House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

VacancyOral Question Period

Noon

The Speaker

Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation. Mr. Charest, member for the riding of Sherbrooke, resigned on May 1, 1998. Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed today my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 8 petitions.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 26, 1998 in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999 in regard to vote 5 under Parliament, House of Commons. The committee reports the same.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 53, 63 and 64. .[Text]

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Concerning the acquisition of a parcel of land for the RCMP in Amos, Quebec, in 1991: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin taking step in order to purchase the land; ( b ) with whom did it deal; ( c ) where was the land located in relation to the courthouse and the detention centre in Amos; ( d ) how long did the negotiations go on; ( e ) what was the surface area of the land to be used for the RCMP's needs; ( f ) what was the approximate purchase price of the land; ( g ) was this amount included in the budget and, if so, for what year; and ( h ) what were the reasons the file was closed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows. Concerning the acquisition of a parcel of land for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in Amos, Quebec, in 1991: a ) The RCMP began planning to build a detachment in Amos around September 1989. Steps to purchase land were initiated after the funds required to purchase land had been approved, i.e., on October 22, 1990. b ) The RCMP only dealt with Public Works and Governmnent Services Canada, PWGSC. PWGSC dealt with the onwer of the land, Clair Foyer Inc. c ) The land was located on 3rd Street West which is located just south of the court house. d ) The RCMP commissionned PWGSC to start looking for a suitable piece of land in April 1991. Following this, the recommendation to purchase the land was made on December 12, 1991. The option to purchase was exercised on January 5, 1993, and the purchase contract was signed on or around October 21, 1993. e ) The surface area of the land was 3969 square metres (63 m x 63 m). f ) The land was purchased for a sum of $77,201.00. If we take the fee paid to PWGSC into account, the total cost of the land to the RCMP was $92,000. g ) Building a new detachment in Amos had been discussed since 1989 and the purchase cost of the land was included in the 1992-1993 budget. The purchase of the Amos site was identified under Vote 40 in the amount of $50,000 in fiscal years 1992/93 and 1993/94 of the main estimates. The actual expenditure was $92,000 in fiscal year 1993/94 and was paid out of the capital construction program. h ) The project to build a new detachment in Amos was put on hold on December 14, 1993, and the construction file was closed on September 1, 1994. Those decisions came as a result of the following:

—On September 16, 1993, a message from the commissionner announced that the RCMP had to cut its overall budget by some $32.7 million during fiscal year 1994/95 and by an additional $36.9 million over the next three years.

—On February 18, 1994, a letter was sent from the deputy commissioners, criminal operations and corporate management to the commanding officers asking them to start reviewing the operation of their respective divisions for the purpose of streamlining and restructuring their resources.

—On March 4, 1994, the commanding officer, “C” Division, Assistant Commissioner Mr. Thivierge, announced the creation of a divisional streamlining committee.

The divisional streamlining committee first met on April 13, 1994, and it was then decided to set up subcommittees which would be each responsible to review some RCMP activities in Quebec. One such subcommittee analysed the organization and restructuring of the police function. On August 18, 1994, this subcommittee submitted a report on the project to streamline “C” Division RCMP detachments in the Abitibi region. This report contained seven recommendations, which are summarized as follows: to close down Amos and Val d'Or detachments and to centralize RCMP activities in Rouyn-Noranda; to relocate RCMP personnel from Amos and Val d'Or; not to staff the vacant position of NCO in charge Amos detachment; to make sure that a 1-800 line be available to Amos and Val d'Or residents; to check with PWGSC that extra space be available on the first floor of Rouyn-Noranda detachment; to sell the land purchased in Amos and to allocate part of the funds set aside for the construction project in Amos ($874,000 in 1995/96) to fit out and renovate Rouyn-Noranda detachment; to make sure that the civil authorities and clients departments in Amos and Val d'Or be sensitized accordingly.

Those recommendations were approved by the division executive committee as well as by headquarters, Ottawa, with the result that the construction project in Amos was cancelled on September 1, 1994, as mentionned above.

