House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wto.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a great demonstration here.

I think the member is new to this parliament. I would like to turn back the clock a bit to when his party was in opposition. He talks about a free trading nation. I do not know if I am getting sick to my stomach, but to hear a Liberal government talk about trade and free trade just does not sound right because it wanted to rip up the free trade agreement. It is just unbelievable what the hon. member has just said.

I have a very simple question for the member and after he has finished answering it maybe he could thank the Progressive Conservative government for the great job it did in bringing the free trade agreement to the floor. Would we be in a surplus position today if it were not for the free trade agreement?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, we would not be in a surplus position today if it had not been for the wisdom of Canadians who threw that government out of office and put this government in.

I hope the hon. member does not need what he just tore up. I remember a certain prime minister tearing something up and we were not sure what it was. I think what he tore up was the heart of this nation. He left a $42 billion deficit which we have had to clean up.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, even though I am young, I remember that when the Liberals were in opposition from 1989 to 1992 they were against the GST. They were also against any change to the unemployment insurance.

I remember when Doug Young said that it would be a disaster for the country if we ever changed the UI. I also remember when the Liberal Party said the same thing about free trade.

What happened to the Liberals who had the heart of the NDP but all of a sudden, the day after the election, they lost it. Can they explain that to us?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have seen selective memories before. This party has never been willing to climb into bed with an elephant who could roll over and crush it at a whim, unlike the Conservative Party. Members of this party recognize that we have to have agreements all over the world; that free trade does not simply mean a deal between Brian and Ronnie, which is what it was; that free trade means that we have to liberalize trade and take the great technologies and the great talents of Canadians and export them around the world. That is what this party believes. That is what the government believes. That is exactly what we are going to do in Seattle.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and I would like to tell him about a number of experiences, which show that caution must be exercized in that area.

Three years ago, Canada entered into an agreement on lumber exports with the United States. That agreement was reached at the expense of Quebec and of the four provinces that were forced to take part in the arrangement.

Today, both Canada's free trade lumber board, headed by Tembec's CEO, and Quebec's Association des industriels du bois de sciage want to go back to free trade, because it is an interesting option and they would rather get out of the existing agreement.

I hope the Canadian government will choose that option and do so within a few weeks, so as to send a clear message to our industries with respect to future investments.

As for the NDP motion, I do not think that not being present at the table is the right approach. We understood a long time ago that Quebec must be present at international tables to effectively ensure that what is negotiated by the Canadian government does not adversely affect Quebec, since Ottawa's interests often differ from those of Quebec and other regions of the country.

My question is this: Does the hon. member remember that the free trade agreement, which is very good for all of Canada, was achieved because Quebec's sovereignists supported the idea? Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry displayed true leadership, with the result that Quebec is now less and less dependent on the Canadian political space and gradually finding its niche in the North American economic environment.

The federal government should be open to ideas such as the pan-American dollar, which would help stabilize the economy and give an even greater push to our exports.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, we all have fits of common sense, including separatists. It is interesting to me that a separatist would stand to say that they supported the attempts at free trade and the negotiations as a Canadian initiative. It is unfortunate they would not recognize that all of the benefits that have been negotiated through globalization and freer trade around the world have benefited the province of Quebec.

I recall during my days with the ministry of industry and trade in the province of Ontario travelling to various places in the world. I invariably came across an office wherever I went that was the largest, most aggressive trade office representing any government that existed, whether it was Hong Kong or the United Kingdom. That office would be the office of the province of Quebec. They are very aggressive about negotiating trade. They are indeed free traders. For that philosophical understanding I congratulate them.

It is too bad they have to have that one plank in their party to rip the guts out of this country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the member for Mississauga West who thinks a farmer is a clerk behind a 7-Eleven counter. I believe that is his definition. I do not think he knows for sure where wheat comes from or anything else.

I remember campaigning in 1997 when the Liberal candidate did an excellent job of presenting the red book policies. About 75% of my riding is made up of farmers. It was unfortunate for the Liberal candidate, as he got 6% of the vote and I got about 80%. I am here and he is back home. Throughout Saskatchewan I do not believe there are any rural Liberal MPs. Those people have rejected the Liberal version of agricultural issues. In Alberta there is zero. In British Columbia, zero. They are not buying the policies. A committee was sent out to the prairies to find out why more westerners are not supporting the Liberals. The Liberals do not seem to get the message. Western farmers are supporting Reform policies. That is why we are here and our Liberal comrades are not. They do not understand.

