Brian Pallister

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not acceptable. There have been zero charges laid, zero dollars recovered, zero steps taken and zero demonstration that the government has learned anything from its past failures.

This week the government quietly reopened the facility. Aboriginal leaders I have spoken with have justifiable fears of recurrences.

In its haste to download responsibilities on to aboriginal communities without appropriate training, without appropriate safeguards in place, why is the government abdicating its responsibility to aboriginal children?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the story of the Virginia Fontaine treatment centre is a sad one. It is a story about the abuse of trust. It is a tragic tale of cruises, condos and corruption. It is a story about reprehensible people who use the plight of aboriginal people and young aboriginal children addicted to substances to line their own pockets.

Yesterday the government said that it had overpaid the provinces and it wanted all the money back. Therefore, in the interests of consistency, I ask the government this. How many of the dollars that were stolen from troubled aboriginal children has it recovered?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Justifiably so.

[Member for York Centre, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I remember just a couple of months ago, when we were asking questions about the conduct of the Minister of National Defence, that he was having some trouble explaining about his men taking al-Qaeda prisoners in Afghanistan. He was not very clear on when he had been briefed, on when he had been rebriefed, on when he had told the caucus, on when he had told the Prime Minister and on why he had not told the Prime Minister. However the Prime Minister still refused to replace that minister.

That was not all. The defence minister was not sure about uniforms. He was not too clear on the rules of engagement. He was not very solid on helicopters. He was not all that impressive on any of it, quite frankly. Still he stayed on in the job until Sunday when the overwhelming incompetence caught up with the staggering lack of ethics.

Canadians deserve better.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it is consulting on aboriginal governance so let us see how it is doing in Manitoba.

In Manitoba we have 103,000 aboriginal people. How many participate in the consultation process? Fifty-three participate, and the numbers are lower in many other areas of the country.

The Liberals' guide for managers on aboriginal issues says, of proper consultation, “If an interested party is overlooked, the entire exercise could be frustrated.”

How can the Prime Minister claim that these consultations are any more legitimate than his 1969 ideas when he is violating his own government's guidelines on consultation?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, those are lovely platitudes but farmers are not interested in the minister's platitudes or his claims to care. They are interested in his support. They are interested in the results that they should be receiving from him and from the government.

Where are the sections in Bill C-5 that provide mandatory compensation for landowners who happen to have endangered species on their land? Why does the government's animal cruelty legislation not protect the tried and true animal husbandry practices of Canadian farmers from attack by animal rights' activists?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, instead of standing in the farmers' corner and fighting for our farmers and ranchers, it seems that the minister of agriculture is content to remain silent. He was silent while his colleagues in cabinet drafted species at risk legislation without compensation for landowners. He was silent while a cruelty to animals bill was drafted that will leave the men and women who produce our food open to lawsuits from animal rights activists who believe that rats should have the same rights as children.

When will the minister of agriculture start placing the needs and the concerns of Canadian farmers and ranchers first instead of last?

[Petitions, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present a petition from the riding of Portage--Lisgar signed by 154 of the finest Canadians you will ever meet.

The petitioners express concern about Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. They have concerns that the bill goes far beyond the government's stated intentions and that it may endanger farmers, ranchers and others who use animals for legitimate and lawful purposes.

The petitioners request that parliament amend the bill in support of fair and co-operative legislation that will not punish those who use livestock in sustaining the Canadian economy.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the intelligent comments of my colleague. Before I get into specific comments on this package of amendments, I want to review some of the fundamental concerns we have with Bill C-5.

First, it needs to be said that the Canadian Alliance is totally committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and our endangered species. Our dedication to that cause is reaffirmed constantly by the consultations we have with our constituents who, if we added up the land holdings of the members of the Canadian Alliance, are representative of a significant portion of the land base of the country. It is the landowners and to a great degree the people who use crown land who are impacted very much by the bill.

We do not believe the act will work. Our reason for opposing it is simply that. We do not believe that an act which does not guarantee fair and reasonable compensation for the owners of property, for the resource users who lease property, is going to work. Those people need to be protected. The compensation that should be in this bill, that should be itemized and clarified, which would protect those people who make use of that land, is not there. Therefore, people may suffer losses.

Farmers, ranchers and other property owners should not be forced into a position where they are penalized for protecting species at risk. Criminal liability must require intent. The act would make criminals out of people who inadvertently and unknowingly might harm an endangered species or the habitat of that species.

Also, we do not like the tone of the bill in terms of the way the federal government has dealt with the amendments that came from committee, reasoned amendments. The reasonable and well thought out packages of amendments that were dealt with at committee, and which have been disrespected by the minister and by the government in bringing this legislation forward, would strengthen the bill, not weaken it.

