Bev Desjarlais

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented on the situation of the United States subsidizing its farming industry and as a result making it tough on farmers in Canada. From my perspective, it leaves the government open to blaming the guys down south.

Will the member acknowledge that the Government of Canada can address that issue? Under the trade agreement the government is allowed to improve the conditions and support farmers in Canada but it is failing to do so. Is the government willing to allow family farms in Canada to just go by the wayside because it does not want to support them? Is it willing to allow the U.S. to do it but not willing to support farms in Canada?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say I am pleased that we are finally at this point in Bill C-14 of coming before the House. Hopefully we will see it passed. I do not think there is any question that there have been problems in the whole process. I must say I am pleased that it is here today. Hopefully before the House puts itself to rest for this parliament, we will be able to see the bill passed.

I will take this opportunity to talk about the bill but also to comment on why we are here today. Canada's first nations people were robbed for generations of the natural process of cultural and social change. They were robbed of economic opportunities because of government policies. They were forced to give up their treaty rights to make a living and even forced to give up their treaty rights in order to fight for this country in the world wars, the Korean War and other conflicts Canada was involved in.

I wonder how many Canadians know our true history. How many Canadians know that when these first nations soldiers came back they were not given the same rewards as other Canadian soldiers? They were not allowed to vote. They had lost their treaty rights. I wonder, do we share this shameful part of our history with the rest of the world?

On many occasions the government has had the opportunity to right the injustices toward aboriginal people, but no, aboriginal people must fight for every single right they have, and most often in the courts.

This bill before us is no different. We should not be under any false impressions as to why this bill is before us today. In 1977 the federal government signed an open-ended flood agreement with first nations negatively affected by the diversion of water for hydro development in Manitoba. This agreement was to have meant great economic success for the first nations involved; it was their chance for future economic progress.

For the record, Mr. Warren Allmand, the Indian affairs minister at the time, was part of the negotiation of the northern flood agreement. When he appeared before the standing committee on this bill he commented that he saw this bill as a modern day treaty. For those who are under any impression about how the negotiators felt about this bill, they should know that it was seen as a modern day treaty.

The reason we are here today with this new bill before us is that in the northern flood agreement the Government of Canada once again failed to follow through on an agreement they made. It was an agreement that would have meant benefits to the first nations involved, but year after year they kept the first nations people in the courts, fighting for everything in that agreement.

For those who think, well, too bad, if it is not a given they should have to go out there and fight and prove that is what the agreement meant, let me remind the House, all Canadians and all those public service workers how pay equity was a right in this country and how for 15 years women in this country had to fight for the right to pay equity with the government, which did not want to follow through on the agreement.

Just in case some people think it is only the aboriginal people out there who have a beef on the issue of the government following through on the agreement, it is not. I want those people to recognize that this is not just an aboriginal issue. It is an issue of the fact of the government not following through on agreements that it should be following through on.

As a result of not following through on the northern flood agreement, yes, some first nations agreed to changes, because they knew if they were ever going to have any chance whatsoever they had better not rely on the federal Liberal government. They had to do something else. They were fighting for survival. One after the other renegotiated so that they would have that opportunity.

Over the years we often hear of big corporations doing that to the small guy. If the corporations just keep them in the courts long enough they will never be able to afford to fight. Ultimately the big guy wins out in the end. It is no different here. The first nations people were backed into a corner and in order to survive they had to renegotiate. Let us not be under any false impression of why they are here.

From the perspective of the bill, the Norway House First Nation has the right to make that decision. They have done that. They have agreed that the bill will give them an opportunity. Under no circumstances whatsoever do they intend that this bill should give up any of their treaty or inherent rights, none whatsoever.

I do find it unconscionable that the government was not willing to ensure this within the bill, to put it in words that in no way, shape or form would the bill affect the treaty or inherent rights of the first nations.

However, the government tells us that it will not. The Norway House first nation is willing to accept that and, because the bill affects them, for that reason we should support it. I am not going to be someone who tells them what they should be doing. They have had that happen for too long.