Can the member explain to me, is it because Reform MPs are here representing western grain growers and farmers, with a few New Democrats, that the Prime Minister snubbed the farmers who came here the other day asking for help for a disastrous situation which the government is ignoring through its ridiculous AIDA program?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Two hundred million dollars was given at about 12.30 p.m. and by 5.20 p.m. it is a ridiculous amount of money. I find that difficult.

I know that the member takes a little ribbing from time to time, but I know he is a sincere gentleman. While he stands in this place and goes on about the politics of Saskatchewan, he knows full well that the issue of gun control was probably what sent him here. As long as there are curtains on the back of the truck, somewhere to put the rifle, they will send the member to Ottawa. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with support for the farmers.

The farmers out west know darned well that we are attempting to address the problems they are facing and that it is a crisis. The member opposite cannot in all seriousness stand and try to pretend that he was sent here in some God-like fashion to protect the men and women on the farms. It is a pill I am not prepared to swallow.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, today we have a motion by the NDP. Members will agree is a very, very tough one. There is reference to sabotage. It says that if there is no guarantee, we ought not to negotiate.

I have heard comments by just about everyone today, either here in the House or on television. Among these was the last comment made by our Bloc Quebecois colleague. He said that they had understood that the empty chair tactic does not work. Quebec must be present for negotiation, to be sure that it is not dealt a bad hand by Canada. Perhaps they ought to adopt the same attitude during negotiations within Canada. That might be a good thing.

That said, there must be openness to consultation with the provinces in order to ensure that indeed, when the time comes for the next round of negotiations, the position will suit the greatest possible number of Quebecers and Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I must indicate that I am going to share my time with the member for Kings—Hants. I forgot to say that when I started.

Today we also learned that our friends in the Liberal Party have discovered free trade. I have never heard such passionate speeches about free trade from Liberals. They are saying “We have always been for free trade, just not the Conservative brand of free trade”.

We remember the 1993 election campaign. After the election, they said “You know, there are some technicalities to be changed”. We never really knew what, and whether it was really important.

However, we must remember that free trade, despite everything that was said on both sides, was no miracle solution, but is now a vital tool for a country. It will not fix everything, however. Today, we have to pay attention, with what the NDP is telling us.

On the eve of the negotiations, a constructive and credible position is needed for the people of this country. The government has a report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee travelled, with some difficulty from time to time, and heard exceptional witnesses.

When the time came to write the recommendations, they were completely fudged. We hope that the response by the Minister for International Trade will improve the quality of the recommendations and the work done.

There are a number of examples. In cultural matters, I would like someone to show me where words such as “protection” and “cultural exemption” are to be found in the recommendations. They are not there.

All they did was come up with a new instrument that was unanimously approved, supposedly, by the cultural sector. There was no such unanimity. They said that if we were really not capable of getting real protection, real cultural exemption, we should have a mechanism as strong as the WTO or we would have to protect our culture. That was not a recommendation at all.

We hope that the government response to the recommendations will be much more credible. The upcoming negotiations have changed. Five, ten or twenty years after signing a treaty or a contract, we realize that there are some good things and some not so good things we did not think about. It is not possible to think of everything, because society is evolving as well. It is therefore normal that the major rounds of negotiation are occurring more frequently. Before, they were few and far between. Why is the cycle shortening? Because things are changing more quickly.

The Seattle negotiations are beginning. We cannot rest on our laurels, but things are not desperate either. The Progressive Conservative Party would approach things credibly. It would not put up a wall or establish measures to block free trade. Nor would it do as the Liberals are doing and claim to have rediscovered the true value of trade trade. Credibility must be maintained.

I would remind the House that the Liberals opposed free trade, and not just when the Progressive Conservatives were in power. One of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speeches was mentioned. Members will recall that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had decided to open up the country's borders. Why? Because there was an economic boom in the United States.

Canada had just finished building a railroad, a financial ordeal, and it needed money, so that markets could be opened up for the new territories served, it needed the Americans' money, know-how, and enterprise here in Canada, especially in Quebec, to develop the country's economy. So, Laurier was interested in free trade because he needed money.

