Yes they have. This is a tripe E of a different kind. This is a tripe E that refers to the sustainable development concepts that are widely debated and have many different definitions among many different people. Nonetheless there are three central components: the economic aspects and the environmental ones. However there is a third component that has to be considered when we are dealing with legislation of any kind in the House especially legislation of this nature. The third component, that third E, that is so central to the legitimacy of anything that we do here is ethics.
In the absence of ethics, in the absence of a strong and consistent portrayal of the ethical high ground that we all like to think we inhabit, legislation we design and that we foist on the people of this country will not have the respect that we would like it to have.
It is unfortunately the case that I see the government's initiative being clouded somewhat by the current state of ethics on that side. It is unfortunate because the debate should centrally be about the bill itself. It should be about the intentions and how we achieve those objectives that the member spoke of earlier.
I share his hope in the outcomes he referred to. I share the hope and I am sure the people of Yukon and across Canada share the hope that the mechanisms presented in the bill will work. Unfortunately our hopes are somewhat clouded by pessimism when we see the unfortunate lack of consistent, strong, moral and ethical conduct on the part of the government members. In any process that involves, as this one does in minutia, consultative processes that ostensibly encourage stakeholders to express their views, there has to be an understanding that once those views are expressed they will be respected and listened to.
If people do not believe that a process will be listened to, if they do not believe that the political representatives they have chosen and elected will portray accurately their views once they arrive here, then not only will they disrespect the process but they will not involve themselves in it in the first place. They will not come forward and be part of these consultative, so-called regional grassroots input sessions if they do not believe they will be listened to, or if they believe that having been listened to that they will be ignored subsequent to the meeting.
People will not come forward. They will not participate and that is a concern that all of us should have. The consultation, to be meaningful, has to be real and genuine. It is not enough to hold consultative meetings or set up a framework for input that is done simply as a perceptual scenario whereby one can try to pretend that one is creating legitimate rules. If those rules will not be followed, if those rules will be tarnished by political manipulation, if those rules will be damaged by the subsequent, self-serving behaviour of those who should know better, then the reality is that those rules will not be respected by any thinking Canadian.
Therefore it is unfortunate that at this point in time, as this legislation comes forward with some good ideas within it, those few good ideas will be tainted by the reality of conduct in other venues by other members on the government's side. That is a shame.
Before I get into too much philosophical venting I will deal with some of the specific aspects of the bill as it has been proposed to the House.
I would like to focus on some of the disincentives that are in it. In raising these concerns I assure the member that I have taken the time to consult as well. Since consultation is something we hear the government talking about doing, let me assure the members of the government that we do a lot of it here too. In consulting with the people from Yukon, they have expressed to me a number of concerns they have about the nature of the bill. I would like to share those on the occasion of this introduction today.
First, with the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment bill, there may well be within it disincentives to potential developers. One of those disincentives may have as its basis the fact that the bill does away with the free entry system. In the free entry system, mining firms stake claims based upon exploration. They provide evidence of a deposit and they are assured tenure on the land above and below the surface. On that basis they can secure funding for development.
Under this bill, a project could be reopened and subsequently cancelled at any stage, either during development or in fact while in full operation. This does not give the assurance to developers that their investigative work and research ultimately will bear fruit, and naturally, as a consequence, this may well discourage the investment from being made in the first place. This is a legitimate concern in the minds of people in Yukon who would like to be employed as a consequence of such development and such projects.
Second, another disincentive is that there are no measured scientific standards or criteria for the approval or rejection of proposed projects. Officials could stop a development project based upon fuzzy criteria including, but not exclusively, potential impacts of the project in combination with other claims and projects, and even in combination with possible future developments, and “the interests of residents of Yukon and of Canadian residents outside Yukon”.
These are vague considerations that would allow projects to be potentially halted or prevented at any time for political reasons, on pure speculation, or for no reason at all.
The member opposite, in his introductory comments, spoke about the need for a process that results in the culmination of a decision. We agree with that.
