of Commons that deserve some credit from bringing this matter forward through to the resolution of the May 8, 2006 agreement”.

As was the Minister of Indian Affairs, as well as the now Minister of Natural Resources and the now Minister of Revenue, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I heard stories from survivors, which were jarring in their impact and absolutely convinced me that the manner in which young children were treated was despicable and remains, arguably, the largest single blight on Canada's essentially unblemished record as a beacon of decency toward and respect for all citizens.

I have the privilege of representing the most populated first nations community in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. Within my riding of Brant was a residential school, the Mohawk Institute. I have spoken to many survivors of that facility.

The Mohawk Institute was one of several residential schools for Indian children in Canada and was part of the Indian education system administered by the Department of Indian Affairs.

The Mohawk Institute was founded by the New England Company in the period 1828 to 1834. The New England Company was originally known as “The Company for Propagation of the Gospel in New England and the Parts Adjacent in America”. Its mandate was to propagate the Christian religion to and among “heathen natives” and to civilize, teach and instruct the said heathen natives and their children.

The New England Company operated the Mohawk Institute residential school until 1922 with, financial assistance from the Department of Indian Affairs . In 1922, the company entered into a lease agreement with the Department of Indian Affairs, whereby the Department agreed to continue and maintain the institute as an educational institution for Indian boys and girls.

Paul Dixon is a survivor of the Mohawk Institute. Paul Dixon tells his story:

I remember getting on the bus the first time we were taken to the Mohawk Institute Residential School in Brantford, Ontario. I was six years old and had no idea where we were headed. Some of the kids only had an apple or a sandwich for the 24-hour journey. We were hungry, and some kids were crying; it was very sad right from the beginning....

My father was told by the Indian Agent that their welfare and family allowance would be cut off if he didn’t allow his children to go. He was also coerced into sending us to learn the white man’s way when he was told by the Indian Agent that if he didn’t, we would have no future...

I learned in residential school to love and trust nobody. That’s what they taught me by how we were treated. The only time I told my mother I loved her was on her deathbed, which is something I regret to this day.

When you go through something like that you become very scared of intimacy and sharing your feelings....

I didn’t know right from wrong as far as sexual abuse. How was I supposed to know what an adult can and cannot do to me as a child? Keys were thrown at us, we were beaten with thick black straps along with fists.

Paul Dixon now has three children of his own. As he says:

I always tell my children I love them. I get pushed away because I want to kiss them, even if they’re no longer kids. I want to make sure they feel loved like every child should.

Paul Dixon is only one of many survivors or victims of residential schools abuse at the Mohawk Institute in Brantford. The school was a place where large numbers of native children were brought to live, to work, ostensibly to learn, while being cut off from their families and their first nations communities. The children lived in an atmosphere of intimidation, brutality and fear and they were forbidden in any way to maintain their native culture.

They were taken from their homes and dealt with, often in a very harsh fashion, by total strangers whose intention was to turn them into non-natives, non-aboriginals, non-first nations, non-Métis, non-Inuit, in other words, to turn them into persons completely different from their genetic makeup, completely different from their culture, completely different from their traditions, completely different from their parents.

It is entirely appropriate that the House and the Prime Minister apologize to the still living survivors or victims of residential schools. As was noted by Dutch physician Paul Boese, “Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future”.

Without a proper, dignified, formal apology provided by the House and our Prime Minister, on behalf of all Canadians, to the victims who were wronged and treated dishonourably, we cannot in good conscience ask them to forgive the Canadian government for the manner in which they were treated.

We need to move on in our relationship with survivors of residential school abuse. We need to apologize to them, to reach out to them and to verbalize in as sincere and profound a fashion as possible that we are sorry for what happened for those decades. We need to understand that the past cannot be changed, but that reconciling ourselves with the past will in fact enlarge our future together as peoples who share this part of God's earth.

I commend my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, who has brought forward this motion, as well as my colleague, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who seconded the motion.

I hope all members of the House will see fit to join in apologizing to survivors of residential schools.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Yukon's very thoughtful and moving speech.

The member for Yukon has an extraordinary awareness of and a sensitivity to the issues which affect Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis. He is constantly alert to issues which affect Canada's first peoples.

I would like to ask him about an apology. My riding of Brant includes the most populated first nations community in Canada, the Six Nations of the Grand River, some 22,000 individuals. I consider it an extreme privilege to represent these good people from Six Nations.

I have not heard aboriginals or non-aboriginals say that the government should not apologize for one of the most dishonourable deeds the government was ever complicit in. Not a single individual has said to me that we do not need to apologize, or maybe we should not apologize, or maybe there are complications. Every last person with whom I speak says that we should apologize, that it is the honourable thing to do. There cannot be forgiveness unless there is an apology. We cannot move forward unless there is an apology.

I am wondering if the member for Yukon, whom I greatly respect, has heard similar comments from his constituents.

[Petitions, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by several hundred informed constituents in my riding who are sensitive about the environment and the habitat of the northern spotted owl in British Columbia.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure the survival of the species, the northern spotted owl, and the protection of its habitat from logging or any kind of further development under the Species at Risk Act.