Lost his last election, in 2004, with 10% of the vote.
Agriculture November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, our farmers all agree that they are victims of international trade wars that are driving our prices down. This government abandoned our producers by prematurely cutting federal support. The finance minister in 1995 announced the elimination of the Crow benefit. Our farmers lost $320 million per year just in Saskatchewan.
Will the Minister of Finance support an immediate and long term national disaster relief program to save our family farms and keep them competitive worldwide?
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the history of the leadership and democratic rights of women in this country developed long after the male population had achieved those things.
When the first women were elected to the House of Commons it was decades after the House was created.
The true reality of the Indian Act and the relationship that we have with aboriginal people throughout the country has brought the archaic structure of the Indian Act to light. I think this bill brings forth the fact that aboriginal women and children must have their rights thoroughly respected. It is time.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak to the topic of land management for first nations.
I will use my first language for some of the terms because a lot of the issues are hard to interpret. To continue with where I was leading with the Chippewa of Sarnia, it was the area of land rights. Once a chief and council or an individual on first nations land has the right to own the land, that land is transferable and diminishes.
In Cree we call it aski-kahna which means all the land was once first nations land. All the land was aboriginal land. Aski-kahna means what is left of the treaty obligation. It is like a corral. Aboriginal people and their livelihoods have been corralled in these reserves. That is why we see the sick society that exists in the cycle of no future among our communities. The traditional lands beyond the reserves have to be considered. I think the bill does not address that. It only addresses the administration of lands.
When the Chippewa of Sarnia lost their land to the petrochemical companies, they lost it forever. It is no longer Chippewa land because it was covered under the War Measures Act. It is still under the Indian Act. Until the first nations of the country come to terms with the existing treaties with the nation and the Indian Act which governs and administers the process, that process evolves and will come to light in a very short time.
In the meantime, of the 14 nations we have the Cree nations of Muskoday, Cowessess and Opaskwayak Cree from Manitoba. I will use Cree to explain to them what my thoughts are.
I understand that as aboriginal people we have allowed people from all over the world to seek refuge, raise their children and have a joyful and fruitful future on this land.
I understand that allowing other people to create the nation we call Canada also recognized the first nation sovereignty of aboriginal nationhood as in Cree nationhood, as in Dene nationhood, as in the Chippewa nationhood and the Inuit.
A very crucial definition of the Metis comes into play. The hon. member mentioned that aboriginal people were defined under the Constitution, but it does not go any further than that. There is a huge dilemma with that definition. The term first nations does not cover every obligation with all people. There are treaty, non-treaty, off reserve, on reserve treaty, status and non-status Indians. There are Metis and Inuit. All these different definitions used in English terminology do not mean anything to an aboriginal person. It is all for administrative purposes.
I understand the makings of the law.
In Cree we have a name for the Constitution.
It is the legal rights of the land written on a piece of paper. This is the highest order of the country's definition of the law. The Constitution gives powers to the House of Commons and all the symbols of government in the province right down to the municipalities. However there is a dilemma. We have certain parties that would like first nations to be municipal governments. That is a very major shift in our obligations between the treaties and the Indian Act in recognizing first nations as they really are. Are they the third level of governance?
If we wanted to respect the rightful ways of entering this land, maybe the first nations and aboriginal people should be occupying the Senate and having the final assenting powers on all laws since they were the first occupiers of the land. Then they would have a higher structure as we see with the Iroquois confederacy, a united nations. There is no united nations among all aboriginal people that unites from coast to coast to coast. There is no higher level of accountability at their levels. Nothing has been designed.
In the stories of creation on Turtle Island there was a wish and a prophecy that the first nations would have eventually united as united nations. Columbus came ashore and brought a whole different set of rules, governance and religions to this country as a colony and disrupted that process. That shift in the country will have to evolve and create a reality between the aboriginal world view and our world view. Those two will have to come into play.
It is the understanding, the wish and the prayer to see the future of our children grow. When decisions are made here, they should not be made for the decisions of the day. They should be made for our children's, children's, children's children, for the seventh generation. Until then it is taken over for another purpose.
Land opportunities have been mentioned. Specific statements have been made. I am honoured to say that our party supports the act because land ownership stays with the first nations. They are not allowed to sell the land. If they start selling land people are dispossessed.
In my neighbourhood there are communities that were never urbanized. For example, the community of Losh is the largest Dene community in the country with 4,000 Dene people living there. It was never that large before but they are amassed between the first nations boundaries and the municipal boundaries.
They have no decision making on the traditional lands, the water, trees and mineral rights that exist beyond. That is the economic cycle which needs to drive our purpose for the future. We have had land allocated to settlers who came from Europe and from all over the world and railroads were built to accommodate that. We have never accommodated the needs of aboriginals in terms of land, resources and livelihood.
