House of Commons Hansard #207 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indian.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the agreement of the House to table a letter from the auditor general that is relevant to questions raised today. This letter indicates, in the auditor general's own words, that she does not have the authority to audit a foundation.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table the document?
Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are happy to hear that the Liberal government accepted the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois under Motions Nos. 1 and 6, in the debate on Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport, which should be taking place this afternoon.
Now that the government party has agreed with the Bloc Quebecois' position, it gives me great pleasure to request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion Nos. 1 and 6, to amend Bill C-54.
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw Motions Nos. 1 and 6, to which the member for Repentigny referred?
Business of the HouseOral Question Period
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 1 and 6 withdrawn)
André Harvey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2000-01 annual report of the 2000-01 crop year, entitled: “Monitoring the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System”.
Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, an interim report entitled “Commercial Vehicles Hours of Service” from the Standing Committee on Transport.
We would like a response from the government within the usual 150 day period.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-478, an act to amend the Referendum Act.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Referendum Act to allow a referendum in this country on any change of the electoral system. I am thinking primarily of the move in this country now by a lot of people to bring in a measure of proportional representation so that people have a parliament that reflects how they vote right across the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, be concurred in.
In our hemisphere the greatest place of murders, the number one place for human rights abuses, the place that has the greatest displacement of human beings in the entire hemisphere, is Colombia. The committee did a report on this much forgotten place, a place of human rights abuses that has been destroyed by a conflict that we are partially responsible for, and I will get back to this later.
The depth of destruction and the depth of human rights abuses taking place in that country and the ramifications for the surrounding areas are so large as to be quite extraordinary.
I want to thank the committee chairperson for the great work she did and the committee members who have put together an excellent report on this conflict, a conflict that we hope the Government of Canada will take a more active role in trying to diminish.
To give an indication of the depth of the problem, 2 million people have been displaced in a country with a population of 40 million. To put it in some perspective, Colombia is a country that is relatively the same size as ours, but with 7 million to 8 million more people and is smaller in land mass. It is a country where 26,000 were murdered in the year 2000 alone. That is a rate 30 times the level in Canada.
What is fueling this conflict? Is it ideology? Is it a battle between groups trying to fight for power? No. It is a battle over drugs. Drugs fuel the war in Colombia, drugs that are consumed primarily in North American. That is where our responsibility lies and I will get back to that later.
Not only is this is a place where 26,000 people are murdered every single year, where 2 million people have been displaced, a place where there is a fiscal and economic crisis in a developed country with a competent, hard-working and intelligent populace, it is a place where there is a massive environmental disaster happening because the chemicals that are used in the production of these drugs are being dumped into the Amazon basin. This is destroying the Amazon rain forest and the jungle is being displaced by crops to grow cocaine and heroin. Those areas are completely destroyed and will be of no use to anybody for many years.
This is also a social disaster. I was in Colombia last year. Children are being prostituted on the street to pay for the drug habits of the parents. Children are also being put into situations where they can be used as slaves and as drug runners. This is a direct result of the drug war and the drug production fueled by our demands here in North America. Colombia is also the number one kidnapping spot in the world. In one year alone, 3,042 people were kidnapped and that number is increasing. Kidnapping is used as a tool to generate money.
The major antagonists in all this are as follows. FARC is the leading guerrilla movement. I use the term guerrilla movement loosely. Certainly this conflict has been going on for 50 years. Indeed, it started off as an effort with a political objective: to make changes for much needed land reform in the country and to also put in social and economic reforms in a country that desperately needed them. However, that changed.
What changed is as follows. As we know, in the 1980s the Medellin and Cali cartels controlled cocaine production in that country. In fact, Colombia is the number one cocaine producer in the world.
