Paul Devillers

[Games of La Francophonie, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is now receiving representations regarding the Games of La Francophonie to be held in Rivière-du-Loup.

We have policies in place to do these studies in order to determine the amount of the support we can provide. We are now studying the problem.

[Privilege, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the motion was debated for the entire sitting day on Friday following the Speaker's ruling. All members have had ample opportunity to take part in the debate. On several occasions the Speaker has had to intervene to refocus the debate so members could stay on topic.

At the beginning of the debate the government indicated that it would be supporting the motion unequivocally. There is very little that can be further added to the debate at this time. I suggest the real work needs to be done in committee.

I would therefore move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-37, the claim settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) implementation act. I am pleased to be presenting this legislation for a third and final reading.

I want to begin by thanking hon. members for supporting Bill C-37 at second reading, when members from all parties spoke in favour of the legislation. I also want to thank the standing committee for its thorough examination of Bill C-37.

First nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan, with the full support of the government, want to move forward. It is time to fulfill Canada's treaty land entitlement commitments and implement specific claim settlements agreements in these two provinces.

Bill C-37 would facilitate this process by expediting the acquisition and transfer of lands to reserve status in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

As hon. members will recall, we currently have a backlog of about a million hectares, or two million acres, of land that has yet to be added to reserves as a result of claim settlements in these two provinces, and even more commitments are expected in the future.

Members will have realized that this bill deals mainly with administrative matters. Nevertheless, it will bring changes which we expect will yield important improvements in the implementation of claim settlements.

For example, the existing additions to reserves process simply was not designed to accommodate such a volume of work in an expedient or efficient manner.

In addition, today many of the lands first nations are selecting to add to their reserves have third party interests, such as leases or mineral rights, that need to be addressed.

Although a number of mechanisms exist in federal law for accommodating third party interests, these are not currently available for the purposes of adding lands to reserves.

Changes are needed, progressive changes that will allow the government to meet its commitments to first nations people, as we promised to do in “Gathering Strength”, our response to the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, and in the recent Speech from the Throne.

Changes are needed that will allow us to get the job done quicker, while respecting the rights of everyone involved and providing new opportunities for first nations to build their economies and create jobs in their communities.

Bill C-37 passes the test on all accounts. It would protect and even enhance the rights of other parties. It would speed up the process for first nations and give them access to a broader range of lands that have existing commercial interests and development potential.

I would like to quickly review the key elements of the bill so that hon. members can appreciate what we are trying to do and why they should support the government and first nations in this process.

First, Bill C-37 would empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to grant reserve status to lands that are selected by Alberta and Saskatchewan first nations under claim settlements. This would replace the current process of obtaining an order in council. We expect this change will shorten the time needed to approve additions to reserves which in turn would allow any economic benefits associated with the lands to be realized more quickly by the first nations. More importantly however, Bill C-37 would streamline the process for dealing with third party interests in lands selected for additions to reserves under claim settlements.

This will be achieved by giving first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan pre-reserve designation and permit granting powers that will allow them to agree to continue an existing third party interest or to negotiate a new one in selected lands before the lands become part of a reserve, and even before the lands are purchased.

Under the existing process, any such interests must either be bought out or otherwise accommodated before the land can be transferred to Canada and granted reserve status.

As I noted a moment ago, this improved pre-reserve designation power will give first nations access to a broader range of lands that have development interests or potential. Because these lands can be selected and acquired more quickly, any third party interests associated with them will contribute sooner to economic and social progress in the community.

First nations will not be the only ones to win from these new mechanisms. All concerned parties, including private sector developers, landowners and people, companies or institutions who hold interests in land in Alberta and Saskatchewan, will benefit from the higher level of certainty that will result from Bill C-37.

For example, the proposed legislation would provide businesses and investors in Alberta and Saskatchewan with certainty of tenure for any third party interest they might hold in lands to be added to a reserve. It would also provide the certainty, stability and predictability first nations and businesses need to negotiate new commercial arrangements and economic development partnerships.

