House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 67% of the vote.
Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think this really goes to demonstrate the confusion and the lack of understanding of the provisions of this bill in the briefing material that we received.
I certainly cannot answer the hon. member's question because I have not been able to make the same determination from the material provided. Hopefully those questions can be answered by others in committee or in the House, but I do not know the answer to the question.
Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-36.
Generally as the House has heard our party supports the goals of this legislation, the transfer of the moneys in the agreement to the Split Lake Cree Nation rather than being held in trust by the department of Indian affairs. Certainly we do not argue with the compensation in land, replacing that land which was flooded under the hydro project.
However, it appears the reopening of the northern flood agreement to accomplish these provisions considerably tops up the compensation provided in the northern flood agreement and enriches it considerably.
There are a number of questions that need to be answered. As we heard before, the briefing material provided by the department on this particular piece of legislation is very vague and incomprehensive, and it is hard to find the answers to the questions we are looking for. Hopefully we will be able to accomplish that in committee.
On a number of questions like the one of standard accounting practices, I do not really think it is reasonable to assume that because most other Indian bands across this country follow standard accounting practices it is reasonable to be able to assure all Canadians that standard accounting practices will be followed in this instance.
There need to be provisions in the agreement, in the act, to provide for that specifically considering that the administration of these funds is removed from the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and therefore also
removed from the jurisdiction of the Auditor General. That specific concern should be addressed.
One of my other concerns is why when all five bands were covered by the northern flood agreement are we now separating it out and dealing with one specific band instead of all five bands in a single piece of legislation or a single act to provide the same provisions for all the bands?
As I said, generally we support the objectives of this bill and hopefully if those answers can be provided to us in committee in areas with which we are concerned I am sure we can provide support and help a speedy passage of this bill through the process to enactment.
Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the member assured the speaker from the Reform Party that standard accounting practices would be used in the administration of the funds that are being transferred to the Split Lake Band.
I would like to ask the member what basis he is using to give us those assurances. Is he using some wording in the agreement or the legislation to give us those assurances?
Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act June 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the speaker talk about an issue that I believe was dealt with and settled in this House some time ago. The debate on this bill concerns the flood management-
Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act June 13th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I spoke at some length on this bill during second reading debate and during committee. I have a few brief points that I want to make in closing the debate.
This being another step into the process of the huge giveaway of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory of Canada and removing it from the ownership of the crown for the use and enjoyment of all Canadians is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Not only is that precedent a giveaway of that amount of territory with no legal obligation to do so, there is another precedent that I spoke of earlier, and I continue to go back to on this particular agreement, the precedent that there is a valid treaty in force covering this territory which provided for the extinguishment of land claims and rights of aboriginal peoples in that area.
We are now in the process of renegotiating, reopening that agreement to again negotiate a broader package, a more generous package and much more territory. I think that is a real dangerous precedent to be setting and bodes poorly for the future when we will again be negotiating treaties one through eleven under the same circumstances that we are now renegotiating this one.
The richness of this agreement I can only object to on the grounds that it does not end the responsibility of the Canadian taxpayer for these aboriginal people. Surely the $100,000 per individual payout in the share of resource revenue from the Norman Wells oil field and other resources is enough to provide for self-sufficiency and for self-determination for this group of people to allow them economic development to participate in all the things that all Canadians enjoy and take for granted in this country.
Having given that opportunity we should then end the responsibility of the Canadian taxpayer to continue to support these aboriginal people. The Bloc spoke on this bill, both in second reading and now in third reading, in support of the bill. It is quite easy to understand the Bloc's position on this particular bill.
It goes a long way to reinforcing the proposal of the recognition of sovereignty for a particular ethnic group and plays to its own cause. It certainly does not have to be concerned with the financial cost or the financial responsibility for ongoing generations of Canadians because clearly it does not want to be part of Canada and part of that obligation to future generations.
When we talk about the large amount of oil and the large amount of money that was taken out of the Norman Wells oil field, certainly there have been great amounts of oil and wealth taken out, but I have worked in the Norman Wells oil field and it is a hugely expensive part of Canada to develop that resource in and to extract that resource.
When we talk about those kinds of things, we have to consider the cost of developing not only the oil field but the technology that goes with it. Let us talk about the net value of the resource that was taken out.
Let us, at the same time, consider the huge amounts of tax dollars that have been returned to the area in social spending to cover all kinds of things from housing to economic development, to schools, to all those other things. I think a good share of that resource is being returned and continues to be returned to that area.
The other thing that I would like to speak briefly on is the process of this legislation as it went through the House and the fact that we, as an opposition party, were not allowed any provision to make our views heard or make our views known in the final report on the bill when it was returned to the House in report stage simply because we were not allowed to recommend or to discuss changes in the agreement. We were only allowed to discuss the bill itself, which was very small and did not really address the terms of the agreement.
In spite of the fact that in committee we heard a number of witnesses from the region, the aboriginal people from the area, and some of them clearly neither understood nor desired the terms of this settlement, their views were not taken into consideration.
There has been no discussion on report stage of those people who opposed this. I want to make sure that I and my party go on record opposing this process and this agreement simply because I think it is a huge mistake to be moving Canada toward a system that South Africa is celebrating leaving behind.
We are imposing ethnic homelands on these people and trapping them in these agreements. That is a terrible precedent to be setting. We should be moving at some point to the equal treatment of all Canadians no matter where they live or what their ethnic or racial background is.