In our war on drugs, with the Americans and other countries, we said that we were going to cut the head off organized crime and we were going to cut the head off the Medellin and Cali cartels. Indeed, we were successful in doing that., but what we failed to understand and anticipate in doing so is that drug production, because of the profits involved, will never stop. If there is demand, there will be production. As we destroyed the Medellin and Cali cartels a vacuum took place and FARC filled the vacuum. It began as a small guerrilla movement but massively increased in size as it actually took that spot. FARC is now the major producer of cocaine, producing some 300 tonnes a year. Now it is producing heroin. As heroin production has decreased in southeast Asia and Afghanistan, Colombia has taken on that role and is now producing some six tonnes of heroin a year, heroin that is becoming purer all the time.
Colombia became involved, but this is also more insidious than that. The conflict is spreading to the surrounding areas. It has involved Bolivia and Peru and is destabilizing those countries. FARC has also used its terrorist links with the IRA. The IRA has gone into Colombia and has taught the FARC a great deal about how to wage a war of terrorism to destabilize and destroy the country of Colombia, not for a political objective but to control a larger segment of that country so that it can produce what? Drugs, primarily cocaine but an increasing amount of heroin.
What have we done so far? We have waged a war, which has failed. We have used Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia will work to the extent that it has to strengthen domestic police and army capabilities to deal with FARC, but it is not enough. We have also tried to use herbicides to spray the crops. They do destroy the drug crops, but they also destroy a lot of edible crops and poison the riverine force in that area, dumping large amounts of toxic chemicals into the Amazon basin.
I want to talk a bit about what an ecological disaster this is. I want also to remind people out there that if they consume heroin, cocaine in particular, what they are doing is killing a country and killing innocent civilians. They are part and parcel of the murder of some 26,000 innocent people in Colombia. They are also part and parcel of an ecological disaster.
Colombia contains 10% of the earth's biodiversity in only .7% of the world's land mass. It has a third of the world's primates. It has 1,721 bird species representing an extraordinary 20% of the world's total. It also contains priceless rain forests. It has the highest capacity for carbon dioxide sequestration in the entire world. It has one of the most diverse ecosystems. It ranks fifth in the world in hydrological resources, has the largest coral reef zones in the world and has 82 different ethnic groups.
What has happened is that the production of drugs has destroyed some 6,600 hectares, which are under poppy production in the Andean rain forests. It has also destroyed a quarter of a million acres for coca crops in the rain forests of Amazonia and the Orinoco basin. Those areas are massive and the total damaged area is over one million acres under production.
Members will be interested to know that in the production of these drugs not only are we culpable by virtue of being users, but we also produce the chemicals that are necessary in the production of these drugs. The United Nations has told the western world, including Canada and European countries, that it is part and parcel of the problem because when it starts talking about trying to deal with the drug problem and conflict in Colombia, what it is really doing is being a hypocrite. It is a hypocrite because not only does it consume the drugs but it also allows the precursor chemicals that are absolutely essential for the production of these drugs to continue unabated. The western world has done nothing but turn a blind eye to the sale of these chemicals to these countries, which are used for nothing more than the production of these illegal drugs.
What can and should we be doing to deal with this? What we should be doing is what I have previously proposed in a motion that I presented to the House. First, we have to decrease consumption here in North America. It is absolutely essential that we do this. There are new European models for the treatment of people with substance abuse problems and they work very well. These people should not be looked upon as individuals who have a criminal problem. They have a medical problem and they should be treated accordingly.
Second, we need to prevent. What is the best model for prevention? It is the head start program, which is a program that works on children. It starts even before then, in the prenatal stages, to diminish the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome and the effects of illegal drugs on the developing fetus. If we ensure that children in the first eight years of life have their basic needs met, have proper nutrition, are living in a loving, caring and secure environment with proper boundaries and are subject to good parenting, the opportunities of ensuring that those children will develop into gainfully employed, functional people in our society are much greater. The work done by the Minister of Labour and others bears this out.
Third, we must employ the U.S. racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act amendments. We must use the RICO amendments in Canada to go after the money pillars that support organized crime. The best way to go after organized crime gangs is to take away the money supports that they have. Organized crime gangs are people in Armani suits, with expensive tastes, who use illegal means to generate funds. They are the ultimate in a corrupt businessperson. They are willing to use the law for their benefit, hide behind it for their benefit and prey on the weaknesses of some people.