By ignoring the work of the committee members, the minister has not only shown disrespect to them and to their capabilities, but he has shown disrespect to the people who came and presented their views to that committee. That is something we do not accept.

This is reflective of a very top down approach. We are disappointed in that. We think this legislation is far to important to have been dealt with in such a manner.

I would like to address a couple of aspects of this package of amendments. The first is the five year review component.

The mandatory review of legislation is something that could have strengthened this piece of legislation. It could have made it more open, more accountable. It could have made it a piece of legislation which would have been more subject to change over time to better reflect and better deliver on the promise of protecting species at risk.

Five year reviews, mandatory reviews, are not perfect by any stretch but they are a mechanism that would allow further debate and intelligent debate to take place involving the people most affected by the legislation. It would involve the Canadian public, the landowners, the people who would be profoundly impacted, not just in terms of their desire to see species protected but in terms of their partnership with the land, people who would be impacted in a negative way inadvertently under the legislation as a consequence of even unintended acts. The need for a review is clear.

When I served in Manitoba as a legislator I had the opportunity to co-chair a red tape review committee. We examined all the regulations, and there were thousands of pages of them, of the Manitoba government's regulatory framework. We were able to go through all of those regulations in partnership with people in our bureaucracy, in our government's service, and in partnership with people from the private sector. We evaluated each of the regulations.

Through that review process we were able to stream out, eliminate and remove duplication and clean up wording that was confusing. We were able to introduce better processes for dealing with regulations that were being developed. Also, we were able to implement a better process for review of existing regulations as a consequence of that activity we engaged in.

In Manitoba we have implemented a process whereby many new regulations are sunsetted. A sunset clause of course means that the regulation dies after a certain period of time unless it is subsequently reintroduced. An act must be reintroduced to continue to be effective. In too many cases we found old pieces of legislation, the result of concerns of 50 or 70 years ago, still on the books, still taking up space, still utilizing the resources of the taxpayer but unnecessarily so.

An extreme example of this is the regulations that required companies that employed more than 10 female persons to have a matron on staff to, I presume at the time these were drafted, guard the chaste character of said females on staff. It is a regulation that at the time it was drafted fit in with the customs and mores of the day, but certainly it lost its meaning a long time ago. We also ran into a regulation that required spittoons. It actually regulated the size, design, shape and location of said spittoons in public establishments. It was important at the time. It was a critical piece of legislation.

I am not suggesting in any way that spittoon legislation is on the same level with species at risk legislation. What I am suggesting is that regular reviews of such legislation are an intelligent pursuit and make good sense. A regular review of any legislation that can profoundly affect the people of a country is especially important.

Through our process in Manitoba we introduced various strategies. Some of them required, for example, the pre-notification of legislation and regulation, pre-notification of affected people, and obviously consultation on bills at the provincial level. In Manitoba, for example, open committee meetings are held on every bill. Every aspect of a particular bill is exposed to public involvement. The public has the chance to come in and speak to the legislation being proposed to make their input and views known.

Such could have been the case with this piece of legislation, but Bill C-5, although purportedly using a process of full consultation with full input from a wide variety of people, failed at one stage, the stage at which it got to the minister's office. All the good deliberations as a consequence of the input the committee received were largely ignored and dismissed.

I am very concerned about the five year review. I think it should be brought back into the bill itself. I am also concerned about the aspects of the government amendments, Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. These deal with the changing of the proposal that came from the committee, the proposal that would have created a national aboriginal council.

In my capacity with new responsibilities as the chief critic for aboriginal issues, I feel it is important that I address these specific issues. The national aboriginal council that the committee proposed would have provided the opportunity for aboriginal people, people who are in particular so knowledgeable and so close to the land themselves, to have consultation mechanisms and formal input into the ongoing aspects of the legislation. The impact it would have on aboriginal people could be profound and I think it is important that the national aboriginal council motion that the committee brought forward be restored.

I know that a number of members on the Liberal side of the House feel the same way and I encourage them to make sure the committee's work on this issue is done and done well. So many people from the aboriginal communities came forward. I understand that an aboriginal working group on species at risk was established. It had representation from the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Métis National Council of Women, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Inuit association of Canada.

These representative groups have an important role to play and an important contribution to make to this kind of legislation because it is so profoundly important, not just to indigenous peoples, clearly, but to all people of Canada. The opportunity for regular input on a formal basis would have been a useful thing. We do not want to see the work of the committee reversed. Certainly in respect of aboriginal peoples, the legislation, I believe, should not be amended as the government is now proposing to amend it.

