Reed Elley

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Motion No. 75. I thank our hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party for bringing this to the attention of the House and giving us an opportunity to debate the issue.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live-capture and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).

I freely confess that I am not an expert in zoology, biology or any other animal husbandry field, but like many others in this country I do have an opinion on this issue and I think it is reflective of how many Canadians feel. Let us not forget that an issue like this has many aspects to it. These aspects contain safety, humanitarian, educational research and emotional components.

Today's motion is not votable but I believe that we have the opportunity to further the debate in a very calm and rational manner. Issues such as these often become strictly an emotional one rather than looking at a situation from several different points of view.

Over my years I was privileged to visit many of the fine zoos, wildlife preserves and the like which we have in Canada. Coming from a west coast riding, perhaps I am more aware of whales, dolphins and porpoises and their natural environment than many of my colleagues from inland provinces.

Just last year my family and I had an opportunity to go on a whale watching excursion off the Victoria harbour. My friend runs a company that does this. He is very respectful of the natural habitat of whales. It was an incredible experience to see these animals in their environment. A small minority of people are able to do that. Most of the people who were on the tour that day were tourists from Japan and Germany.

As we consider this motion calling for an immediate moratorium on the live capture and trade of cetaceans, the term moratorium can mean several different things. My understanding of the term could be threefold. First, it could be a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation. Second, could mean a waiting period set by an authority. Third, it could be a suspension of activity altogether. While I believe I understand the member's motion to mean the third of these possible definitions, perhaps we should more closely frame the debate in the future.

With regard to the many different ways to view this debate, I would like to briefly comment on several different aspects.

With regard to safety concerns, I believe most people would agree that any animals held outside their regular environment should be held in a very safe and humane manner. By this I am specifically referring to the safety of the animal. The safety of the animal also runs in tandem with humanitarian concerns. I recognize that there will be a broad range of thought specifically on this issue. There will be those who feel that the only humanitarian place for an animal is in its natural environment. There are others who feel that it is humanitarian to have captured animals in an environment that closely resembles their natural habitat.

I have seen some of the video clips that the hon. member mentioned depicting the live capture of cetaceans. What I saw did raise some personal concerns. I was concerned over the humanitarian treatment of these animals during capture. I fully realize these clips may not accurately depict everything that goes on at the time in other places, however the treatment I saw was certainly not humanitarian.

If whales are going to be captured for research, observation and the like, then I would personally rather see stricter guidelines that clearly state how animals must be treated. If Canadian aquariums are found purchasing from these organizations that practise inhumane capture and flaunt the international laws governing such, then these aquariums and societies ought to be punished by law and prohibited from doing so.

One of the factors that is often overlooked is the one of education. It is one thing to read a book, watch a video or listen to an expert. I believe it is also important to have a tactile experience wherever possible. If we want to learn more and teach our younger generation about these amazing creatures, we still need to have the ability to show our children what they look like and how they behave.

As I mentioned earlier, yes, there are boat tours available. However quite frankly most of those activities are outside of many family budgets. Often the only means available for thousands of Canadians across this country to see these amazing creatures is through an aquarium setting.

We have learned much about cetaceans. We learned that they are very intelligent creatures. It was not that many years ago that killer whales or orcas were thought to be extremely dangerous and hated creatures. We have since learned much about the true nature of these animals. However we still have much to learn.

It is certainly true that research can and must be done in the wild. However there are times when that research cannot be achieved and learned without a controlled environment.

The emotional side of this debate is often the most publicized. Yes, we can and we should have feelings. However all too often we have allowed our emotions to overrule all other parts of the debate. We need to keep all the parts in balance. We cannot rely solely on emotions and ignore other factors when we are debating issues such as this. We must make decisions based on as much of the information as possible that is available to us.

I must confess that I would have been much more supportive of the member's motion if it had called for a ban on commercial whale harvesting for food and other purposes. I am particularly concerned about reports of Russian and Japanese fishers not adhering to the accepted international whaling rules. In today's world I do not believe there is any need to harvest whales for food or process them for other products. Yes, they were used for food, oil and many other products historically. I believe we have moved well beyond the need to harvest whales for this purpose.

We need to ensure that the historical use of these animals is not a reason to continue their harvesting. Just because we did something in the past does not mean we should continue to do it now or in the future. We can probably think of many examples of the past where this would be true.

