Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 individuals who call on Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Petitions June 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 46 individuals who call on Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition.
Petitions June 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two separate petitions.
The first petition is signed by 675 individuals who call on Parliament to halt native land claim negotiations in British Columbia and turn Indian reserves over to the bands, fee simple, and that the land and the natives fall under the same laws as the rest of Canada.
Upper Nicola Band June 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, these standoffs often go on for an extended period of time.
The federal minister has said that this is not his territory because it is off reserve and the band is not part of the B.C. treaty process. This is irrelevant. The barricades and this whole process are expensive to the taxpayer and to local residents.
Will the minister assist in efforts to achieve a voluntary removal of the blockades by insisting on removal of the funding to the band in order to ensure compliance?
Upper Nicola Band June 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, B.C. tribal chiefs are sending a warning shot across the bow of the B.C. treaty process by saying there could be more barricades this summer. They are reacting to the province of B.C. attempts to reduce unfulfillable native expectations. Yesterday provincial minister John Cashore called on the federal minister to help resolve the dispute at Douglas Lake Ranch.
Will the minister do more than facilitate negotiations as he has already agreed to do and cut off funding to the Upper Nicola Band until this illegal blockade is removed?
Aboriginal Affairs May 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, recently a program on Manitoba television, which included an interview with the department of Indian affairs supervisor in Manitoba, identified that the Jackhead Band had misspent money, cheques had been forged and the RCMP were investigating the disappearance of over $70,000 for house construction. This situation has placed individual band members in very tough financial circumstances. The department of Indian affairs has exhibited no interest in their welfare.
What has the minister done to ensure these abuses will be rectified and to obtain reimbursement of these moneys?
Supply May 18th, 1995
Madam Speaker, in terms of the fiscal stabilization issue, I have a lot of problems with the issue in a broader sense. We have an equalization arrangement that was reaffirmed for five years last year in Parliament. It was based on government and on party discipline voting. The agreement is one whereby the fourth most prosperous province, the province of Quebec, is receiving something in the order of 40 per cent of equalization payments. That has created some major contention in other parts of the country.
In terms of the actual question of dealing with whether the judge and jury on arguments within that framework should be an independent body, I have some sympathy with the argument. Otherwise it is very prone to political manoeuvring whether it is from a provincial jurisdiction or the federal government.
That is the rationale for including the courts in the process but perhaps there is another way to do it other than through the courts.
Supply May 18th, 1995
Madam Speaker, Reform members will be splitting their time.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in debate on the Bloc opposition motion before the House concerning additions to the long list of Quebec demands again laid before the House and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer. I have a hard time denouncing the federal government's tardiness in the face of these spurious and ongoing demands. It is heartening to see the government and particularly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs exercising some prudence and caution in doling out resources the government does not have.
I suspect the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister, flushed with success from her 1994 coup in Ottawa when she pried $37 million out of the federal coffers for the referendum on Charlottetown, felt this trek to the capital would immediately result in the payout of $333 million.
Today we have the Bloc shilling for Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and solely as usual for the province of Quebec by way of an opposition day motion. Unlike September 1994, this time others have a chance to participate in the Canada-Quebec sweepstakes.
The motion calls on the House to denounce the federal government for not paying an additional $119 million which Quebec claims is the unpaid federal share for educating Indian and Inuit children in northern Quebec over the past nine years. Federal officials contend that some $450 million has been paid in this spending envelope and that conditions set forth under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and northeastern Quebec agreement have been contravened as a consequence of overspending by the Quebec government.
Who is right? Has the Quebec government sought approval from the federal government to do so? Who knows? A Bloc motion and a trip by a provincial emissary are not good enough for me.
The 1995-96 estimates for Indian affairs indicate spending of over $825 million on all elementary, secondary and post-secondary education for natives. On the post-secondary side it indicates an increase of $34 million over 1994-95. In the 1992-93 fiscal year departmental spending in education was $711 million. This year's estimates indicate a $114 million increase over a three-year period, or roughly what the province of Quebec is asking for by way of its alleged shortfall.
No one is denying any person access to a complete education. In the instance of aboriginal education certain comprehensive funding agreements or alternative funding arrangements have to be met. Political posturing and using the current political sensitivities by way of an implied threat will not get my party to support another $119 million being anted up, no matter how charming the messenger.