When Laurier came to power, Canada was in financial trouble. There was a lack of financial, human and technological resources with which to develop the country and there was definitely no market. The government had just opened up a huge country, built a railroad through uninhabited lands, and there was no market. So yes, Laurier made the right decision to open up to his American neighbour. He had no choice, however.

The Liberals did not always think this way, however. When Mr. Trudeau was in power, what exactly was the Foreign Investment Review Agency all about? It was one of the most protectionist measures Canada ever had. It was not the work of the Conservatives, but of the Liberals.

During the Trudeau era, they created a review agency that prevented billions of dollars of investments from getting in or out of the country. This limited the country's growth. Thank heaven, changes were made when the Conservatives came along. Instead of the concept of screening—surrounding Canada with a kind of sieve instead of a wall—they moved to a far more positive term: Investment Canada.

We must take care. The Liberals are not all that protectionist. But when they are really hungry, when they really have the bit in their teeth they go as far as they can, sometimes too far, not only up to the edge of the precipice, but right over it.

It is all very fine to sign agreements with the United States, with Mexico, Israel, Chile, all of the Americas in fact, excluding or including Cuba—we are not sure which, because Cuba was not at Toronto, so we do not know the government's position on it—but we must take care.

Today we see cases Canada has lost before the WTO and others it has won. In Europe at the present time, if one were to speak with the French parliamentarians for example, one would be told “That beef with hormones, you know, we don't want any more of that—nor genetically modified organisms—nor asbestos”. That is the situation in Europe right now, the barriers are not tariff barriers but non-tariff barriers. At the WTO, this is not sufficiently clear. In the report, a number of witnesses emphasized that this matter must be addressed.

There are currently problems in international trade that have a direct effect on events in this country. We would like them addressed in a credible and proper way.

We should not make free trade available to everyone, and say thank you very much. With our experience, we should look nevertheless at the real effects. Positive, yes, because the Liberals are quite happy to have had free trade. Without these new agreements, Canada would have been in an economic downturn for over three years under the Liberals.

We would have had a recession, because the domestic market was in a slump. Foreign trade, however, was strong. So it is all very well to run around saying that we are open to the world, but when we open the door of our house, we do not want people to go off with our furniture. They are welcome to buy. They can come in and leave as they wish, but they cannot go off with our furniture. So, we are saying we have to take care.

Last weekend, I had occasion to meet Bill Phipps, when he was in my riding. He is the moderator of the United Church of Canada. The member for Winnipeg—Transcona knows him very well, being a United Church minister himself.

I discussed trade with Mr. Phipps. Since becoming the moderator of the United Church, he has spoken of faith and the economy. He raises some very interesting issues; not necessarily miracle solutions from any one point of view, but issues that are worthy of discussion.

What we are saying is that the issue of the individual rights of Canadians is important, but the impact on other people living in a country with whom we have free trade relations should also be taken into consideration. We are saying that free trade is important, as is being outward-looking. Canada has always been an outward-looking nation. This has evolved through successive governments.

However, through experience we have learned to look before we leap, as it were. New information is now available to us and we must do a proper analysis.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant Ontario

Liberal

Bob Speller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member was saying about the standing committee report, the future of the World Trade Organization, and how he felt he was handled unjustly in terms of putting recommendations forward which I think were very strong recommendations that the government is taking very seriously.

The recommendations go to the fundamental issues of trade in this country. They draw on some of the issues, as the hon. member said, such as culture and agriculture. They reflect the 120 or 130 representations before the standing committee. The hon. member knows the standing committee had 38 meetings and met with over 138 or 139 different groups. Could the hon. member tell me how many of those 38 meetings he showed up to?

Had the member spent more time in committee he would have known that the committee debated all the issues he talked about. The rest of the committee members came together and discussed the issues. The hon. member could have learned a lot about what Canadians were saying on this issue if he had shown up to the committee meetings where we drew on the recommendations rather than write a dissenting report stating that there was no debate in committee in this regard.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will use an expression which is not unparliamentary. I checked a few years ago. I find the parliamentary secretary to be patronizing, because given the situation in the Progressive Conservative Party, one must wear several hats.

I find it somewhat despicable to see the parliamentary secretary would so patronizing as to say that a member was or was not present at meetings of a committee. I want to say that I was there rather often, if not on a regular basis. When I was not there, I could always rely on technology to follow proceedings.

I want to point out that we do not live in a third world country. We have documents. We have everything.

