Debates of Dec. 10th, 2004

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member from Hamilton for sharing his time on this very important piece of legislation that we do support. It took the government a couple of kicks at the can to get it right. Now that it has it right, we are able to see this thing through and see the light of day.

My riding of Skeena--Bulkley Valley is in the far northwest corner of British Columbia. There are a number of first nations groups in my riding. As the hon. member mentioned, when I visit the first nations, I am seeing the conditions that we would not accept in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. I am seeing the way that people are living and struggling to survive, both through acquiring education and just the basic human rights, the basic health care needs.

The basic needs that all of us share are not being achieved. We hope that this bill goes some measure forward in allowing first nations to achieve and realize the same successes that many Canadians have realized over the past century.

The Nisga'a people are within my riding. Recently, I had the deep and profound honour of speaking at the memorial service for one of the great Nisga'a members, Rod Robinson, who recently passed away. He was a true giant of a man in the first nations community at the local level, across the province of British Columbia, and across our nation.

He was a man who saw the importance for first nations to be full and inclusive members in Canadian society, to be proud members, and to realize among themselves the importance of self-determination. He saw the importance of rights and title, of what it truly means to have consultation and accommodation, and the role that the federal Government of Canada plays in reaching out to first nations in a true and sincere way. Finally, to defend the honour of the Crown, which was recently spoken to in the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada with the Haida and the Tlingit.

The federal government has this responsibility to defend the honour of the Crown. The record of the federal Government of Canada over the last 150 years has been absolutely deplorable when dealing with first nations.

One has to look no further than some of the communities within my riding and the challenges that they face, the basic challenges of health and hygiene, advancement in education, and a real economy where they can strive ahead and look to the future. We believe this bill does a number of things that will allow first nations to combine their resources and go to the institutions that have the capital that they need to invest properly into their communities.

My hon. colleague mentioned that this came out of the B.C. NDP government. It organized the municipalities to give them greater strength in going to the banking community and allowing them to invest in those projects that they needed to do. It was a good idea and it has been working. It has been proven to work.

I believe that the idea was actually spurned by the Grimean Bank, an experience in the developing world. Small borrowers were able to pool their resources together, in that case to get microcredit loans, to achieve small projects and realize great benefits for their local communities. We know the repayment schedules were excellent and did very well for those communities.

When the Nisga'a agreement was coming to fruition a number of years ago, I was not involved in politics. The member who was currently representing our riding at the time was Reform, then Alliance, and then Conservative. The fearmongering that went on during that debate, and there were 422 amendments or something that came through in the House, was that if this agreement went through, the economy in the northwest of British Columbia would shut down. There was fear spread that first nations would take over and control the resources, mining would shut down, forestry would no longer exist, and that it would all come tumbling down. The federal government was told that it should not be agreeing to this.

We heard similar rhetoric just recently on the Tlicho debate in the House. Frankly, I was embarrassed as a parliamentarian to hear the views expressed by fellow parliamentarians across the House describing the same scenario again. They were saying that first nations will take over, that this is a terrible idea, and that we should not allow them any progress. This is something that the government finally got agreement on from the local communities, from the major industries in the area, and from the Northwest Territories. Some members said that we should not allow this process to go ahead, that this is a bad thing for this country, and supposedly a bad thing for first nations.

The hypocrisy during that debate and the Nisga'a debate was deplorable. One of the reasons that I decided to enter into politics was the idea to represent my riding with such strong first nations' presence: the Haida, the Haisla, the Tlingit, the Tahltan, and the numbers go on. I wanted to come to the House to challenge those that would say that treaties are not good for first nations, that settling out and understanding how first nations are going to finally be included in the economy and the society of Canada in a meaningful way is not a worthy project.

We have constantly been pushing the government to come to the treaty table with first nations with a needed sense of urgency. To this point there is this open-ended feeling that we can go on and on, and that first nations can wait for these treaties to be settled in a meaningful way.

We are encouraged by this particular piece of legislation because it goes some way to push the government to allow first nations to pool their resources collectively. Recently, we received a letter from a financial institution, a credit union in B.C., which is very supportive of this work, ready to go, and already involved in projects of this nature. These are sometimes basic health care projects or economic projects. This is something that we are working collectively with our first nations brothers and sisters to finally get the issue pushed forward.