Fourth, we must remove the barriers to trade that exist for developing countries, in particular Colombia, so farmers can grow other crops.
Fifth, we must support plan Colombia but we also must recognize that we must reduce consumption in North America.
Finally, we must use import-export permits to ensure that there are checks and balances on these chemicals that are used for the production of these drugs. If we do not do this the war in Colombia will not stop.
If we are so naive to believe that the murder of 26,000 people in our hemisphere will stop as a result of taking this war down to Colombia without decreasing consumption in North America we are sadly mistaken. It is encouraging to hear individuals like Senator McCain in the United States and the governor of New Mexico echoing the same kind of message. Some people in the United States understand this.
It is up to the government to work with our partners in the United States and say to them that we must decrease consumption in North America. We must implement a head start program in Canada and in the U.S. We must have the import-export permits and employ new European models for treatment. The current punitive models for the way we approach drug problems do not work. They are archaic and obsolete. If we look at the cold, hard facts, all they do is play into the hands of organized crime gangs which are the ones preying off the weaknesses of others.
Who pays the price? It includes: drug addicts; we as a society, through crime; property destruction; diseases such as HIV-AIDS, hep B, hep C; and the list goes on. That is the penalty we pay for not dealing with the problem in a more multifactorial and holistic approach.
The FARC and ELN are guerrilla movements not based on ideology. The paramilitary is also a group not based on ideology. They are all thugs. They are criminal organizations whose main purpose is to control the drug trade. If there were no demand, this problem would end overnight. It is our consumption in North America that is helping to drive those problems in Colombia. It is true that land reform needs to take place in Colombia and that economic and political reform must take place in that country. We must work with President Uribe.
My colleague from the Bloc had a press conference with the sister of Ingrid Betancourt that was attended by members from the House. Ingrid Betancourt was a presidential candidate who was kidnapped, like more than 3,000 other Colombians recently. Her life is in the balance. Many of these people are murdered. I am asking the government to work with the Colombian government to release Madame Betancourt from her kidnappers . If we do not do that her life is at risk. That would be a tragedy for Colombia.
This problem in Colombia will not end unless we work with like-minded countries. We cannot do this alone. We must work with the United States, the Mexicans and the Europeans to implement this multifactorial approach to deal with the drug problems that we have in our own countries.
We must also work with the Colombians to address the human rights abuses that they have there. Historically the military in Colombia has used paramilitaries to engage in human rights abuses. Colombia has done a lot to diminish that and the report cites that good work. We must continue that good work.
We must enforce the police and military capabilities to go after these groups who are thugs. They are criminals, nothing more and nothing less. We can do much by working with our counterparts to that end. If, however, we believe as some members in the U.S. congress and senate believe, that merely pouring money down plan Colombia's throat would end this, we are sadly mistaken.
I ask the government not only to listen to what I have said about the foreign policy implications but to deal with the domestic situation we have in Canada. We must deal with the consumption aspects and the implementation of import-export permits. This is easy to do. I was in Costa Rica where I met with representatives from the Organization of American States. The bureaucrats said the only thing that was holding up the import-export permits for the precursor chemicals was bureaucratic intransigence. This would require leadership that our country could show. By working with like-minded countries we could implement this system that would go a long way to undermine the ability of these countries to produce these drugs.
Organized crime in Canada is a blight on all of us. More than half of all the crime in our country is from organized crime. The penalties are not severe enough or where they are used, they are not used to the full force of the law. Too many individuals involved in organized crime are allowed to go scot-free. Too many of those who are known to be involved in organized crime, for example, the biker situation in Quebec, are allowed to operate as they always have. These individuals are not the traditional vision we have of somebody on a Harley-Davidson without a helmet going down the highway. These are sophisticated individuals who use a multiplicity of tools to buy and sell drugs, to launder money and deal with prostitution and extortion.
These are things we must deal with in our country today. The trial of Maurice “Mom” Boucher in Quebec brought to light not only the depth to which organized crime exists in Canada, how it has infiltrated all segments of our society, but that we have been woefully unable or unwilling to take a tough and firm line against organized crime gangs that are preying on the innocent, the general population and costing us all billions of dollars.