Facilitating the transfer of lands to reserve status is the main object of Bill C-37, but I want to remind hon. members that the legislation also proposes to amend the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act of 1993. In the case of the Manitoba bill the amendments would make minor language improvements to ensure its consistency with Bill C-37.

Hon. members will recall that part 2 of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act already has put the new regime in place for claim settlements in that province. In fact it served as a model for the legislation currently before the House. The changes to the Saskatchewan legislation are more substantive but their purpose is equally straightforward.

Clause 12 would confirm in law any release of the province of Saskatchewan from its obligations under the natural resources transfer agreement of 1930 to provide unoccupied crown lands when that obligation otherwise has been met as part of a treaty land entitlement settlement negotiated since 1993 or in the future. As well, clause 13 would establish clear rules for determining whether the pre-designation power provided in Bill C-37 or a similar power in the Saskatchewan legislation applies in different circumstances.

I am pleased that Bill C-37 has enjoyed the support of all parties because the legislation demonstrates real progress in fulfilling Canada's historical obligations to first nations people.

Let me remind hon. members that some of the treaty land entitlement settlements that will be facilitated by this legislation resolve grievances that go back more than a century.

At long last, more than 30 first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan will receive land that was promised when their forefathers signed treaties with the crown, but that was never fully delivered, lands that will meet their needs today and in the future.

I am especially pleased for the Alexander First Nation and the Loon River Cree First Nation in Alberta, whose treaty land entitlement settlement agreements included commitments by Canada to recommend legislation to streamline the additions to reserves process.

I am also pleased for those first nations whose specific claim settlement agreements will be facilitated by Bill C-37. Looking to the future, these provisions will be available for all future claim settlements in Alberta and Saskatchewan that involve additions to reserves.

In other words, what we are putting in place here is not a short term fix, but a long term solution to assist a process that could be ongoing for many years, as more claim settlements are negotiated by Canada. As we gain experience with this new process it may serve as a model for the entire country.

I am pleased with the flexibility that is inherent in Bill C-37. While I believe this new approach would be a great improvement over the existing additions to reserve process, it may be that some first nations will not agree. Bill C-37 would therefore give them the option of either electing to adopt these mechanisms or to continue under the current process.

As hon. members were advised during second reading debate, the opt in decision would apply only on a settlement by settlement basis. In other words, any first nation that has both a specific claim settlement and a treaty land entitlement settlement must make a separate election for each settlement agreement and it would be free to make a different election in each case.

Whatever choice they make, I can assure hon. members that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will continue to work closely with first nations to fulfill any commitments to expand reserves.

Consistent with our government's approach to doing business, Bill C-37 was developed in close consultation with the affected stakeholders. First nations and treaty organizations in both provinces were consulted and have endorsed the approach set out in Bill C-37, including the Alexander First Nation and the Loon River Cree First Nation.

The proposed amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and to the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act have also been endorsed by the affected parties. Bill C-37 also has the full support of the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Clearly this is good legislation that would improve Canada's relationship with first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Just as important, it would strengthen the capacity of first nations governments to make decisions about their lands and communities and allow them to more effectively pursue economic development opportunities.

Bill C-37 also meets the needs of other parties who have an interest in lands in those two provinces. This is a win-win bill for all who will be affected by it. With that in mind, I invite hon. members on both sides of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-37.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter the debate at report stage on Bill C-36. Motion No. 6 would impose a 15 year limit on the period of secrecy in certain instances. At this point there is no way to be assured 15 years is a sufficient time to keep secret certain matters that are important to national security. This is an amendment I do not feel could be supported.

However I will take the same opportunity most of my colleagues have been taking. I will use my allocated time to make general comments on Bill C-36 and review the process.

Subsequent to the events of September 11, as we are all aware, there was a tremendous feeling across the country that something needed to be done to address terrorism and to put measures in place. The opposition was quite critical that the government was not moving quickly enough. That is juxtaposed to the criticism we are hearing today that the government is moving too quickly in bringing in time allocation to deal with the matter.

After September 11 officials in the government and several ministries worked long hours for several weeks preparing the legislation. There was an acknowledgment when the legislation was tabled that it might require work because of the haste with which it was drafted.