When I step back and consider all of these issues together, I believe that at the end of the day there would probably more to be lost through this motion than gained in its present form. What I would be more supportive of is a set of guidelines or legislation that states how these animals may be captured, studied, housed and viewed in a humane way. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that unscrupulous people cannot take advantage of or abuse these creatures. However thousands of Canadians who have never had a chance to view these magnificent animals up close should not be denied the opportunity to do so. The much needed research on these animals close up should be permitted, albeit in a limited fashion.

It has already been pointed out by the hon. member across the floor that the care and maintenance of these animals in aquariums is really a provincial responsibility. It seems to me that the hon. member from the NDP ought to take her cause up with the provinces in this regard.

At the end of the day, I believe that more can be gained through bona fide research, public, environmental and conservation education. I thank the member for her motion and the opportunity to participate in this debate today.

[Softwood Lumber, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, which is very dependent upon the government to act in regard to the expiration of the softwood lumber agreement. My riding is covered with rain forest timber. Over the past number of years the market has been hard hit by many negative effects, particularly this agreement. Few people will be sorry to see it expire on Saturday.

Literally thousands of British Columbians are dependent upon the softwood lumber market. They have concerns over the solidarity of the national softwood lumber coalition and fear that we will look weak if the united front breaks down as we enter into some form of negotiations with the United States.

The federal government needs to remain strong and firm with the Americans. It needs to remind them of concerns which we all face, including the erosion of foreign markets for North American softwood lumber if we are not able to produce an economically and competitively priced product.

The government needs to make the Americans aware of the changing products that are now entering the marketplace as alternatives to traditional building materials. Countervailing duties and other discriminatory measures will only add to the cost of our products and lead consumers to consider the alternatives.

There is too much at stake here. I ask the government to strongly intervene on behalf of B.C. softwood lumber producers to reach a North American agreement which will truly work for all concerned.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I remember a little nine year old boy coming down the street into my backyard one day. His pockets were bulging and overflowing with candy and stuff. When I queried him about it and asked him if he had any money to pay for it, he said no, that he had just helped himself.

What I did as a father was what any father should do with a child who has been caught shoplifting: I marched him back to the store. I made him apologize to the owner and give back the candy. Fortunately he had not started eating it so he was able to give it all back.

Is it not public disclosure of the things we do wrong one of the best ways for us to make sure it does not happen again? Is it not true that most of the crime in the country occurs under the cover of darkness or takes place when other people cannot see what is going on because it is human nature to not want to get caught doing something that is wrong?

With regard to the public disclosure of names of children who have done something wrong, is it not common sense that if we published the names of these children a shame factor would come into play? Would it help prevent them from doing it again, or has society gone so far away from the shame factor that it does not matter any more? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have the utmost respect for my colleague and for what I believe she has done in her work on the Hill with aboriginal people. I know that she knows something about my involvement with aboriginal people.

I think the vast majority of us in the House take very seriously the work that lies before us in terms of bringing aboriginal people into some sense of sustainability and economic development, giving them a sense of self-worth and bringing them into the Canadian family in every way possible.

I know she has some concerns about our motion. At the same time, I want to ask her this question. We know the vast amounts of money that are involved. They are billions of dollars. Ostensibly the money is set aside by Canadians, through the government, to help our native people achieve higher levels of success in every way.

Yet while all this money is going to native people, we still have the appalling statistics. We have statistics that tell us that unemployment is very high among native people on reserves. We have off reserve people in cities who are not able to find jobs. We have huge problems on native reserves with HIV, hepatitis C, diabetes and all of those diseases that are also in the non-native population, but are disproportionately high in our native population. We have terribly unacceptable suicide rates among our native young people. I just get sick when I hear about it. I see terrific amounts of substance abuse. What went on with the James Bay Cree young people is probably just a drop in the bucket, and it became a very celebrated case.

All of us have to grapple with this question. We have this money available and we have the resources to put at the disposal of native people. If there is not an accountability problem, what is it that is not working to help our native people to achieve what we want them to achieve? I would certainly appreciate the hon. member's elucidation on that.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is very encouraging news for the hundreds of aboriginal people who have contacted us with serious accountability problems.

