Debates of May 26th, 1999

Petitions

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, bears 750 signatures. It deals with suicide or euthanasia.

The petitioners call upon parliament not to repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada of September 30, 1993, to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present the following petition from Mount Royal riding constituents concerned with the use of chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes, that is for use on lawns and golf courses as an example.

The petitioners believe that an immediate moratorium on these products should be enacted until it has scientifically been proven that these chemicals are safe and do not affect the water or the lives and health of our children.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling in this House a petition bearing the signatures of 155 people from the riding of Drummond.

This petition reads as follows: “We, the undersigned, residents of the Province of Quebec, call the following to the attention of the House:

“Whereas the elimination of taxes on sports millionaires is of considerable concern to us; whereas our representatives in the House of Commons have both the responsibility and the duty to pass legislation that will maintain fiscal balance among all Canadians and ensure, first and foremost, a basic income to the most disadvantaged;

“Therefore, we present to parliament a petition entitled `No to the abolition of taxes on sports millionaires' and request that members of parliament pass the measures needed to ensure greater fairness in Canada for taxpayers.”

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from the Inuit community of Salluit in Nunavik.

According to the petitioners, between 16 and 23 people are living in three bedroom dwellings during the winter in Salluit. The Inuit find the housing conditions in Nunavik extremely distressing. They consider the situation totally intolerable. It contributes to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and social problems.

The federal government must assume its obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement on housing in Nunavik.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the country on the critical issue of health care facing all citizens of Canada.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that the Canada Health Act must reign supreme, that the principles of that act must be seen as paramount and that the government must do everything in its power to guarantee national standards of quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand once again on behalf of petitioners from Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland, the prairie provinces, British Columbia and the territories.

The petitioners point out that while the Criminal Code imposes serious sentences on people who abuse animals in a variety of ways, judges, by and large, do not take cruelty to animals too seriously in terms of the record. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to impose harsher penalties for serious offences against animals and to establish an education program for judges to help them understand society's abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition from petitioners from British Columbia.

The petitioners state that at some point during the production of child pornography either a child or children have been victimized, that child pornography hurts children, that it can never be justified and that the possession of child pornography perpetuates the production of children pornography.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize that Canadians reject the legalization of the possession of child pornography and ask the government to intervene on this matter to establish and strengthen laws relating to the possession of child pornography to ensure that it will never be legalized.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition concerning trade. The concern of the petitioners is that there seems to be growing pressure to export fresh water from Canada. They are very concerned and call upon parliament to do whatever is necessary to safeguard the future of fresh water in Canada.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens from across New Brunswick, from Fredericton, Shediac, Cap-Pelé and Robichaud.

The petitioners are very upset about Bill C-78, the pension bill. They would like to see it stopped. They are very upset about the $30 billion that the government is taking from them. We must remember that these petitioners are the same people who are experiencing no satisfaction because the government will not recognize pay equity, so they are falling into the same group.

It is a pleasure to introduce this petition with hundreds of names of workers and retirees who are very upset.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Peterborough who believe it is time to cancel the unpayable debts of the most impoverished nations.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to cancel the debts owed to it by the 50 most impoverished nations by the year 2000. They also call upon the Government of Canada to urge the the lending countries at the upcoming G-8 summit in Cologne to cancel the backlog of debt owed by the 50 most impoverished nations by the year 2000.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to urge these leaders to take effective steps to prevent high levels of debt from building up again by promoting sustainable economic and social development instead of supporting measures demanded by international financial institutions that erode health care, education and the environment, further impoverishing the poorest populations of the world.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 121, 123 and 189. .[Text]

Question No. 121—

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Could the government provide a complete list of all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an accumulated debt on their last band audit?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Nothern Development]

The government could not provide such a list given that the financial statements of first nations and their organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. In addition, a federal court decision of June 27, 1985 judged that information regarding Indian moneys was confidential and not subject to release by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

First Nations are required to make their audited financial statements available to members of their community. Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot release the audited financial statements because of the third party nature of the audit.

Individuals interested in reviewing a first nation`s audit can contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the chief and council whether they wish to disclose audits to non-band members.

Question No. 123—

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Could the government provide a complete list of Jack Anawak's, Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, travel expenses from January 1996 to the present including: ( a ) the destination; ( b ) the number and names of the staff that attended; ( c ) the total cost of travel; ( d ) the name and cost of accomodation; ( e ) whether the spouse attended and at whose cost; ( f ) the name of the airline used; ( g ) the cost of the flight for each individual; ( h ) the ticket class for each individual; ( i ) the name of restaurants attended; and ( j ) the cost of meals for each individual?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

The travel expenses information being requested is not in the possession of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The information is in the possession of the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertakes to exercise her authority under section 71 of the Nunavut Act to direct the Interim commissioner to supply the hon. member for Skeena with travel expenses information being requested that is in the possession of his office.