For that reason the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice asked the committee to take a careful look at the legislation. That was done. In addition, the committee in the other place was asked to do a pre-study. It spent many hours and heard from approximately 80 witnesses.

We had the Senate pre-study and the time in committee. Over 100 amendments were proposed and accepted or passed at committee. This is a bill that has seen a considerable amount of work.

I will talk about the two main issues that came from the work of the committee of which I was privileged to be a member. It dealt with the definition of terrorist activity.

First, a concern was brought forward by many groups that by making the word “lawful” protest the exception we would exempt lawful protests but inadvertently trap labour movement walkouts or other protests where assaults, mischief or other activities may be committed that while criminal are a long way from terrorism. There are criminal code provisions to deal with those things so the word lawful in one of the amendments that was accepted has been removed from the definition. That is a useful amendment.

Second, there was the issue of the sunset clause. The great majority of the witnesses who came before committee wanted some form of sunset provision. They did not all agree on the type of sunset or the exact terms of the provisions but they felt there should be a sunset provision. That is why an amendment to put a five year sunset on the two most controversial issues, preventive arrest and investigative hearings, was adopted. That is significant.

Let us remember that the bill was drafted with the charter of rights in mind. It already contained a mandatory three year review period. We have all sat on committees where mandatory reviews are not always conducted when they are supposed to be. Unfortunately there do not appear to be any consequences when a government does not comply or when there is a change of government, an election or something that gets in the way of the mandatory review. That is why the five year sunset clause behind the three year mandatory review is so significant.

An editorial in the Midland Free Press , a newspaper in my riding, complains that we have put in a sunset clause that would weaken the message the legislation should be sending. I disagree with the editorial. However it is evidence that there is a will in Canada to have a strong bill which assures Canadians that measures will be taken against terrorists and that we mean business. A sunset provision is a way to make sure the review would be meaningful.

There are a couple of other issues I will touch on. We are hearing complaints that the bill would provide no oversight. That is far from the truth. We have the three year review of parliament; the annual reports from the solicitor general, the attorney general and the attorneys general of the provinces; the parliamentary committees review; the information and privacy commissioners; the RCMP complaints commission; and judicial review on certificates. There is significant review. The criticism is not the least bit founded.

We hear the bill would sacrifice civil liberties for national security. However we have heard the comments of the minister and others which remind us that the measures seek to protect our freedoms. This is an issue of human security. That is the goal of the bill and that is what we are attempting to preserve.

I have heard concerns about the stripping of citizenship. With all due respect, Bill C-36 does not deal with the stripping of citizenship. Those are other proceedings and that is a debate for another day.

We hear that minorities are being discriminated against. A non-discrimination clause is being inserted into the bill to clarify that it would not target religious or ethnic groups but terrorism. There is a level of comfort for most of us with the amendments being suggested.

As well, the minister, the Attorney General of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, the provincial attorneys general and the provincial ministers responsible for law enforcement must report to parliament on an annual basis.

This is important because it will be useful to parliament when it comes time to conduct its three year review. If we have annual reports, we will be able to determine if the measures go too far, if there are any shortcomings and if there is something that can be done to improve the bill.

There are also the provisions regarding the attorney general's certificates. These will not be issued willy nilly. They will be issued only after an order has been issued or a ruling has been made regarding the disclosure of information in legal proceedings. The certificate will be valid for 15 years, unless it is reissued. The certificate will be published in the Canada Gazette . The attorney general's certificate will be reviewed by a Federal Court of Appeal judge. This is yet another level of supervision that we are including in this bill.

On behalf of myself and my constituents, I am very proud of the amendments that have been made after having undertaken the studies requested by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. These amendments have been put in place to protect the rights of all Canadians. We are proud to support this bill, and I am happy that we are proceeding without any further delays.

[Organized Crime, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October of last year the House of Commons subcommittee on organized crime completed its study and issued its report on organized crime in Canada.

I am pleased to note that this morning legislation and comprehensive measures introduced by the justice minister and the solicitor general incorporated several key recommendations made by the subcommittee.