The minister of Indian affairs is becoming famous for his public policy musing. Recently he stated to reporters that he wanted to have Elections Canada supervise band elections. I suspect he has been reading our Alliance policy book again.

We have heard from many band members, including the Cape Mudge band on Vancouver Island, who are very upset about the irregularities that are occurring during band elections. I think all Canadians would really like to know if this is the minister's private policy, or will he really bring in legislation to allow Elections Canada to monitor band elections? What will it be?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today we have been discussing in the House ways to give native people the tools to hold their band leaders financially accountable.

If the government really supports the motion for public reporting and auditing, what does the minister of Indian affairs intend to do to make sure that this actually happens?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very sad in having to rise to ask the member a question and to make a comment on what he said. He has impugned my integrity in the House by attributing comments to me.

If he goes back and reads Hansard he will realize that his statement is completely inaccurate. I never said that I had phoned Matthew Coon Come or that I ever had his support for the motion. He is reading something into what I said. I think it is despicable of him to bring that kind of thing to the debate when there are such serious problems regarding aboriginal people across the country. He is still engaged in the old line debate on partisan politics: who is doing what and who is getting political points. I have no interest in that.

If the member's party is so intent on helping aboriginal people, why has his colleague, the member of parliament for Churchill where the Virginia Fontaine Centre is situated and which has developed into such a national scandal of aboriginal accountability vis-à-vis the government, not once stood in the House and brought public attention to the plight of the people in that riding who now have no hospital treatment centre and no school because of accountability issues? Why?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member said in his response and we are glad to hear that the government will be supporting us on the motion.

The member mentioned that from his perspective and the government's perspective they have indeed been good stewards of taxpayer money. There is a huge amount of money that is spent on Indian affairs at the moment.

Is the member aware that the statistics tell a different story? Unemployment rates in many bands across the country have soared to 85%. The incidence of HIV and hepatitis C on reserves, as well as diseases, like tuberculosis, which is re-emerging among native people, has increased. Diabetes has increased by four or five times the national average. The suicide rate among native people on reserves is four or five times the national average. Substance abuse among the James Bay Cree and others is rampant.

Why is all this money going toward supporting our native people not working? Could the member please enlighten us? Why are our native people still suffering?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

moved:

That the government stipulate that in all contribution agreements between the federal government and individual Indian bands, the use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Wanuskewin. In addition, all other Canadian Alliance members who will be speaking to the motion today will be splitting their time.

It is my pleasure to begin today's supply motion debate. In doing so, I say by way of preamble that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned and as part of the official opposition, we believe that over a period of time the Liberal government has a lot to explain regarding the handling of public taxpayer dollars and its very lax accounting methods toward the allocation and handling of both private and public aboriginal funds.

Once again I put the motion on the record:

That the government stipulate that in all Contribution Agreements between the Federal Government and individual Indian Bands, the use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited.

Throughout today my colleagues in the official opposition will identify many reasons why the present policy of the federal government concerning in this regard is simply not working.

As the debate develops, it will be clear that the motion is intended to speak out on behalf of all taxpaying Canadians as well as the many aboriginal Canadians who are not receiving the answers to their questions from their own chiefs and councils when it comes to matters of accountability.

At the present time aboriginal people do not have the tools to hold their chiefs and councils accountable, the tools necessary to track either public or private funds. Our motion today asks the government to bring in legislation. In so doing we hope the government will realize that there needs to be a separation of the revenue streams of public and private moneys going into the bands and the expenditures derived therefrom. This is so important so that when audits are performed they clearly track this money, how it is being spent and where it is going. In this way band chiefs and councils can be held accountable for their own spending habits.

This is all part of the kind of accountability for which people are calling, people such as the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Matthew Coon Come, the Canadian Alliance, of which I am a part, and many other Canadians.

There are accountability issues such as the monitoring of band elections by Elections Canada, self-government issues in terms of greater democracy and transparency at the band level, and even public consultation on the owning of private property on reserves. These issues continue on and on.

Let me be very clear from the outset. We on this side of the House understand fully the 1989 federal court Montana ruling. However, we believe that the federal government has fallen far short of its obligations to the Canadian taxpayers who demand full public disclosure and accounting for all of their tax dollars, not just some of them, regardless of what department they are being used in.