In closing, too often the problem with the government is that it imposes urban based solutions on rural people. The farmers in my riding are certainly hard done by in many respects right now and they do not need an added burden. I understand that city people might want to escape the chaos of their frenzied lives and get the peace from rural life. City people envy farmers, but I recognize that they do not envy them to such an extent that they take advantage of the continuous opportunity to become farmers. I would like to remind them that it is the Canadian farmer and the people of our rural communities who have the greatest interest in preserving species at risk.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow on the comments of my colleague, the member for Nunavut.

This is my first opportunity as a critic for this portfolio to add some comments to the record on an issue of great importance to the Nunavut people, an issue that has been long standing before the House. Now at third reading we have the opportunity to perhaps move forward.

The amendment that has been brought forward is one which will give closure potentially to the legislation. The times we live in are exciting times for all of us but they are especially exciting for the people of Nunavut. The opportunities that this legislation may open to them are opportunities that many other groups within our society have had for a much longer period of time, opportunities to exercise governance and leadership within their own jurisdiction with a recognized authority and a recognized structure of that authority that has not been there in the past.

The bill addresses the water resources and the surface rights tribunal aspects of the Nunavut agreement itself. What we are talking about today is the amendment which has come back to the House from the Senate. The amendment proposes to delete subclause 3(3) on page 4 of the bill which reads:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The use of derogation clauses has been open to debate by members of the legal community in other contexts for some time. The reality of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is that it has in itself answered the larger questions about who owns the land and who owns the resources of the eastern Arctic.

What is necessary at this point is to give greater consistency or assuredness to the people of Nunavut and to the people of Canada about the resource management regime that will exist in Nunavut. Water management and surface rights are key aspects of that management regime.

I believe it is critical that we do everything in our power to remove the barriers that stand in the way of people achieving their potential and being able to participate in the economic benefits of a vibrant Canadian economy. It is an economy that has been made somewhat less vibrant because of the mistakes of the government, but nonetheless it has been a vibrant economy at times in the past and we hope the Nunavut people will be able to fully participate in it in the future.

In terms of the economic growth potential and the self-sufficiency that we hope to see achieved in Nunavut, the passage of the bill with the proposed amendments would assist in creating a greater opportunity for full equality and full participation of the people of Nunavut in the Canadian economy.

The bill would provide greater assurances and certainty to industry. Industry is critical to achieving the full participation of the people of Nunavut in our economy. It will provide the job opportunities that will give the Nunavut people the abilities, which most Canadians now enjoy, to sustain themselves and their families.

We will support the amendment that has been proposed in this case because we want to see those goals achieved for the people of Nunavut.

I want to dwell a bit on the non-derogation clause because I think it is important to understand. I am told that in the past non-derogation clauses have been included at the request of aboriginal and Inuit leaders who wanted to make sure that it was clear within the legislation that there would be no infringement on the rights of those peoples. The non-derogation clause has also been included in other legislation.

We have been told by the government in this case and in these other cases that non-derogation clauses are not meant to assign rights nor are they intended to diminish rights but are simply declaratory clauses. In other words, they would give credence or recognition to the need for other documents to be supported and recognized that would give such rights. The other document in this case would be the constitution.

It is interesting when one reads the clause and one looks at the comments that were made by some of the witnesses at the committee. Hon. Paul Okalik, the premier of Nunavut, has said that he does not want this clause. He does not feel it needs to be there. I will quote from his comments before committee:

The first item I would like to address is the so-called “non-derogation clause” of the current legislation. Having looked at the text, I find this clause very offensive. I feel that it is an attempt to provide a new term that I would like to introduce to you today: It is what I would call an “Inuit-giver” clause. It has the potential of undermining a modern treaty that we negotiated in good faith with the federal government.

The premier seems to think that the intent of this clause is not declaratory. He reads much more into it than the government has said it intended to be there. I can understand the government's willingness to support the Senate amendment, given the fact it is certainly far from being requested by Inuit leaders. It is actually a request of Inuit leaders that it not be part of this piece of legislation.

The goal of the Canadian Alliance is to make sure that there is equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Now that this agreement and the larger agreement from which it stems have gone forward, we want to do everything in our power to ensure that the people of Nunavut and the people of all Canada's groups have that opportunity for equality. They need to know that their government will be accountable to them and that it will operate in a transparent manner. They need to know that their government will be chosen by them as people who should have the right of equality to vote in elections for example. Right now numerous Indian bands do not exercise such governance. Many of the country's aboriginal peoples are not able to vote in elections.

These are changes we will fight to achieve in this country. We want to see the equality of opportunity and the equality in terms of franchise and individual rights a reality. We do not want to see it sacrificed.

Transparency, accountability, equality of opportunity are worthy goals. These are the goals the Canadian Alliance has stood for and will continue to stand for. Because of that, we will support the amendment as proposed and we will support this legislation.