It was 15 years ago that we passed a resolution in the House to end child poverty in this country. We have been completely unable to do that. The statistics within the country are deplorable with respect to child poverty. It is a shame upon this House. If we move to the case of first nations, the case becomes much worse. Whatever indicator we look at, the first nations situation in Canada today is so much less, so much poorer than all other Canadians. If there is anything that we can do in the House to improve those conditions, both on and off reserve for first nations across the country, then our party will always be in support of it.

In my riding there is a beautiful example of first nations working together. Seven nations came together to work on a totem pole. From all living memory that we could decipher, there had been no instance of these first nations working together collectively on something as important and significant as the raising of a totem pole.

Through much deliberation and in conjunction with a community college with a non-aboriginal board of directors, they were able to come together, work with the communities, and find a place where they could work on this totem pole. Each group had to decide what it was going to bring to the pole. Some weeks ago they raised it together, pulled on the ropes together with the non-aboriginal community in Terrace, B.C. They raised this magnificent and stunning work which represents how first nations can work together with the non-aboriginal community to achieve something beautiful, historic and monumental.

We can apply that same feeling, that same willingness to work together across the nations with the non-aboriginal community and sincere feeling from government, to achieve even greater things, such as justice within our time, and some sense of pride when we look to the first nations communities and know that Canadians are doing well by our first nations brothers and sisters.

Then we can say to our children that we were involved in a process that finally remedied the abuses and the misconduct of the federal government toward first nations people. That will be a very proud day for us. That is a day that we need to all work toward collectively.

There is one more important concern. As we move toward this, some nations have expressed concern that the federal government will be abdicating some of its responsibility toward first nations, that it will be turning it over to the private sector. We will be looking very strongly throughout the implementation of this piece of legislation to ensure that the federal government maintains its importance. The Haida case and the Tlicho case point clearly to the federal government's role. It must be the one that consults with first nations, that works with true and proper accommodation of first nations' rights and title. That is the role of the federal government. That is the role that we must maintain.

While this is innovative, progressive, and born out of the provincial New Democrats, a place where many progressive, new and innovative things have come, we support it. The federal government must maintain its place at the table and must increase its sense of urgency to finally and completely settle first nations claims.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to amend the Telefilm Canada Act and another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Telefilm Canada Act

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, which is an act to regulate and prohibit certain activities related to food and other products to which the acts under the administration of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency apply, and to provide for the administration and enforcement of those acts and to amend other acts in consequence. The short title of the bill is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act.

The intent of this proposed legislation is to consolidate, modernize and enhance the inspection and enforcement powers of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The bill seeks to provide the CFIA with the basic inspection and enforcement tools that it needs to continue protecting Canada's food supply and animal and plant resource base. It is intended to allow CFIA inspectors to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently and to provide Canada with modern border enforcement tools that will be more consistent with recent American legislation.

Bill C-27 consolidates inspection and enforcement provisions from the eight acts that form the current legislative base for the CFIA. Those eight acts are: the Canada Agriculture Products Act; the Fish Inspection Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the Seeds Act; the Feeds Act; the Fertilizers Act; the Health of Animals Act; and the Plant Protection Act. These acts were introduced by different departments over the course of many years. Some date back as far as the 1940s and 1950s. These acts have been around for a long time, and the department thought it would try to integrate, consolidate and modernize the food inspection legislation.

Government responsibility for food in Canada is divided among the federal, 10 provincial, three territorial and numerous municipal governments. Some 77 pieces of legislation govern Canada's food inspection among the three levels of government.

Federal responsibility centres on export and interprovincial trade, protecting and expanding export markets for Canadian food products and facilitating interprovincial trade. In addition, the federal government sets food safety, quality and grading standards for products sold interprovincially and internationally. It administers regulations aimed at preventing the production or sale in Canada of dangerous, adulterated or misbranded products.