In addition, band revenues earned by band interests should be reported in a timely, accurate and transparent manner to all band members. I have even heard from aboriginal people who believe that these funds should also be publicly reported.

Quite frankly, the Liberal government has been derelict in its duties to the Canadian public on this matter. It has been 12 years since the Montana ruling came down and yet the federal government has not taken the necessary steps to clarify, define and separate the reporting of public and private funds. Today's motion provides a solution to the government's pathetic response to the problems of band financial accountability.

Just for the benefit of members of the House and those who may be viewing this on television, let me be clear on the scope of the budget we are talking about. The 2000-01 estimates for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada show that the department will spend $4.9 billion directly and that Health Canada, CMHC, Human Resources Development Canada and other departments will supply an additional $2.13 billion, for a total operational budget of $7.03 billion. We are not talking about change here; we are talking about huge amounts of money.

All Canadians have every right to know how one of the largest government departments not only spends its tax dollars but what kind of return it is getting on its expenditures. It is not a fiscal return necessarily. We are talking about the social return: the betterment of health for first nations and the improvement of housing conditions, levels of education and all kinds of things. These are some of the things that are really important to all Canadians.

Canadians are not blind to the plight of aboriginal people. Yet they consciously wonder why, when over $7 billion is allocated to the department and to the government, many of our aboriginal brothers and sisters live without proper housing, without running water or proper toilet facilities, without full educational opportunities, and why they live with soaring unemployment, poor health, high suicide rates and epidemic substance abuse.

These are real live flesh and blood issues which are singularly killing aboriginal people, killing the body and wounding the soul. For far too long they have been ignored by government and even by their own leadership, and this simply has to change.

The time has come for truth to be spoken in the nation in this regard. The truth very often is not politically correct. There are people who do not want to hear the truth because of their own vested interests. The truth, however, is not ambiguous. The truth is not something to be feared. The truth is clear and concise. The truth is to be embraced because it is unchanging. However the truth will do no good at all if it falls on deaf ears and is never acted upon.

Over the past several decades the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has moved to divest itself of the direct operation of programs. To a certain extent I agree with this. All people need to be seen to be as responsible as possible for themselves, but we all know that not everyone is able to take full responsibility until one given the tools that will equip one for the job.

To ask a council at the band level to suddenly take on the housing or health care issues facing its band is irresponsible, unless that chief and council have all the tools in place to ensure that they are able to meet the needs of their people. Surely this is only common sense, but very often in the department common sense is not to be found. Time after time in report after report we hear that INAC is not ensuring that the goals are attainable by all of the bands across the nation. The department has been long on talking the talk but very short on walking it.

Small bands with limited personnel, expertise and other resources cannot be expected to meet all the immediate needs and demands placed upon them if change is to occur. Without extra assistance, it is not feasible to expect the necessary social programs will exist and be delivered to all band members efficiently and effectively to bring about the desired results for change. Yet because of the current disclosure policy concerning accountability, all we can base our opinions on are our observations and the reports that come to us from many people across the country. Unfortunately many of those reports are not very encouraging.

Consider the plight of the Dene Tha first nation of northern Alberta. Here is a band that in addition to its INAC funding has oil and gas reserves. The people should be happy. They are not. They have many concerns over the governance of their band. They are concerned about where their money has gone. They are concerned that they cannot find answers. They are concerned that their chief and council have let them down. They are concerned that the minister of Indian affairs and the Prime Minister have let them down.

How about the words of Verna Soto of the Sturgeon Lake Cree nation, also of Alberta? She wants to have better health and education opportunities. The health of her children and others on the reserve is of serious concern to her, so serious that she is willing to step forward and publicly call for change. These people have put their lives on the line for change.

We have with us today in the gallery Leona Freed, who has formed the First Nations Accountability Coalition working on behalf of grassroots aboriginal people, and I salute her. Leona is one of the many people across the nation who are calling for accountability.

The motion we present today is a small step forward to the public, transparent accountability of taxpayer money. We urge all members of the House to support it.

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend other acts in consequence. I find the bill to be an interesting one, especially in the light of some of the contradictions I see between the bill and other similar issues over which the government has jurisdiction.

It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to implement the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. Implementing the commission's report seems reasonable enough, but let us not forget that the creation of the judicial compensation and benefits commission provides the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments.