Allow me to turn to the second demand of the motion as orchestrated by last week's trip by the provincial intergovernmental affairs minister. In this instance the House is being called upon to denounce the federal government for not reacting to Quebec's demand for the government to apply the federal fiscal stabilization program and help out Quebec during these difficult fiscal times to the tune of $135 million.
Quebec claims drastic drops in revenue and thus qualifies for support from the emergency program. The provincial minister and the Bloc have good memories, since the claim for the payment of $135 million goes back to 1991. What was the revenue shortfall in Quebec in 1991? What was the emergency situation? These seem like reasonable questions. Since the Bloc was not in power in 1991 it is nice to see the Bloc carrying the can in Ottawa for Robert Bourassa.
Under the fiscal stabilization program certain conditions must be met for eligibility to funding. In 1991-92 and during this recession five provinces were found wanting and received a total of $418 million. Quebec and Saskatchewan were found not to be eligible at that time. However, in 1992-93 Quebec received $125 million from the fund. If the Bloc feels so strongly about the case, why not follow the federal government's suggestion and go to court? Why would it ask Parliament to give carte blanche approval to meet this demand?
We understand that the legislation and regulations of the Fiscal Stabilization Program Act were met and no favourites were played. However, because Quebec was involved and was turned down this was somehow considered suspect immediately and that we should go to arbitration. No way.
The issue is simple. Everyone is aware that it is one of an overall separatist strategy to make taxes and tax sharing the real issues in the sovereignty referendum. The Quebec finance minister has already threatened Quebecers in his recent budget by claiming that a no vote would mean higher provincial sales taxes to offset federal cuts in transfer payments. The leader of the PQ claimed that the federal debt burden had been shifted solely on Quebec and that he could not talk seriously of a cost effective and flexible federal system.
The Bloc has joined the bandwagon and continued the blackmail by way of this motion. It is interesting that neither of these two leaders will discuss budget projections or provide information on what a yes vote would do. We all know it means even
higher taxes for Quebecers. According to a recent Fraser Institute study they would be a whopping 25 per cent higher. Whom are the Bloc trying to kid? This is rank amateur blackmail.
The motion calls upon the House to denounce the federal government's tardiness in meeting the Quebec government's claim of $79 million for costs of using the Sûreté du Québec in the events at Oka in 1990. The issue requires some historical perspective so I will trace the debacle largely instigated by the Sûreté du Québec, the police force for which we are being asked to cough up another $79 million.
Some very strange decisions were made at Oka by the Quebec government. On July 11, 1990 Sûreté members stormed the Mohawk barricade a Kanesatake. In the ensuing gun battle a police officer was killed. As a result we had a standoff which lasted 78 days. Soon after the events of July 11, police began blocking food and medical supplies destined for Mohawk residents at Kanesatake.
Widespread criticism led to a lifting of the blockade on July 26. Talks began between the parties and on August 8 the Prime Minister appointed as mediator Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court Alan Gold. At the same time the Prime Minister said he would make the Canadian army available if Quebec needed it.
On August 12, Justice Gold announced some agreement and two days later it was announced that the Quebec government had requested the Canadian army. A force of 2,500 soldiers moved in. The next day it was announced that the army would replace the Sûreté at the barricades. This was completed on August 20. Talks were going nowhere, and on August 28 the army was asked by the premier to remove the barricades.
The motion is a one dimensional litany of Quebec complaints. The Bloc is not truly displaying its position as official opposition. It would be better served devoting more attention to national issues and less time on purely political posturing to serve one province.
I cannot support the motion.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
The last petition is signed by 27 of my constituents. They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be vigorously enforced and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
The 11th petition is signed by 150 of my constituents. They request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 as presently written and in any event not to include the undefined phrase of sexual orientation, as the behaviour that people engage in does not warrant special consideration in Canadian law.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the ninth petition is signed by over 130 people, most of whom live in my constituency. They request that Parliament amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code to allow dangerous offender applications to be made just prior to the expiration of the offender's sentence.
The 10th petition is signed by 50 of my constituents. They request radical changes in the present laws to take direct action to impose upon such offenders more severe penalties, especially repeat offenders.