Debates of Feb. 25th, 2000

Canada Elections Act

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, with respect to my application for an emergency debate, I would beg the brief indulgence of the House to explain the application so I can seek unanimous consent to move to that now.

The situation is that three Canadian children are being held hostage by the child protection services agency in California. They have been there for six months, separated from their parents. It is a violation of their rights and the rights of—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Excuse me. We need to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to hear your justification for an application for an emergency debate.

Does the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt have the consent of the House to put forth his reasons for the application for an emergency debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a question on procedure. I do not believe that when an hon. member is requesting an emergency debate he or she needs unanimous consent to outline it, according to my understanding.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is quite correct. That would be the case if we were in Routine Proceedings; however, the House is not in Routine Proceedings, under which the Speaker would normally consider applications for emergency debates. Therefore, an application for an emergency debate would require unanimous consent.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when we were interrupted for the vote we were in fact dealing with a motion which was under Routine Proceedings, so we are still in Routine Proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When we were interrupted for the vote we were governed by an earlier order, which was the procedure having to do with time allocation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the request for an emergency debate by our Reform colleague, I take it that some children are involved.

Before we reach a decision in this House, I would like our colleague to explain to us how this affects Canadian children, and how we could help him.

I believe that, because children are involved, we need to—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Perhaps the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve could ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to conclude his explanation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we want is the unanimous consent of the House to get additional information, so that our colleague can tell us about the urgency of this matter, about how we can help him and about how Canadian children are involved.

We should at least listen to the member to get additional information. Government members are nodding, which means they are prepared to entertain his request.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the House give its consent to proceed as suggested by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you just pointed out, the recorded division on the amendment to Bill C-2 at third reading stands deferred until next week.

I simply wish to draw the attention of the Chair, of all the members of this House and of those who are watching us on television that, because of the gag order at third reading, Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act, which is a fundamental law in any democracy, has only been debated by two parties in this House, namely the Reform Party and the government party, while the other three opposition parties were gagged.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order. The Chair will accept a motion to see the clock at 1.30 p.m.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since it appears that we will not be able to hear the application for an emergency debate, I wonder if the members who declined that request would be willing to discuss it with the parents involved.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair sees the clock at 1.30 p.m. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 4, 1999 consideration of the motion 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.

First Nations Ombudsman Act

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill deals with accountability for native people. Accountability is something that everybody claims we should have. There are many people on the government side who do their very best to ensure that many do not. Nowhere is the lack of accountability any more blatant than in the case of Canada's aboriginal people.

The two biggest problems that governments generally have foisted upon native people are the reserve system and the Indian Act.

I had occasion to be present at a service club where a native woman was the speaker for the evening. She was university educated and married to a Vancouver city police officer who was non-native. She was a very articulate woman. She pointed out that under the Indian Act, should she die, she is not even allowed to leave her estate to her husband or her children because the Indian Act makes her a ward of the government, a ward of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Another problem is the reserve system. It is nothing more than the ghettoizing of Canada's native population. In my riding I have the largest concentration of Russian Doukhobor people in the world, bar none. Not even Russia. It was the Doukhobor people's custom to live in a communal lifestyle when they came to Canada. That is the way they established themselves. Over time they have chosen to integrate into society, to have regular jobs, to have homes and to participate in all the benefits and responsibilities of being Canadian. A few have chosen not to do that and have stayed in a communal lifestyle. The operative word is chosen.

That is something that is being taken away from Canada's native people. There are things being done that virtually force them or at least put a tremendous amount of pressure on them to stay on reserves. The money that goes to the various reserves is done on the basis of the population of the reserve. It is incumbent upon native leaders to find ways to encourage native people to remain on reserve. For people who are not already on reserve they try to force them, in one manner or another, to become residents of the reserve. It is nothing more than a feudal system.

One of the big problems is elections and how people are democratically elected. When I was talking about the Nisga'a treaty and some of the problems of potential autocratic leadership, some people asked if the leaders were not elected in most cases. The answer is that they are. As I pointed out to them, I am elected. I am the member of parliament for my riding. I am elected by the people of my riding to represent them. If I do not do a good job, they are entitled to write to a newspaper, go on radio, stand on the street corner and rail against me, and run against me in the next election. If they beat me, fine. If they do not, life goes on.

What if I owned all their houses, owned their bank accounts and controlled where they worked? What kind of accountability would people have if they became leaders with that incredible kind of power or if someone ran against them and was not successful? When the same people was back into power, what kind or retribution would they force upon the people who had the temerity to run against them and to speak out against them? What is holding those leaders accountable to native people when such things happen?