Indeed, we had quality witnesses. The parliamentary secretary said that I may have been there less often than him. I can say that I brought a lot more to the discussion than he did. I am very disappointed by his attitude.

If this is how the parliamentary secretary behaves, if this is how the debate is to proceed, I find it somewhat despicable. But I will remind the parliamentary secretary that if there ever was one person opposed to free trade, it was him.

If there is a person who made an about face, a 180 degree turn, it is the parliamentary secretary.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

He is a snake.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

I hope the parliamentary secretary will be much more open with members of this House, in the future.

He is well aware that committee members from both sides of the House, except himself of course, were disappointed about how the recommendations were drafted, very disappointed indeed.

I hope that the quality of replies will be better with the Minister for International Trade than with the parliamentary secretary. I have more faith in the minister than in that fellow opposite.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult that the hon. member would attack me in that way, given the fact that he only showed up to two of the 38 meetings and would—

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary had his kick at the can in this debate. I thought Your Honour would at least move to the other side of the House so that we could put our point of view forward.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I will repeat once again that if a member stands for questions and comments and represents the same party as the member who has just finished speaking, the Speaker will always recognize someone from across the aisle, or at least from another party. As long as there is someone standing who represents another political party or opposition to the member's point of view, that person will be recognized.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not aware that prior to drafting these recommendations the standing committee met with some 138-odd representatives from across the country? In fact it travelled to different parts of the country to seek the views of farmers and of people involved in the cultural industries. The recommendations in the report reflect very clearly what the representations were.

The hon. member claims that somehow I spoke out against free trade. This party spoke out against the American-style free trade agreement that members of his government were bringing in at the time. We spoke out against the fact that we did not have the access into the American market that they were claiming.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Obviously that hit a chord because they are continuing to yell at me.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the hon. member. This is an excerpt from

Hansard

, dated December 23, 1988, on page 767. He said:

He has come out and said that well over 100,000 jobs in the agri-food sector could be lost. I rest my case.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to debate the New Democrat opposition day motion. It is a wonderful time to recognize the success of one of the most forward thinking and innovative policies to be introduced in the 20th century by any government in Canada, the free trade agreement.

It is interesting for me to recognize today the Liberal position on this issue and how it is diametrically opposite to what the Liberal position was during the 1988 election. I often wonder what it would be like to be able to float through one's political life without being burdened under any of the impedimenta of values, principle and consistency on policies. That is exactly what the Liberals do on almost every issue.

The only thing worse than their stealing our policies would be for them to implement their own, and that is what we are a little concerned about at this juncture. They are starting to implement their own policies and we are a little afraid about the impact of them in the long term.

The free trade agreement in Canada, liberalized trade, has been a winner for Canadians across the country. The

Economist

magazine in its 1998 year preview said specifically that the ability of the Liberal Government of Canada to eliminate the deficit was based largely on the free trade agreement and on the GST, both of which were vociferously opposed by members opposite. However the fact is that the policies worked.

We rise today to debate the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party on trade. Unfortunately New Democratic Party members are confusing a number of issues relative to trade. There is within the New Democratic Party a belief that environmental issues and trade issues cannot co-exist comfortably. I believe they can. We may agree on the ends we want to achieve in terms of an environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable global economy, which can co-exist. The ends are very similar, but the means to get there are quite different.

Good trade policy can mirror sound environmental policy. The World Trade Organization recently came out with a paper that recognizes both the pitfalls of trade in terms of environmental policy and some of the strengths and opportunities. There is a movement now for a world environmental organization which would mirror the World Trade Organization but would focus specifically on environmental issues. I think that would be very positive.

Trade as an economic vehicle helps improve the lot of all countries. In fact it helps improve the lot of the poorest countries. Let us look at what has happened in Mexico since the free trade agreement or the North American Free Trade Agreement. It has made significant advancements economically. In terms of democratic reform and in terms of environmental reform there has been significant advancement.

Wealthier countries and countries enjoying relative prosperity can better afford to have sound environmental policy. Some of the worst environmental policies and disasters existed in closed economies before the end of the cold war in eastern Europe. To somehow say that free market economies, trading economies and integrated economies somehow will lead to bad environmental policy is counterintuitive.

