Jack Ramsay

[Indian Affairs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have been assured over and over again of that fact and yet we seem to be getting a mixed signal from this government. My final question is for the minister of Indian affairs.

Yesterday the minister admitted he does not fully understand self-government, he does not know where it is going and that many aboriginal people including chiefs do not approve it. In spite of this minister has said that once the machinery of self-government gets rolling there will not be any way for anyone to stop it.

What right does the minister have to conduct this uncontrolled experiment on Canadians when he admits that he has no idea of the consequences?

[Indian Affairs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the same minister.

Yesterday the Minister of Justice said that the question of human rights is a priority for federal negotiators. There is a big difference between a guarantee and a priority.

Does the minister consider the charter rights of aboriginal people to be a bargaining chip in the process of self-government negotiation or will he offer an ironclad guarantee that the government will not enter into any arrangement that does not ensure full and complete charter rights for all Canadians?

[Indian Affairs, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.

In a response to a question put to the minister on May 5 the minister told my colleague for Calgary Southwest categorically: "In the legislation that will be before the House dealing with aboriginal people he will see clearly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply".

Yesterday, however, the Minister of Justice said that application of the charter within self-government remains an open question.

Who speaks for the government on this issue? Will the minister guarantee this House that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply under self-government for aboriginal people, yes or no?

[The Economy, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have told the government repeatedly that they are worried about the economic state of this country. The 1994 budget demonstrated quite clearly that the government did not get the message.

Perhaps the government will listen to an outsider, someone who is not directly affected by the economics of this country. One of Asia's top bankers says Canada's economy is in danger of self-destruction and without greater economic growth Canada's envious quality of life will be endangered.

I agree with the view of the person who sits on the outside looking in. Our economy could crumble under the weight of high taxes, massive public debt and unnecessary government regulations.

The positive aspect of this government's budget reminds me of a person who adds a needed piece of furniture to a house that is burning down. I urge the government to introduce further spending reductions, to put out the fire and restore our international reputation.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, continuing with my speech on Bill C-16, I submit that a strong, economically self-reliant Sahtu nation will be a benefit to all Canadians.

This agreement also provides for a transfer of funds from the Canadian taxpayer amounting to $130 million over the next 15 years. This amounts to over $8 million a year. These funds are apparently designated for areas such as education, training and heritage preservation.

I am sure that Canadians would support this transfer of tax dollars for these purposes as well as the allocation of the land involved. However, I do not believe that the Canadian people will support these articles of the agreement unless there is a clear indication that the financial dependency on the taxpayer will end some time in the future.

This agreement provides no such assurance. In fact, it is clear from the agreement that the Sahtu's right to receive benefits from existing or future aboriginal programs will continue, therefore continuing the dependency which this government contends will be extinguished by this agreement. This defeats the purpose of the agreement itself.

In this connection I would like to comment on an article in the Globe and Mail . According to a March 29, 1994 report the federal government has spent more than $50 million on self-government negotiations with native groups over the past seven years, yet it has produced only one agreement. About 400 native communities have entered self-government talks but most have abandoned the process because it is long, bureaucratic, limited and legalistic.

According to the Globe and Mail , this was the finding of a federal audit. The audit apparently described a host of weaknesses in the federal policy for negotiating self-government deals at the community level and concluded that the process is long, cumbersome and expensive.

Federal payments to native groups for the negotiations jumped by 500 per cent since the process began in the 1986-87 fiscal year. The department of Indian affairs has given $30 million to aboriginal groups for the talks and has spent a further $20 million on internal operating costs.

The department has spent $50 million creating a cottage industry around these negotiations, where lawyers and political leaders are the only ones who benefit while the deplorable living conditions of the individual aboriginal person has not changed as a result of the expenditure of these funds.

I suggest the weaknesses evident in the Sahtu agreement are a reflection of the flawed negotiation process identified by the federal audit. The interests of the Canadian taxpayer are not protected in the agreement.

Within the agreement the means exist by which the Sahtu nation can continue to demand that the federal government tax the wealth of Canadians for their use, in spite of the enormous land mass assigned to these people, the significant resource royalties agreed to and the multimillion dollar cash settlement provided.

This is neither fair to the Sahtu nation nor the Canadian taxpayer. It is unfair to the taxpayer because there is no end to the financial support demanded and unfair to the Sahtu people because it does not end their dependency on the Canadian taxpayer and therefore is not a formula for self-reliance.

A final area of concern to many Canadians is that this agreement creates entitlements and rights based on race and ethnic origin and will be as racist a document as is the Indian Act. The agreement will create special status for the Sahtu nation based on race and destroys the principle of equality of citizenship in that all Canadians ought to stand equal before the law.

This does not bode well for the future unity of our country. I believe the intolerable conditions faced by aboriginal people is due to the fact that for many years they did not have equal rights in Canada. They were discriminated against at all levels of society. Their language, religion and culture were suppressed. Job opportunities were non-existent for the majority of aboriginal people.

In order to correct the situation we must ensure they stand equal before the law. If we grant them special status, harmony and unity will not be the result.

While the rest of the world, including South Africa, is bringing the barriers down between races and ethnic groups, we are in the process of erecting them through agreements such as this. We saw it in the Meech Lake accord, the Charlottetown accord and we are seeing it again in this agreement. People are being granted special rights and privileges based on race and ethnic origin.