Allowing a sample of 14 nations to make administrative decisions concerning the management of their lands is a first step. In a broader perspective there is a major challenge for the country to deal with all aboriginal people. The act is supported by our party but it is a very small step since it applies only to 14 first nations. There is a bigger aboriginal population out there that wants to see a fruitful future for their children. They would allow all people of the world to find refuge in the land they call home, but they have to be a part of the system. The system of governance will have to evolve. The system of administration is evolving.
Some talk about first nation chiefs and say that the chief and council have a fruitful way of life. They travels, take jets to Ottawa and negotiate. We should not knock them down. They have adopted a first opportunity to administer Indian affairs regional departments. Let us look at tribal councils. We are finally seeing aboriginal people making decisions. We should not knock them down. We should give them a chance.
A few generations ago all we saw were Indian agents making these decisions. Just because an aboriginal person is wearing a business suit and has a three figure salary because he is working in a corporate or a government institution, that person should not be knocked for striving to stand up for a piece of land and future endeavours and to be a role model for others.
We live on a huge piece of land but we have problems with housing. Many northern communities have housing problems. Why do they have housing problems when they live in the middle of the timber resource? They do not have houses. It is the economic cycle.
When Rupert's Land was created the Hudson's Bay Company claimed the land. Hudson's Bay is still an economic, capitalistic process. It does not share its capital with its people. Trappers still do not reap any benefits of the many furs they have provided to create the wealth of Britain.
The Hudson's Bay Company should be pulled out of those communities and co-operative systems of trade and housing should be created. There should be shared ownership based on a process like Habitat for Humanity where people build their own houses. They would be given a chance to roll up their sleeves and help their neighbours to build houses using the trees around them. They do not need to use plywood from B.C. for houses in northern Manitoba. They can build housing with the timber that exists in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. That would meet the housing needs of the immediate region. We do not have to trade across the country for local building needs.
Social, economic and governance needs are major issues that require a major debate. In the meantime we have a land management bill that gives some opportunity for first nations people to decide on zoning, regional environmental protection, and the economic and leasing needs of the land. It is an opportunity to address these issues.
In further debates we might discuss the issue of allowing people who lease first nations' lands to have a mechanism to appeal some zoning decisions that impact them. If agricultural land is to be used for industrial or recreational use, at least the person who is leasing the land might have a mechanism to appeal such a decision. That will be designed later. That concern has been raised by a number of people.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I want to enlighten the House on a bit of history.
The member mentioned the Chippewas. The Chippewas of Sarnia have a different story to tell. It might be a lesson for hon. members.
The Chippewa of Sarnia by way of warfare in defending the Canadian interests over American interests had a treaty and an alliance with the British government. Under the War Measures Act they were allocated lands around the Sarnia region. Because it was under the War Measures Act, the council of the day held the land in trust to a financial institution. The financial institution in turn called on the collateral. The collateral of the land was then owned by the bank and not by the first nation of Sarnia, the Chippewa.
If we go to Sarnia we see the Chippewa of Sarnia have their reserve and right beside it there are petrochemical companies polluting their lands and their livelihood. The land those petrochemical companies own was the land recalled by the financial institution.
Health November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the health minister.
Now that the government has addressed the legal challenge surrounding MMT by paying Ethyl Corporation $20 million, when will the minister table the report that endorsed MMT? When will the study begin, a comprehensive study with money, to determine the health risks to Canadian children?
Transit Passes November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm that Canada is the only OECD country where the national government is not involved in funding public urban transit systems. That is a major challenge for us and it is an opportunity for the government to show leadership and act on it.
Transit Passes November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my colleague's initiative. This is a very bold challenge for the government to consider.
I must highlight that my hon. colleague who has just risen and spoken to some of the considerations that should be taken into account raised the issue of the effect a transit pass exemption for employees would have on the environment.
My hon. colleague mentioned a statistic from San Francisco as an example. Transit use among participating employees increased by 31%. This in turn generated $1.6 million of new transit revenue.
Other members mentioned inequality. If employees were given these benefits and incentives to use transit as opposed to driving their vehicles it would mean the transit companies would have more resources and more capabilities to decrease the costs to the public, the unemployed, the students, the elderly, the people who are using the present day transit systems in the cities.
This incentive is a challenge for this government to consider. Today 32% of emissions in Canada are caused by our transportation system. We are per capita the second highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. We have to correct our ways. We have to readjust our way of living, our day to day urban lifestyle, which this incentive is directed at. The government has said that we will reduce our 1990 levels of emissions by 6% by the year 2005. Today we are 12% beyond that. Add 12% to the 6% promised and that is an 18% reduction. But there is no incentive.
This government has not acted on greenhouse gas reductions since coming back from Kyoto. It has not done anything except consult. It has 12 specific tables which were created by the greenhouse emissions secretariat. These people are continuing to discuss but there is no action plan.
