Jeremy Harrison

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Winnipeg Centre mentioned, he sat through the testimony as I and other members of the committee did which really was incredibly moving testimony from witnesses who obviously invested a great deal of courage in coming forward to tell their stories.

Flora Merrick, one of the witnesses who came forward, told an incredibly moving story, a story my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands referred to earlier.

The one thing on which I do agree with the NDP member is that the ADR process is deeply flawed as it stands right now. I am, with all due respect to the hon. member, quite surprised that the position of the NDP now is that the ADR process can be fixed rather than scrapped. I have to say honestly that was not the impression I had received prior to today. I may have had a mistaken impression but I think it was buttressed by the fact that both the New Democratic Party and the Bloc voted for this motion at the committee level. I understand that may have been to get this into the House where it does rightfully belong, which is what the hon. member said in his speech earlier, and I agree with him.

However I am quite surprised that the position is now that the ADR process should be changed rather than scrapped.

I think our process, the process put forward in the committee report, which I am happy to see is supported by my colleagues on this side, would deal in a comprehensive way with the residential school issue. We are talking about court supervised, court approved, court enforced settlements with residential school survivors. From the evidence I heard at the committee, it was asked for by survivors and I think it will deal with it.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion.

Unfortunately the motion has been amended because the government does not want to deal with this issue in the House. The Liberals have done everything they could to try to stop the motion from getting here. An amendment has now been introduced to send this back to committee so the government will never have to deal with it again. Once it gets back to committee, the Liberal members on the committee will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we never talk about this issue again. The Liberals did not want to talk about it in the first place. They pulled out every stop they could think of to try to stop it from ever being discussed.

I can imagine the reaction of Liberal members of the committee if the amendment recommending to hear further witnesses passes. I can just imagine the reaction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who was infuriated that we had one extra day of witnesses. I am sure she would be thrilled to hear that her colleagues are pushing for more witnesses at committee so they do not have to deal with it here in the House.

The motion is to concur in a report which came forward from the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. We held three days of hearings on this issue.

This issue is incredibly important in my constituency. I represent the riding of Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill which is in northern Saskatchewan. It is a huge area, approximately 58% of the province. My riding has 108 reserves, the most of any riding in the country. I probably represent if not the most, then close to the most, aboriginal people of any member of Parliament.

Many of my constituents attended residential schools. Many of them contacted me throughout the course of our committee hearings. They contacted me not to say we should send this back to committee for further hearings. They contacted me to thank the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP for their support in bringing this to the House and for their support of the original motion in committee. Those people are very thankful that somebody is paying attention to the issue. They are very thankful that somebody is pointing out the disgrace of this program.

There are two major themes which are problematic with the ADR. They centre around the lack of efficiency, both financial and administrative, and the government's claims that this is a humane and holistic program. All the evidence that we saw in committee and all the evidence I have seen in my riding would prove otherwise.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness talked about some people having positive experiences at residential schools. To be very blunt, I have not heard that from one single person in my constituency. There may be some, but I have not seen any evidence of people having had positive experiences at residential schools.

Let us look at the whole concept of residential schools for aboriginals. The government literally grabbed young children from their families, incarcerated them in a school from the time they were five years old until they were 17 or 18 years of age. Not only that, but the parents lost legal guardianship over their own children. Legal guardianship passed to the Government of Canada. These children became wards of the state despite the fact they had loving families who were more than willing to raise them in their own homes. This was an abysmal program and the ADR is doing nothing to rectify it.

From an efficiency point of view, at least $275 million has been spent on the alternative dispute resolution program. Less than $1 million of that $275 million have actually gone to compensating victims, which is about .35% that has gone to administration and overhead. This program makes the gun registry look like a paragon of efficiency.

Approximately 87,000 or so of the individuals who attended residential schools are still with us. Of those 87,000, less than 1,200 individuals, or 1.5%, have actually applied to go through the ADR and, of the 1,200 who have actually applied, less than 100 have actually been settled. The program has been running now for over a year and a half. At this rate it could literally be hundreds of years before these claims are all resolved, which obviously will not happen because the survivors of residential schools are passing away at a very rapid rate. By some estimates, 50 survivors a week are passing away without ever having been compensated and, quite frankly, without having any rectification or apology for what happened to them.