I would argue that the environment is essentially and intrinsically a global issue. Pollution does not stop at borders. Nor does trade. As a result these issues need to be dealt with globally. Increasingly I think trade can be an extraordinarily successful lever in achieving a greater level of global commitment to environmental policies.

The issue of labour standards is raised frequently. Some point to trade as exacerbating the problem when the opportunities provided to some of the developing economies by trade will ultimately provide greater levels of economic opportunity and flexibility. What happens in countries that take advantage of trade opportunities is that ultimately they prosper economically. Their economies become integrated, as do their political systems. Quite frequently the people enjoying better levels of economic success will ultimately see opportunities too and demand greater democratic reforms.

The issue today is how we can best embrace trade opportunities to provide a greater commitment to environmental or labour policies. It certainly is not by putting a relatively weak trade minister in the position of the ambassador to the WTO.

The previous ambassador to the WTO, John Weekes, was a professional. He was exceptional and he served Canada very well. I would argue that with the appointment of the former minister of trade, Sergio Marchi, as the ambassador to the WTO we have gone from Weekes to weak. My concern is that as we go into the next round of trade negotiations the global community is going to see an inherent weakness in our representative at the negotiating table.

The MMT legislation that people so often point to in demonstrating a weakness in chapter 11 of the NAFTA was in fact bad legislation. The MMT legislation was poorly drafted and poorly designed. Ultimately it was not a failure of chapter 11; it was a failure of bad legislation. The environment minister responsible for introducing that legislation was Sergio Marchi. He went on to become minister of trade and is now representing our interests at the WTO. In terms of our ability to be represented strongly at the next WTO rounds, Canadians should be very scared because the depth and breadth of knowledge and the understanding of trade issues by that individual is simply not sound.

Beyond that, we are now paying copious quantities of quid to the previous ambassador to the WTO in his new role as consultant. Effectively we fired him as our ambassador to the WTO, but because the guy we hired, the former trade minister, cannot handle it, we ended up hiring the consultant company that the former ambassador works for. Canadians are paying twice the money and getting, I would suggest, half the representation at the WTO. That is the real issue.

The problem is, even when Liberals finally decide that free trade is a good idea, they do not know how to maximize Canada's opportunities in the global environment.

It is extremely important that we recognize, if we are going to be successful in the new knowledge based global economy, that trade and technology go hand in hand. E-commerce is expected to grow to $1.3 trillion by 2002. There are no borders with e-commerce. With or without trade agreements, e-commerce will continue to grow. The only levers that will have any impact on the ramifications of e-commerce and the increasingly interconnected knowledge based economy will be through trade.

I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that we begin to accept, first, that we are in a global environment, second, that trade is going to continue to be an engine for growth and a vehicle to achieve greater prosperity for all citizens of the world and, third, that the free market system is the best vehicle to achieve that. We should be working together to find out how we can maximize those opportunities within those parameters.

I would suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that the recent statement from the WTO, recognizing both the environmental pitfalls and strengths of trade and some of the alternatives to achieve better environmental policy in a global trading environment, would be a good place to start. We are heading in the right direction and we look forward to their constructive involvement in that process.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant Ontario

Liberal

Bob Speller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record for the hon. member, who obviously reads

Frank

magazine. I do not.

He talked about Mr. Weekes coming back on contract with the Government of Canada. The hon. member should know that is totally false. In fact, we are happy that Mr. Weekes has taken a contract with another company, which has no relations with the Government of Canada or that office. The story is totally false.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I really did not expect the parliamentary secretary to have his facts straight. In fact, I suggest that his facts on this issue are probably as wrong and that he is as misinformed as he was when as an opposition member he was one of the most vociferous opponents of free trade.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It being 5.50 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.

First Nations Ombudsman ActPrivate Members' Business

November 4th, 1999 / 5:50 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

moved that Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communication problems between members of First Nations communities and their First Nation and between First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private member's bill on behalf of thousands of grassroots natives from many reserves across our land who have, through their work throughout the last couple of years, proposed the idea of creating an ombudsman, someone to whom they can go with the difficulties they face on the reserves. It gives me a great deal of pleasure, having worked with many of these people over an extended period of time, to present this bill today.

My involvement with Indian affairs began in December 1998 when I was named deputy Indian affairs critic. At the same time, the Stoney Reserve in my riding was undergoing a forensic audit. This reserve has been a hot bed of allegations of financial mismanagement. The audit uncovered enough evidence of criminal activity that 43 allegations of wrongdoing were turned over to the RCMP.