The hon. member has created an incentive through Revenue Canada which would be revenue neutral for employers. It would be a major incentive for employees to consider. If they are getting a benefit from their employers and then having to pay a tax portion of that at the end of the year, that is a disincentive. It reverses the whole process and our commitments.
I ask all members to consider this motion and vote in favour of it. The government would then be challenged to take it back to the environment committee, because this is a major environmental initiative, or to Revenue Canada. The finance committee would then seriously have to look at the impact of this.
Again, it should not have banked on the taxation of employer benefits for their employees to get to work. A lot of these employees travel from suburban areas. If we look at the outskirts of the capital region of Ottawa our transit system does not even go the airport. Somebody in downtown Ottawa wanting to utilize the public transit system has to stop at the Hunt Club region. Then they have to walk the rest of the way, or take a taxi, or hitchhike, or use emit more greenhouse gases in some other shape or form. It we had employer incentives that increase the use of transit it would increase the extent of our transit system in our cities. It would be an incentive for the employees and the transit systems.
The hon. member mentioned that municipal transit associations and municipal authorities throughout the country would be very much in favour of this. Major cities have lent their support to this issue.
I beg all members to seriously consider this. Vote in favour of the motion. It deals with the conscience of the country in making legal commitments for greenhouse gas reductions and making decisions on a tax exemption our citizens truly deserve. When an employer hands them a transit pass as a benefit and then asks them to pay taxes on top of this it is a disincentive.
This is repealing a practice by the government to create revenue that is uncalled for. It is a very small investment by repealing a tax revenue that could have many benefits.
I must highlight some statistics. San Francisco employers passed out transit passes to their employees as an incentive and transit use increased by 31%. That would mean 17 million vehicle miles in the bay area of San Francisco. Pollutants were decreased by 61 million tonnes and $1.6 million in new revenue was generated for the transit system in San Francisco. The hon. member across the way challenged us to come up with some sort of example. Those are the statistics we can come up with.
There would be further time to research the issues through committee and I think the topic of the motion would come back into the House for further debate. The challenge is given to the hon. member who has presented the motion and he would have another opportunity to speak to it.
I would ask that those members who are suspicious of the motion in terms of a tax loophole reconsider. The benefits are beyond what the government can afford in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions. Our cities are being challenged with the whole aspect of transportation and the redesigning of our lifestyle.
In the new millennium—
Northern Communities October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a major concern about this country's northern regions.
In Cree we call it kêwêtinôhk and in Saskatchewan we further define it as where the people of the bush and the rock live: Sakâw-iniwâk asinêwaskiywiniwâk.
The federal government has been comfortable in accepting the definition of the north as the region north of 60°, but the northern half of all of our provinces is very unique.
There are huge tracts of land with extreme living costs. These regions are sparsely populated, but the communities are among the oldest in this country.
The north has contributed to the economic wealth of our southern communities and it is only by empowering and investing in our communities that we can proudly develop our own needs.
Our growing populations need highways, housing, health and education facilities that could be built by northerners. The federal government, in partnership with the provinces, must create northern specific initiatives such as the Northlands agreements of the 1970s.
Marine Conservation Areas Act October 29th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I cannot speak specifically on British Columbia. My home province is Saskatchewan.
Reflecting on a federal government initiative, the fisheries minister announced that the race rocks in Gabriola passage were on the way to becoming Canada's first marine protected area. All this was well and good for the federal government to identify but Chief James Johnny of the Nanaimo First Nations said there was no consultation through the band which has aboriginal title to the Gabriola passage.
When we speak about consultation, I believe that is what the hon. member was alluding to. The federal government has to have a full consultation process with provincial governments, with communities and impacted areas along with aboriginal territories and communities that have title for regions and waterways in this country.
Marine Conservation Areas Act October 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague, the member for Halifax West.
I rise today on behalf of the riding of Churchill River in Saskatchewan, and the New Democratic caucus, on Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. The bill provides legislation to establish and manage a system of national marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas in Canada. The 29 conservation areas represent unique biological and oceanographic features. These areas include fresh and salt waters.
A Parks Canada systems approach has identified 29 areas within Canada's Great Lakes, internal waters which are tidal, and the territorial sea and also the exclusive economic zone known as the EEZ 200 mile limit.
The process to establish the conservation areas began in 1986 with ministerial approval to establish national marine parks. This decision led to a 1987 agreement with Ontario to establish Fathom Five in Georgian Bay; a 1988 agreement with British Columbia for a marine park at South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. An agreement with Quebec to examine the feasibility of a federal-provincial marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fiord and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, became Bill C-7. The New Democratic Party supported this bill which established the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The years of consultation between governments and communities were successful. Consultation is a major part of creating conservation areas in the future.