We are very concerned that these things should not linger for an inexplicably long period. I think developers naturally are concerned about that too. The problem is that the bill does not stipulate any time line for review of proposed development projects. In my home province of Manitoba the time line is six months. However, under this bill, in Yukon the process could drag on indefinitely and that is not a good idea.
The second category of concern is the area of bureaucratic inefficiency. I am always concerned about this.
Each of the six assessment districts that are proposed by this bill within the territory have the ability to make up their own rules which have the weight and force of regulations without ministerial approval on such matters as integration of scientific information; traditional knowledge; other information; the form and content of proposals; the determination of the scope of a project; participation in evaluations by the public and interested parties and different types of evaluations for different types of projects. That is in clause 31 of the bill.
This means despite the government's use of words in its promotional material such as “single window”, there is no such single window. There will not necessarily be a single window within the Yukon territory for the approval of projects because each of the districts may have different and in fact somewhat contradictory requirements.
In clause 6, some projects will still be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This too contradicts the government's claim that the bill will create a single window for project review and approval.
Another bureaucratic concern we have is that the minister will determine the location of board offices in each assessment district. That is in clause 22. Offices, we believe, should be located according to certain set criteria. One of those could be cost effectiveness. One of them should not be political considerations.
In terms of accountability, something which we are certainly concerned about here, there is no requirement for the budgets, consolidated financial statements or audits of the board to be made publicly available. That is in clauses 26 to 28. Only an annual report of the activities of the board must be made public. That need not include necessarily consolidated financial statements or audits.
As well, in terms of accountability, the minister will determine the amount of time the board has after each fiscal year to produce its consolidated financial statements. That is left fuzzy.
In terms also of accountability, the minister will unilaterally approve the board's budget as submitted or make any changes he sees fit. He has to seek the views of the Council for Yukon Indians, the territorial government and the board, but at the end of the day it is the minister himself who sets the budget.
Naturally, given the recent concerns expressed by our members about the behaviour of certain government frontbenchers in terms of ethical conduct, patronage issues naturally would be something we would have to raise in the context of this bill. Patronage as opposed to representation is always a concern.
The minister, in consultation with the environment minister, will appoint all members of the board and determine their remuneration. Most appointments require the minister to consult with the Council for Yukon Indians and the territorial government. Some will be appointed unilaterally by the minister and others must be appointed on the nomination of the council or the territorial government.
We note there is no representation whatsoever for business interests on the board. Only first nations and the territorial governments will have input into the board's composition. A government fact sheet that we obtained states that the act will create an “arm's length assessment board”. We would question whether a board appointed by the minister is necessarily an arm's length board, especially lately.
Also in the bill only a bare majority of the board members plus the chairman must reside in Yukon. That is in clause 9. A member spoke about that a little while ago. We would prefer to see local representatives with a demonstrable interest and an expertise in sustainable development as the predominant presence on any board.
As the member referenced earlier, the bill has been a long time in coming.
In closing my specific comments relating to the bill, the bill is a requirement of the umbrella final agreement that was given force by the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act. That bill became effective on Valentine's Day in 1995. People have seen a lot of Valentine's Days waiting for this legislation to come into being.
The umbrella final agreement called for environmental assessment legislation to be passed no later than two years after the settlement legislation. That would mean the bill is six years late. One can only hope the promise of the bill is closer to being achieved than the promise that was made to produce the bill some years ago.
We have seen and heard a lot about the Solicitor General lately. This is very relevant because as I said earlier, the nature of this kind of legislation is it has to stand up to a triple e test. It has to achieve a balance between economic and environmental interests, but it also has to have an ethical component to it if it is going to be effective.
Yet, we have learned from data provided by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that, for example, ACOA has cut almost 100 cheques worth over $4 million to various individuals and enterprises in the Solicitor General's riding. I should elaborate that these cheques are for million dollar projects down to thousand dollar projects. Some refer to these things as pork barrel politics and perhaps they are right, unfortunately.
This week the Solicitor General's office has told the media that the minister's role in getting funds for the area as a local MP is something he defends. The minister has defended this behaviour as well. In fact, he has defended it not so much by saying it is right, but by saying that everyone else is doing it too. I kind of agree with a columnist who in his closing comments said that the only thing worse than a crooked politician is an honest one who does not recognize that what he is doing is wrong.
