Lost his last election, in 2006, with 41% of the vote.
Supply November 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start with the comments by the hon. member. If it were up to the NDP, people would be going to a safe injection site to inject heroine and be arrested on leaving for having a bag of potato chips in their pockets. This is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps we could get some comment on that from the hon. member.
Access to Information Act November 15th, 2004
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (Crown corporations and Canadian Wheat Board).
Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour today to rise and introduce a bill which would make all crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board subject to the Access to Information Act, a reform I think is long overdue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Aboriginal Affairs November 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member does only answer questions in airplanes.
Last Thursday in committee the minister said, “Frankly, I don't want to defend what I consider to be an under-resourcing for the department”. This is clearly at odds with the Prime Minister's supposed commitment to improving the lives of first nations people across the country.
Let the Prime Minister stand in his place and be very clear. How can he square his rhetoric with the position of his Minister of Indian Affairs?
Aboriginal Affairs November 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in March the Auditor General chastized the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for failing to implement and measure the progress of complex pieces of legislation like the Tlicho agreement. The minister himself has complained that the department does not have the resources to do its job properly.
How can Canadians have any confidence that the implementation of the Tlicho agreement will not turn into another Liberal boondoggle?
Sponsorship Program October 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2004, the Prime Minister told the Ottawa Sun , “I didn't know anything about it” in reference to the sponsorship program. Today we find out, from none other than Alfonso Gagliano, that the PM actually approved the sponsorship program in 1996.
Canadians deserve the truth. When will the PM come clean about what he knew and when he knew it?
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, what I said was that I think I represent more first nations. There are more first nations in my riding than any other in the country. My riding has over 30 first nations governments and 108 reserves, which are fairly large numbers. As I said, it is difficult to determine such things but I represent, if not the highest number of people of aboriginal descent, than close to the most. Approximately 60% of my riding are people of aboriginal descent.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I have been to incredibly remote areas in my own riding that are in conditions of absolute poverty. It is unbelievable to see conditions like that in this country.
I am glad the hon. member brought up the issue of accountability and how he sees that as being important to the future of aboriginal peoples. I could not agree more. Accountability is something that is an absolute cornerstone and it has to be given much more emphasis by the government than it has.
When I talk about accountability, I do not mean accountability to bureaucrats in Ottawa, the people in the Department of Indian Affairs. The chiefs and councils must be accountable to the people they represent. The people on the reserve must be able to hold their public officials to account, to open the books and to have transparent financing of money that flows through the chiefs and council, because right now that just is not the case.
Almost every day I get a call to either my riding office or my Ottawa office from somebody on a reserve telling a horror story of a chief or a council member, or whoever it may be, hoarding money, which was intended for the benefit of all people on the reserve, and using it to buy a new truck or something else. The horror stories we hear are truly unbelievable.
It is incumbent upon the government, not just in this agreement but with regard to aboriginal governments right across the country, to bring in real accountability mechanisms, not to bureaucrats in Ottawa but to the people on the reserves. The local governments must be accountable to the people they represent.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho treaty. Madam Speaker, as this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I hope you will indulge me as I pay tribute to my constituents and my riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.
Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River covers more than half the geographic area of Saskatchewan, approximately 58% of the province's land mass. It is an enormous area, slightly larger than the country of Germany and a bit smaller than the country of France. I would like to sincerely thank the constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River and give them my commitment that I will do the very best job that I can on their behalf in Ottawa.
It is difficult to determine exactly, but I think my riding contains more first nations than any other riding in the country. There are over 30 first nations in my riding. It is also difficult to determine such things, but with over 60% of my riding's population being of aboriginal descent, I represent if not the most, then close to the most number of people of aboriginal descent of any member of Parliament.
I grew up in northern Saskatchewan. My home community is Meadow Lake. Many of my closest friends are aboriginal. As a law student my primary area of study was on the law surrounding first nations legal issues. I believe my background and experiences have given me some insights to allow me to speak to this issue with at least some understanding, based on practical experience and theoretical knowledge as well.
Before delving into the nuts and bolts of the treaty, I think it prudent to first give some background and context to the agreement that is before the House. Bill C-14 ratifies the Tlicho agreement signed August 25, 2003 between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.