I want the government to show spine. There are good suggestions in this report. We must get tough on these people. We must employ the full force of the law to eliminate them. If we can do that the people in Canada will live a lot safer.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing up this subject today. I am rather intrigued as an NDP member about the concerns that he has expressed. We in the NDP, especially the critics for foreign affairs, labour and agriculture, have raised the issue several times about what is happening to trade union representatives in Colombia. We are sad that Ingrid Betancourt has been kidnapped and her life could be in serious peril, but at the same time a lot of union leaders themselves who represent the people and average workers in Colombia are being exterminated as we speak. Would the member elaborate a bit more on those concerns that we have expressed, about the fact that many people who represent ordinary citizens in Colombia are being singled out as well?
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the NDP for his excellent question. It is not only trade union representatives. I will show what is happening at the municipal level in Colombia. The mayor of El Donacellio was given a note from FARC that said “I hope you enjoy your life. Get out in 24 hours or you're a dead man”.
What is happening is a systematic removal of mayors and municipal leaders in a large segment of Colombia. This is an area that was given over to the FARC in President Pastrana's honest effort to develop a constructive discourse with the FARC. It failed miserably because the FARC was using that as a power base to expand its involvement. President Pastrana wisely ended that process.
What is happening in that area, and indeed in a much larger area, is that the FARC is using the systematic annihilation, destruction, murder, torture and rape of not only union representatives but municipal leaders and mayors. President Uribe has given mayors bulletproof cars and assurances they would be safe, but as we know people's lives are worth more than that and their lives cannot be assured.
There is actually an ethnic cleansing taking place within Colombia. Government structures are being removed by the FARC. It is a lethal problem because if the Colombian government loses control over this territory the FARC would be able to go in and have a free reign in committing human rights abuses and terrorizing the civilian population. The situation is critical right now.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to engage a dialogue with his counterparts, not only in Colombia but also the OAS and particularly the United States, and convince them that drug consumption in North America is what is fueling the conflict of Colombia.
Yes, we must support plan Colombia but we must make a concerted effort to reduce drug consumption in North America, get tough with organized crime and develop a comprehensive North American strategy for doing this. If the minister does that I am sure he would find widespread support in the House in dealing with this problem.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member had to say. He is knowledgeable about this area. I want to assure him that we on the government side are closely following events in Colombia. I understand he has some reasonable points to make. We will review them, we will work with him and we will work with everyone we can.
I happened to meet on Friday with the sister of the presidential candidate who has been kidnapped in Colombia. This is an extraordinary situation. We in Canada and Canadians generally will do everything we can to bring peace to that troubled country. I will follow with interest the propositions that the member has been good enough to make. I wish to congratulate the subcommittee on its important report which we will be looking at and doing our best to implement.
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs for his kind comments and also draw attention to the fine work done by the previous secretary of state for Africa and Latin America. I also wish to thank Ambassador Rishchynski who is widely respected and has an extraordinary vision of what is taking place.
I would like to impress on the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs that the use of import-export permits on the precursor chemicals can be instituted easily by countries of the world. If we were to do that we would not only be able to track these chemicals to where they are going, but by doing so would find out who exactly is producing the illegal drugs.
That can be instituted very easily. The UN would help. It has some good ideas. Our European counterparts must deal with this too because all of us are responsible for this terrible situation. The use of import-export permits are easily implemented, cheap to do and provide extraordinary intelligence in enabling us to determine the producers of these illegal drugs. I wish to thank the minister for his kind consideration of this important matter.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my time is short and I have many things to say about the bill and the motion to refer the bill to committee but I will take the opportunity to make three quick points.
I want to refer back to a statement made by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations upon learning about the referral of the bill to a standing committee. He pleaded:
If members of the standing committee are genuinely interested in hearing about the vision, the hopes and the dreams of our people then they should hold hearings in all of our communities and listen to our people.