In closing, when the record is written the Reform Party opposed the agreement and the Liberals pushed it through in spite of the objections of our party and a number of the people involved.
Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act June 13th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to speak to Bill C-33 without some reference at least to Bill C-34, since both bills have been tabled simultaneously and will be dealt with simultaneously in committee.
Generally my concerns with the land claim settlement portion of the two bills are the same as my concerns were with Bill C-16, the Mackenzie Valley land claim agreement. The very process the government has chosen to deal with these land claim settlements is most objectionable, to put it simply.
Considering the importance of these bills, their unprecedented nature, their open endedness, their implications for the fundamental constitutional rights of all Canadians, and the breakneck speed with which these bills are being rushed through is nothing less than an abuse of the parliamentary process. It is a reckless invitation for legal and social disaster.
Much of the confusion I feel and express is testimony to the inadequate time we have been given to deal with this immensely difficult and huge legislative package. There is much in this package that we could agree with. The fact that we can only deal with the bill itself and not the agreement as was the case with Bill C-16 makes it difficult to impossible for our party as well as other interest groups and individuals to discharge their responsibility and rights to comment on, criticize or improve the bill.
In view of these concerns, I have to ask why these bills are being pushed through with such haste. The process thus far has taken 23 years. Why does the government want to pass them through Parliament without proper scrutiny? Could it be that given time to analyze and examine these bills, an effective public opposition to the content of these bills might come forward? Could it be that there really is not the overwhelming support for these bills, so we must rush them through without public awareness or examination?
I must also ask, after negotiating for 23 years, why now, when only four final agreements exist, are we being asked to abrogate our responsibilities as an opposition party to examine the other 10 final agreements? Why did the government not finish the negotiating process, instead of asking us to approve and pass these agreements that do not now exist? That is the same process which led to the failure of the Charlottetown accord.
The provision of the compensation package also raises some concerns for me. When I enquired of the departmental officials during our briefing what we were compensating for, I was told that it really was not compensation and perhaps compensation was a poor choice of words. That was the same answer to the same question I received on Bill C-16.
There seems to me to be a very fundamental disagreement between the aboriginal people and the Government of Canada over where we are starting from and where we are going to. Are we beginning a process to now buy or rent Canadian territory from the aboriginal people, or does the crown in fact, hold title to the Canadian land and we are only providing an amount of money to help with economic development? The answer to this question is vital to the future land claim settlements south of 60.
The entrenchment of these agreements as modern day treaties in the constitution should also be of concern to all Canadians. There appears to be some difference of legal opinion as to what this means, but it could mean that these rights gained through these agreements are not amendable except by constitutional amendments.
This would mean that these rights are beyond the reach of future parliamentary amendments. This would give precedence to the obligation of Canadian taxpayers to these agreements over the obligation to provide to all Canadians health care, old age security, or other social security which are provided by simple acts of Parliament. I believe therefore these provisions to be an arrogant and tragic mistake to lock in forever the government policy regardless of what fiscal conditions might exist in this country in the future.
The creation of 16 separate governments with 15 separate territories each with separate laws, regulations, and bureaucratic boards will create a bureaucratic nightmare for anyone wanting to do business in Yukon, not to mention the cost of all the new bureaucracies and government institutions.
In conclusion, my feeling about this land claim agreement is the same as I stated in debate on Bill C-16. I believe and I am supported by Supreme Court precedents that the crown holds title to all Canadian territory outside privately held titled land.
I do support the provision of deeded land, the provision for economic self-sufficiency in the form of a cash payment and resource sharing. I also support the right of aboriginal peoples to use the resources of their traditional territory for subsistence.
I do not support the never ending dependence of these aboriginal people on the taxpayers of Canada. I believe having been provided the above-mentioned benefits the financial responsibility of the taxpayers must end. These people can once again become proud self-sufficient Canadians with the same economic and social benefits as all other Canadians, not disillusioned, discouraged, dependent people trapped in a segregated ethnic homeland dictated to by a dominating paternalistic federal government.
Questions On The Order Paper June 9th, 1994
With respect to police investigations relating to fraud and misappropriation of funds by the Indian bands, tribal councils and aboriginal/metis organizations, ( a ) how many were conducted during the last five years, ( b ) how many charges were laid, ( c ) how many are currently underway?
Atlantic Fishery May 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to give special recognition to Alberta and Saskatchewan farmers who this month are sending wheat flour to the maritime families that are coping with the devastation of the Atlantic fishery.
During the depression, Atlantic fishermen sent salted cod, fruit, honey, clothing and other items to western farmers, trying desperately to survive the devastation of their industry. The grain these farmers are donating will produce 50,000 pounds of flour, enough to make 95,000 loaves of bread. By donation the flour will be shipped east and distributed to needy families through the Newfoundland food bank.
It is wonderful to see grassroots Canadians pulling together in a time of need, especially when their political leaders continue to debate the future of Confederation.
Indian Affairs May 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Many Canadians would judge that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms perhaps goes to the very heart of what being a Canadian is and why Canada is such a desirable place to live. If we would allow different versions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for different groups of Canadians we would perhaps destroy what it means to really be a Canadian.
Will the minister of Indian affairs state that the same charter will apply to all Canadians?
Indian Affairs May 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
On May 5 the minister stated: "The next legislation that will be before the House dealing with aboriginal people will clearly show that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply".
Last week at the Liberal convention here in Ottawa the justice minister said: "Individual rights of natives under self-government need not be guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Will the minister of Indian affairs affirm that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to any legislation regarding aboriginal people?