We have documented case after case of situations where that has happened. That is not to say that some native bands cannot act benevolently on behalf of their people. We have some excellent cases of that. The Sechelt band operates very effectively with a municipal style native government.

We have other examples. I mentioned the Nisga'a so I will start with them. Many Nisga'a people live in poverty on reserves, in very oppressive conditions, but there are only 1,700 native people on Nisga'a lands at this point in time. Yet $29 million a year go into their treasury from the provincial and federal governments for 1,700 people. Of course there are individual incomes. How come so many of them are living in such poverty if they have $29 million a year?

If that is not bad enough, we have the Stoney just across the B.C. border in Alberta. They total 3,300 people and have $50 million a year in income. Yet again many of them live in poverty, some to the point of living in basements of condemned homes. What happens to that money and where is the accountability?

Who speaks on behalf of native people who are looking for help and looking for better living conditions on reserves with the money coming in that is supposed to be theirs in part and supposed to be handled by the leaders on their behalf? Somehow magically it disappears and they are not getting help.

We have many other examples. The 5,500 Samson Cree have an income of $92 million a year and yet many people on those reserves are living in very trying conditions.

The government reluctantly agreed under pressure from us to the Nisga'a committee travelling. It made a procedural mistake in the House and had no choice but to agree to it in spite of the fact that it publicly stated it did not want to be there. The government rigged, and I use that word without any hesitation, the witness list to ensure that people who had something to say were not allowed to do so.

We held an additional day of hearings for people who were frozen out by the Liberal list. We heard from members of the Squamish band who own a great deal of very valuable, very expensive commercial real estate in West Vancouver. They get tremendous royalties and revenues from that as well as the usual provincial and federal government payments. They told us that they received an income of $900 a year from the band in terms of help. We heard cases of people living in rat infested, rusted out trailers. That was the housing provided by the band. There is no accountability, none at all.

Welfare or social assistance is not paid directly to natives who live on reservations. It is paid to the band council. When that money is paid, the government looks upon the council to fairly distribute it to people in need.

One of the four tribal councils of the Nisga'a is under investigation for welfare fraud. The money that has been going to aid people in need on reservations has in fact not been reaching them. The preliminary investigation indicates that tribal council members' wives and children have been placed on the rolls to receive the money themselves.

What are the solutions? One of the first problems we always encounter is getting the government to admit there is a problem. It seems it has at least done that. A letter was written to a constituent by the then parliamentary secretary. I believe he still is the parliamentary secretary. There is much that can be said on the issue, but my time is coming to an end. We think the government should be held accountable. It was acknowledged in the letter which I do not have time to read now that there was a need for accountability. An article in the paper indicated that funding was going to leaders of various special boards to assist people but that it was not getting to them at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is indicating that I should be cut off. I can well understand why he would want me to be cut off. The Liberals do not want the truth to get out, but it will get out through newspapers, through us and through native people speaking out.

When will the government start listening and start helping people instead of shovelling money at the people who support them? When will it be accountable and start dealing with the real problems of native people instead of trying to buy them off through their leaders?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member in his predictable rather silly, non-factual, inaccurate, exaggerated speech that I have heard 20 to 30 times in the House refers to facts in newspaper articles.

I found it quite intriguing when I read in the National Post that it may have been his riding which received millions of dollars in grants from HRDC. At the same time this fellow is standing in his place very puffed up and self-righteous about how awful it is that we are doing this in Canada. It is quite interesting.

On a brighter note and more focused on the debate I will address Bill C-222 put forward by the member for Wild Rose for whom I have great respect. He is a decent and good man. He believes very deeply in these issues although he is always wrong. However, we have to be compelled somewhat by his own deep feelings and belief in this regard. That is charming in itself. It is important to the member and we are equally passionate and committed to accountability and the other issues as well.

The plan we have put forward is about giving aboriginal peoples the tools they need to become self-sufficient, self-supporting, and contributing members of the Canadian family. I think all of us in the House and indeed all Canadians believe our ultimate goal is to have first nations people participate fully in Canadian society.

The bill would require the federal government to appoint an ombudsman empowered with certain quasi-judicial authority to oversee and investigate operations and elections of first nations, as the member alluded to. The proposed legislation would make it possible for this person, he or she, to propose changes to first nation policies and practices. If a first nation does not make the changes suggested, the ombudsman would make a report to the House of Commons.