Among these were the recommendations to strengthen anti-gang legislation to provide prosecutors and police with more effective tools, to protect jurors, prosecutors, police and other participants in the justice system from intimidation, and to encourage greater co-operation and information sharing among the various agents of justice and law enforcement involved in organized crime investigations.

Parliament and Liberal government members are committed to fighting organized crime and I am asking all members of this House to support the measures announced today.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor was someone who was appointed with approval of the opposition parties at the time. It was the ethics counsellor's idea that he remain a counsellor and not a commissioner because of the principle of the independent, accountable government. If we were to have a commissioner telling the Prime Minister what to do, then why not just vote for the commissioner? Why would we have an election every four years and vote for a prime minister?

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it is a frivolous motion and it is mischievous. Why would anyone bring a motion to adjourn and then take great delight in the fact that it was not thwarted? This comes from a party where one of the first acts of its new leader was to say that the House should sit four days a week not five. Maybe some folks do not disagree with that. However, why be so mischievous as to bring a motion and then blame the other side for not voting it down. The Canadian people do not go for that kind of nonsense. They can see through that.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, people make donations to all political parties, but the issue is not who made a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The allegation is that the Prime Minister had a financial interest in the golf course when a loan was made to an abutting business. That is a stretch anyway. If the Prime Minister had an interest in the golf course, which he legally did not, the whole premise of the allegation of a conflict of interest would be a major stretch.

The golf course had its own 19th hole, bar and dining room. The dining room and the bar at the auberge were in competition with the golf course. If the Prime Minister had an interest, the case is far from made as the auberge was a competitor.

The member raises the question of political donations. We could get into that. We could talk about $70,000 given to the Canadian Alliance from a law firm in Calgary, but I do not really want to talk about it.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are again on an opposition day motion. We are talking about an issue that has been around for two years. It has been through the scrutiny of the ethics counsellor, through an election campaign and through an RCMP review. Through all that time no one was able to make a case to justify that the Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest.

The Prime Minister has tabled personal documents in the House. That is a precedent which to my knowledge has never been done in the history of parliament. We have been through all that and yet when the Canadian Alliance has an opportunity to choose the topic of debate in the House, to have a meaningful debate on issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, we talk about Shawinigate.

I have a headline from the editorial of the April 12 Orillia Packet & Times which reads “Shawinigate obsession is getting tired”. It goes on to say to the opposition that it is time to move on. There is nothing there. Why does it keep tying up the business of the nation dealing with an issue when there is no case to be made?

We know why. It is really a contest between the Progressive Conservative Party and its leader who has championed this obsession and has carried it forward. The Canadian Alliance leader was a little distracted for a while with some of his own personal problems, but now he is into the contest.

Why? It is very clear. The media has widely reported that Bay Street has said to the right and the righter party that it would cut off their financing if they do not get together. There is a contest between the right and the righter party to try to get themselves together, so they are trying to outdo one another.

This has expanded into an unholy alliance with the Bloc Quebecois and to a certain degree the NDP. The NDP is trying to play both sides because if there is any mileage to be made, it wants to be seen to be part of the coalition. If it backfires, as I am sure it will, then it wants to keep its distance. The NDP is playing it particularly cozy.

We have to look at the facts and they are very clear. Opposition members said that if they were told who the fourth shareholder was they would drop the matter. We know who the fourth shareholder is and it is not the Prime Minister. However they did not drop the matter.

Opposition members said that if they had the documents and the bill of sale they would drop the matter. The bill of sale was tabled and still the matter has not been dropped. They do not want to drop the matter because they want to play politics with the issue.

The opposition wants to sully the reputation of the Prime Minister, a man who has been in public service for 38 years without any hint of a scandal. It wants to sully his reputation for purely crass and political purposes. That is a disgrace to the whole House. That is something Canadians recognize and they know full well that it is not what it should be.

The opposition then said that it would look at the documents and the bill of sale. However it criticized the bill of sale. It said that there was no date, location or seal on it, et cetera. By law it is not needed. Shares can be sold on a verbal contract.

