Brian Pallister

[First Nations Governance Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly and with the greatest of respect to you.

Regardless of the fact that the member for Calgary Centre may or may not have made submissions, his point is valid. We did of course make submissions from this side. The opposition submitted more amendments than all other parties combined and we had more amendments accepted than all other parties combined. We made submissions regarding many of those, as you well know.

Nonetheless, the point is valid. We did not know which amendments you may or may not have ruled admissible until the precise moment when we had to begin debate. That is a factor to consider in this instance. In addition, the fact that we did not have the opportunity, upon learning of your decision, to make any subsequent appeal or submission is germane to what the member for Calgary Centre is raising in his remarks.

Naturally this comes from frustration. This is because of the position the government has adopted from the outset regarding this bill. It is advancing it as rapidly as possible and limiting debate.

In respect of the conduct of the chair during committee hearings, and in respect of the rancour and the acrimony that existed there, there is some question--and I believe the member has raised it in his motion--as to how it would be possible for members of the committee to raise amendments in that environment.

The larger question, which the member is alluding to as well, is the difficulty with the rules, which the House leader has recently imposed upon the Speaker, to fully and fairly debate, submit amendments, and have such amendments known to members of the House prior to debating the legislation. If we are limited in our ability to know of amendments or to speak to amendments or to appeal amendments we submit, then clearly our ability to act as members of Parliament is impeded as a consequence of that.

I would like to see the larger issue addressed. I believe the member has alluded to it. The larger issue is the actually restrictive--

[First Nations Governance Act, June 5th, 2003]

It is the same point.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the gist of my comments on this package of amendments, I want to take the opportunity to speak in support of the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc who raised some very legitimate concerns. I do not think they were properly dealt with here today.

The Speaker made the comment in giving his ruling regarding this bill that he was not in possession of supernatural qualities. I believe that was the phrase he used. Neither, unfortunately, are members of the House.

This method of proceeding places us at some difficulty certainly in dealing with these amendments. It continues a very unfortunate approach which the government has taken since the outset of the bill, which is to push it forward regardless of obvious and strong opposition to it. It is for that reason the official opposition has supported the position of pulling the bill and reversing this process which we believe to be dangerous, damaging and naive.

I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister of Indian Affairs is well meaning and well intentioned. That is not at issue here. I do not doubt for a minute that the people who designed the Indian Act were also well intentioned and well meaning.

The problem is obvious to anyone who has listened to the heartfelt presentations of people who came to our committee. The problem is that well meaning and well intentioned do not create good governance when, at the fundamental base of our relationship with our aboriginal friends in the country, is the assumption that the government knows better than they do how to govern them and that they are not entitled to the same rights, privileges and freedoms as the rest of us in the country. As long as that assumption is upheld in legislation, there will continue to be the types of problems we have seen and unfortunately which mount daily in our country with aboriginal peoples particularly on reserve.

Our party does not support segregation. We do not support the dehumanization of aboriginal Canadians. We do not support legislation which perpetuates the assumptions that created the Indian Act and subsequent pieces of legislation and subsequent policy which created a divide and which daily creates a divide between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The government is trumpeting this legislation as a panacea for the problems that face aboriginal Canadians, which are very real and very serious problems. It is trumpeting this legislation as accountability and is using buzz words like transparency and cost effectiveness when it describes the legislation. None of those words apply when one looks at the bill. None of those words are legitimate in describing the bill.

How can we create a system of good governance when we simply further empower bureaucracies and the already powerful and do nothing to address the underlying problems that face aboriginal people?

The priorities that aboriginal people have raised through their associations are very real and urgent, yet the government proposes to spend hundreds of millions of dollars enacting unwanted legislation which will not address the problems of accountability or transparency on reserves. Despite the fact that it is well meaning, the outcome will be perverse, as has been the case repeatedly throughout our history.

The reality is that one cannot create better governance from Ottawa. One has to create better governance by strengthening the individuals and the families who are aboriginal people. By strengthening them and empowering them and giving them greater ability to participate as full Canadians, that might lead to better governance.

The bill is both good and original in that the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good. The good parts are simply a rewrapping of existing policy that describes the relationship we already have to some degree with aboriginal chiefs and councils.

I have had the privilege of meeting with over a hundred chiefs from across Canada and they are not afraid of accountability. In fact in any respect, in any measure, the requirements that are imposed on them and on their councils to be accountable and to be forthright in their financial dealings are greater than for any other level of government in the country.