Provinces and municipalities are responsible for the intra-provincial aspects of the food industry, including local food processing, the food service industry and the food retail industry. They decide whether and how to inspect local operations, including restaurants and grocery stores, as well as dairies and meat plants whose products are sold within the province.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the result of the amalgamation in 1997 of food safety and inspection programs from three federal departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The establishment of a single agency followed a long history of discussions about the benefits of consolidating the federal food inspection system.

Following are some of the reasons for creating the CFIA. Industry and government favoured harmonized standards and streamlined inspection to ensure the competitiveness of the Canadian food industry domestically, as well as internationally. Canadian producers and processors were vulnerable to trade challenges in a fragmented system. Closer integration of the U.S. and Canadian markets under free trade agreements made the industry anxious to reduce the costs and inefficiencies resulting from differing provincial standards. Canadian exporters were concerned about being denied access to external markets on the grounds that Canadian food safety standards and inspection systems were not equivalent to those of the markets into which they were shipping.

The agency's main activities focus on inspecting the food supply, but it also conducts activities related to animal health and plant protection. The agency is responsible for delivering federal inspection programs that enforce these policies and standards. Bill C-27 is basically a housekeeping bill, but that does not mean it is without fault. It has flaws.

My main concern is that the bill does not incorporate any aspect of accountability for fair and effective enforcement on the part of the CFIA.

Food inspection is absolutely essential to Canadians. We want to have faith in the food we eat.

Large quantities of foodstuffs, for example, rice or some indigenous foods, are imported into Canada by Canadian firms from China, India and many other countries. Many of the foods are from different communities in their country of origin.

Some of these foods are accepted into the United States but normally they are not accepted into Canada. The criteria used in decisions often appear to be arbitrary and unfair. The importers or business people are catering to a huge multicultural market in Canada and are unable to import foods which are easily imported into the United States of America, our neighbour and largest trading partner. We need to look into that aspect.

The root cause is the regulatory process. Since my election to this chamber in 1997, I have taken a particular interest in regulatory reform and in reducing red tape. I have been the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations and have succeeded in passing a private member's bill, of course with the cooperation of all members in the House.

That bill provides parliamentarians with an opportunity to disallow any federal statutory instruments that are illegal, redundant or that are not supposed to be there, even ones that originate from government agencies like the CFIA which we are talking about today. I also organized a conference on regulatory reform and have authored numerous op-eds on the issue.

Let me talk about Bill C-205 which was one of, I think, 1,700 bills that have been introduced in the House since I was elected. I was lucky to have the cooperation of some members from the opposite side as well.

Prior to the passage of my bill, Parliament was powerless to revoke hundreds of regulations written by government agencies like the CFIA, the CRTC and many other agencies. In other words, the quasi-government organizations or agencies have been delegated the power to make regulations. When Parliament delegated the power to them to make the regulations, parliamentarians did not have the power to review, scrutinize or disallow the regulations which many times contradicted the original intent of the legislation.

There was a big black hole in the accountability for many years before the passage of this most important private member's bill. As a result of the passage of that bill, all the regulations that are made in Canada by different agencies now come under the purview of Parliament. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has demanded to review and scrutinize some of those.

I am therefore interested to see that Bill C-27 seeks to support the government's so-called smart regulation strategy by providing more consistent inspection and enforcement powers; providing a wider range of regulatory instruments; simplifying and streamlining the regulatory process; and contributing to the increased harmonization of legislation and regulations, to reduce overlap. Sometimes regulations are not consistent with those of our largest trading partner. The bill seeks to contribute to the regulatory cooperation with the United States, our largest trading partner.

This bill is long overdue. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997 to combine all federal food inspection, animal, plant and health services into a single inspection agency. The legislative basis for the agency should have been updated at that time or shortly thereafter, not after seven years.

Even though the government has had more than ample time to prepare the legislation, it is still not without flaws. Therefore, I am concerned that the bill does not incorporate any aspect of accountability for fair and effective enforcement. It fails to address accountability for frivolous or false detainment and destruction of products and materials. Without such accountability, I will not be able to support the bill. I look forward to meaningful amendments to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should acknowledge the historic inequality of treatment and compensation for First Nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans and take action immediately to give real compensation to these veterans in a way that truly respects their service and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure and honour to speak to Motion No. 193. This is the first private member's motion that I have had the opportunity to present in the House. As such, I have chosen to put forward an issue for debate that is very important to both me and my constituents.

My riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is geographically one of the largest in the country, covering the northern half of my province of Saskatchewan. It accounts for 58% of the land mass of the province. It is an area larger than the country of Germany and nearly the size of France.

Existing in my massive and remote riding are over 30 first nations and 108 individual Indian reserves, the most of any riding in the country. My riding is made up of over 50% of people of aboriginal ancestry. Representing them is a responsibility I take seriously.

I believe it is an indisputable fact that aboriginal veterans were not treated fairly or equitably upon their return from serving their country during World War I, World War II and the Korean War. When these soldiers were overseas they were treated the same. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal trained together, fought together and, in too many cases, died together.

They say that there are no atheists in foxholes. During Canada's wars, among the soldiers at least, there were no skin colours in combat. These men served shoulder to shoulder and spent the most harrowing moments of their lives relying on each other for their survival. Often these men would serve together for years on end, seeing more of each other than they did of their own families, becoming truly bands of brothers.

These soldiers served heroically and with great distinction, winning battles from Vimy to Juno Beach to Ortona. Many aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike lie buried together in war cemeteries across Europe and in the countries in which they gave their lives to free from tyranny and oppression.

Why were these brave soldiers treated differently when they returned to Canada? There have been many different explanations offered, but it basically comes back to the same thing: systemic and deep rooted discrimination within the institutions of the Government of Canada.

Like their comrades in arms, first nations veterans looked forward to re-establishing themselves back home with the generous benefits of the Veterans Charter provided by a grateful nation.

In theory, first nations veterans were eligible for and entitled to exactly the same benefits as any other returning servicemen, with the exception of the Veterans Land Act special provisions for settlement on Indian reserve land. In practice, however, a number of systemic factors inhibited the ability of first nations veterans to obtain adequate, timely and accurate information, as well as unbiased counselling, about the complex array of benefits for which they might apply.

In addition, these veterans faced bureaucratic delays and complications which, when combined with the differential economies of scale found in the benefits of the Veterans Land Act, meant first nations veterans faced a steeper uphill struggle for post-war re-establishment than other veterans.

At this point I would like to go through some of the specifics regarding the lack of equal treatment faced by first nations veterans. I will start with the Veterans Land Act and move on to the lack of access to an administration of veterans benefits for first nations veterans, then discuss problems with dependents allowances and assigned pay.

I would like to note as well that much of the initial research on these topics was done by Dr. R. Scott Sheffield and laid out in a major report conducted for the national round table on first nations veterans issues back in April 2001.

The Veterans Land Act was one of the primary re-establishment options, enabling qualified veterans to settle on a piece of land and take up agriculture, either as a full time occupation or as an income supplement on a smallholding hobby farm. Originally the act provided loans of $4,800, of which $1,200 was for the purchase of equipment, at a low interest rate of 3.5%. However, by war's end the maximum had been expanded to $6,000, all of which could be used to acquire land. If the loan was repaid on schedule and in full, the government was prepared to forgive the last $2,320 of the $6,000.

First nations veterans were eligible in theory to apply under the VLA off reserve and be considered on the same basis as other veterans. Realistically, however, there were obstacles that made such an event unlikely, something that was acknowledged by the Veterans Affairs Department in a notice from the director in 1945. It stated:

The average Indian veteran may be confronted with a practical difficulty in seeking qualification papers from the responsible committees set up for the purpose, who may be expected to feel some diffidence about qualifying an Indian for establishment on the land on a debt basis. In other words it is feared that few Indians could qualify under the conditions set by the Act.

The first nations veterans lack of a credit rating, combined with discriminatory stereotypes among the wider population, probably would have blocked many from obtaining VLA grants off reserve. The dubious opportunities for first nations veterans to settle outside reserves clearly would not have helped many first nations soldiers who would have undoubtedly gone back to their reserve communities.

However, under the existing VLA, legal hurdles remained that barred the act's extension to reserve lands.

First, since title to reserve land was held by the crown for the use and benefit of the band for which it was set apart, the VLA director was prohibited from holding title to it as required under the act. Second, the individual land allotment was not legally equivalent to a veteran owning a piece of land off reserve in fee simple.

