David Iftody

[Hockey, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the House passed Bill C-212 that recognized hockey and lacrosse as national sports. Hockey is a sport that unites Canadians regardless of region. Canadians have a special relationship with hockey and we are very disturbed over this strike.

I do not stand alone in the House when I say that the revenues and salaries of hockey players and owners are sufficient.

League revenues increased 22 per cent last year from $549 million to $700 million. Salaries increased by 19 per cent. Small markets like Winnipeg are losing money and jobs. Markets like that cannot sustain a strike.

Fifteen to eighteen hundred jobs are directly attributed to the Winnipeg Jets and over $50 million is injected into the local economy of Winnipeg.

Stop this madness. Lock yourselves in a room. Negotiate an agreement and save five small franchise teams in Canada. Do not destroy the livelihood of many ordinary Canadians who depend on sport for income.

Last, I encourage the players and owners to get back to the table, stop the lockout and give hockey back to ordinary Canadians.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the government's motion to send this bill, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, to the committee prior to second reading.

No Canadian requires the services of a lobbyist to approach this government. I am sure that all members of this House would agree that our doors are always open to our constituents and we

do our best to ensure that the views of those constituents are well represented in government decision making.

Moreover, all Canadians have a right to make their own views known to ministers of the crown. Every day ministers receive hundreds of letters from Canadians expressing their opinion on matters within their jurisdiction. Many Canadians make their views known directly to the department or agency of the crown that handles the issue under consideration.

I refer particularly to the farm organizations in the constituency that I represent which deal with matters such as cattle, hogs, chickens, wheat and a number of agricultural commodities that have had representatives here in Ottawa for 20 or 50 years. They have a right to do so.

This government upholds the right of Canadian citizens to deal with public officials but as we know, some Canadians do hire lobbyists. At the same time, government sometimes seeks the advice of groups and organizations in order to find out what impact its actions will have on Canadians. Our challenge is to ensure that lobbying does not discredit the democratic process.

I would like to outline why this legislation does not follow the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations to eliminate the distinctions between tier one and tier two lobbyists.

The committee had concluded that tier one and tier two lobbyists perform similar functions and recommended one definition and the same reporting and disclosure requirements for all lobbyists. This legislation on the other hand is based on the premise that lobbying performed by consultant lobbyists is different from that done by in-house lobbyists.

It has named three different categories: consultant, corporate in-house and organization in-house lobbyists. I believe that this accurately reflects the kind of lobbying activities that are going on out there and in fact prevents any kind of confusion of the issues in terms of those who are writing reports or consultant reports for individual organizations and non-profit organizations. Those are the so-called big guns, the Canadian Bankers Association for example. Those two types of activities are different.

In other respects the legislation follows the committee's recommendations closely. It implements more detailed disclosure of all lobbyists. The question of whether increased disclosure requires the elimination of two tiers was one that the government had to examine very carefully. All organizations have told us that they agree with the need to make lobbying more transparent. No one is disputing that. They accept the need to provide more specific disclosure. They recognize that information filed under the existing Lobbyists Registration Act is not adequate.

When it comes to the question of removing the distinction between the two tiers, representatives of corporations and organizations say that there are significant differences between their work and responsibilities and those of, as I pointed out, the consultant lobbyists in the tier one category. Corporate and organization in house lobbyists are by nature and status very substantively, fundamentally different from consultant lobbyists who operate under contract on behalf of clients.

To begin with, the activities of the in house lobbyists are already well publicized. Further, associations are informed by their members to pursue their common objectives on an ongoing basis. That is why we are requiring the association rather than the individual to file on an annual basis. Non-profit organizations will also have to disclose substantially more information, but this will not create administrative demands beyond their ability to comply.

These organizations recognize the value of greater transparency in their activities. All in house lobbyists will be required to provide annual listings of issues or specific subjects of concern, the departments or agencies they expect to contact, and in addition the communication techniques they plan to use. They will also have to provide updates as changes or new information arises or if the project is terminated. They must also provide annually a description of the organization's goals and objectives or their business activities. Corporate in house lobbyists must give the name of the parent company and any subsidiaries with a direct interest. Organization lobbyists must describe their membership.

The government wants to continue the valuable dialogue and discussions with associations and organizations in order to find out how the government's actions might affect Canadians. At the same time the bill will improve transparency of these processes by requiring again all lobbyists to disclose substantially more information. That is why I support the legislation.