Immediately after word got out that I was responsible for accountability on the reserves I was literally bombarded by grassroots natives from all across Canada. The files I received number in the hundreds, while well over 200 cases of mismanagement have been reported by the media.

As I travelled in Canada from reserve to reserve the stories were the same. The chiefs and councils have mismanaged money, so there is no place to live and, in some cases, no clean water to drink. The squalor, suicides and despair were absolutely sickening.

In addition, I have had hundreds of cases brought to me concerning election irregularities. The election practices were clearly flawed and corrupt.

The list of problems goes on and on, but to be fair I must point out that not all reserves are this bad. Many of them are very good. However, unfortunately the majority of them fall into this category.

As we held accountability summits across Canada I met a lady by the name of Leona Freed from the Dakota Plains First Nation. Since we first met she has set up the First Nations Accountability Coalition which represents approximately 5,000 grassroots people from coast to coast.

The First Nations Accountability Coalition wants grassroots aboriginal people in Canada to work together to ensure that their rights to equality, democracy and accountability are protected and enhanced. They have tried to solve their problems by working with the department of Indian affairs, but in most cases the problems have simply not been recognized. They feel their only recourse would be the appointment of a first nations ombudsman.

The first nations ombudsman would be similar to the auditor general in that he or she would serve as an impartial and independent investigating officer. With this as the mandate, I had the legislative drafters create a bill to meet the grassroots objectives and that is what is before us today.

Since the bill was first introduced there have been a number of cases reported, as well as organizations and individuals who have recognized the same problems of lack of accountability on the reserves.

There is simply no point in mincing words. In 1998 and 1999 the federal government will spend $6.3 billion on special programs for aboriginal people. The total benefit for status Indians on reserves is estimated to be $19,903 per person. While the amount spent is massive, there is often little in the way of accountability on how the funds are disbursed. Much of the money ends up in the hands of the wrong people, while poverty on aboriginal reserves remains the norm. Mismanagement and fraud have become standard practices.

Some of the most notorious examples follow. At the Saulteaux Band in Saskatchewan, Chief Gabe Gopher's honorarium and travel expenses totalled $171,000. In 1997 about $600,000 was spent on travel by chief and band council. This band had accumulated a deficit of $1.2 million as of March 31.

The second example is that of the Poundmaker Band in Saskatchewan. Chief Ted Antoine made some $200,000 in salary and benefits, while his brother Duane, a band councillor, pulled in salary and benefits of $149,000. The total band population is only 1,000 people and the accumulated deficit of the band is $1.8 million.

Then there is the Stoney Band in Alberta, where the chiefs and councillors received $1.4 million in salaries and benefits, ranging from about $65,000 to $160,000 per year. The total band population is 3,300 people. The unemployment rate on this reserve is 90%.

At the Samson Cree Band in Alberta, the chief and 12 councillors are paid $1.5 million in salaries and benefits. The total band population is about 5,000 people. The unemployment rate is at 85%, while 80% of the reserve is on welfare.

At the Tlaoquiaht Band in B.C., Chief Francis Frank's salary and benefits totalled $109,000 in 1997. He resigned in December of that year. There were only 500 to 600 people living on the reserve. An auditor who was called in to look at the band books was unable to express an opinion on the financial statements due to inadequate record keeping with reserves, in particular with respect to expenditures and payroll. Most of the reserve population is unemployed.

The pay levels of chiefs and councils are incredible, given the horrific economic conditions and unemployment rates which exist on many reserves. What it demonstrates is that often it is those who have the power who also get the lion's share of the benefits.

Over the past 30 years at least $60 billion has been spent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to create a myriad of programs exclusively for aboriginal people. What is the result of spending all this money? One-third of aboriginals on reserves live in overcrowded conditions. Over 50% of the aboriginal children live in poverty. The infant mortality rate is twice as high for aboriginal children as for other children. Alcoholism, suicide, illness and crime rates are three times higher than they are for the non-aboriginal population. About 25% of Canada's aboriginal bands are being run under remedial management plans, with the combined debt of bands being $139 million. A department survey of 300 band councils found that the most common problem was lack of control and conflict of interest.

With all of these problems, what recourse is there for band members when chief and council squander their money? The people have gone to the RCMP in many cases. They have overcome the fear of reprisal. That is what happens in a lot of cases. If they cannot overcome that fear and bring some of this information forward, they have a tough time.