It is not surprising that aboriginal Canadians right across the country have been very alarmed at the manner in which this whole process has been conducted and how the legislation was brought forth. We know from the discussions earlier in question period about freedom of speech and freedom of the press being threatened, that they are not the first examples. It has been truly shocking to see the pressures brought to bear on the Assembly of First Nations by the massive withdrawal of funding, which has been a not very subtle attempt by the government to quash dissent and the kind of leadership that is very much wanted from first nations communities across the country.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, the NDP aboriginal affairs critic who spoke earlier, expressed his revulsion at the way in which the official opposition has in many ways egged the government on to introduce this repugnant legislation. I could not help but think that it was an irony that so much of the legislation was inspired by the mistaken notion that there was massive mishandling and mismanagement by the leadership of the first nations and band management across the country.
When we look at the facts, they are otherwise. Over 96% of the bands are operating without management problems. Only 4% are under third party management. We have to ask ourselves whether it is not the government that should be under third party management for the ways in which it has been mismanaging the nation's finances and flaunting the rules of ethical standards of conduct. We wonder about the double standard.
We will be supporting the motion to send the bill to committee because we support the widespread call from first nations people to be truly consulted. It would be naive of us to think that the standing committee would in good faith agree to that broad consultation, which is why the suggestion from my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is a very sound one, that an ex officio member from the first nations, who can play a part in the process and have direct input into the work of the committee, be added to the committee.
Le us make no mistake that we have a very big fight on our hands. I stand proudly and say that the New Democratic Party stands in solidarity with the first nations people when they ask for the dignity owed to them, of being full partners in charting the future governments of their first nations communities.
It is very worrisome when we hear the leadership of the first nations summing up the legislation as being nothing more than a dragging back to the worst aspects of the Indian Act. We need to get rid of it but we need to get rid of it with a positive vision of the dignity of our first nations people. Surely the first priority for the government and the people of Canada is to meet its obligations to the first nations people. If we cannot get that right then we do not deserve the reputation of a country that is concerned about justice, equality and peace.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill C-61.
At the outset of my brief comments I have a comment for the member for Halifax. If that is the extent of her enlightening comments in response to this particular legislation in the Chamber this afternoon, then I for one do not regret her decision to step down as leader of her party. She used words like revulsion and repugnant.
I have quite a number of reserves in my riding of Prince George--Peace River, and I say that with a great deal of regret because I do not think the reserve system has been at all beneficial to the aboriginal men, women and children of our nation. What I find particularly revolting is the fact that a large percentage of people who live on the reserves in my riding and indeed in ridings all across the country continue to live without hope. I cannot imagine a worse fate for any Canadian than to live without hope. They try to get by without any hope. The system is to blame, not the aboriginal people.
I want to begin my remarks by doing something I very rarely do and that is congratulate the minister for at least attempting to address this serious problem in Canada by bringing forward Bill C-61.
Do we as the official opposition have concerns about it? Of course we do. However we, as I believe all parties do, support the idea of sending the bill to committee. We look forward to making our concerns, not only on behalf of aboriginal men and women but on behalf of all Canadians, known as it goes through the committee process. We will certainly take a hard look at the various clauses in the legislation and will be bringing forward what we believe to be constructive and helpful amendments to the legislation.
I thank the minister for addressing a situation that seriously needs redress. I thank him for showing the courage to bring forward legislation. Has he done it in the manner in which we would have liked it done? Probably not. We probably would have done it differently. We would have tried to have a more open and widely consultative process. I think all parties have been somewhat critical of that but at least the minister has brought forward a bill that contains some clauses that we can discuss and debate. Hopefully aboriginal people themselves will be part of the process and be encouraged to come forward with their alternatives.
As the member of parliament for Prince George--Peace River one of the things that deeply concerns me is what I call the growth of the Indian industry in Canada. The last number I saw that was spent annually trying to address the problems facing our aboriginal people was around $9 billion. That is nine thousand million dollars when combined with what is spent at the local, provincial and federal levels of government. By anybody's estimation that is a lot of money.