The government's response to this issue is to introduce this bill to amend the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, modify the current judicial annuities scheme, and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

It is imperative that the independence of judges be maintained. The independence of the judiciary cannot be called into question. What is important is to determine the fairness of the commission's report. With this bill the government has accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges, retroactive to April 1, 2000. The implementation of this increase would cost Canadian taxpayers alone approximately $19 million.

It is my understanding that during this process the judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. Their rationale for the increase was that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is required to ensure good candidates, I fail to see any great shortage of candidates for the bench.

Over the past decade there has been an average of eight candidates for each opening on the bench. I can just envision the application office for judges absolutely crowded with prospective candidates, waiting in line, filling out all the applications, and in the back of their minds there is this wonderful salary and compensation package. Surely out of every eight candidates for the bench there must be at least one well qualified applicant.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they received 4.1%. The previous year they also received 4.1%. In other words, over a two year period federal judges had received an 8.2% increase. According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. Mr. Speaker, I presume that your salary, my salary and indeed the salaries of most Canadians across the country would be somewhat governed by that statistic. However let us remember that these are judges we are talking about and that the salaries of judges are already indexed. They receive annual cost of living increases as well as particular salary increases.

To be fair, I must say that I favour competitive salaries. If there is a major disparity when comparing a peer position in the private sector, either the quality of candidates or the number of qualified candidates will diminish. I do not believe that this is in anyone's best interest. Yet to date I do not see that the bench is short of applicants.

While we have the bill before us I would also like to draw attention to one of my major concerns regarding the judiciary. I would like to see an overhaul of the process of patronage appointments in the judiciary to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. The Alliance policy by which I am guided states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

The key words are based on merit: who will do the best job and who is the most qualified to do the best job.

While there has been much talk of late regarding parliamentary reform, I believe that by extension the reform should also include the public service. This is an opportunity to show the government's sincerity for true reform. The process should be completely open and accountable, and accountable in this case includes fairness.

I am somewhat alarmed that the proposed increase in pay is higher, for instance, than the federal government is reportedly prepared to grant the much lower paid civil servants in general. It has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges, while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

I think one of the most appalling situations in this regard is the amount of wages paid to entry level members of our armed forces. Privates, corporals and others often have to moonlight at jobs to make ends meet. This is simply not acceptable. There is no way that the people involved in our military who stand on guard for us should have to go to food banks. There needs to be a requirement of fairness in the whole issue.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that these very important and high paying positions will essentially remain part of the patronage system. Members only need to look around for a moment to see the level of patronage that already emanates from the Prime Minister's Office itself. The Liberal Party has floated a few trial balloons about parliamentary change and reform, but it is time to walk the talk. It is easy to talk about change but it takes real courage and true leadership to implement it.

Change is never easy for any of us. We are getting older and we know that in old age it is harder to change. However, if the government introduced real change, real parliamentary reform and real accountability, I believe it would have the support of many members on this side of the House and of all Canadians. Perhaps it should try it. The bill provides a golden opportunity to begin the process.

I am also reminded about the way that salaries, expense accounts and pensions are set for members of parliament. I do not believe that members of the public would deny parliamentarians a reasonable salary and pension. What the public begrudges is the current manner in which MPs' salaries are adjusted by the MPs themselves. Again there would be an opportunity for change as submitted by members of the opposition, namely an independent body outside the House made up of qualified members of the public would bring in recommendations that would be binding upon members of the House.

The public is simply not willing to continue to have a government act unaccountably. As a critic for Indian affairs I constantly hear from grassroot band members who are literally crying out for accountability from either their own chiefs and councils, the department or both. What hope could the government offer grassroots aboriginal people, or any Canadian for that matter, that accountability is important if it will not live by the same set of rules itself?

We can do better and we should do better. We as members of the House have the opportunity to do it even in this parliament, but too often Liberals opposite take the easier road. For instance, they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. The country is experiencing a high degree of backlog in the courts and many criminal trials must be put on hold in the meantime.

Let us take the time to make positive change. There is a general feeling in Canada that this Chamber has virtually no real power, but Canadians could be told by parliament, by the House, that we are interested in real reform if we really want it. Let us start it by making the necessary changes to Bill C-12.