Question No. 189—

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With regard to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery and the response to the directive of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladstone that a new trial be held to establish the extent of licences that ought to be available to the Heiltsuk band: (a) how many spawn-on-kelp licences were in existence in 1996, 1997 and 1998, and how many of these were held by non-natives; how many were held by the Heiltsuk band, and how many were held by individual Heiltsuk band members; (b) is the government currently negotiating with aboriginal groups in regard to the nature and extent of their claim to an aboriginal right to commercially harvest spawn-on-kelp, and if so, name the aboriginal groups; (c) how many and on what basis were additional licences issued to the Heiltsuk in 1997 and 1998; were they issued to accommodate an aboriginal right; what is the limit of the Heiltsuk aboriginal right; how many licences are required to satisfy that right; what evidence was considered in making that decision; was any effort made to determine what the limit of aboriginal commercial right is and how many licences were required to accommodate that right; (d) what role did the threat of disruption of the fishery by the Heiltsuk play in the decision to provide additional licenses in 1997 and 1998; how many additional spawn-on-kelp licences were issued to the Heiltsuk; is there a plan to issue further licenses to the Heiltsuk or other aboriginal groups; and (e) what was the extent (in pounds) of Heiltsuk food allocations for spawn-on-kelp in 1997 and 1998; what is the number of Heiltsuk band members; have annual reviews of the possible extent of illegal sales of these food allocations been undertaken; and what were the findings and recommendations of these reviews?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Departments of fisheries and Oceans and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:

(a) The number and status of spawn-on-kelp licences for 1996 to 1998 is the following:

All Heiltsuk licences are issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, not to individuals. First Nations people participate in both commercial and communal fisheries.

(b) No, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, is not negotiating with aboriginal groups regarding the nature and extent of the claim to an aboriginal right to commercially harvest spawn-on-kelp.

(c) The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Gladstone decision, 1996, found that the Heiltsuk tribal Council had an unextinguished aboriginal right to trade herring spawn-on-kelp on a commercial basis. While the court held that there was no internal limit on this right, it stated that external limitations could be placed on the exercise of the right and that the right did not provide exclusivity of priority. Some guidance was provided on matters that might be considered to determine whether the external limitations were justified. As part of aboriginal fisheries strategy, AFS, discussions DFO consulted with the Heiltsuk on the number of licences to be issued for the 1997 and 1998 seasons. In accordance with the agreement reached, six licences were issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council for the 1997 season and nine for the 1998 fishing season. The agreement, however, does not define aboriginal rights or their extent.

(d) Licences were issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council on the basis of negotiations, not in response to threats or other actions. The Heiltsuk were issued a total of six licences in 1997 and nine licences in 1998. In 1999 a total of nine licences will again be issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. There are no plans to issue spawn-on-kelp licences to any other group.

(e) The Heiltsuk food allocation for 1997 and 1998 was 440 tonnes of herring, whole fish, per year. This allocation can also be taken as spawn-on-kelp. The estimated equivalent weight for spawn-on-kelp is approximately 200,000 pounds of product. The total registered population for the Heiltsuk First Nation is 2,014. There is no annual review of the possible extent of illegal sales of the Heiltsuk food allocation. There is, however, ongoing enforcement in all fisheries.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Question No. 189 was answered today. I just want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the last time I asked about questions he said that answers were running at about 78% on time. With respect to the questions that I asked it has taken, on average, 127 days to answer. I think that is unreasonable.

I have two questions outstanding and I would surely like to have them answered before parliament rises. They are matters that should have been dealt with by the government a long time ago. We are talking about things that occurred back in 1992-93. There was a commission of inquiry report in 1997 on these matters and the auditor general reported on them in 1999, so I am not too sure why the questions have not been answered. I would like to see those answers.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have responded to at least some of the member's requests. As I have explained before, some questions involve inquiries of every department of government and in some cases twice. We go to one department and then another, and that requires us to go back to the other. However, I assure the member that I am looking after his remaining questions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-39 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena.

Motion P-39

That an Order of the House do issue copies of the most recent band audits at all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an accumulated debt on their last band audit.

In dealing with this motion I would point out that the financial statements of first nations and their organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. Portions are mandatorily protected under subsection 19(1) which protects personal information.

In addition, a federal court decision of June 27, 1985 judged that information regarding Indian moneys was confidential and not subject to release by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

First nations are required to make their audited financial statements available to members of their community. Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot release the audited financial statements because of the third party nature of the audit.

Individuals interested in reviewing a first nations audit can contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the chief and council whether they wish to disclose audits to non-band members.

I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see that the hon. member for Skeena is not here. In the circumstances, I wonder if it might be appropriate to withhold the request to withdraw until the hon. member could be present and we could deal with the matter then. Clearly, he has certain rights in the circumstances to accept the parliamentary secretary's explanation or request that the matter be transferred for debate. I think it might be more appropriate if we wait until the hon. member is here, if that is agreeable to the parliamentary secretary.

Is that agreed?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Agreed.