Derrek Konrad

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether the member is in order to be saying you and speaking in the first person to members on this side of the House.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in Canada we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say that every question has to go to the supreme court. We can act here in the House. We have a notwithstanding clause that allows us as parliamentarians to make a law stand once we have made it in the way in which it was intended to be made.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the shouting dies down I will try to make a comment or two on what the member said.

He called it sexual McCarthyism. This is one person's viewpoint. I respect that person's viewpoint, but I do not believe that the majority of people in this country think that way. I certainly do not believe that the bulk of the members on that side think that way. I think members are looking for outs so they can support what they have been told to support.

He said the child law is flawed. I do not believe that. The law is not flawed simply because this man says it is flawed. He may have an opinion, but that does not necessarily mean it is the right opinion. That is not necessarily the opinion that will be delivered by a supreme court justice.

It is not the opinion of the Reform Party or any other member on this side of the House who is voting in accordance with their conscience and what their constituents wish that the law is flawed. We say it needs to be upheld. The quickest and best way to uphold it is to bring in section 33, the notwithstanding clause so that this law can continue in effect. It was brought in by a previous parliament and was supported across the board. We want to see it supported in the House.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be speaking today on the Reform motion.

The debate has been somewhat diminished by some insulting remarks made by government members. They have characterized Reform as fearmongers. They have said we have wrong motives, that we are acting precipitously and we are silly.

I indict them with the charge that if the members over there sat on this side of the House and that motion had come from this side of the House there is probably not one of them who would not support the motion. That is an indictment I do not think many of them could escape, particularly those 69 who signed the petition to their own leadership asking for a move on this issue.

There are those tonight when the vote comes up who will wish they were on this side of the House. They will wish that they were not whipped into shape so that they could express not only their own hearts' desire in this matter but the desire of their constituents, as well. When the vote comes this side of the House is on the side of the children. It is on the side of the parents of the children. It is on the side of what is right and we will vote as a block on this side to support the motion.

On that side we will be interested to see what the result is and to see if members there will stand up for what they know is right. On the other hand there have been some members who have made good and legal points but I do not believe that it was as quoted by the judge, that the possession of child pornography is an important expression of a person's essential self. That self needs to be reigned in. The law that was struck down needs to be reinstated as soon as possible.

It is not good enough to say that from now until whenever the government stands aside and watches while Canadian children are put at risk, to watch the process take a step by step management rather than leadership approach to dealing with the problem. It will just not accomplish what needs to be done.

Judge Shaw invoked a provision of the charter to strike down the law that protects children from child pornography. It is within parliament's purview to strike down his decision through use of the notwithstanding provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms. We do not think that a careless interpretation by one judge should bring the entire protection of children into danger.

The role of parliament in the debate and in acting has been trivialized by those members who have said let the system work and we will bring in the law in a timely fashion. The Minister of Justice has said for all the time I have been in the House of Commons, approaching two years, to wait and that something on the Young Offenders Act will be brought forward in a timely fashion.

The official opposition is still waiting. We have quit looking at our watches. We have almost quit looking at the calendar. We are beginning to look at some millennium clock to find out if anything will happen when the government says it will act in a timely fashion.

We have a responsibility in the House of not merely to be regulators of society enforcing contracts between different groups within our society and setting up those kinds of guidelines. We are to provide some leadership and governing.

We want to consult with our people but we will not find in this situation any public approval for consultation, waiting or anything else. Canadians expect us to act. They do not want to see protection for pornographers, perverts and pedophiles. They do not want to see children left at risk. They want protection.

We have heard time and again that there are people who are planning court challenges to take away parents' rights to discipline and raise their children in the best way they see fit.

We understand there is a lot of support for that from the Liberal side. For goodness sake, why would we even consider stripping away the rights of parents to raise their children when we would not even consider stripping away the rights of a pedophile to look at the waterworks of children for his own perverted purposes?

We need to act but there are two ways to act. One is to cut off the supply which is what we are doing. There are laws so that it cannot be produced. What we want to see is something to choke off the demand. There are millions upon millions of dollars spent on educating the public on the dangers of alcohol, smoking and other related social problems but education has not stopped it. Education has only made them aware of the dangers of what it is they are doing. We do not want to see this go down that same road.

We want a law in place that is upheld by parliament that will cut off the demand. We do not treat drunks with alcohol. We do not let it trickle through. If we want to get away from alcoholism we cut it off.

A new generation is coming and it will judge the previous generation on both its actions and its inactions. It will judge this House on whether it acted or whether it just let so-called justice take its course and possibly end up as being an injustice because of our lack of action.

Our vote tonight is action. It can be an action for what is going on or it can be an action against what is going on. I am calling on government members to act. I have three daughters and I will be voting on their behalf and on behalf of my constituency and I will be voting for this amendment.