On September 30, 1994, the commanding officer, “C” Division, and the officer commanding Montreal subdivision met the member of parliament for Abitibi at the time, Mr. Bernard Deshaies, to advise him of the RCMP's intention to amalgamate its detachments in the Abitibi. The latter approved of the initiative. On October 14, 1994, Val d'Or mayor, Mr. Tétrault, was met. He expressed his disapproval but, according to correspondence dated November 23, 1994, signed by Chief Superintendant G. Zaccardelli, then acting Commanding Officer Mr. Tétrault understood that we had to cope with budget restraint and had no choice but to streamline our services.

On February 7 and 8, 1995, meetings were also held with the mayors and chiefs of police of Amos and Val d'Or. According to correspondence dated February 17, 1995, signed by Insp. P. Droz, acting officer commanding, Montreal subdivision, those representatives unanimously denounced the choice of Rouyn-Noranda. However, the mayor of Amos expressed his interest in an exchange program between the RCMP and Amos police department.

The foregoing answer to part ( h ) of the question briefly summarizes the studies made and steps taken in this file to meet budget cuts.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Regarding the construction of a new building for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin looking to buy a lot; ( b ) with whom did the RCMP deal; ( c ) what lot size did the RCMP require; ( d ) what was the purchase price of the land; ( e ) did the RCMP request public bids in selecting land in Rouyn-Noranda; and ( f ) was the plan to purchase the land contained in the budget forecasts and, if so, for what year?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSoliciter General of Canada

In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows.

(a) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police began planning to build a detachment in Rouyn-Noranda in 1988-1989. Steps to purchase land were initiated after the funds required to purchase land had been approved, i.e. June, 1997.

(b) The RCMP dealt with Public works an Government Services, PWGSC. PWGSC dealt with the owner of the land, which in this case was the Rouyn-Noranda school board.

(c) The RCMP's initial requirements to PWGSC were for a lot between 21,000 to 45,000 square feet. The surface area of the land eventually purchased was 56,822 square feet (294ft x 174ft).

(d) The land was purchased for a sum of $179,557. If we take the fee paid to PWGSC into account, the total cost of the land to the RCMP was $205,000.

(e) No; a competitive process was held and a follow-up was put in place by PWGSC who issued a request for public bids in June 1997. In July 1997, 6 bids had been selected and following a comparative analysis, a final site was selected in July 1997.

(f) Building a new detachment in Rouyn-Noranda had been discussed since 1988 and the purchase cost of the land was reflected in the “C” Division budget in the 1997/98 RCMP capital construction program. It was not reflected in the main estimates because the project was being advanced.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Regarding the construction of new buildings for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Amos and Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec; ( a ) how much did these buildings cost to build; and ( b ) were these costs contained in the budget forecasts and, if so, for what year?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows:

(a) In the case of Amos detachment, the projected construction cost was $924,000. In the case of Rouyn-Noranda, the projected construction cost was $1.1 million.

(b) The construction costs for a new detachment in Amos were included in the 1995/96 capital construction program budget as well as the main estimates, at a total cost of $924,000 with $374,000 to be spent in 1995/96.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

May 1st, 1998 / noon

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 51 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed that Question No. 51 be made an order for return?

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Some hon. members

Agreed. .[Text]

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC

With respect to aboriginal fishing activities in British Columbia during the period from March 31, 1992, to November 30, 1997, with the exception of salmon and herring fisheries: ( a ) which aboriginal groups received communal licences or other authorization to fish excluding commercial fishing licences of the same type issued to the all-canadian commercial fishing fleet in British Columbia; ( b ) what period did each licence include; ( c ) what species did each licence include; ( d ) what quantity of each species could be harvested under each licence; ( e ) what quantity of each species was reported as harvested under each licence; ( f ) what evidence does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) possess to conclude that these aboriginal groups have an aboriginal right to harvest the species for which the licence was issued in the area in which the fishing activities take place; ( g ) what evidence of pre-contact harvesting of the species did the aboriginal groups provide to convince DFO such that they now ought to be awarded an aboriginal licence; ( h ) were any coastal waters of British Columbia closed either permanently or temporarily to fishing by other Canadians to accommodate these aboriginal fisheries; ( i ) if certain areas were closed, which areas, for what period and to accommodate which aboriginal group fishing and for which species; ( j ) what evidence does DFO possess to conclude that an area closure was necessary to protect the claimed aboriginal fishing right; and ( k ) in the absence of a proven aboriginal right to fish, on what grounds or on what basis does DFO close waters to fishing by Canadians other than those belonging to a designated aboriginal group?