Let us look at this application process. The application itself is a form that is very thick. It is 60-plus pages long. The guide is even longer than the form. I have three university degrees, including a law degree, and after going through the form I would have needed somebody to help me fill it out. I cannot imagine how somebody from a northern reserve with little formal education and English as a second language, if spoken at all, could fill these things out. The process itself is so daunting for people. I think that is reflected in the fact that only 1,200 people have actually filled these out.

I will go back to the forms for a second because I want to make one point. The government has actually had to hire government employees, or what we call Orwellian form fillers, to help people fill out these forms. We have heard horror stories about these form fillers not actually putting forward what these individuals have suffered.

We also have a system where the government has actually hired private investigators to look into the claims of individuals who have brought forward complaints through this incredibly complex process. The government is spending $5 million more, not to compensate these people but to investigate whether what they are saying is actually true and to try to track down the individuals in question who it claims may not have actually been involved in these things, most of whom have been dead for decades.

The priorities of the government and the priorities involved in this program are so skewed that it can only be rectified by scrapping this program and coming up with something that will actually work. We have put forward something that will actually work. We put forward eight points, which were supported in committee by all three opposition parties, and obviously fought tooth and nail by the government, the centrepiece of which is to get rid of the ADR process and put in place a court supervised process with negotiations to have court approved and enforced settlement compensation for survivors of residential schools.

I think that is the direction in which we have to go. The direction in which the government is going is leading us and the survivors nowhere.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has been very involved in this issue.

The amendment to the motion recommends that we send this report back to the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee for further study.

As the vice-chair of that committee I can say that the amount of time we allocated even to hear the witnesses that we heard was something that the governing party opposed. The governing party had a major problem. We extended hearings by another day and the governing party was furious about it. The Liberals did not want that to happen.

I can just imagine what the reaction would be from the governing party at the aboriginal affairs committee now that its own members are recommending that it go back. Would there by any more hearings? Absolutely not. It is a ploy to kill the issue. It is a ploy because the government does not want to talk about this issue. It does not want to deal with it. I think everybody on this side of the House knows that.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question regarding the supposed efficiency of this program.

On the ADR itself we have information showing that $125 million has been spent. Less than a million dollars has gone to actually compensating survivors. We have information showing that for Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada only $1 goes to compensation for every $4 spent on administration.

For this program, even if it were running as well as the government has wanted it to from the beginning, half of the budgeted cost goes to administration. How can this possibly be seen as an efficient program? Maybe it should not surprise us. This is from the party that brought us the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal. Perhaps the hon. member would comment on that.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North is very committed to this issue and has worked tremendously hard on it. Quite frankly, without his commitment this issue would not be on the floor right now.

Maybe the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North could explain to the House the process which finally led to our debating this issue on the floor today. Was the government party in support of talking about this issue in the House?

[Boat Operator's Licence, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just do not get it. They continue to insist that guides and outfitters in northern Saskatchewan should register their canoes with the federal government.

Most of the people who will be affected by the canoe registry are individuals who have literally spent their entire lives on the water. Still the Liberals want to force these northerners to travel to Halifax or Vancouver to take a captain's licence course in navigation and boat operation from government bureaucrats.

Quite frankly this ridiculous proposal defies all common sense. Policies like this cooked up in downtown Ottawa office towers end up looking only half-baked on the ground in northern Saskatchewan.

I have raised this issue a number of times in the House and still the lunacy continues. My constituents are outraged.

If the Liberal government continues to push this agenda of over-regulation, I can tell it that, without needing a captain's licence, in northern Saskatchewan it will face rough waters ahead at election time.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who rose in support of the motion, both today and in the first hour of debate.

I am proud to rise today, in the year of the veteran, as the sponsor of my private member's motion, Motion No. 193, to recognize and fairly compensate the service and contributions of aboriginal war veterans.

Before I get into the text of my remarks, I would like to address a couple of the points just made by the hon. member opposite.

First, he talked about Grand Chief Howard Anderson, who chaired the national round table. I will inform the hon. member that I spoke to the Grand Chief not that long ago and he expressed to me his profound disappointment at the outcome of the process. He was very disappointed that the government essentially handed a take it or leave it offer to the individuals representing the aboriginal war veterans, on National Aboriginal Day, of all days, and told them that was what they were getting, that or nothing.

I do not think that is much of a choice for veterans who are in their eighties now. The youngest are in their eighties. Handing them a take or leave it offer is giving them very little choice. It is no choice at all.

The other point I wanted to address as well is that the hon. member said that so far of this take it or leave offer there have been 1,195 payouts made. It was three years ago that this program was put into place. Hardly over 50% have even been able to take advantage of this. Talk about the strategy to contact people: obviously it has been an abysmal failure.