They have asked chief and council where the money has been spent. Tony Pascal, a band member from Vancouver, said:

The way I see it is Indian Affairs just calls natives who raise such issues liars. They don't realize we are the people who live with and witness our allegations.

A group from the Shuswap Band even tried to initiate an investigation into financial matters on their reserve with the RCMP's criminal investigation unit. Xavier Eugene, a former chief of the Shuswap Band, said:

We actually thought we might succeed but as we went along we found out there are many blocks to our pathway. Primarily these blocks were and are caused because of DIAND's antiquated policies regarding accountability of fiscal reporting. They require very little documentation to satisfy band council's requirement as being accountable to the grassroots members of the bands. The only prerequisite that DIAND has is that they must satisfy chiefs and council and not necessarily band membership.

The previous minister called for partnership. Partnership is what is going to work. The problem is that the people have been left out of the partnership. The band council only audits what it chooses to audit and that seems to satisfy the government.

I have had a forensic accountability study made of the books of a number of first nations. They would corroborate Mr. Eugene's statement. So much is not accounted for, but the department allows this to go on. The bigger problem is that the band members have gotten hold of the books and there has been clear mismanagement of money. They decided to go to the RCMP but that is where the investigation seems to end.

In correspondence between my colleague the member for Skeena and the commissioner of the RCMP, in not so many words the commissioner has stated that the all clear must be given by DIAND before an investigation can begin. I have that in a letter from the commissioner. Where does this leave grassroots aboriginals? Where are they supposed to go next? If they cannot go to the police and get any results and if they cannot get any results from DIAND and if they cannot get any results from the chief and council, where do they go? That is their question.

This resolution will solve that problem and provide an answer to their question. It has been their hard work that has been approved by thousands and thousands of grassroots natives across the country.

I think the Liberal government would be interested in knowing that I have in my possession an authentic letter that is addressed to all concerned citizens of the Hollow Water band. It is signed by the former and present elected leaders of the Hollow Water First Nation. The letter reads: “We have been involved in illegal and corrupt acts in the finances and management of the Hollow Water band, Hollow Water Corporation, Housing Authority, Band Welfare and other affiliates”.

It is a letter in writing signed by three chiefs in an apologetic manner about all the corruption. This letter was taken to the RCMP, but absolutely nothing has been done. That letter was written in 1994. The letter has been taken to the police and nothing has been done. Even when the people admit to their crime nothing is done and today the band members suffer more than they ever have.

I visited North Bay and was at a meeting for six hours. I heard stories of nepotism, favouritism, the doling out of funds for things like housing and post-secondary education. Some complaints were gut wrenching.

Eva Pitt is 72 years old and nearly blind. Her husband is 74 and he suffers from a heart problem. She has tried continuously for three years to get the Nipissing First Nation to install a sewer line to her house. She would like to have some running water as well, but they do not have that either. Even today there is still no sewer line.

Anne McLeod told of her sister-in-law dying in the back of a truck because there is no ambulance service for medical attention on her reserve. There are older ladies who have witnessed this for many years, but it is the helplessness and hopelessness that has attacked the youth on these reserves.

Judge Reilly from Alberta on September 22, 1999 released a report about the suicides on the Hobeema reserve. It begins with the story of Eric Johnson. On the day he killed himself, Eric Johnson walked home along a deserted dirt road and hugged his mother at the kitchen table before he went to the basement to hang himself. He spoke what turned out to be his last words, “I love you, Mom”. Eric was 12 years old. A few days later he was buried in a cemetery down the road from his mother's home on the Samson Cree reserve, on the prairie south of Edmonton. His mother put his teddy bear next to his white cross.

One week earlier in a house just a few minutes away 17 year old Lee Soosay had hanged himself as well. He stood on a chair and tied a shoelace to the rafter in his bedroom. Then he kicked the chair aside. His brother found him hanging with the little red Bible on the floor near his feet.

In a period of less than eight weeks last spring, four young men committed suicide on the Samson Cree reserve. Their deaths added to the grim suicide stats for young native men who have killed themselves at a rate that has been estimated up to 10 times the national average. I have sat with mothers in tears on these reserves. One mother has lost three sons to suicide because of the hopelessness and the helplessness that they feel.