Return tabled.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the submission of private members' bills.

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the House give its unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?

Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, this bill relates to offences of communicating for the purposes of prostitution to make it a dual or hybrid offence. It would allow prosecutors the option to treat the offence as either a summary or an indictable conviction.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When the House broke for question period, the hon. member for Lakeland had five minutes and thirty seconds remaining in his speech. I invite him now to resume the floor.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where I was in my speech when the interruption took place. I will begin by saying that with regard to this bill on education, the Reform Party supports national standards for education and apprenticeship across the country.

In a broader way, the Reform Party's ultimate goal on aboriginal matters is that all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in the Canadian citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians. I want to clarify that just so there is no doubt about what we are saying.

By saying that the aboriginal people should be full and equal participants and indistinguishable in law and treatment, we are not saying that it means they should be indistinguishable in cultural, language, dress or character. That is not what we are saying at all. I am clarifying this because I have had people interpret it that way to me.

I personally very much enjoy the culture of aboriginal people. Over the last few months I have had ample opportunity to enjoy that culture, the character and the formal ceremonial dress of the aboriginal peoples.

I want to end my presentation by asking the government four questions in response to the bill. I will also make some comments on the questions.

First, do the grassroots aboriginals on the reserves that are being covered under this legislation support the change that this legislation would make?

We already know that only nine of the thirteen reserves that are covered support the legislation. We have no idea whether the grassroots people themselves on the nine that have supported it support this legislation in any way. It is crucial that this be determined before the bill continues. We know Phil Fontaine supports the bill. We know that the chiefs and councils from the nine reserves support the bill, but do the grassroots aboriginals? I would like an answer to that question.

Second, $24 million will go into this fund to be managed by the chiefs and councils. It has been said that there will be a requirement for an independent auditor and some accounting for that spending.

Specifically my question is what level of accounting will be required? In what detail? How will the auditor be chosen? Will the Auditor General of Canada who after all is the final auditor on federal spending have the final responsibility to check into the spending of this money? This is critical.

In the aboriginal task force I set up, in the private presentations and at the public meetings, and in the presentations made to the questionnaire, the issue which came up more than any other issue was that of accountability on the part of chiefs and councils to the grassroots aboriginals. That question must be answered.

Third, if this deal is being made to help status Indians move toward self-government, has this government determined in fact that is what they want? It is an important question.

At the largest of the public meetings I had on this issue, there were about 75 people. About 70 people were aboriginal and I would think 40 of them were status Indians. Television cameras were there. I asked how many would support self-government. Not one hand went up. One woman stood up and said “What do you mean by self-government?” I said that that was a very good question. That question remains unanswered.

What exactly is self-government? Do grassroots aboriginals support it? Certainly the people we have heard from do not. They support no new level of control on the part of their governing bodies until the time that they are assured that there will be real accountability.

This fourth point is a comment. With regard to the quality of education, the task force found, and it was expressed very clearly and strongly, that better education is required. Better education is the key to two things. It is the key to things becoming better on the reserves. It is also the key to giving those people who choose to leave the reserves a fighting chance when they go. This was expressed very clearly. That is why I need some assurance that this change will provide a better quality of education. I really do not feel that I have that assurance right now.

As we go through the rest of the process, through the amendments to the bill at committee, at report stage and at third reading, I ask the government to provide that assurance in a way that really means something. I also ask that the government answer my questions.

In closing, there are too many unanswered questions. I certainly cannot support the bill as it is now, but I will look at what happens over the rest of the process.

Mi'Kmaq Education ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to address the technical details of this bill. This has been done by other members. My objections to the legislation are more philosophical than technical.

I object because the bill in my eyes is a reflection of the government's agenda to create a system of benevolent apartheid, velvet glove segregation enforced not by truncheons and attack dogs but with chequebooks and devious dealings.