It is not surprising coming from the Reform Party that it hearkens back to the turn of the century when the Government of Canada dispatched officers of the department who were in a sense officers of the court. They had those certain powers to dispatch moneys and work with the native people. They were in fact less bureaucratic and more quasi-police people who policed the reserves. We find it quite unacceptable. Indeed it does not help the situation at all. Not least of which, it does not help first nations people in their communities.

The bill deals with two main areas relating to accountability: band elections and financial management. I point out some specific problems with the bill. It is incongruent with the Indian Act, I say to the member and his research staff, those great folk in the Reform Party research staff from whom I hear from time to time. These two pieces of legislation could not operate together. The member in constructing the bill missed half the equation.

Members of the House should note that an election appeals process already exists in the Indian Act under the Indian band election regulations. These election processes, or for that matter any irregularities and complaints, fall within the mandate of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The bill is in direct conflict not only with the act as a whole but with the appeal process generally and more specifically. It is very incongruent. No attempt is made by the member to reconcile the conflict in existing laws.

The bill also fails to make a distinction between the various ways first nations elect their leaders. There are 610 bands in Canada. Of them 273 conduct their elections pursuant to the electoral provisions of the Indian Act. As already pointed out, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs investigates alleged violations of the Indian Act. These might include ineligible voters, ineligible candidates or secrecy violations. The bill fails to recognize that another 320 of Canada's first nations elect their leadership through traditional practices based on traditional electoral systems.

I do not find that at all surprising. Again, again and again in the House it has been well established and now will be come social fact and a part of Canadian history that the Reform Party does not care about first nations people and has no interest in recognizing their culture, their history and their development as a people in this country, to say nothing of the fact that they were the first people here.

It does not as well research this project sufficiently to take into account that 17 other first nations have negotiated modern self-government legislation. The legislation governs the manner in which these communities elect their leadership.

Once this legislation were in place the federal government would have no role to play in the leadership selection process. Given that Bill C-222 would likely infringe on the aboriginal treaty rights or other rights, consultation is required. What would happen if this bill were brought in?

The auditor general and others have compelled the Government of Canada or the minister not to litigate but to negotiate, in other words to stay out of the courts. It ties up these matters for years and years. It makes for rich lawyers but bad policy, bad outcomes and even more bad situations for first nations people. That has not been thought about at all. The bill does not contemplate that at all. Rather, it takes a confrontational approach once again to a complex problem.

In short, adopting this bill is not a simple process. I stress that it would require the House to repeal or amend several other pieces of legislation in order to consider passage of this bill. Given that it would likely infringe treaty rights, more consultation and work would obviously have to occur.

More important, this bill was not developed in consultation with any first nations people, notwithstanding the member's visits. I say quite honestly that on many occasions the member has visited first nations in his communities. He has tried to do something constructive.

On financial accountability, we need to work closely with first nations communities. The idea of having a policeman of sorts scowling through the books and backyards of first nations communities is not one that is particularly palatable for most reasonable Canadians. Canadians are very fair minded about these issues and would frown quite quickly on the notion of these kinds of practices which are endemic and systemic to the Reform Party. It seems to delight in these kinds of things.

On the whole question of accountability, two weeks ago in Winnipeg I had the privilege to meet with the Auditor General of Canada, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, and some 300 first nations people from across the country. We discussed the question of accountability within the first nations communities. I can tell the Reform Party and other members that I was absolutely delighted with that meeting and with discussions with the auditor general. The grand chief and the first nations people were there, many of them women.

They have a genuine interest in resolving the administrative problems and practices that may be occurring on their reserves. They are not running away from those problems. Many first nations are bringing them forward in their own communities and challenging their leaders to come forward with suggestions to make them more accountable to the members themselves. This is what we cheer on and support. It facilitates government to government relations. It builds a better Canadian society and a better future for first nations people. This is what the government is trying to do.

I ask the Reform Party in bringing forward these kinds of measures not to fan the flames of discontent and irritability which sometimes exist between first nations and other Canadians but look very deeply into these matters. Look at them clearly and soberly. Bring forward to the House of Commons some good suggestions that we might debate and include in our legislation in order to make the country an even better place in which to live.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and the opportunity to speak in the House and to inform the hon. members. I still am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at least, I understand, until July 15.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Wild Rose.

I should say from the outset, if we are to lay our cards on the table right away, that the Bloc Quebecois is going to oppose the hon. member's bill, for various reasons.