An amendment to the VLA was passed in 1945 to get around these legal obstructions, which created section 35A. Under this section, a grant of up to $2,320 could be provided to qualified veterans on reserve. A first nations veteran required a location ticket to a specific tract of reserve land and a band resolution to confirm his ownership of the land to quality. Though the $2,320 was not equivalent to the $6,000, the Indian affairs branch argued that this deficiency was balanced somewhat by “the more favourable conditions that existed on reserve”.

First nations veterans were understandably angered at being barred from the loan provisions of the VLA and skeptical about the so-called advantages of reserve conditions, particularly as it involved having the Indian affairs branch and their Indian agents directly handling their cases.

According to government records, more than 4,000 veterans settled off reserve on crown lands with the help of the same level of assistance as on reserve farmers, with a maximum $2,320 conditional grant as compared to the $6,000 for non-aboriginal veterans.

A number of factors worked against first nations veterans who attempted to re-establish themselves under the VLA. With regard to those who wanted to undertake farming on a full time basis, the immediate challenges they faced had to do with economies of scale. For several reasons, the average size of farm that first nations veterans could secure was substantially smaller than could be obtained off reserve. As an example, we can look at Alberta where many veterans, first nations and otherwise, pursued full time agriculture under the VLA.

Grain farms totalling a full section of 640 acres of land would not have been considered out of the norm in the immediate post-war period. There is no evidence available of a first nations reserve farmer receiving a land allotment for more than a quarter section, or 160 acres, and some were closer to half that size.

What is more, the limited land base on many reserves proved a serious obstacle for expanding their operations. The government recognized that VLA farmers required access to more capital if they were to continue expanding their operations, and in 1954 passed an amendment to the act providing farm improvement loans. Sadly, these loans were inaccessible to first nations veterans because of the fact that they were loans. The result was that many first nations farmers were never able to build prosperous agricultural operations.

The second area of inequality was with regard to access to and administration of veterans benefits for first nations veterans.

First nations servicemen were generally told to return to the reserve and see their Indian agents about benefits as opposed to non-aboriginal veterans who fell under the jurisdiction of the veterans affairs department. From this point forward, first nations veterans received differential treatment from the norm.

Upon return to Canada, after their service was complete, non-aboriginal veterans were entitled to apply for either a re-establishment credit, which was equal in value to the basic war service gratuity, or instead a choice for agricultural re-establishment, that is the Veterans Land Act, which I have discussed, and education and training opportunities.

Overall first nations veterans faced systematic disadvantages, not faced by most other veterans, in obtaining information, counselling and applications for all the options that were open to them. In addition, the Indian affairs branch and the Indian Act added an extra layer of bureaucracy and regulations between first nations veterans and their re-establishment. The resulting delays and complications created hardship for some veterans and frustration for many more.

One example of the systematic problems faced by first nations veterans should be pointed out in detail, namely, the fact that much of the information that was disseminated on the benefits available to veterans through the Veterans Charter was distributed through posters and pamphlets in legion halls and advertisements on radio and in the newspaper.

This was particularly problematic for first nations veterans as the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act prohibited first nations veterans from entering legion halls as these establishments served alcohol. As for radios, at that time very few existed on post-war Indian reserves and the high rates of illiteracy meant that newspapers were of little use either, assuming a reserve community even received them. In many cases this left a first nations veteran with only the Indian agent as a source of information and advice about veterans benefits.

For a number of reasons, this dependence on the Indian agent and Indian affairs to supply accurate details of programs and unbiased advice in a timely and efficient fashion proved unfortunate, to put it mildly. There is evidence that many Indian agents did not fully understand the complex array of programs available under the Veterans Charter, and also that the Indian affairs bureaucracy was incapable of even disseminating all the information to the Indian agents. Even assuming that the Indian agents were knowledgeable, there is evidence that many did not tell first nations veterans under their jurisdiction of all available options, but rather what the agent thought they should receive.