Parliament has the final responsibility in this country. We have appeal courts and the supreme court to review previous decisions but parliament has the final responsibility. With responsibility should come authority and parliament must not be afraid to act on that authority. It must not fail to use the authority.

President Harry Truman, one of the most respected presidents of the United States, had a sign on his desk which read “The buck stops here”. Are we saying that in our country the buck stops down the road on Wellington where the supreme court justices have final say over the laws and intentions of this House which were produced in accordance with what our constituents asked of us when they said they want just laws, laws that provide equality, democracy, righteousness, freedom? Or are we to say down the road is where you will find those things and you will have to fight your way through every court, right through the provincial courts to the Supreme Court of Canada at great expense? Or can we be expected to act here for the people who we purport to represent?

I say we act here. The buck stops here. When I accepted this job I said I would do all I could to ensure that righteousness prevailed. I said I would not necessarily succeed in everything but that I would do my best to be faithful to what I promised in the election campaign. Part of that will be voting for this legislation tonight. Each MP's responsibility is to ensure the country they leave is in better shape than they found it in. If they fail to do that they fail their people and their promise to them in the election.

[Agriculture, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian jobs in rural communities are on the line. The current collapse of net farm incomes is jeopardizing Canada's forage dehydration industry, a little known but vital part of our agricultural communities, particularly in my riding of Prince Albert where the bulk of Saskatchewan's alfalfa dehydration production is processed.

Just consider these facts. First, Canada is the lowest cost producer in the world. Second, without unfair Economic Union subsidies, the Canadian dehydration industry would have weathered the economic downturn in Asia. Third, the dehydration industry is already burdened with rail transportation costs which have doubled while service declines. Finally, processing plants are largely farmer owned.

I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to keep this industry and these facts in mind before setting emergency compensation which may further penalize these farm-dependent producers.

The government has already caused enough damage by raising freight rates and dropping subsidies more rapidly than our European competitors.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for South Shore. He is right, they do purchase them in fee simple and they can be held in fee simple, but the fact is that because it belongs to a band it can apply for reserve status. Once that happens, then it loses its tax exempt status, as reserve land obviously does. Fee simple lands held by a corporation or anything like that are obviously taxable at the going rate.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, bands that purchase lands under the treaty land entitlement act apply to the provincial government for reserve status, which takes it out of the tax system. As I mentioned, there is a set-aside, an amount paid into a fund which is held in trust, the interest of which is supposed to pay for services.

However, there is another problem. If the province grants reserve status to farmland, what happens is that the amount that is paid is based on the current assessment, which is quite low for farmland. If they convert it to country residential, let us say, and it is subdivided into 20 acre parcels, on 160 acres that would be eight separate parcels. That means that eight families may end up living there. There would be more bussing costs, education costs and health related costs. The costs would escalate and the rural municipality would still be left building roads for the extra people and making sure that services were delivered.

The re-zoning is not subject to the rural municipality's objections. That of course goes to the federal government because it is now federal crown land. There is a definite loading of expenses onto this level of government in the rural areas of Canada without commensurate tax revenues.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act. When we look at the bill we see that it has two parts. The first part relates to the settlement of matters that arise from flooding of land and the second part is a means to facilitate the implementation of land claim settlements in Manitoba through the creation of new reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves.

I will highlight some difficulties with the second part that have arisen because of the treaty land entitlement process in Saskatchewan and that have been brought to my attention by rural municipalities and by people who are C-31 Indian people. There is some difficulty with that.

The flooding of course occurred when the Churchill River was developed for hydro projects and Indians living along the river lost the land they had lived on. They lived a hunting and fishing sustenance lifestyle. I have been there because I was involved in the development of those hydro projects as a land surveyor and parked out on the Hudson Bay at the mouth of the Churchill River and met some of the people who probably have been affected by this legislation.

We are talking about almost 12,000 acres of reserve land and over half a million acres of bordering non-reserve land in this project. That needs to be replaced so that the people can continue to make a life in the north. There has been some question about the method of arriving at agreement on the referendum raised by people from Norway House. They have charged there have been profound irregularities and vote buying. I call on the government to look into their charges if they have made them to the minister as well, because we do not want any question left when this is over that the right thing had not been done for the people at the time it was done.

We believe that the chief electoral officer should have authority over Indian governments in elections to ensure that they are fair and lawful so that there could be no question as to whether an election or a referendum had been held legally in all respects.

We do not have any proof of the allegations but they are serious allegations that need to be looked into.