We feel that the bill is extremely paternalistic. I looked up the definition of ombudsman for my personal interest and I would like to share it with everyone. An ombudsman is someone responsible for defending the rights of citizens in their dealings with public authorities. The Reform Party sees an ombudsman as someone who will defend the rights of citizens in their dealings with their own elected representatives. I find this extremely paternalistic, and aboriginal peoples need no more of the paternalism that has always plagued them.

The Indian Act, which has been in force since 1876, is an extremely paternalistic statute that leaves people completely powerless. Every time they try to escape from the dependence in which they are trapped, they must seek the minister's permission. Whether it is a question of selling grain, buying livestock or trying to expand their band council office, they are always forced to ask for additional funds or seek the minister's permission. This bill is more of the same and, in my view, is very paternalistic. I think that we must trust aboriginals to resolve these issues.

The government may support them when they have specific needs, but that is a far cry from having the House of Commons establish the office of ombudsman to sort out all these issues. For one thing, I do not believe in it, and for another, I believe it is extremely paternalistic.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been proud to consult aboriginal people before taking a position. I am sure aboriginal people are not interested in having an ombudsman who will interfere in their lives and settle disputes. There are always disputes in society and we cannot always have someone like King Solomon to settle them. Discussion, consultation and mediation are the key to settling any dispute. We do not think that creating the office of ombudsman is the solution to all problems.

The proposal made by my colleague refers to two problems in particular that he would like to see solved by the ombudsman, namely improper financial administration and electoral irregularities. It is easy to say “we will appoint someone who will settle all this”, but I do not think this is a constructive solution.

As I was saying earlier, problems are solved through discussion, consultation, mediation and work in the field. It is not up to people in Ottawa to settle these issues once and for all. This is not a way out for first nations, nor is it the way of the future.

The Reform Party also has a strong tendency to generalize. No one denies that there are problems within aboriginal communities. The auditor general has documented that fact. However, the Reform Party has a tendency to generalize when it discovers short term or very specific problems. Fortunately, the situation is not the same everywhere.

I regularly visit aboriginal communities. They usually are under very good administration. Certainly there are some that are poorly administered, but it is not fair to the aboriginal people to say that this is generalized, that aboriginal people are not good administrators, that they commit election fraud. It is a dangerous trend, one that contributes to narrow-mindedness, to imply that the aboriginal people have always been catered to, hand and foot, and that everything has always been paid for.

I wish to point out that the social contract of the time, and yet they were here first, informed them “We are going to put you into some small areas. There are 600 such small areas throughout Canada, 600 small communities”.

We told them “We are going to settle you there, and we will pay your bills. Meanwhile, we will take over all the natural resources and everything that you had, because you were the first inhabitants, but now it is all ours”.

Generalizing in this way, saying that administration is bad on all reserves, is a disservice to aboriginal people, and to the white population as well.

What is needed is perspicacity and discernment. That is why we are going to vote against the bill.

As far as inappropriate financial administration is concerned, I have just said it was not generalized. Things are new. With the agreements on land claims and self-government, more and more money is returning to the native peoples, who are now being invited to administer it.

We have to put ourselves in the shoes of people who, for 325 years, have administered nothing. The Minister of Indian Affairs has administered everything for them. It is understandable that there are certain problems at times. These people must be given the benefit of the doubt. We must not condemn them out of hand, saying they are worthless, will never manage and will always have to be supervised. Earlier, it was said that the first criticism of this bill was its paternalism. Things have to be seen differently.

The auditor general has indicated a number of problems, and they have to be resolved other than through an ombudsman. One of the ways proposed, which we wholeheartedly support, involves some support from Canada's chartered accountants. They said they are prepared to lend a hand, to help those communities needing their expertise or to make it available to them at a reasonable price in order to set things up and try to reconcile rigid and responsible administration with the fact that nothing like this has happened for 125 years. This is another way out.

We also support everything that involves round tables. The native people discuss and settle their problems in a circle. This approach is totally in keeping with native tradition and culture. One way around things would be for the native peoples to meet with specialists in the matter and discuss things until solutions are reached. This should not be left up to someone in Ottawa, who will decide what is right. This is the wrong approach.

As for electoral irregularities, everyone knows that the Indian Act provides a mechanism. This statute has not always been very sensitive to native traditions. In addition, there have been amendments, with the result that aboriginals may now have their own electoral system, subject to the minister's approval of course. At least now aboriginals can benefit from electoral legislation more in tune with their traditions and culture.