There has been consultation. The process was not perfect; I do not think there is any question about it. We have heard comments about referendums not being held properly and about situations where people may have been paid off. All those questions came to light in the committee hearings.

It was felt that the issues were dealt with, but the bottom line was that the first nation approved this. The chief and council who were representative of that first nation were re-elected, for the most part. I think that is an indication that the community supported the process. Therefore we should be supporting it because it applies foremost to the Norway House first nation.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is another first nation out there, the Cross Lake first nation. They are not giving in. Quite frankly, they have every right not to give in. The original agreement was signed. Negotiators to that agreement acknowledged that it was seen as a modern-day treaty. They believe that this first agreement, the northern flood agreement, in itself is what is best for the Cross Lake first nation.

They deserve to not have to go to the courts time and time again. They deserve to have the opportunity to have it settled once and for all. I would hope that the Liberal government will not force another first nation into the situation we see throughout the country. I would hope that we do not have to see violence being the answer in order for rights to be upheld.

While the government supports the bill, I would ask that it also support the rights of the other first nations to make their decisions, that it seriously negotiate a settlement on the northern flood agreement with the Cross Lake first nation and not play the big bad corporate government, holding off until Cross Lake first nation is forced into starvation, forced into receivership, forced into not being able to have houses or pay for the wonderful hydro project that was supposed to make everything better for them. They cannot even afford the hydro. The rates are higher in northern Manitoba because they do not have as dense a population. They pay higher rates than other areas. It makes one wonder why they are not out there jumping screaming and praising the whole process.

As much as I will be supporting the bill, I think Canadian people need to know we are in this situation because once again the Liberal government has failed to follow through on an agreement with first nations people. It is time it changed that approach or this country will never ever be out of turmoil.

[National Highways, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken and the message coming in loud and clear is that the funding for highways in the last budget amounts to squat.

The coalition to renew Canada's infrastructure calls it a disappointment. The Canadian Automobile Association has said that the Liberal government shortchanged our highway system. Investing in highways would save lives, help the economy and save our health care system billions of dollars in preventable injuries.

Will the government admit that it has failed to invest enough in our crumbling highways? Will it tell us how much money it will be bring to the table at next week's meetings of federal and provincial highway ministers?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Halifax West made a point of addressing specific areas of the bill. When we discussed how to proceed with bringing forward our thoughts and concerns on the bill, it was interesting to note that we had to look for a way to tie all of the different aspects of the bill together. One of the things that has been stated by many members is the concern about all of the different issues that have been brought together in this one bill.

For parliamentarians and Canadians who want to address an issue, who want to see where it is and what legislation is there, it is much easier to go to a bill or legislation that applies specifically to the issue. This bill combines an act to amend the criminal code, cruelty to animals, disarming a police officer and technical amendments to the Firearms Act. This reminds me of the old Sesame Street rhyme “Which of these things belongs together, which one is not the same”. I tried to see how we tied them all together. I guess we can in the fact that they deal with the Firearms Act. We talk about disarming a police officer, and we might use a firearm to shoot the animal. This is the point we are at with this bill.

Once again the government has failed to be open with Canadians, simply by mushing a lot of things together when each of these areas warrants discussion in its own right. Disarming of a police officer certainly warrants legislation which specifically deals with that area, to make sure that it gets dealt with properly.

Without question the amendments to the Firearms Act, because of all the other things that have happened out there and the bad feelings over the firearms certification and registration program, give an uncomfortable feeling to the people who were not totally satisfied with that piece of legislation. Concerning the issue of cruelty to animals, there is concern that this legislation is going to impact on areas that it is not intended to. I hope that is clarified when it goes to committee.

When it goes to committee, it is important that the committee and this House ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to be involved in the discussion that happens. If that means going into areas of the country where there is a major concern about the issues we are dealing with in the bill, then we have to do that.