Let us talk about how wrong this is. Let us talk about rent seeking behaviour. This is a phrase I have just come to learn about. If there were pictures in this book on rent seeking behaviour, I think they would have pictures of the government members on the front bench to illustrate the validity of the concept.
I refer to a book about first nations people wherein rent seeking behaviour means the efficiency with which a tribe's resource endowment is used determines economic success. That is a good statement. This in turn depends on the institutional environment. The crucial question is, and this is relevant for the Canadian tribe, what incentives do individuals in both the private and political sectors have to improve the efficiency of resource allocation?
Historically, we know aboriginal cultures survived for centuries without our help with tremendous adaptation and tremendous skills. Indian culture has demonstrated the ability to survive by making the most of resource endowments. However, bureaucratic constraints have left their negative mark on the ability and individuality of individuals and tribes to utilize their resources efficiently.
Regardless of resource endowments and the knowledge of how to use them, what is it that determines whether societies prosper or decline? It is called the rules of the game. In these rules of the game, channel resources toward productive activities, foster investments that have long run returns, encourage gains from trade, and prosperity is more likely. What this country needs is more prosperity so we can support the things we care about and the people who need that support. Prosperity is what we should be after. How do we get prosperity? We encourage people to channel resources toward productive activities.
What happens when we do the opposite? What happens when there are government members who engage in behaviour which causes wealth to be redistributed in a zero sum gain that creates uncertainty about the future ahead? Poverty is what happens. I am not just talking about symbolic poverty. I am talking about real poverty. I am not just talking about moral depravity and ethical despondency here. I am talking about the reality that occurs when resources are squandered, when they are wasted. What happens is poverty. Poverty is more likely in an environment where people abuse the privileges that they have in leadership roles.
The fundamental problem of political economy is how to endow the collectivity known as government with enough power to establish and enforce rules that can expand the size of the economic pie without that power being used to garner returns for those in power because that leaks off the gains. It would be like pumping up a tire with a big hole in it or pouring gas into a tank with a hole in the bottom of it; one just cannot get ahead.
I used to have this old Lincoln. It was about 12 years old. One time I was fuelling it up and I had been at the pump for about 10 minutes when the gas station attendant looked at me and said, “You had better shut this off. I don't think we are gaining”. That is the kind of problem we have when a government squanders the resources of the people.
How can we pump up the economic capability of our country and support the people who need our help and support when the resources are being squandered? That is called rent seeking. To the extent that political power can be used to redistribute wealth as opposed to create it, individuals will compete to capture that power through what economists call rent seeking.
Campaign contributions will be made and expended, lobbying will dominate the decision making process and political favours will be returned for support. As resources are consumed in the rent seeking competition, the size of the economic pie shrinks. Short term decisions that enhance the wealth and power of those in control are substituted for long term, true economic development.
That is why there is concern in the Yukon about the legitimacy of this bill. There is concern that the bill, despite its good intentions and good words on paper, will not be used for anything but more rent seeking behaviour by government and by government's friends. That creates poverty. Poverty is a concern in the Yukon and a major concern to all thinking people in this country.
In private contracts we rely on a third party, impartial enforcer, usually a government provided court, to arbitrate disputes and guarantee performance. However when government itself is the enforcer of rules, there is not an impartial third party enforcer to which citizens can turn for recourse, the government itself being the arbitrator. What we have with the bill is a situation where the government is granting itself more authoritative power under the guise of distributing it widely among groups which ultimately do not have the final say.
What we have opposite is a government which, through the Prime Minister's Office, although less so lately I think because of the nature of the Prime Minister's tenuous hold on power, concentrates power in the hands of a few and which unfortunately and all too frequently seems to be willing to use that power to benefit itself and its friends. That is called rent seeking.
We know who pays the rent. It is the taxpayers of this country. We know who ultimately will pay the rent. It will be the people who are counting on the government and the state to provide services to them in various areas of importance, such as health care or law enforcement, where those services are not offered effectively because of the diminution of resources available to provide those services.