We would like to see more trust placed in aboriginals. We trust them to sort out their own affairs. When we have bills that affect them, we should consult them. They too have a great desire to end their longstanding dependence on the federal government. When I say end, I do not mean to go their own way completely and do whatever they wish. They must be allowed to manage their future in a manner respecting their traditions and their culture, which are very different from ours.

For all these reasons, and particularly because we trust aboriginals to resolve their own problems, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-222 put forward by the member for Wild Rose.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-222 introduced by the member for Wild Rose. This bill, the first nations ombudsman act, would establish the office of an ombudsman to investigate complaints of an administrative, financial or electoral nature concerning first nations people.

We have all read in the papers about mismanagement on first nations in Canada and how more than $4 billion provided to first nations in transfer payments did not always reach the intended recipients.

The problem with this is that it has given some people the false sense that all first nations are poorly managed, when in fact many first nations manage themselves extremely well. It is the examples of mismanagement and misconduct that make the news and malign the efforts of other first nations.

This does not mean however that an ombudsman's office is not a good idea. On the contrary, this suggestion has a great deal of merit.

The member for Provencher was stating that he did not think this was a good idea and that he did not believe the government would go along with this because somehow it would mysteriously change the way we do business. Yet our own government has an ombudsman's office and should have an ombudsman's office.

Many organizations, including governments, make use of similar offices to provide people with an avenue by which they can lodge a complaint and feel that their concerns are being addressed.

As members of parliament, all of us have had occasions where we have either advised constituents of the presence of an ombudsman's office or, as a last resort, when a constituent feels that an ombudsman still has not responded satisfactorily to the problem, we have sent him or her to a higher office. Every member of parliament in the House, I am sure at one time or another, has used an ombudsman's office or has suggested that a constituent use an ombudsman's office.

The establishment of a similar office for first nations would be an effective and useful means of addressing concerns of aboriginal people, whether it be matters resulting from alleged unfair election practices or financial or administrative problems.

As the PC Party's critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I had heard from aboriginal people on numerous occasions who have expressed their frustration with the lack of options available to them when they question the procedures or processes of the band chief and council. An independent ombudsman's office would provide a possible solution and would be in a position to assess information and respond to complaints.

Furthermore, it would allow aboriginal people to air their grievances when they feel they have been ignored by the chief and council or are unwilling to discuss it in a more public format. In some cases ombudsman's offices will only investigate an issue if all other avenues have been explored. In the case of first nations, however, it would be more effective if the ombudsman's office could be contacted at any stage or whenever a problem arises. It is my understanding that this bill would not limit access to the ombudsman's office.

In addition, the bill would allow any member of a first nation community to avail himself or herself of this service whether they live on or off reserve.

Under the provisions of the bill, the ombudsman would be appointed for a term of five years with the governor in council making the appointment on the recommendation of the minister. First nations would be involved in this process by making representations to the committee that would then report to the minister. It is important to ensure the impartiality of the ombudsman and this process would distance the first nations from the appointment of that ombudsman, otherwise the effectiveness and objectiveness of this office would be jeopardized.

In places where there have been questions about the legality of election processes or allegations of inappropriate use of band funds, there is currently little opportunity for aboriginal people to lodge a complaint except with the people who are often implicated in that same complaint.

Obviously this is not an ideal situation and does little to alleviate the problem. The only other course of action available is to complain to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or to members of parliament, particularly those in the critic area or with in whose constituency the first nation falls.

The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people and has the obligation to work on behalf of aboriginal people to protect their rights. This is an onerous responsibility that is sometimes misunderstood. The bill would acknowledge that first nations people also have to rely upon themselves and their organizations and elected bodies to protect their rights and access to services. Instead of having to outline their complaints to the minister of Indian affairs, they would have an independent ombudsman's office that would address their concerns. With the input of first nations, this process has the potential to help first nations people assume greater responsibility and accountability for their actions.

In some cases band members are not able to access the information that would help them prove their allegations. The bill would provide an ombudsman with the power and authority to access such records. At the same time, it would be at the discretion of the ombudsman as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for an investigation.

As I said earlier, I feel the bill has a lot of merit. There are always misunderstandings or misdemeanours that can easily be addressed if the proper process is put in place. The establishment of an ombudsman's office is one solution that could help first nations better serve their communities and, in the long term, provide better service, more transparency and accountability.

These are objectives that all governments and institutions strive to achieve with varying degrees of success. It is always a good idea to explore new options and possibilities for improvement.

