Brian Pallister

[Justice, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the trial of Robert Sand is set to begin in a few days time. Mr. Sand is accused of gunning down RCMP Constable Dennis Strongquill.

If convicted, Mr. Sand, who is aboriginal, may benefit from Criminal Code provisions put in place by the government that instruct judges to pay “particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders”.

Could the justice minister verify that if convicted, Mr. Sand's aboriginal heritage could now be a factor in his receiving a more lenient sentence?

[Health, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot really blame people for doubting the minister on this one. Band members have asked for an audit in Sandy Bay and it has been ignored. The government does nothing.

It has been two full years since the Virginia Fontaine situation. The minister claims that she is interested in doing something. It has been two years: nothing done there.

The former assistant deputy minister billed Health Canada for 137 trips in a three year period. He took his girlfriend on over 100 of them, but nothing.

What does it take to get the government to take its responsibility seriously and direct money to aboriginal health, not vacations?

[Health, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about controlling provincial government health care spending, yet over half of the federal health department's budget goes to aboriginal agencies with too few strings attached to it.

According to senior band members, the executive of the health centre at Sandy Bay reserve had a wonderful Christmas vacation in Jamaica. Then, tired after their week of work in January, they took a week in Vegas. Now they are at the West Edmonton Mall.

Would the tough talking minister like to tell us what percentage of Health Canada's budget is used for vacations?

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2003]

May I ask you humbly, Mr. Speaker, you expressed in your response, Sir, that you were not totally sure if it is permissible for a member of Parliament to imply that another member was absent from committee. I do not want it left on the record. Clearly if it is against the rules of the House of Commons or not, I do not want it left on the record that I have not been doing my work for my constituents, Sir.

I ask the minister to withdraw his comment. I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, instruct him to withdraw it and that he offer an apology for that response, which put misinformation on the record. Clearly that is not correct, it is not right, it is not fair, and the minister should not be given a lease to allow him to do that.

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, a particularly well crafted and pertinent question of mine was directed to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, to which he chose to respond in I think a rather thin-skinned way. In his answer, in his bombastic display of vitriol, he unfortunately put erroneous information on the record.

That might not be very relevant to him, but it certainly is to me, because of what he implied in his answer very clearly. I do not know the exact words, but I tried to get the gist of what he said written down: what he said was that if I bothered to show up from time to time for committee.

Mr. Speaker, he is referring to my absence from committee and that is not right. I pride myself on doing my job for my constituents and the people of this country and I resent it when a member refers to my absence from committee, particularly when I have been at over 90% of the meetings this session. All the minister has to do is ask any other member of committee and he would know that.

I do not believe that is fair or right and I also believe that all of us deserve to be treated with respect under the rules of the House.

What I would also say is that this kind of arrogant response is the reason that virtually every submission to our committee regarding the minister's legislation, by people from across Canada, is opposed to his legislation: because he has taken such a thin-skinned approach. He has offended virtually every person who understands and has read the legislation, which I am afraid the minister has not done.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, only to that government would debating bills be considered delaying tactics.

The Canadian Alliance will never support two tier human rights for Canadians. That is exactly what the minister is doing with his proposal. Its first nations governance act shows it still believes in the divine right of kings too because it is perpetuating unelected, hereditary chiefs.

Will the minister give me the decency of a respectful answer for a change? Why is the government trampling the democratic rights of aboriginal Canadians in support of unelected, hereditary chiefs?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 6th, 2003]

Sweeping this under the rug will not do, Mr. Speaker.

According to a band councillor the mediator just called off his investigation this morning, so mediation will not work and the minister knows that. We have to get to the bottom of the root of the problem. The problem is the mismanagement of millions of dollars. Without an investigation, the facts will not be revealed and the healing cannot begin.

Again, let me ask the minister this. We are calling for a public inquiry. The only person who does not seem to want a public inquiry is the minister. The band council does and we do. Will the minister launch a public inquiry?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has been about a year now since Dakota Tipi first nation was put under federal government management. Since that time, incidents of violence, including stabbings and beatings, have increased. There has been a case of arson. Last week the school was set ablaze. At the root of the problem are allegations of corruption and mismanagement in the handling of millions of dollars.

The minister's avoidance response thus far has been to refuse to launch any investigation. The Canadian Alliance's first concern is the safety of the residents of Dakota Tipi.

Will the minister commit today to launching a public inquiry that will get to the bottom of the problem and perhaps prevent--

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister's leadership campaign is a non-event. What it needs is a symbol, but what would work for the man who has everything except a fixed position? He has had more flip-flops than a catfish in a canoe. On democratic reform, Kyoto, election finance, you name it, the position seems to depend on the audience, not on any firmly held views. So I went looking for some ideas.

I said to the weather vane, “Any way the wind blows, you would be a good symbol”. He said, “No way. I have a fixed position”. I talked to the middle of the road and said, “How about you?” She said, “No. You know where I stand. Right in the middle”. Then I ran into a chameleon. The chameleon said, “I could be a good symbol because when there is trouble, I am very hard to find and when I am under stress, I change to suit my nearest environment just to blend in”.

There is my contribution to the former finance minister's leadership campaign, a new symbol: the chameleon. It is a great symbol. It could have been a dead skunk.

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a system where everyone is appointed by the chief, everyone answers to the chief and everyone is accountable to the chief does not work in Ottawa so I do not think it is going to work on reserves.

Aboriginal Canadians should enjoy the same human rights and the same protections as all other Canadians. Once again I ask the government, will it assure Canadians that it will not waste $60 million, and aboriginal peoples' time and rights will not be put at risk by the appointment of 600 different ineffective ombudsmen?