It was previously mentioned that there is concern that the bill will apply to areas of legitimate hunting and trapping practices. Hunters, trappers and those in the fur trading industry are concerned. They are in an area that has been targeted for years by animal rights protesters. There is concern that this bill will have an underlying motive of attacking their livelihood. They need to know for sure that such is not the case. To do that means allowing them to have a say at committee. If that is not the intent of the bill they need to have that concern alleviated. If it is the intent of the bill, then it needs to come out in an upfront manner.

It is my understanding it is not the intent of the bill at this point. When it goes to committee, as I said, we will weed things out to find out exactly where it is at. However, it is important that Canadians and the ones affected specifically by this bill get the opportunity to have their say and have their fears alleviated.

In other words, the bill can leave no misunderstanding as to its intention because it has a grave impact on the fur industry, on the hunters and trappers and also on the farming industry. Although we know that the practices are done in the most humane way possible, there are always those out there who do not believe that animals should be killed in any way, shape or form for food or whatever other uses there may be. If there is any risk that their livelihood is going to be threatened, they need to be able to have a say in this.

There is another area—because this is mushed together—that is extremely important to comment on. My colleague mentioned it. I know there are small changes taking place under sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct and small changes that define the terms child and illegitimate child. Once again, would it not have been more forthright to have these listed separately so that they would be recognized?

I find it disrespectful in all areas of this bill to mush everything together. I believe when we spend time in this House we want to be forthright with Canadians, we want to make sure things are clear and we want Canadians to understand the law and respect it. By introducing omnibus bills like this Canadians have less and less respect.

Again, the changes to the heading of Part V of the criminal code which are being replaced by the following and by having all of these sections fall underneath it is not representing the legislation as it truly is and is misleading to Canadians. The one thing that we can surely do is be clear with our legislation and be clear with the laws so that Canadians can respect the justice and the laws in this country.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. We will be supporting the amendments as noted in the order paper. The member from the Bloc and myself both put in similar amendments to the bill with similar concerns being the reasoning behind the amendments.

As the member from the Bloc indicated, these amendments do not cause any greater cost to the Government of Canada, except maybe the cost of honest to goodness intent to see whether or not the government is truly committed to acknowledging the treaty rights of aboriginal people.

These amendments were suggested by Chief Matthew Coon Come at committee. At that time he was grand chief of the council of Crees in Quebec. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Chief Coon Come on his election to grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

We are at the stage of implementing the northern flood agreement because the government has, for decades and decades, failed to follow through on agreements reached with aboriginal people, whether it be treaty agreements or otherwise. As a result we have another piece of legislation before us to ease things along and get things moving. There was never any intent from the Norway House first nation or any other supporters of the bill from the first nations side to abrogate any of their treaty rights. That is why I think it is extremely important that we ensure those rights are in the bill.

Clauses are common in many kinds of legislation. Section 35 of the Constitution Act guarantees aboriginal and treaty rights. Legally, no bill passed by parliament can violate these rights. However, just to make sure there is no doubt, it is common to include clauses like these to explicitly guarantee the status of aboriginal and treaty rights. When we think about it, it is common sense. It avoids the costly legal fees that could be involved if first nations or their members have to go to court to uphold section 35 rights.

What we have seen in the past is that the action of the government is to constantly take different groups to court to fight for rights they already have. We are dealing with scarce taxpayers' dollars, and for the government not to make an effort to settle these disputes out of court and not to be serious in their negotiations is quite unconscionable. Certainly in first nations communities money can be better spent. I do not understand it.

Including these amendments shows a commitment by the government that it will make an effort to settle these if there is no intent to take aboriginal people to court to uphold their treaty rights. It is better to be clear that the aboriginal and treaty rights are absolute rather than leave any possible doubt and have the courts sort it out.

These amendments have broad support from the people who supported Bill C-14, or as it was previously introduced, Bill C-56, as well as from those who opposed it. One of the major concerns raised by the opponents of the bill was that it might undermine treaty rights conferred in the northern flood agreement.