When the Prime Minister of Canada was the minister of Indian affairs some 30 years ago, he knew better than to perpetuate the system we have in this country today. In fact, he issued a white paper which would have brought the native people holus bolus into Canadian society. Had he had his way at the time, the majority of the problems the native communities are now facing in Canada and by extension the rest of us would not exist.

However, he was not a senior member of the government at that time. He was beaten down by Prime Minister Trudeau. He was beaten down by the Indian chiefs. Now apparently he no longer recognizes the wisdom of his thoughts in those days. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is off and running on the same track which this government has followed ever since it was elected, which is to maintain segregation.

Let us be clear that when we talk about not segregating the native people, we in the Reform Party are not saying that there should not be any cultural distinctiveness. Any group in society, if it has a culture to protect and defend, should be able to so. What we object to is administrative distinctiveness.

The southern United States used to refer to facilities, primarily education facilities, being separate but equal. This was the line of the Bull Connors type of person or, if we want to get someone a little more civilized, George Wallace. Surely these are not the models which we in Canada should follow in developing our social policy.

I would like to speak for a moment about what I think may be one of the impetuses behind the establishment of a natives only educational system. I would like to speak about the much maligned residential schools. One should remember that at the time when most natives, particularly in northwestern Canada, lived on the land, these were the only available options for an academic education for native children.

I used to work with a number of young men who graduated from the Fort Providence residential school. They had formally completed what was then referred to as a grade eight education. I would say their general level of sophistication and general knowledge was at least equal to that of the average contempory high school graduate. Had it not been for the residential schools, the construction of the educational foundation on which to build native political power would have been delayed by at least 20 or 30 years. Where do members think the leaders came from who were able to integrate themselves into the system—I use the word integrate advisedly—and effectively they beat the caucasian migrants at their own game?

I know some of these residential schools were tough. The one that my friends went to was apparently tough. When they talked about it, they did not talk about it in tones that would suggest they had been devastated by it. They spoke about it in a rather jocular fashion. In the days they were there all schools were tough. I attended a school where corporal punishment was the norm. I somehow survived. As has been admitted, there were perverts and sadists in the system, as there are everywhere in society. There were some terrible events. But that does not condemn the entire system which by and large was run by dedicated, sensitive people who really had the best interests of their students at heart.

In any event, with modern communication and modern transportation there is now no need for residential schools. If the Mi'kmaq children were to ride school buses to universally accessible community schools there might be some cultural shock but certainly much less than would be experienced by native people in other parts of Canada. Segregated schools are unfortunately a geographic and demographic necessity in some parts of the country but certainly not in Nova Scotia.

Anyone who has been watching the events on television lately the disputes over logging would certainly have been struck by the down home Nova Scotia accents of some of the disputants. These people are for all intents and purposes integrated into general society. This government is proposing what I would call a policy of dis-integration.

Many people would like to forget the band system in Canada, which this new educational policy would help to perpetuate, was the model for South Africa's system of homelands. The designers of that system actually studied our reserves at a time when our domestic apartheid was not benign, as it is today. They thought this was wonderful and went home and did the same.

We still have the apartheid system. We still have the reserves. Thank heavens they are now a little more benign, but at what cost? We have created this gigantic bureaucracy both in Ottawa and in and about the reserves. We have a class of people known outside of the Indian community as the Indian industry which comprises not just bureaucrats but the chiefs, the bands, all the people in power, the people who have their hands on the money and who will retain their power, their influence, their trips, their meaningless meetings and their good life as long a we continue to boost up the band system. It is a classic example of this type of band boosterism when we give people their very own schools apart from the rest of society.

Therefore I cannot in conscience support this type of legislation. It is wrong to divide people. It is wrong to set up a system where we have a money elite with power bestowed by the federal government, both economic and social power, who are in effect the representatives, whether the people being represented like it or not, of the vast majority of rank and file natives who have no choice in the matter.

This is the old colonial system. This is the way it was done in colonial times. They set up a leadership system that would eagerly collaborate with the senior governments. They gave them lots of perks and privileges and through that they were able to maintain permanent control, permanent separation, permanent economic subjugation of the vast mass of the people allegedly being represented.