When I drive down a back alley in my home town of Fort St. John, British Columbia and see aboriginal people being reduced to climbing into dumpsters for their supper, I would suggest that there is something seriously wrong in the country.
When we as a nation can spend that kind of money, it is obviously not reaching the people who need it. These people continue to live without hope. They live in abject poverty. They face incredible difficulties on the reserves.
Before question period my colleague for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca spoke passionately about his role as a rural doctor in the city of Prince George in my riding, about how he treated many aboriginal men, women and children and about coming face to face on a daily basis with the tragedy of our aboriginal people. He talked about the horrendous suicide rates; the daily violence; the murder rates on reserves; the alcohol, drug and sexual abuse; and fetal alcohol syndrome that puts so many aboriginal children at a disadvantage before they even begin. The living conditions are worse in many cases than in third world countries and yet we as a nation are spending adequate amounts of money on this, by anybody's standard. Where is the money going?
How is it that we can spend $9 billion a year and still drive to a reserve and see the poverty of the people we are attempting to help? Something is clearly wrong. There are far too many lawyers and consultants becoming incredibly wealthy while the people continue to suffer.
We have some concerns about Bill C-61. It has a great summary at the start of the bill. It reads:
This enactment provides governance tools to bands operating under the Indian Act in matters of leadership selection, administration of government, financial management and accountability, legal capacity and law-making. It makes a number of related amendments to the Indian Act.
It sounds like something I think all Canadians would want to support. Despite the comments by the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Halifax, there are serious problems on our nation's reserves and members of the NDP are burying their heads in the sand if they do not recognize that.
Those members have said that we are fearmongering. The member for Winnipeg Centre basically said that the minister, by bringing forward the legislation, was trying to incite violence and protest from the aboriginal people. If that is not fearmongering I do not know what is. Yet they point to the Canadian Alliance and say that we are somehow responsible for what has transpired. What absolute nonsense.
We and, in particular, the member for Wild Rose have had countless consultations across the country with grassroots aboriginal men, women and children. The member for Wild Rose reached out to those people and found an audience that was just waiting for someone to ask the question of how we can help and give some hope for the future.
Members of the NDP say that the Canadian Alliance has raised these concerns but these concerns were heard directly from the grassroots aboriginal people when we and the member from Wild Rose travelled across the country .
We will continue to raise those concerns. We welcome the opportunity to address some of those concerns within the confines of this legislation. There are clauses, though they may be flawed, that we can work with, amend and improve so that we can bring that degree of accountability to the reserves of Canada which is what the grassroots people themselves have been asking for.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate. It is not very common for the debate to take place before second reading stage.
We support sending the bill to committee before second reading, although we do have some concerns about that. When this procedure was first tried as a result of some prodding on our part, we thought it would be productive, that changes would be made before a bill went to committee and there would be more input from all parties in the House. We were quite hopeful that would happen. That is not what has happened. However we still support sending the bill to committee before second reading. We hope we will be listened to today and that the input we give in other ways will be heard. We are supporting that.
We do have concerns about the legislation as it has been presented to date. I want to take some time today to compare the legislation that has been brought forth to some work I did back in 1997-98, mostly throughout 1998 shortly after I was elected to the new constituency of Lakeland.
I was elected in 1993 to the Vegreville constituency. In 1997 the boundaries were changed and Beaver River and Lakeland, about two-thirds of each, went together into one constituency. With that constituency came eight Indian reserves and four Metis settlements.
As the elected representative I got lots of calls from reserves, from aboriginal people living in communities near reserves and from Metis settlements. Some very serious issues came up. They were issues that are dealt with in the legislation, or at least are mentioned in the legislation, although I am not convinced the solutions are there. That is why a lot of changes are needed before the bill actually becomes legislation which will be debated and passed by the House.
When these calls came in I dealt with them individually. Then there were so many of them that I got together with some aboriginal people in a town in the constituency and we set up the Lakeland aboriginal task force. I have talked about that task force, its results and the report that was produced on several occasions since 1998 when the report was completed. When the report was completed members of the task force and I met with the minister of Indian affairs at that time. The current human resources development minister was the minister at that time. We took some time to sit down with her and talk about the report.