At this point I want to acknowledge that many people out there, including a former Indian affairs minister, saw the northern flood agreement as a modern treaty. As a result, there is real concern that any change to that flood agreement will change those treaty rights. It is extremely important that we ensure this is not the case.

With regard to consultations with representatives from the Norway House Cree Nation, the first nation this directly affects, the government of Norway House does not intend that this bill will change their treaty rights in any way, shape or form. Ensuring that these amendments are in the bill solidifies that. Those who worry that this bill might unintentionally affect treaty rights also support the bill.

The people from Cross Lake First Nation, those most closely related to the Norway House First Nation, certainly in an area with a lot of familial ties over the years, do not support this bill. They do not want this. They want to adhere to the northern flood agreement as it was signed a number of years ago but never adhered to. The people of Cross Lake First Nation have the right to make that decision for themselves, just as the people of Norway House have the right to make this decision for their first nation.

I urge the members of the Liberal government to support these amendments and make this bill acceptable to the people of Cross Lake and others who are concerned about the treaty implications. As parliamentarians we have a duty to uphold the constitution of Canada and that includes aboriginal treaties under section 35. I truly hope that the government will not vote against these amendments because it will be a signal to aboriginal people that the Liberal government does not respect their treaty rights.

I want to state again that our party will be supporting these amendments and this bill. We have concerns. I was at committee and listened to a number of concerns raised within the first nations over the vote on this issue.

Quite frankly, I too have concerns over the conduct of some officials of the department of Indian affairs. It left a perception out there that things were not being done up front. I was upset with the evasiveness of some of those officials who spoke to the committee about this bill. At points I almost felt like I was being misled as a member of the committee of the House. I do not think this is appropriate for government officials, but that is a problem with the department of Indian affairs. It is not the problem with this bill and it does not affect our support of the bill in any way. We can deal with those things through other areas. I hope we will start to deal with all first nations people in an upfront way.

It is clear to me too that the majority of the people of Norway House support this agreement. There were questions. In most agreements and discussions you have opposing sides. There were those who did not support it, but the chief and council who were representative of this bill and getting the message out there were pretty much the same chief and council who were elected after the vote had been taken. I accept that as an indication that the majority of people of the Norway House Cree Nation support the decision of the chief and council and support this bill.

The bill has been a long time in reaching this stage. It has been popping up since the time I came to the House of Commons in 1997. It is time that we put this issue to rest for the people of Norway House, but in doing so we must ensure that we do not risk the treaty rights of first nations people.

I also want to comment on one point from the committee, when I think the House certainly failed first nations people and in doing so failed all Canadians. There was an opportunity to take this issue, the whole discussion on the bill and these concerns, to the people most directly affected, the people of Cross Lake and Norway House. The committee failed to take the committee hearings to that area. As a result, there will always be some misunderstanding and some feeling that they were not fairly represented.

That is a small thing that committees of the House can do, to take the issue to those most affected, and it is something we should do. I want to voice my displeasure at the government, quite frankly, because let us face it, the government controls the committees. Let me point out that in the future maybe we can avoid some of the situations we see ourselves in if the government makes an effort to actually go to the people of Canada to get their feelings. It should go to the first nations and let them have a say on what is going to be affecting their lives.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the government has just announced a new infrastructure program for municipalities to improve water safety, first nations are still waiting for their water issues to be addressed. Garden Hill in my riding of Churchill has a population of over 3,000 and no running water. Communities like Tadoule Lake, Oxford House and God's Lake Narrows are still waiting for modern water service and waste disposal systems.

Why is the Liberal government risking the lives of people in first nations communities by delaying the first nations water infrastructure program?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the criticism of my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle by the hon. member from the Bloc. It had to do with when he was not a member of parliament doing work representing the province he had lived in for years. Having been here in parliament years before representing that province, my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle could make a very good point of how westerners view Canada. My colleague from the Bloc indicated a lucrative contract to be something less than $5,000, because the contract ended before the full year was up.

Ideally the government should be looking across Canada to get ideas from all regions as to what is better for Canada. It should not be looking just to people within Quebec or Liberal supporters; ideally it should be looking to all areas of Canada.