The bill will give the Tlicho people ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories. Under the terms of the bill the Tlicho also acquire participatory regulatory authority over a much larger area. The bill is unique in that it is both a comprehensive land claim settlement and a self-government agreement. The agreement is precedent setting in both respects and will guide future claim settlements and self-government provisions across the north.
It should be noted as well that although the act itself is relatively short, it would bring into force the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003 and would accord this agreement paramountcy over the act itself. In other words, approval of the act would bring into law the very complex provisions set out in the 208 page agreement, as well as the shorter tax treatment agreement.
My hon. colleague from Calgary Centre-North has already pointed out in a very able way the general reasons behind my party's opposition to the bill. Generally speaking, our concerns arise from the impact that the agreement would have on general issues of governance, more specifically on the country's ability to exercise our international sovereignty.
We are also wary that the agreement would erode federal constitutional jurisdiction in the north and unduly complicate federal jurisdiction with regard to international agreements entered into by Canada. In addition, important provisions of the agreement, most notably those pertaining to legislative concurrency, paramountcy and jurisdictional conflict are internally contradictory and in many ways indecipherable.
I also have concerns that the agreement gives the Tlicho constitution a superior position in law to that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Tlicho constitution is intended to be consistent with the charter, but a close reading shows that the citizens or persons to whom Tlicho laws apply will have rights and freedoms “no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, a position of legal superiority.
Another area of concern I have with this treaty is the absence of finality. One of the points the agreement attempts to stress is that the agreement is indeed a final agreement, but article 27.6.1 shows that this is actually not the case. This article provides that the Tlicho would receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation. This agreement is not really a final agreement at all.
I also have concerns about the remarkable provisions in the agreement dealing with international matters. Article 2.9 of the agreement states that it does not limit the authority for the Tlicho to enter into “international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements”. This makes it clear, by implication, that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements, an almost unprecedented situation for a non-state actor in any nation on the planet.
Further to this, article 7.13.2 of the agreement states as follows:
Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.
This provision in essence creates a duty in law to consult. What is not made clear is what would happen if the Tlicho government made a determination that it is not in support of the relevant international treaty. Will the government be forced to make changes to the international agreement? This is a question to which there is no clear answer in the treaty. No clear answer has been provided by the government as well.
A further area of concern to me is with regard to the issues of jurisdictional confusion engendered by the agreement.
The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over many regulations passed under the act. Unfortunately, the agreement itself appears to be internally contradictory, resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.
The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramountcy provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and five, specific federal legislation.
In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws of specific application passed by this House, thereby rendering legislation passed by Parliament subordinate to laws passed by the Tlicho.
Article 2.8.3 introduces yet another concept of paramountcy in that it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho laws. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation.
In this hierarchy, the agreement is paramount over federal settlement legislation, territorial settlement legislation and Tlicho laws, creating a situation of apparent inconsistency with articles 7.7.2 and 7.7.4.
A third legislative hierarchy is prescribed in article 2.10.7 that applies in the event of arbitration. This provision indicates the following hierarchy: one, federal laws of overriding national importance; two, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; three, other federal legislation; four, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; five, Tlicho laws; six, other territorial legislation.
The general scheme of article 7.7.1 is that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws that are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest territories.
The problem, which I think is very apparent on a close reading of this agreement, is that there seem to be multiple definitions of how to determine paramountcy in the event of conflict.
For these reasons, I will be voting against the bill.
Financial Administration Act October 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to follow up on a question that I asked the minister in question period last week with regard to a person convicted of fraud who was actually lecturing at the public service school on ethics.
I am wondering if the Treasury Board president has taken any action on that and, if so, if he could inform the House as to what that action was.
Canadian Heritage Act October 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in my riding we have the Prince Albert National Park, better known as Waskesiu. It is one of the most beautiful parks in the country. Unfortunately, the infrastructure of the park is literally falling apart. Roads are in terrible condition. Buildings are unkempt and literally falling down.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on where he sees Parks Canada going in terms of upgrading the infrastructure of national parks around the country and particularly Prince Albert National Park.