As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore noted, a hallmark of intergovernmental co-operation took place when Bill C-7 was under way. The Government of Quebec and the federal government both looked at their unique responsibilities and jurisdictions in dealing with the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and came up with the unique opportunity to have a consultation that looked at the tourism aspect, the economic aspect and the environmental aspect of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Bill C-7 was an important step toward fulfilling a commitment to future generations. Today we mark the next step in the marine ecosystem protection, Bill C-48. This bill will set the template for marine conservation areas for future generations.
Several key points that the New Democratic Party has raised throughout the parks and environment debates and the legislation are contained in Bill C-48. There are two main parts we can focus on.
The precautionary principle and ecosystem protection are specifically defined in this bill. This is an improvement over previous legislation introduced by the Liberal government, bills which affect all Canadians in all regions of this great country where an ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle and ecological integrity were barely mentioned, if even described at all. It is nice to see that the precautionary principle and ecosystem protection are major components of this bill. This shows progress which we must acknowledge as parliamentarians. We must ensure the goals of sustainability, conservation and preservation of Canada's vital marine areas are achieved.
Through Bill C-7 the New Democratic Party raised the issue of monitoring in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence, monitoring where necessary the pollution impacts of critical areas and the flow of the rivers. We must be willing to monitor the pollution impacts of industries further upstream on the Saguenay and further upstream on the St. Lawrence. Pollution will impact this conservation area. The monitoring aspect must not be taken lightly. These noble conservation objectives can be met but they must be monitored.
Adequate resources must be defined and committed to pollution monitoring. The Liberal government's repeated statement to Canadians that the high standards of environmental protection are being met is not true. There is continued devolution and abdication of environmental responsibilities. This government can sign a piece of paper and have a photo opportunity for the news. Then the government has a program review and always cuts the budget and at the same time says that things are going great. This cannot continue with Bill C-48.
Adequate resources for feasibility studies must be defined and allocated to the marine sciences, to community consultation and to education and interpretive programs. All these issues require adequate resources. Will this government commit to additional resources? Will this government commit to action on Bill C-48, or will it sign this bill, establish one or two conservation areas and rely on skimpy laurels and continue to mislead Canadians?
Our communities need a future based on sustainable development. Communities depend on our marine environment for income, for food sustenance and as a source of our biological diversity. This is for our physical and spiritual well-being.
Bill C-48 provides the opportunity to reverse the outrageous decimation and degradation that mismanagement has created. Unsustainable practices destroy Canadian communities; they do not build and strengthen them.
The New Democratic Party calls on the Liberal government to prove that this bill is not simply paper in the next budget. Proof of the Liberal government's commitment to marine conservation and preservation and sustainable practices does not mean continued cuts to a once proud Canadian Coast Guard. It does not mean continued cuts to the pollution prevention capabilities of the environment department. These budget cuts have been cloaked in the auspices of program review.
Commitment is not the continuance of understaffed, overworked and rarely appreciated departments with the major responsibilities of the atmosphere and ocean sciences. Commitment is not continually ignoring advice that is based on scientific evidence or the precautionary principles in favour of a political agenda. The DFO is a fine example of this.
The marine conservation areas will be a key component of the proposed representative system of marine protected areas. Three departments have been identified as working on the marine protected areas, the departments of fisheries, environment and Canadian heritage. This system could be in place along all of Canada's coasts and the Great Lakes by the year 2010.
We hope this bill is not another noble opportunity lost by lack of leadership and commitment. Lost but not forgotten, such as another Liberal promise to complete our national parks system with 39 representative terrestrial zones by the new millennium. This is far from being complete. They are big words that create big hopes but Canadians are used to dashed hopes with this Liberal government.
Through the committee of the New Democratic Party we will raise a number of concerns that will improve Bill C-48. Some concerns are minimum protection standards to include prohibition of fin fish aquaculture and bottom trawling, ballast water dumping and recreational artificial reefs, better controls for outfalls of waste discharge and pollution prevention, and complete consultation with communities, provincial jurisdictions and aboriginal territories and communities.
We must define and identify the issue of no take zones within marine boundaries, critical zone 1 areas to be expanded to reduce impacts through calving, spawning and nursing periods.
The issue of DFO and parks is a major concern. Both are going to be participating in conservation areas but one of the worst histories and a major area of concern is the history of DFO in terms of mismanagement regarding resources. The NDP will be raising these and other concerns forwarded by Canadians through the committee process.
A key question we will also ask is why there was the exclusion of other great inland Canadian waters such as Great Bear lake, Great Slave lake, Lake Athabasca and Lake Winnipeg. These are unique waters and require protection and conservation measures.
I would like to speak on the additional challenges Reform Party members mentioned but we cannot lend our support to their motion.
I look forward to empowering our youth and look toward conservation for them.