He should not question the credibility of my colleague or the position of the NDP. There is no question that the New Democratic Party believes in Canada. As westerners we have fought very hard to continue to have a Canada that is united from coast to coast to coast. We are not like the Quebec separatists who say anybody who does not agree with the separatists or the Bloc are undemocratic, that if people do not agree with the Bloc then they are traitors to Quebec.

Westerners have learned to fight. We believe in Canada and we are not giving up on Canada.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. For those who do not know, he represents the riding in Saskatchewan where I spent most of my years when I was growing up. I am extremely proud to be here at the same time as he is, knowing that he has been involved in Canadian politics for so many years and has had the opportunity to meet and work with a number of the people he spoke about, those Canadians who had a real vision for Canada, not a vision of the decimation of a country, piece by piece by piece.

There is the old saying of death by a thousand cuts, which ends up destroying a nation or a life. That certainly has happened within Canada, with the cuts which were made to programs. The country has felt the brunt of those cuts.

We hear provinces saying “Why do we need the country? If we do not have a government that will be there to support each and every region equally, we will gradually lose the country”.

I know the member touched on this, but I would ask him if he feels that the government's cuts to the CBC are once again cutting off another region, piece by piece by piece, by not showing support for each and every part of Canada.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Absolutely. How long did the hep C victims have to fight to see some kind of settlement? We still have some who are not covered. We will keep at it because we know that little by little maybe somebody on the other side will listen. Perhaps there will be enough voices raised in Canada to get those Liberals onside, to say nothing of my hon. colleagues on the other side who are busy mumbling because they have to stay late. Perhaps we will get something done.

The government should have got on with it and had things working. It should have made plans, rather than wasting the last five years.

We saw the same thing with the recent airline crisis. The government could have done something about it. We did not have to be in this situation with a monopoly carrier. However, for the sake of deregulation and privatization, we had to make sure we did not have any of that because it was really bad. We needed a competitive industry. We really got the depth of a competitive industry in Canada, did we not? We have a monopoly carrier and numerous problems to go with it, all because the government did not act a number of years ago.

Today we are arguing over the high price of air fares and the treatment we are getting from Air Canada. The employees are taking the brunt of it. They are the ones who are at the counters with lineups two miles long. They are the ones who are taking the flack from the passengers, not the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Transport, not the Minister of Industry. Not them at all. Not the president and CEO of Air Canada. The workers are taking the flack, the ones who cannot afford to invest in the Cayman Islands. The workers are always taking the brunt of the policies and decisions of the government.

There is no question that the government does not look as though it will do anything about the amendments to this bill. It is shameful. It is very shameful. There is no question that none of the other parties will do anything. They have other things which they think are more important.

We have the Canadian Alliance members who are all rushing off to make phone calls to get someone to vote for Preston or Stockwell or Tom. I am surprised they did not send someone out to get Joe onside because pretty soon we will see the rest of them moving over there too. Then they will just move in with the government, because there is really no difference.

It is disappointing that none of those hon. members are here speaking out for ordinary workers and for the miners of Cape Breton. It is extremely disappointing.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Yes, good safety. I can see why the government would shy away from that, good safety.

This whole horrendous issue could have been avoided had the government started dealing with it a number of years ago.

No one wants to see a situation where taxpayer dollars are invested and nothing really comes out of it. No one wants to see that. Neither do the miners of Cape Breton. This could have been avoided had there been some planning and work done over the last five years.

I would like to emphasize that those miners had to fight just to get a decent pension. My colleague mentioned the miners having to engage in civil disobedience, closing down the mine for a few days in order to get the government to at least come up with a decent pension. Canadians should be getting used to this now with this government.

The women of the federal civil service had to fight for pay equity for 15 years. They had to literally pull the government, kicking and screaming, into the new millennium. It took that long to get the government to pay what was owed.

The merchant marines had to fight for their pension. How long did it take? It has taken the three years I have been here just to have the government give them a decent pension, after all those years.