We know ultimately somebody will pay for the money that is going to the friends of the government. It will not be the friends of the government; it will be everybody else. That dispersed cost versus the concentrated benefits in the hands of a few people is what the government is counting on. The government is counting on all of us being willing to have its hands in our pocket for a few dollars so it can take the big dollars and give it to its friends. The government is counting on us caring less because it is a small amount for the rest of us, the other 25 million or so who are paying the bills. It does not think we will care enough. It thinks it is a small enough amount that we will just contribute it.
At the same time that money is being thrown away on Challenger jets and needless projects that do not really develop any sustainable jobs or real economic benefits to anybody, the government talks about raising taxes for health care. Why can we not just take the pork barrel money and put it toward health care and forget about raising taxes?
For too many years before I entered the world of politics, I was guilty of sitting back and occupying myself with the endeavours most Canadians occupy themselves with. I was involved in my own life, my own family, my own private sector and volunteer activities. At times I suppose, although I was never indifferent, perhaps with so many other priorities in my life I was somewhat oblivious to the affairs of government, trusting that this institution here would protect my best interests.
I am telling you, though, Mr. Speaker, my trust has been shaken. As I watch the behaviour and see the repeated behaviour of members opposite and I listen to them defend that behaviour, I wonder if this particular columnist is not right on when he says that the only thing worse than a crooked politician is an honest one who does not recognize that what he is doing is wrong.
I honestly believe that all members of the House came here with the best of intentions, but I do sense an institutional malaise on the part of the governing party that is most disquieting. That malaise is not only a willingness to engage in this rent seeking behaviour I talked about, to try to profit themselves and their friends and their supporters from the operation of this government paid for by working people across this country. The government not only engages in that behaviour, but worse than that it defends that behaviour, and in defending it, it promotes it. In promoting it, it encourages Canadians to believe, as my belief is growing, that this place is sick and in need of help.
There are a lot of people across the country who do not have the benefits of elected office. Many of them unfortunately do not have the respect for elected people that perhaps we believe we deserve. I see the conduct of members opposite and I see a willingness to award grants, handouts of innumerable dollars, not on the basis of meeting a competitive challenge, not on the basis of providing a service at lowest cost and highest quality, but rather simply on the basis that people supported or were a friend of a member of the House. I have to say that those working people across this country must have a very sick feeling in their stomachs knowing that every month their paycheques are being eroded by that kind of conduct and that kind of behaviour.
I have been on a lot of teams, and I admire people who are good team players. I think it is important to support one's teammates, but when those teammates are wrong, as members on the front bench are in the way they are conducting themselves and the way in which they are abusing the trust of the taxpayer, it is important that members on the other side, in those positions of influence that they were elected to by their constituents, speak up about it and demonstrate that they are not condoning it.
I listened to the former finance minister campaigning on the basis of Preston Manning's promises in the 1997 federal election. When Preston was leading the Reform Party and the 1997 campaign was underway, he made a compelling point that drew a lot of support to him. He said that it was time for a fresh start, that there was going to be a basis for that fresh start. I remember one particular advertisement during that federal election. Mr. Manning stood beside a chair and said “See this chair? This chair comes from the House of Commons. A lot of people elected to the House of Commons think it's their chair, but I say it's your chair”. That remark struck me. Those were good words, a fresh start.
The former finance minister is running on a fresh start platform now. He is running for the leadership of an old jalopy. He thinks a new coat of paint will give it a new engine too, but the paint will not affect the engine. The reality is that what he is running on, what he is saying, is to give a greater voice to strong backbenchers in his caucus, but nobody gives someone a voice. They have their own voices and they had better start using them, because on the backbenches of the government they are as much a part of the decisions made by the frontbench as the frontbench is in doing it. It is not enough that they are taking orders. It does not work anymore. It did not work in Nuremberg and it does not work here. People make decisions on their own, of their own free will. Nobody ordered them to be quiet about the wrongdoing of their colleague, so it is time to speak up and say it is wrong.