The treaty land entitlement history is that in the western provinces when the treaties were signed, the treaty commissioners had searched the countryside for Indians at that time to determine their status, to set aside land for them and get their names. However, when the surveys were first done it was found that there was a shortfall in the number of acres that had been promised to each individual Indian. So at a specific point in time funds were set aside in Saskatchewan for bands to purchase land for descendants of those people for whom lands were not set aside at the time of the purchase. The amount they should have got at the first survey was 128 acres per person, which works out to 640 acres or one square mile for a family of five, more than sufficient for a family to earn a living.

Some of the current problems with the treaty land entitlement process that have come to my attention by way of Indians themselves who have brought this up are that the Indian register was used to obtain funds to purchase land at this point because there is not enough crown land left in Saskatchewan to transfer to Indian bands.

The band list, on the other hand, has been used to deny access to benefits. The band has control over membership of the list and has a safe list which is used to guard it from unwanted members gaining access to the band and to the benefits that flow to it.

That creates real difficulties for people who have a right to the benefits the band has obtained in their name. We need to ensure those band lists are not closed when benefits have been given to the band using their names.

The Reform Party has always felt that private ownership often should be made available for people who have a lifestyle different from the bands themselves. Imagine someone growing up in a major city having to move to a band in northern Saskatchewan, to a reserve, to enjoy the benefits that should be theirs as a result of the treaty land entitlement process. These people do not want to leave behind the schools, friends, relations, hospital services and all the services that are available in an urban community. They have not grown up on a reserve and they do not see themselves as a part of that process. They need a way to take advantage of the benefits set aside for them.

I would like to point out another difficulty that arises from the treaty land entitlement process. In Saskatchewan bands are free to buy from any willing seller at a price agreeable to both of them. The band then applies to have the land designated reserve status. Immediately the rural municipality has a reduced capability to collect taxes. I know there is an amount set aside which is supposed to generate enough interest to provide the services. However, when we come to the business of building roads across reserves, we find out that when we build a road up to a reserve or if we have driven these roads that have been built up to reserves, they are a completely different lower quality from across the reserve because it is not in the band's interest to spend its money on a road which is possibly marginal to its operation. This is happening throughout Saskatchewan.

Haul roads are being built across the province. They are designated as haul roads and known as super grids. They are necessary because railroads are being pulled up and rural elevators are being shut down. Consequently haul roads are assuming greater importance to rural municipalities.

When a budget is set up for a reserve an amount is set aside for road construction but there is no requirement for the band to spend the money as shown on the budget which is simply a document that states how the money has been given to the band on the basis of so many dollars. For example, when a rural municipality builds a road it identifies haul roads in agreement with other rural municipalities and the provincial government and funds are set aside for their construction. It receives 73% from the province. The rural municipality taxes its ratepayers to come up with the other 27%.

A rural municipality in Saskatchewan recently constructed a new haul road which crossed three miles of reserve land. The band did not participate in funding for construction which made the costs as follows. The federal government contributed 67%, the rural municipality contributed 33% and because the road was on the reserve, the province contributed nothing. The band also contributed nothing. This meant the rural municipality's portion rose from 27% of the total cost to 33% which represents an actual increase in taxes needed to build the road of 22%. That is a very large tax increase.

With the proliferation of reserves due to the treaty land entitlement process, bands are buying land all over rural municipalities as they have the perfect right to do but the reserves begin to have a checkerboard effect throughout the rural municipalities. Therefore when we are building roads we are continually coming across these sections with no tax base to support the construction of roads, never mind the maintenance of roads which includes gravelling, grading, snow clearing, weed control and that type of thing which falls under the road allowance.

Rural municipalities have asked me to tell the government about the situation they are facing. They are looking for the government to ensure that the money given to bands for road construction be used for road construction and not for other purposes as important and as laudable as they may be.

The band in question has agreed to supply gravel over the next few years until the value is arrived at, and that is a fairly enlightened viewpoint, but no band is required to do that. Bands have the ability to make the rules for road construction when the rural municipalities are bound more by the province and more by their own needs of their ratepayers, the farmers who farm the land, and must get to a delivery point or a market on the other side of a reserve. It is a very large problem that needs to be addressed and arises from the treaty land entitlement process. I trust the Manitoba government will take up the farmers' position on this so rural municipalities will not have to bear increasingly high costs of road construction as the checkerboard effect of small Indian reserves throughout the rural municipalities takes effect.

We agree with the intent of the legislation that land taken for road construction purposes should be replaced. The treaty land entitlement process is an historic process that is accepted policy in Canada. As such there is no point in fighting it. There definitely needs to be some review of the method by which the tax income for a rural municipality is replaced. Otherwise they will be taxed out of existence.

[Motions For Papers, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion P-37 be called.

Motion P-37

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence, polls and briefings related to aboriginal logging on Crown land.

[Motions For Papers, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion P-36 to be called.

Motion P-36

That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence, polls and briefings related to the creation of Nunavut.