These rights and privileges are being paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. The formula cannot succeed in a multicultural society such as Canada. We must ensure that all Canadians stand equal before the law regardless of race, language, culture or religion.

This may be the greatest failing of the Sahtu agreement. It grants special rights based on race and ethnic origin and in doing so destroys the principle of equality of citizenship in Canada.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I see that two o'clock will arrive before I will have finished so I will continue until you shut me down.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-16. As do many of my colleagues, I have a particular interest in the proposed legislation. During my career I have had opportunity to work directly with native people as a labour foreman on a hydroelectric project in the territories, as an ombudsman for the Alberta region of the department of Indian affairs under Harold Cardinal and as a business consultant.

I have seen the problems of these people firsthand and therefore I speak from experience if not empathy for the plight of these people.

The Dogrib Indians of the territories I found to be some of the hardest working and capable individuals I have ever worked with. They were more than willing to work under adverse conditions of weather and isolation when the jobs were available. However the opportunity to work is not always there and when this occurs these willing and capable people are unemployed.

I was appointed ombudsman by Harold Cardinal who was regional director general for the department of Indian affairs in Alberta. Mr. Cardinal was a prominent aboriginal leader in Canada and president of the Alberta Indian Association for a number of years.

In this position I dealt with many of the concerns and complaints of the Indian people. As a consultant I have received many complaints from band members across western Canada accusing their band council leaders of corruption and expending funds improperly. Seldom if ever did the department of Indian affairs look into these complaints.

Therefore, like many Canadians I want to see Canada's aboriginal peoples given the opportunity to become economically and politically independent. I want to see their dependency on the taxpayer ended. If an agreement provides these ingredients it should be supported. If not it should not be supported.

This agreement fails to meet these requirements and therefore I cannot give Bill C-16 my support. The Sahtu land settlement area covers 280,000 square kilometres with a population of approximately 1,700 people. I am prepared to support this part of the agreement, although extremely generous, because it is clear that these people must have a land base from which they can draw resources in order to become economically independent and self-reliant.

When we compare this to the land base of P.E.I. and Nova Scotia which have much larger populations, it is evident that the land base requirement for self-reliance is adequately provided for in the Sahtu nation in this agreement. In addition, this agreement provides not only for subsurface resource rights but for royalties on resources presently developed within the Mackenzie River valley.

These aspects of the agreement are essential for future economic self-reliance of the Sahtu nation. I submit that a strong, economically self-reliant Sahtu nation will be a benefit to all Canadians. This agreement also provides for a transfer of funds from the Canadian taxpayer amounting to-

[Alberta, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the Easter recess I had the opportunity to meet with government officials from 10 different municipalities within my riding of Crowfoot.

Each of these Alberta municipal governments told me that it is operating in the black and has varying degrees of reserves to draw upon if necessary.

What a novel idea. Money in the bank, no interest payments, no out of control debt, no threat of bankruptcy and a credit rating which is indicative of good fiscal management and responsibility. Only in Alberta they say.

I commend the mayors and councillors of these Alberta municipalities. When asked how they managed to run a debt free operation, they shared with me their closely guarded secret. They said they never spend more than they bring in.

Why can the local governments express such responsibility in fiscal matters while the federal government has been such a disaster?

[Tobacco, April 27th, 1994]

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.

Earlier this month the premier of Alberta in his role as chairman of the most recent western premiers' conference wrote to the Prime Minister asking for his co-operation to combat the potential flood of smuggled tobacco from central Canada into western Canada. One of the recommendations was to implement a uniform federal tobacco tax rate across all of Canada to lessen the incentive for interprovincial smuggling.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House if he has made any effort to adopt this proposal from the western premiers?

[Tobacco, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

When the federal government lowered the cost of cigarettes in an attempt to cut off smuggling, it spawned new problems including increased smuggling of alcohol and interprovincial smuggling of cheap cigarettes.

I ask the Prime Minister if the government has any realistic plans to put out the fires that his cigarette policies have lit.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that when a government stops a deal like this the question is how can it do so without alienating very powerful people within Canada who are involved in the deal. It is obvious how the government has arranged to do that and that is through section 10. Section 10 is clear evidence that an agreement has been made. Not only that, in order to satisfy everyone that agreement has to be consummated in very short order.

Subsection (3) of section 10 states:

No agreement may be entered into under this section after one month after the coming into force of this Act.

All the payouts are going to occur one month after this act is passed.

The agreement that has been made, and it is obvious to me and everyone who has looked at this situation, is that the compensation package has been put forward by those people to the

government. It has been agreed upon and we are simply going through the motions. Because we are in a majority government situation, this is going to be passed. This is a fait accompli.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who spoke so eloquently about this situation. The Bloc is recommending a royal commission of inquiry. Does the member not feel it is time that the standing committees of the House were empowered to deal with these kinds of issues? Should they not have the power of subpoena and the power to bring witnesses before the standing committees to examine them? Should not the elected representatives be playing the role that the royal commissions of inquiry have in the past at enormous costs? Ought we not to be doing that job? I am asking the hon. member if she would agree with that. If she does, would she make that recommendation to her caucus?