During World War I and World War II and in the Korean war, first nations, Métis and Inuit individuals fought shoulder to shoulder with their non-aboriginal counterparts in the Canadian armed forces. During wartime, aboriginal and non-aboriginal soldiers trained together, fought together and all too often died together. Regardless of race or ethnicity, their contributions were viewed equally in the eyes of the nation.

Upon returning home, however, aboriginal veterans found themselves treated differently than their fellow comrades were. For a variety of reasons, including discrimination, paternalism, bureaucratic inefficiency and a lack of opportunity, aboriginal war veterans found they could not access the same re-establishment benefits as their non-aboriginal counterparts. In theory, all Canadian soldiers had access to the same veterans' benefits. However, the reality proved something else entirely.

Non-aboriginal veterans were given a choice between educational opportunities, land benefits or funds paid on the basis of a certain amount per day of service. First nations veterans who returned to live on reserve were not eligible for Veterans' Land Act grants. In order to obtain grants, first nations soldiers had to move off the reserve. Even at that, many encountered problems borrowing the necessary funds, sometimes due to systemic discrimination and often because of a lack of the requisite credit rating.

Clearly, on the whole, first nations veterans did not receive benefits equivalent to those awarded to their non-aboriginal comrades. This is a fact acknowledged by this government. In large part, this was due to the Indian Act and the federal jurisdiction over reserve lands, but those aboriginal veterans living off reserve, including the Métis, did not generally fare much better.

Approximately 2,000 Métis soldiers fought in World War II and Korea, but only a reported 3% of these veterans received either the land, education or re-establishment grants offered under the veterans charter. Many Métis veterans faced access barriers to benefits similar to those faced by first nations members. Often, information on veterans programs and benefits was non-existent in small, rural and often remote Métis communities. Furthermore, Métis veterans did not have an Indian agent to rely on for the dissemination of information.

These aboriginal soldiers, first nations, Métis and Inuit have served Canada proudly overseas. They nobly defended our values, our nationhood and our ideals. They all sacrificed for Canada's future, too many of them unfortunately paying with their lives. During the wars, they were afforded the respect and equality they deserved among their fellow soldiers, but they found out when they returned home that they were once again on an unequal footing.

In the years that have passed since, the Canadian government has failed to properly address this inequality and give these veterans the recognition they deserve.

It is for these veterans that I have proposed the motion. I want them to know that we in this place have heard their voices and that we appreciate their sacrifices. I believe they should be meaningfully and equally compensated for their efforts and for their valour.

When the motion comes to a vote tomorrow in this chamber I would ask all hon. members to lay partisan issues aside and stand up for what is right. Let us recognize the awesome contributions of our first nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans and act to rectify this inequality now.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has spent $125 million on a flawed ADR process that has brought neither closure nor meaningful compensation to residential school survivors.

Today the aboriginal affairs standing committee passed a report recommending the dismantling of this flawed process and the establishment of a fair and comprehensive settlement.

Will the government now admit its own program has been a disaster and move to implement a new court approved settlement process, yes or no?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin made an excellent address and made the points very well.

Anyone in the chamber and anyone watching at home has to realize that the equalization formula is not treating Saskatchewan fairly. Millions and millions of dollars are being taken from the pockets of Saskatchewan taxpayers and are being wasted in Ottawa by bureaucrats who would rather spend that money on sponsorship programs than on pressing issues such as helping the agricultural producers in Saskatchewan.

It is interesting to point out that every elected official in Saskatchewan is on the same page on this issue, everyone except one. That one is the Minister of Finance, the elected official who claims to be looking out for Saskatchewan and defending the interests of the Saskatchewan people. Let me tell the House that he is not doing that.

Saskatchewan is not being treated fairly. Every elected official in the province is on the same page, including my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle who has done a lot of work on this issue. I might add that he and his wife just had a new child, an 11 pound baby boy named Thomas. May I add that his wife Jill is doing fine.

[Tobacco Products, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has reported that the illegal trafficking of cigarettes through the Akwesasne reserve is growing. In the first two months of this year alone, RCMP have made 35 seizures at a value of over $1 million. An estimated 20,000 cartons of cigarettes cross the reserve's border illegally every day.

The government's band-aid solutions obviously are not fixing the problem. Why will the Liberal government not drop the smoke and mirrors and seriously crack down on Akwesasne's smuggling operation?