The bill is a worthy proposal. It is not without some problems but the idea of an ombudsman's office should be embraced by the government and by all members of parliament. It would seem only natural that there be someone to whom ordinary citizens of Canada could turn to when they have questions or when they feel they have not been treated fairly by the authorities. All other segments of Canadian society have an ombudsman's office somewhere that they can turn to. Why should we exclude the ombudsman's office from first nations communities?

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-222, the first nations ombudsman bill, was proposed by my seatmate and friend, the hon. member for Wild Rose. I would like to thank and congratulate him for this initiative.

I was listening as the parliamentary secretary passed judgment on the bill and I have a couple of comments to make before I start into the main part of my speech.

He said that the Indian Act is incongruent with this proposal. That may well be, but the minister, I understand, wants the standing committee to look at amendments to the Indian Act and, of course, we can always make amendments to accommodate this proposal.

When I travelled with the Indian affairs committee, I spoke to a chief who told me how their traditional electoral practices worked. I will explain this process so that people can hear about the kinds of things that can happen when we go traditional.

When all the candidates for a particular office, let us say the chief, get into a large room they are all sent into different corners. While they are waiting there, all the voters gather in the middle of the large room and begin moving toward their various candidates. One can well imagine the intimidation one would feel. This is not to say that anyone is being intimidated, but members can just imagine how lonely we would feel all alone in a corner and then finding out that our jobs had been on the line. There is no secrecy in a situation like that. If someone had found that his or her job or some benefits he or she had accrued as a member of the band were lost as a result of this process, he or she may want to bring that to the attention of an ombudsman.

The parliamentary secretary said “stay out of the courts”. In response to that, I must say that his government is so frequently in the courts with different bands and first nations that it is almost impossible to write it all down. We know there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of claims pending against the government.

If there are flaws, we accept that. There is probably no piece of legislation the Liberals have ever introduced that has been perfect. What do we do when we get a bill? We pass it and send it to a committee for review. We could invite the band leadership to the committee to pass judgment, give their advice on how to improve it or just tell us what they think. Why would we kill it here? The initiative did not come from the House. It came from the grassroots people.

Reports of mismanagement are downplayed but they come from across Canada. I was reading newspaper reports last year about east coast chiefs and councillors holding and doling out high paying jobs. Judge Reilly in Alberta caused an uproar when he slammed the Indian leadership for problems that contributed to a number of suicides on the Samson Cree Nation Reserve at Hobbema. Nothing was happening until he issued his report.

The Squamish band members in B.C. have asked the RCMP to investigate band finances. They have appealed to Indian affairs for help and were told that the department was only a funding agency, that it was not an investigative body, which is true. It is only a funding agency but it is also supposed to be a legislative agency.

Last year the National Post ran an entire series of articles detailing the squalor and corruption on some reserves and the helplessness of band members to effect change. The need for such an officer became apparent to participants at grassroots meetings of aboriginals sponsored by the Reform MPs in the summer of 1998 and 1999. I was there and I would not have believed it if I had not seen it.

These meetings were held across Canada with a significant cross section of people attending. The idea of an aboriginal ombudsman came out of those meetings. One of its strongest supporters was Leona Freed who has emerged as the leader of a new group called First Nations Accountability Coalition. These people are calling for this, not us because we think we have all the solutions. We think that the people who are affected by legislation might also have some solutions.

Participants at these meetings charged band leadership with questionable allocation of band funds: refusals to conduct forensic audits when requested; jobs changing hands after band elections; nepotism, favouritism, cronyism; housing allocations to families and friends of chiefs and councillors; band leaders flying high on expense accounts, going all over the world to meetings and whatever; third world living conditions on wealthy reserves; misuse of dedicated funds meant for training, health, housing and land purchases; and any number of things. The government denies all of this, but from time to time it has to admit the facts in individual cases. However, it refuses to see a cause and effect relationship or to believe that anything can be done to improve the situation.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has been of little or no use. Letters written in confidence to the minister have fallen into the wrong hands. What has been done? Allegation co-ordinators have been established to help with the work of co-ordinating allegations made, but they have no teeth, no authority to act and no investigative powers. What use they are is up in the air.

In 1997 several elders, led by Greg Twoyoungmen from Alberta, came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to talk about the problems on their reserves. What did they get from the minister? They got a closed door. The minister would not meet with them. The only people who would meet with them were the Reform Party critic and deputy critic for Indian affairs. Much of what we hear came from there as well.

Who do these people turn to when all the doors are closed? The department of Indian affairs sends people back to their reserve leaders. The RCMP need significant proof before they can move. They cannot go to the courts for lengthy and expensive court battles on a civil basis because they simply do not have the funds available to them.