All discussion on the bill of sale becomes irrelevant because we have the letter from the corporate solicitors for 161341 Canada Inc., the company that owns the golf course. The letter was tabled in the industry committee on March 20 and it states:

On November 1, 1993, the board approved the transfer to Akimbo Development Corporation of all the company shares held by J&AC Consultants Inc. Since that time, J&AC Consultants Inc. no longer appears in resolutions by the company shareholders, and—

The Prime Minister's name appears here.

—no longer appears in resolutions by the company directors;

That is corroboration that the shares were transferred and that they were acknowledged by the corporation in a resolution. That letter comes from the corporate solicitors.

The opposition will now take the position that those solicitors are either incompetent, dishonest, in the pocket of the Prime Minister, or smoking dope. Opposition members will find some way of discrediting the corporate solicitors because they have not told the opposition what it wants to hear. It is clear that nothing will satisfy the opposition.

The motion put forward by the opposition today calls for an independent inquiry. Even if it got an independent inquiry, I am sure those members would say that it was not done properly and whoever was appointed was not the right person and so on.

In our legal system there is the onus of proof. There is no onus to prove oneself innocent. The onus is on the person making the allegation of a conflict of interest to show some evidence. In this case we have been through the process for two full years and no one has been able to make the case that there is any evidence whatsoever of a conflict of interest.

What we have is a debt. The Prime Minister sold his shares. It was an unsecured debt. Mr. Prince owed the Prime Minister some money. The Prime Minister or his company retained no interest in those shares. They had no right to retake the shares regardless of what happened to the value of the shares in the golf course. If the golf course went bankrupt or if the shares tripled in value, the Prime Minister was only entitled to collect his original debt.

We see that the Prime Minister's trustee was involved in trying to collect on the debt. As part of the settlement on the debt there was a repurchase of the shares by someone else from Akimbo. We have evidence that shows that Mr. Prince was mistaken in law in thinking he had an option. He acknowledged in one of the subsequent agreements that he obtained a legal opinion that convinced him. I do not know why that would not satisfy the opposition, but it convinced Mr. Prince that he was mistaken in law and that he did retain the shares, so he resold them.

Opposition members quibble about the wording of the release clauses in the agreement or the indemnification clauses. They say there is a double conflict of interest because the Prime Minister's company said that if they dragged it into court it would be indemnified for its legal costs through the whole process. That is a standard legal agreement on any settlement.

As a solicitor I have signed many releases on behalf of clients or prepared them for clients. There is always an indemnification clause in any settlement agreement. It is a normal legal practice, yet the opposition continues to ask questions, et cetera.

The question comes down to what would be gained by having an independent inquiry that the opposition is requesting by the motion. I submit that nothing would be gained. A lot of public money would be spent when we should be dealing with more important issues.

Members throughout the debate have mentioned the question of the vote last Thursday when the opposition moved adjournment of the House. The government was responsible for not maintaining quorum and the House adjourned. Opposition members have not only been wasting the House's time in question period by dominating this one issue but they have also been wasting the time of the House by bringing in mischievous motions of adjournment when we should be dealing with the business of the nation.

I said to my constituents that as part of the government I assume responsibility for not being there to protect Canadians from the mischief of the opposition. I assume that responsibility, but I assure the House I will not permit the mischief of the opposition to carry the day on this motion. I am sure this side will vote against the motion so that we can get on with the business of the nation.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and his leader both quite sanctimoniously chastised the government side for referring to other people. Then in the middle of his speech he referred to the Prime Minister's chief of staff. He also referred to former staff and used terms such as Rasputin. I have to admit that that is a little inconsistent.

However, I have a specific question on his speech when he said that the issue has been confused or was not clear. What we have is a very clear bill of sale. There are many questions that the opposition is trying to raise but we have a written bill of sale. The corporate solicitors have confirmed that the board of directors in a resolution accepted the transfer of the shares from the Prime Minister's company to Akimbo.

Given those two facts, obviously what we have is an unsecured debt. How can the collection of an unsecured debt be a financial interest in the operations of the golf course? That is the question I would like to hear a clear answer to.