The issues that came up from the report are worth talking about today. I want to go through them and make some comments on whether they have been dealt with effectively from what we can see at first glance in Bill C-61.
The first group of recommendations that came from the task force were not recommendations of the Reform Party which has since become the Alliance Party. They are not necessarily Alliance supported recommendations, although in some cases they are, but they are issues that have to be dealt with and recommendations which could be productive.
The first group called for more transparency in financial reporting on reserves and in settlements. It goes beyond the scope of the federal government in some cases, but the problems were very similar. The legislation talks about that. There is a start in that it talks about that, but the bill has to go to committee. The legislation that comes from committee has to ensure open financial transparency. Until that happens there really is very little meaningful change that can take place.
The second group of recommendations involves democratic reform on Indian reserves and settlements but settlements are outside the purview of the federal government.
The second group recommended the use of a third party monitor, such as Elections Canada, to monitor elections on reserve. I presented private members' bills and motions on the issue and at least one has been debated. I do not remember whether it was a bill or a motion but unfortunately, the item was not made votable so we could not even determine the will of the House when it came to having Elections Canada monitor elections on Indian reserves. It makes sense that it would. Indian reserves are the responsibility of the federal government.
The aboriginal grassroots people have expressed concerns about the way elections are conducted on reserves. They asked for some independent monitors. From what I can see in the bill, that is not dealt with. Certainly, let us take it to committee and have all parties involved in some serious discussions on the democratic reform issues.
The next group of recommendations that were made were very interesting. I had a process in place to gather information from aboriginal people which involved one on one private meetings. These took place with members of the task force over a period of five days in a time span of about two or three months. We heard from a lot of individuals at these meetings.
We put out a questionnaire to anyone who wanted to give input on any issue they wanted. It was a directed questionnaire. We mentioned certain issues which were brought forth by the task force. Others were brought forth by individuals who filled out the questionnaires. We put the results of the questionnaires together. The final part of the process was public meetings.
At one public meeting there were about 70 or 80 aboriginal individuals. Some came from reserves, others from communities near reserves. They expressed concern about moving too quickly to some type of self-government. There was a vote put forth by one member at one of the meetings just to see what the response would be from the attendees as to whether the group supported moving to self-government as the Liberal government and the leadership had been presenting it in quite a few cases.
The vote was almost unanimous against self-government. People said they were not ready for it. The accountability would have to be in place. The electoral reform would have to be in place so the elections would be fair. An ombudsman would have to be in place. I put forth a motion or a bill which was debated in the House on putting in place an effective ombudsman, not one who reported to the very people who hired him but one who was independent.
We know what there is in the government. In spite of what the Liberals promised in 1993, to put in place an independent ethics commissioner, the government chose to put in place a counsellor who answers to the Prime Minister. They are two different things entirely.
It is that kind of corruption and lack of ethics that we are seeing the results of, with all the various corruption that comes up in the House every day, one day after another. It seems to be only the tip of the iceberg because we keep finding more and more. It gets broader and deeper. Certainly it could not be solved by putting an independent ethics commissioner in place but it would be a start.
Corruption in government or anywhere can only be ended by having people who are determined not to take part in it. No amount of law can completely eliminate corruption. There has to be ethics in the group before corruption can be ended. I digress in talking about the government. I want to get back to the bill that we are sending to committee.
What was clear is that none of this can effectively be put in place until fiscal accountability is dealt with in an effective way. It has to be open. We have to put in place a democratic system. Part of making it democratic certainly is to have Elections Canada monitor elections on reserves as it does across the country. That is what the Lakeland aboriginal task force recommended.
When the checks and balances are in place, then and only then can we talk about an effective type of self-government beyond what is in place already. That is what the ultimate goal has to be but we cannot jump from where we are now to that without ensuring that these other things are in place. I look forward to my colleagues dealing with this issue in committee.
Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act 2001, as well as a backgrounder, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.