The subcommittee on industry will want to look at these issues once more when it studies the legislation prior to second reading. The government assures us that it will maintain an open mind on the amendments the committee might recommend.

[Dairy Farming, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of agriculture. The standing committee on agriculture has a report with recommendations on the BST which must now be addressed.

Specifically the report addresses the one-year moratorium on the sale and distribution of this hormone product that was requested by the committee.

When will the minister respond as required by the rules of this House and provide Canadian dairy farmers with some certainty on this important matter?

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to provide a clarification on the taxation side, I am quite sure there will be tax provisions, sufficient provisions. In answer to that specific question, as the hon. member knows full well, the aboriginal First Nations across this country have entered into agreements and undertakings with the Government of Canada on a number of specific kinds of initiatives.

We have everything from health care services to education to transfers of welfare services to the bands. I would assure the hon. member that under almost all of those circumstances the bands have been practising good management and standard accounting practices that are reported at this time through specific kinds of agencies in the department of Indian affairs. I cannot see any reason why the band would not under these circumstances and local government control continue to follow those same practices of good government.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. member that I do not have the details in terms of the taxation provisions. Certainly this is a complicated matter, something that has been discussed in a number of research and white papers, discussion papers since the 1970s.

It is a complicated matter, one that will have to be negotiated in some detail. I have not checked the exact provisions of the act on particular questions of taxation and resource based sharing agreements with the province or the federal government. I would of course agree that it is an important question and perhaps something that could be considered.

I believe that the legislation is comprehensive, that these issues have been dealt with. Certainly I would support a sound tax base, as in any local government that both the hon. member and I work with at our community levels, that tax provisions for the ongoing support services for aboriginal communities are necessary and important.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for her comments. I and all members on this side of the House wish to have an intelligent and informed debate about matters as important as our first peoples in Canada, particularly when it comes to our obligations as a government to respect those rights and implement our fiduciary duties.

I would assure the member that the respect that she is suggesting regarding ongoing discussions and issues is something that we want to adhere to. I do not believe for a moment that anyone in this House wishes to engage in any kind of language that is inflammatory or hurtful, to use her words. We are quite prepared to get down to business if the Reform Party members are to see that this bill gets through with quick and speedy passage.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I want to commend my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for introducing this legislation to the House.

My hon. colleague spoke briefly about the history behind Bill C-36. I would like to expand on that because I think it is important for this House to understand how the northern flood agreement impacted on the five bands in the area.

During the late 1960s and into the 1970s a number of projects were undertaken to divert the Churchill River in northern Manitoba to increase water flows to hydro stations on the Nelson River. These hydro stations were part of a scheme to support economic growth and development in the province. Indeed they have served their purpose and served it well.

Today the generating stations on the Nelson River are making an important contribution to the Manitoba economy. But a price has been paid and once again, as has been the case all too often in the past, too much of the price was paid by aboriginal people, our aboriginal people in Manitoba.

The Churchill River diversion projects flooded more than 4,800 hectares of Indian reserve lands. This flooding deprived many aboriginal communities of their traditional fishing, gathering, hunting and trapping areas. The flooding also disrupted or destroyed traditional water transportation routes and shoreline access points. In many cases personal property and community infrastructure were damaged or destroyed.

Five First Nations were affected by the flooding: Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson House, Norway House, and York Factory. Although these bands lost the benefits of flooded or damaged lands and resources that had supported them for many generations, they received few jobs or other benefits from these hydro projects.

Action to compensate the affected bands was finally taken in 1977 when the northern flood agreement was signed by the governments of Canada and Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, and a committee representing the five bands. In addition to cash compensation this agreement contained provisions for land management, resource development, community infrastructure,

navigation, and so on. It also provided for the appointment of an arbitrator to deal with claims arising under the agreement.

The implementation of this agreement has been rife with problems and created considerable difficulties for those aboriginal people involved in this process. It is safe to say that most parties had different expectations of the agreement. Few of these expectations have been fully met. Because of the vague wording on certain issues such as additions to reserve lands, employment of band members on the hydro projects, implementation costs and environmental monitoring could not be resolved.

When it became clear that the northern flood agreement was not properly addressing these issues the five First Nations began of course to explore other options. This led to the negotiation of a proposed basis of settlement which has paved the way for band specific negotiations on the outstanding issues. Such an agreement was signed with the Split Lake Cree in June of 1992.