The third area of unequal treatment for first nations veterans is with regard to the dependents' allowances and assigned pay. The clearest case of discrimination came in the Dependents' Allowance Board's unilateral decision to reduce allowances to first nations dependants residing on a reserve unless under the direct administration of the Indian agent. Beyond this, the initial separate system established for administering first nations dependants, which simply placed the cheques in the hands of the Indian agents with few guidelines and no accounting procedures, created a lot of opportunities for mismanagement, abuse of power and fraud.

Even when stricter measures were put in place to keep track of the money due to first nations dependants, some Indian agents were still circumventing the process. It is difficult to determine exactly how much money that first nations dependants lost out upon, but it is clear that funds due to these people were never received.

Clearly, without any doubt, first nations veterans were not treated equally with their non-aboriginal comrades in arms.

The situation regarding Métis veterans is somewhat less clear, largely owing to inadequate records kept by both the defence department as well as by the veterans affairs department. Veterans Affairs claims to have identified the records of 174 Métis veterans, even though individual soldiers were not allowed to identify as Métis when they signed up for service.

The National Métis Veterans Association states that there are approximately 2,000 Métis veterans who fought in World War II and in Korea, and refutes the department's claim that these veterans have been sufficiently identified and compensated.

At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Métis Nation Veterans Affairs official, David Chartrand, spoke of how Métis people were working to identify and record living Métis veterans from the second world war and Korea. Mr. Chartrand made clear that the 174 figure quoted by the department was far too low.

It is clear that when many Métis veterans returned from the war, they faced many of the same hurdles and problems faced by first nations veterans. Most returned to their remote home communities, many in my riding, where information on programs and benefits available was non-existent. Many of these veterans returned to their traditional occupations of trapping, fishing and hunting, and lived on remote traplines deep in the wilderness of norther Saskatchewan and northern Alberta.

According to the National Métis Veterans Association, less than 3% of the identified Métis veterans received one of the three key programs of the Veterans charter: land, education or the re-establishment grants.

Many people have asked me why I chose to bring this motion forward, the first piece of private member's business I have had the opportunity to present before the House. The answer is that the way aboriginal veterans were treated by this country when they returned is one of the great historical injustices of our time. The fact is that we do not have much time left to make this injustice right. There are only 2,000 first nations veterans left, and an even small number of Métis veterans left. This motion calls for compensation for these veterans because they are owed it as a simple matter of equality, but to be honest, the veterans with whom I have spoken do not even care about the money. What they desire is an acknowledgement that they were treated unfairly, and a thank you from this country, a country they fought and died for. They are asking for recognition and for their dignity, something we owe them in spades.

Some will say that compensating these veterans fairly will cost too much. To that I say that if anybody in this country deserves compensation from the government, it is those who fought to defend our freedom. If the government can find seemingly limitless money for gun registries and sponsorship programs, surely it can find some funding to compensate 3,000 to 4,000 men who put their lives on the line to defend our values and future.

Some will also argue that first nations veterans have already been compensated and will refer to the $20,000 payout to first nations veterans in the aftermath of the national round table on first nations veterans issues. To that I will say that a take it or leave it offer by the government for a sum that was literally picked out of thin air is hardly sufficient compensation. How much is enough? That should be determined in consultation with veterans groups.

It is interesting to note that of the 2,000 first nations veterans identified for compensation in 2002, only 1,100 have ever received a dime. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the impression that the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Indian Affairs that I get is that they are simply trying to play for time and run out the clock. They know as well as anybody that time is not on the veterans' side and that soon there will be no veterans left to compensate. This was certainly the impression I got when department officials testified before the aboriginal affairs committee earlier this year.

I will conclude with the words of Mr. Edgar Borchert, a World War II veteran and president of the National Métis Veterans Association, who testified before the aboriginal affairs committee on November 4, 2004.

Mr. Borchert said:

What do the Métis veterans desire? They want the recognition that they served Canada honourably. They want equitable treatment. For their contribution to Canada and its war effort, they want no less than the first nations, the wood cutters, the newspaper journalists, and other veterans groups. The Métis veterans are very proud warriors, and their struggle will not be diminished to being nothing more than beggars at a government table. But I beg for them. I beg for your compassion to allow our veterans to live out their last few years with dignity and that their widows have your support and that they have truly the honour of being called Canada's warriors.