It was the grassroots Indians themselves who proposed the office of aboriginal ombudsman as an independent watchdog. They are convinced that an ombudsman will enable band members to exercise oversight into the affairs of bands in a way that is out of their grasp right now.

One of the better parts of this proposal is that the ombudsman would not serve at the pleasure of bands but would serve a fixed term of five years and not more than two terms. The ombudsman's pay cheque would not come from a band so his or her independence would be assured and he or she could not be called into question. The ombudsman would get assistance from the Chief Electoral Officer when needed to help settle disputes and would report to parliament annually.

The need for such legislation is clear. The bill is worthy of support by members of the House. I encourage every member to vote in favour of it, send it to committee and let the first nations leadership meet with the committee and give their views on it.

It would be a mistake to let some of the assertions from the other parties that have opposed this legislation, that what the Reform Party is saying is that all band membership is illegal and that is why this is needed, to go unanswered. That is not so. For the times it does, it hurts individuals. Many bands conduct their affairs in an open and businesslike way. They have nothing to fear from any legislation that is designed to protect individuals. Individuals are often hurt by that type of thing.

The critic for the Bloc characterized Indians as different from other people, that they sit around in circles and talk. When three or four people come to my office, we sit in a circle around my coffee table and we have a ceremonial drink. We call it coffee. We are pretty much alike when it comes to that type of thing. We gather in a circle, face one another and hash out the problems.

That is not the issue at all. The issue is protection of individual people who run afoul of a large bureaucratic organization that has economic, political and judicial power on its side. The people need an aboriginal ombudsman to protect them.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for introducing this critically important bill.

One profound tragedy in our country today is the existing situation for aboriginal people on and off reserve. The present government, previous governments and all Canadians have created an institutionalized welfare system in aboriginal communities. Through legislation we have put our heels on the necks of those people and have prevented them from having the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as other Canadians.

It is an insult to them that the government and previous governments have pursued these policies for such a long time. It will lead to the balkanization of our country. It will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of grassroots aboriginal people being dislocated from the wealth, the hope, the possibilities and prosperity that this country has to offer.

The government is empowering, albeit with honest intentions, the leadership of aboriginal people to rule. It is doing nothing to ensure that grassroots aboriginal people generate the control, responsibility and power to stand on their own two feet. That is why this bill is so important. It is important to have an ombudsman to ensure that grassroots aboriginal people are heard.

I have some true stories to tell. I have worked with aboriginals for a long time on and off reserve and in emergency rooms. I have seen firsthand the devastation brought on by fetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse, sexual abuse and gross poverty. I have not seen this type of situation since I worked in Africa. There have been medical problems that I have not seen since I worked in the third world. It is going on in our country today.

I implore the media to investigate what is happening in Nunavut, in northern Ontario, in northern Quebec, in Vancouver East and in northern British Columbia. This is not to say that all reserves or all aboriginal people are suffering from the same maladies. The incidence of poverty, medical problems and disempowered aboriginals is epidemic. We are ensuring that continues by virtue of the policies that are implemented in the House.

We want to empower grassroots people, but through the Nisga'a treaty and others we have done the exact opposite. We have empowered the people at the top. Time and time again grassroots aboriginal people have come to me saying they would like to send their children to school. But a lot of the money that is to go to the school to pay for books and teachers and to ensure that the kids get an education does not get there.

The elders in the aboriginal communities are saying that they would like to teach their people their traditional ways. Money has been allocated for that but it does not get to them. It disappears. Yet the chief and band council members drive expensive cars, live in expensive homes and go on expensive vacations while their people live in abject poverty.

If we were successful and if proposals made by the government and previous governments and the Conservative Party had worked, why is it that aboriginal communities have some of the highest rates of violence and sexual abuse? Their mortality figures are the highest. Maternal deaths are the highest. Infant mortality figures are well beyond anything in the non-aboriginal community. Why is it that their diabetes rates are four times higher than non-aboriginal communities? I could go on.

Individual grassroots aboriginal people are not empowered to stand on their own two feet. We are not giving them the same resources and legal tools which enable us to produce for ourselves, our families and our communities. By doing so we get self-respect. It is a myth to say that we can give people self-respect. People only get self-respect by taking it. We only get it by being able to support ourselves, our families and our communities.

It is up to the aboriginal leaders to take a different tack and control themselves. How can they ensure that their people are going to have the power to represent themselves as opposed to the present situation where a small cabal of people at the top controls the situation.