According to Judge Reilly there are clear reasons for this heartbreaking epidemic. The report said the blame should be laid at the feet of corrupt native leaders and misguided federal bureaucrats who have created a legacy of despair. Judge Reilly said:

There was an outrageous combination of greed and ignorance that destroyed the culture of the youth's reserve and made success virtually impossible.

The reserve was a place of helplessness and hopelessness that he was unable to leave because of a history of dependence that was imposed on their people. Not only do vested interests divert money that should be going to help the poor members of the reserve, but I also believe that they deliberately sabotage education, health and welfare programs, and economic development in order to keep the people uneducated, unwell and unemployed so that they can be dominated and controlled.

Judge Reilly said that testimony from the reserve members had left no doubt that leaders had pursued a systematic but unspoken plan to break the reserve culture for their own benefit. The judge said:

A member of the tribal council spoke of a proposed development plan that was opposed by one man (a chief) because he did not want to allow the opportunities for employment that it would create. He testified at length as to the repression of Stoney people as a form of control, and said that tribal income is spent on social services, instead of economic development, as part of a deliberate policy of keeping people dependent so that they can be controlled. He volunteered his theory that controls lead to the depression that leads to suicide.

The deaths of these boys was due to a long history of mismanagement and the politics of self-interest that had created an atmosphere of despair and denied them the services and programs that were supposed to support them. Judge Reilly's report noted that the number of drug and alcohol related deaths on the Stoney reserve was at least 10 times the Canadian national average.

Yolande Redcalf, yet another case of despair, came to me just two weeks ago. Yolande Redcalf completed a 44 day hunger strike protesting the poverty and the housing shortage on her central Alberta reserve. The hunger strike was due to the fact that she had to share a rundown house with 14 relatives. She watched her diabetic aunt drive four kilometres each day to fetch drinking water that smelled like sewage. She saw her people trudge along the same potholed gravel road that has been the reserve's main thoroughfare since it was built in 1944.

Redcalf said she ended her hunger strike after Sunchild band chief Harry Goodrunning promised that two new houses would be built on the reserve before winter. I think the new minister had something to do with correcting this situation and I applaud him for that.

I had some documents brought to me which list the social welfare payments on the Alexander reserve. There were payments of made of $300, $400, $500 and $600. Suddenly there was one for $8,000. Then there was another one for $9,000. I asked the people who produced these documents why the payments were small, yet there were two that were very large. They produced two more documents. Both of the individuals had been dead for 13 years. They produced their death certificates. My question was who was signing the cheques.

I went with the band members to the RCMP. We delivered these documents in person. The RCMP looked at them and said they looked very suspicious and that it should be investigated. It was taken to the police in commercial crimes. Two months later they phoned back and said there would be no further investigation. When I asked why, there was no answer. One of the RCMP officers, who will remain unidentified, alluded to me that what went on in Ottawa was very strange because there was obvious evidence and somebody had said to drop the investigation, just drop it. That is very suspicious and I do not like the sound of that.

The auditor general, as we know, has been asking for ages to bring some accountability to these reserves. Every year for the six years I have been here that has been his plea.

The First Nations Accountability Coalition is growing every day. Leona Freed is still desperately looking for solutions. She has made a statement that we all should hear:

We, the grassroots people have nowhere to go for help! Indian affairs is the problem! Their henchmen are the chiefs, who if they are good little Indian people, are rewarded with no accountability. We need a native ombudsman who is not controlled by the chiefs. I have gone across the country and I can say, everybody is scared of chiefs and everybody is scared to deal with native issues, including our native politicians. And I can also say, Canada is not a democratic country when our government will allow third world conditions to exist on our first nation reserves. If our first nations communities were democratic and if Indian affairs was accountable to parliament, there would be no need for a national accountability coalition.

In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to Debbie Neepoose, Greg Twoyoungmen, Roy Littlechief, Edwin One Owl, Yolande Redcalf, Eva Pitt, Anna McLeod, Laura Deedza, Floyd Minifingers, John Chiefmoon and especially Leona Freed. These native people are living in the most dire straits. They are seeking a solution. They have unanimously across the country asked for the House to provide them with an ombudsman they can go to with allegations that will be addressed, to try and put an end to this tragic life on the reserves.

Let us put our political differences aside and solve the real problem of the dire straits of those in the human race who are suffering dearly.