Certainly one would argue that for many chiefs and councils they are far more accountable and far more transparent in their dealings than the government opposite. According to the Auditor General, the onerous requirements are already very real. On average 168 forms per year have to be completed by band chiefs and councils and the red tape and regulations are deeper than a Manitoba snowbank. The reality is the bill would replace a regime of 168 different forms with perhaps 178. If 168 forms did not create accountability, why would anyone believe 178 forms would do that? It will not.

The fact remains that the bill is a continuation of the same paternalistic, colonialist approach that we have been using for far too long and it should be discarded. The approach is wrong, it is mistaken and it is hurtful to aboriginal Canadians and to the relationship that we should be building together.

The minister proclaims that the bill contains provisions for band elections. However the Indian Act already has provisions for band elections and that has not been a problem on the vast majority of aboriginal reserves. The FNGA would simply codify the flawed failed policies of the Indian Act. It is more than that and it is more dangerous than people have come to realize. Perhaps committee members who listened to the presentations understand but I am afraid that many observers do not, those who did not follow carefully the proceedings.

The bill would give additional powers to chiefs and councils, powers that the minister has argued are a natural step toward self-government. In this bill he is giving the power to chiefs and councils to make laws, to set fines and to impose jail terms. If they have a problem with that, he would also institute a system where the enforcement officer could be appointed by the chief and council to ensure there is no problem with that anymore.

On many bands that would not be a problem. Chiefs and councils have exercised those kinds of powers for years and they have developed systems to ensure accountability. What the bill would do, however, is empower 600 plus chiefs and councils to set up their own law enforcement officers. If they have a problem with that, they can go to a redress officer who would be accountable to and appointed by the chief. I have yet to speak to an aboriginal Canadian who thinks that makes any sense. I and the Canadian Alliance certainly do not.

The government is trying to create a picture of accountability but the reality will not be the case. Unfortunately some chiefs do abuse their powers sometimes. Some chiefs here do it. The reality is keeping chiefs accountable, whether they are aboriginal or not, is an ongoing challenge for all of us. Setting up a system that further empowers chiefs, at the expense of those who are less powerful, in fact some would argue in many reserves powerless, would be dangerous because it would make the already vulnerable more vulnerable.

For that reason, the Canadian Alliance will be opposing the bill. For that reason and many others, we would urge every member of the House to oppose the bill. It is poorly thought out. It is naive to the maximum. It will cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used to build houses, to improve water quality and to address the educational problems that face our aboriginal friends. These are where our resources should be going. The bill is a mistake.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

moved:

That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

That Bill C-7, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 12 with the following:

“of the band and the charging of reasonably and fairly set fees for”

That Bill C-7, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 12 with the following:

“for and powers of eviction, and a schedule of shelter fees for band-owned dwellings;”

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

moved:

That Bill C-7, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) The Minister, or an independent and impartial person or body designated by the Minister, may at any time carry out an assessment of a band’s financial or other”

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

moved:

That Bill C-7, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 8 the following:

“(2) The council of the band shall make available to the members of the band and the residents of the reserve a copy of the budget referred to in paragraph (1)(a) at least 14 days before the budget is presented in accordance with the financial management and accountability code.”

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a national disgrace that in this country there are over 200 communities where the water is undrinkable and they are all aboriginal. Over the next half decade the government will only address fewer than one in five of those 200 communities' water problems. Meanwhile in Manitoba it will spend $50 million by throwing it at brand new segregated Black Sturgeon reserve. Meanwhile aboriginal kids are afraid to wet their toothbrushes or they will become seriously sick.

Why does the government not fix the problems it has instead of just throwing money at new problems?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what a double standard: 218 aboriginal communities across our country have boil water advisories right now and are in a high risk health situation. Children, the weak and the elderly face serious health consequences if they drink, bathe in or even eat food prepared in the water of their communities. Something so simple as wetting a toothbrush is a danger.

Let us ask ourselves: If these were non-aboriginal communities, would this not be an urgent priority of the federal government? Would this not be a crisis? It is, and this week the government announced a pitiful spending program for aboriginal infrastructure. Over the next half decade it will only try to address one in five of the water systems problems. That is pathetic.

Yet in the coming fiscal year the dozen federal departments that each deal with aboriginal issues will devote 15 times as much money per year to their communications budgets. Sadly, it appears that this government seems to care more about selling Canadians on the job it is doing than actually doing the job itself.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Indian affairs minister with his customary intellectual vigour described the 633 Indian chiefs of this country as self-serving bullies. The chiefs replied saying that it takes one to know one. The INAC minister went on to claim that 1.5 million aboriginal Canadians would support his bill, but they were scaredy-cats and afraid of the chiefs.