Some aboriginal reserves work well under these conditions, the ones on the west coast in the Charlottes for example. There is responsible governance on the part of the people. They have invested the money the government has given them in ways which the people earn revenue. They have invested in the tools which give aboriginal people the education and the power to generate funds and work. They have healthy communities and live in congruence with their environment. This is what is taking place in some communities but unfortunately in many communities across the country that is not the case.

I can only plead with the government for an ombudsman to ensure that aboriginal people are heard.

When the current HRD minister was minister of Indian affairs, I went to her about situations in my riding. Children were falling into open sewers. Health Canada determined it to be a health hazard to the people living in the area. Yet it took years to get the money to the people so they could fix the problem. In part the leadership was not prepared to deal with these people in an honest way. This is what is happening.

The regional director could not intervene on behalf of the grassroots aboriginal people because the leadership in the community said no. The leadership in the community was compromising—and I am saying that nicely—the ability of the grassroots people to fix the problems on the reserve. If their own leadership will not speak for them, who will? The leadership, the director and the minister will not speak for them. If the minister just turns her face away and says that is the way it is, who will speak for these people? No one.

If non-aboriginal people suffered from the same type of nonsense that aboriginal people suffer from, they would not tolerate it because it would violate their basic rights. The basic rights of aboriginal people are being violated across Canada. As a result they are suffering from health problems and poverty.

To merely give them money will not work. It will not work to engage in a process of land claims that will balkanize the provinces. It is going to compromise the tax base of a province and its ability to work with people to provide resources for everybody. We are going to compromise the economy of those provinces for everybody.

The only people who will benefit from this are the people at the top in aboriginal communities. That is what is happening. The fact that the government is prepared to turn a blind eye and stick its head in the sand is one of the greatest tragedies of this country today. It is truly profound.

When members of parliament visit an aboriginal reserve they will not see what is going on behind the scenes. They will fete us around to look at the nice things that are happening on the reserve. We will not go into people's homes to see them lying drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning on soiled mattresses, 10 to a room. We will not see the children with gross infections on their faces, sitting among adults, looking for basic parenting, looking for the basic care which all children deserve. They do not receive that care.

Understandably, their societies are ill. If any of us were put in that environment, whether we were aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we would do the same thing. If we give people things all the time we create an institutionalized welfare state which takes the souls from human beings. It cuts away at the souls of the people. It destroys them from inside. That is why these people simply cannot get on their own feet, given the current situation and given the current legal tools which this government and previous governments have followed.

If this way of doing things were successful, then we would have seen a dramatic improvement in the health and welfare of aboriginal people. Have we? The answer is an obvious no. The longer we continue doing what we are doing, the longer this will continue.

Members from all political parties find the situation to be appalling. I know that all members of parliament want to do something about it. I know that all members want to work with aboriginal people to ensure that there is change. For God's sake, give those people the same rights and responsibilities that we have. They will flourish. They will teach us a great deal.

In 1967 former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau created a superb white paper. He recognized at that time that the way to aboriginal emancipation was through integration, not assimilation. Those were wise words then and they are wise words today. I can only implore the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Prime Minister to hearken back to that document which was created by Mr. Trudeau, read it again and listen to what he said. Within the context of that document is, in my view, in our view and I think in the heart of the Prime Minister, the way to ensure that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people will come together, respecting their differences, ensuring that the respective cultures and languages will flourish and ensuring that all people in this beautiful country will be empowered to be the best they can become.

The failure to acknowledge that, the failure to change the present course, which is a course of separation, a course of balkanization, will hurt not only aboriginal people but non-aboriginal people. That is something that all of us will have to live with for the rest of our lives. We can strive for something better.

We must work with grassroots aboriginal people, not necessarily the leadership. Normally these questions are dealt with by the leadership of aboriginal groups and parliamentarians. The discussion does not get to the people on the ground, who want the same things which we have. They want safety, they want hope, they want prosperity and they want a future. They want to live. They want their culture and language to survive in perpetuity. We want that and they want that. We would all benefit.

We cannot tolerate the present situation. It will ensure the ultimate cultural and social genocide of these people. That is something for which we as Canadians should never be proud.

I hope that 20 years from now we will see that the Nisga'a treaty was a success. I truly hope for that. However, it is our view that it will not be the case.

I hope that the government will see fit to work with us and to implement the solutions found in the document of former Prime Minister Trudeau for the sake of all Canadians.