This agreement is important to all parties. It addresses the outstanding obligations of the governments and Manitoba Hydro in this instance to the Split Lake Cree Band. It provides for additional compensation and, in doing so, releases the federal government from any further claims. Equally as important, it provides the people of the Split Lake Cree First Nation with the means and resources to take control of their own future.

For example, this agreement ensures that the Split Lake Cree will have a more substantial and secure land base with which to pursue economic development. Over time the band will receive permits and fee simple title to more than 1,000 hectares of land throughout its traditional hunting grounds. As well, two new reserves will be established and a 46,000 square kilometre area will be co-managed by the band and the province of Manitoba.

This agreement also provides for the establishment of a band controlled environmental monitoring agency. It gives the Split Lake Cree a strong voice in how their compensation moneys will be managed.

For the information of hon. members, these moneys will be used to support economic and social development, to compensate the Split Lake Cree for the adverse effects of the flooding on their natural resource base and to remunerate the band and its members for damage to property and infrastructure.

I want to assure hon. members that Bill C-36 in no way expands or diminishes the commitments made in this settlement agreement. It follows through on some of the provisions of this agreement.

Let me reiterate what this bill sets out to do. It ensures that money under the Split Lake Cree First Nation agreement will not be considered Indian moneys and it will therefore be administered on its behalf by a trustee and not the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I want to assure the hon. member from the Reform Party that standard accounting practices will be adhered to I am sure by the band.

It is ensures that provincial crown lands provided in fee simple title will not become a special reserve under the Indian Act. It provides that any specific adjudication process that is set out in this band specific settlement agreement will take precedence over the processes set out in the northern flood agreement. It ensures that the Government of Canada can utilize the Manitoba Arbitration Act as do the other three parties in the northern flood agreement.

I also want to remind hon. members that Bill C-36 will apply only to the Split Lake Cree Band. This is an important feature. It will not apply to the other northern flood agreement First Nations which have not yet negotiated band specific settlement agreements, and we wish to respect that.

As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said, the province of Manitoba is currently preparing companion legislation based on Bill C-36. This provincial legislation will further protect the interests of the Split Lake Cree First Nation.

I want to thank the minister for confirming that consultations have been undertaken with the affected First Nation, with the provincial government and with Manitoba Hydro. This has resulted in a clear and concise bill that has the support of all parties to the Split Lake Cree settlement agreement.

Finally, I want to join my hon. colleagues, the minister of Indian affairs and the parliamentary secretary to the minister, in urging quick approval of this bill. It will put into place the final elements of the implementation process for the Split Lake Cree agreement. It will demonstrate to the Split Lake Cree Nation, to First Nations across Canada and to all Canadians that this government is committed to implementing its lawful obligations to the aboriginal people of Canada.

[Battle Of Normandy, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we know 50 years ago yesterday, D-Day, the great liberation began and the freedom of Europe and indeed the world was under way.

I was proud to represent the Government of Canada in a wreath laying ceremony last weekend in Manitoba. I reflected on the courage of those who gave their lives for freedom from tyranny and oppression.

I also reflected on those individuals like Irving Scott and Alex Tarasenko who, as young men from Provencher, were among the first to land on the beaches of Normandy. They were the first to brave the bullets and the land mines.

It is hard to imagine the burden of duty that we called upon these young Canadians to perform on our behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Tarasenko. Thank you all for what you did on that day. We are very indebted. We are very grateful and we will never forget your contribution.

[National Access Awareness Week, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the seventh anniversary of National Access Awareness Week in Canada.

It is important as legislators in the House to be aware of the needs of the disabled community. When planning community events we must support the establishments that are accessible so that handicapped people can be included.

Inclusion is what National Access Awareness Week is all about: from the ramps to Braille, to traffic lights that alert the blind, to the sign language interpreter who covers question period on the parliamentary channel. We must as legislators always be responsible and aware of the needs and concerns of those who have special requirements, for without those tools we shut out a significant part of our citizenry.

[Small Businesses, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry concerning the finance department's small business assistance report which was recently released.

The report attempts to allege that the banks have not created a credit crunch for small businesses. This report blatantly contradicts testimony to the industry committee presented by Canadian small business people from all regions of the country.

Who is telling the truth? Can the minister tell this House who we should believe, finance bureaucrats or the Canadian business people?