Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada questions concerning the fiduciary responsibility of this federal government toward aboriginal peoples.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development clearly confirmed the government's honouring of the fiduciary relationship. But then, and this is when things get baffling, the Minister of Justice actually declared to this House that the government's recent actions were consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities. I am hoping the government can clarify the increasingly muddy waters.
This Liberal government's justice minister intervened on the side of the New Brunswick government to appeal a lower court ruling which exempted aboriginal peoples from sales tax. This government actually and explicitly took the position that aboriginal peoples in this case should not be exempt from sales tax. This clearly sets this government in opposition to the interests of aboriginal peoples.
How then can the Minister of Justice justify to this House that directly opposing the interests of aboriginal peoples is somehow supporting the interests of aboriginal peoples?
In the factum submitted to the supreme court, the Minister of Justice took a position adverse to the First Nations people of New Brunswick. The actions of the Minister of Justice appear to have been a gross betrayal of this government's fiduciary responsibility.
The 1993 report of the Canadian Human Rights commissioner states:
The fact that Canada seems to be moving in the direction of self-government in no way diminishes the responsibility that the Government of Canada at present has to “uphold the honour of the Crown” with respect to its fiduciary undertakings.
The present finance minister, then an opposition member, wrote a letter on June 11, 1991 wherein he stated:
My understanding of this situation is that the government must recognize the tax immunity of First Nations people. Upon proof of status, a First Nations citizen should not be required to pay the GST levy.
He then went on to state:
I urge you to rectify their present situation and honour the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government in relation to tax immunity to aboriginal Canadians.
I wonder why the finance minister did not stick to his word and come out strongly against the intervention of the justice minister against the interest of first nations people on this issue.
The Prime Minister himself took up the torch on this issue a year and a half after the finance minister made his views clear. The Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, wrote on January 22, 1993:
I have pressed the Minister to amend the policy for off-reserve purchases, which are exempt from the GST only if they are delivered to the reserve by the vendor. This policy, as you can attest, has the practical effect of denying a tax exemption guaranteed by the Indian Act.
The Liberal government has done a real disservice to all aboriginal people and all Canadians. The Minister of Justice has failed to uphold the government's fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people.
It also appears that either the Prime Minister and the finance minister did not know of the justice minister's actions and stance on the issue of taxation of first nations people or were willing to admit their earlier letters on the issue were little more than a pre-election ploy to curry votes from aboriginal Canadians.
I trust the government will admit that it has failed to uphold its fiduciary duty to aboriginal people and come clean with the public on where the government stands with respect to taxation on aboriginal peoples.