Why then is the minister advancing this intellectually flawed bill which would hand more power to chiefs, enforcement officers--

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2003]

The member opposite tries to argue for Balkanization and race based sentencing in our system. She will have the opportunity to make her arguments. I invite her to do that. I encourage this debate.

Perhaps what is even more egregious than what the government has done here is the expansion of these differential sentencing provisions to the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is the youngest, fastest growing population in Canada and it is imperative that aboriginal youth feel that they can become significant contributors to Canada's economic, social and political life. By offering sentencing discounts based on race, the government is sending a message to aboriginal young people and it is not a good message. It is a message that they are incapable of fulfilling the same duties and the same responsibilities as all other Canadians. We have to stand up and say no to this policy of stigmatization and restore the fundamental principle of equality to our justice system now and for future generations.

Ethnicity should never be a factor in the sentencing determination of any convicted criminal, but that is not to say that socio-economic conditions should not be considered. Sentencing judges already do so. Sentencing judges have to take into consideration background factors such as lack of education, poverty, substance abuse and child abuse, but not all aboriginal Canadians suffer from these afflictions nor are they solely the possession of aboriginal Canadians.

To stipulate that aboriginal status should be considered and specifically targeted by judges is a mistake. The overrepresentation problem cuts across different racial minorities and it requires a response that does not focus exclusively on one group, however historically disadvantaged. To single out a particular group encourages judges to treat aboriginals as a category rather than as individuals. Categorical assumptions are inappropriate in a sentencing system that is supposed to be based on the culpability of the offender. The sentence must relate to that culpability and the factors should be individual, never collective.

The solution lies beyond the purview of the sentencing judge. It is not the mandate of a sentencing judge to try to correct society's historical wrongs. That is antithetical to the purpose of our justice system. If judges begin to make sentencing determinations on the basis of collective identity they are no longer serving as the safeguards of equality in our justice system but rather as social engineers.

The conditions which contribute to the likelihood of criminal involvement, such as poverty, lack of education, drug and alcohol dependency and lack of economic opportunity, should be the priorities of any government. Yet after 10 years of this government's rule, little progress has been made. The barriers to aboriginal equality have not come down because the government seems to believe that aboriginal Canadians do not merit the full equality that other Canadians take for granted. The price of this philosophy is that the federal government has been allowed to escape its leadership role in all aboriginal issues.

For example, the government has ignored well documented problems such as lack of matrimonial property rules on reserve, economic and consumer equality for aboriginal people, women's rights, and property rights. The federal government's ambivalence toward these inequities has directly resulted in the third world conditions that we see on Canadian reserves.

The Canadian Alliance believes that the re-establishment of these individual rights, which most Canadians take for granted, is central to building that foundation of equality of opportunity for aboriginal Canadians, and the establishment of these individual rights is central to crime prevention.

The Liberal government's approach is to stave off problems with community-based band-aids, while the Canadian Alliance believes that prevention requires individualized solutions, starting with equal rights and duties for everyone and equal justice.

While the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in Canadian prisons is an undeniable and important problem, there is little evidence that the problem has arisen as a result of discriminatory sentencing. To explain the high incarceration rate as a byproduct of failed sentencing practices is to miss the problem altogether and therefore miss finding the solution to the problem.

Those nine words in the Criminal Code offer little more than an empty promise to aboriginal people, a bitter pill for sentencing judges who struggle to do the right thing but become daily more aware of the powerlessness they have in the face of a situation far beyond their control. It would have been better if these nine words had never been included in the Criminal Code.

My bill has been given a great deal of support across Canada already. The Edmonton Journal stated on April 29 of this year, “The reasons for the high rates of incarceration, poverty, substance abuse, family breakdown and the like are not and cannot be adequately addressed at the sentencing stage”.

We have been supported by the first nations mothers' association of Canada, which has said in a press release that it believes all Canadians should be treated equally before the courts and there is only one brand of justice for Canadians.

The Windsor Star said on May 5 of this year that the government's approach “smacks of two-tier system. A truly just justice system would expect judges to remain blind to an offender's ethnicity”.

In closing, let me say that it is long overdue that this unjust provision in our Criminal Code which stands in the way of true equality for all Canadians be removed. I urge all members of the House and I urge all Canadians following these proceedings to support this bill and to encourage their members of Parliament to support the bill when it comes back to the House. The bill will accomplish several things. It will restore fairness and equality to our justice system. It will end the stigmatizing of aboriginal Canadians. It will reinstate the rights of the victims of crime and their full and equal protection under the law.