Howard Hilstrom

[Petitions, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from constituents of mine who say that the Government of Canada has yet to comply with article 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding equal pay for work of equal value.

The petitioners feel that this parliament should instruct the government to immediately comply with the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the matter of pay equity.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada small business financing act deserves more scrutiny than what it will get and more critical comment that may not be listened to by the government as the bill proceeds through the House of Commons.

The motion we are discussing today by the member for Mercier is that Bill C-53 be amended on page 2 by adding in a new clause. Clause 2.1 states:

The purpose of this act is to increase the availability of financing of small businesses—

Where I start to wonder what is really meant by this amendment is when it states:

—which would not otherwise have access to financing.

What is a small business? A small business is simply an individual, a man or a woman, who has an entrepreneurial spirit, a spirit of being able to say “I don't really want to work for someone else, I want to work for myself and, as a result, I want to start up my own business”.

Small business is the backbone of a lot of our communities. As a result, we need these kinds of people, these entrepreneurs who will stand up say they can make it work.

There is no doubt that an entrepreneur who comes forth with a better widget, a better product, a new product that has never been thought of before, a service or an idea that needs promotion and development will need to access capital.

However, in accessing that investment capital his idea, his service, what he is thinking of, the job he may be wanting to put forward to create employment may not be good. As a result, when the entrepreneur goes in for financing from the normal sources or even from relatives or their own investment sock they may have put away, they may find that the financial institution or the independent lender says their idea is not good enough and they are not willing to finance it. What the financial institution may say to the entrepreneur is that their idea has little or zero chance of success.

It would seem to me this amendment is then going to state that where an entrepreneur has no chance of success maybe the government will step in and kind of make sure they do get financing.

The country is littered with empty plants, both small and large, where government has stepped in and said it is great to be producing this bottled water in Saskatchewan. There are magnificent magnesium processing plants in Alberta. Manitoba has certainly had its share of plants that started up, ran for a couple of years and then shut down because they were not viable.

We therefore have to be concerned when we see amendments like this which state that financing should be provided to businesses and entrepreneurs which otherwise have no access to financing.

When there are amendments and clauses in acts like that it is an open invitation to the government of the day to use the financing and guarantees of loans that are not economically viable or financially stable. It simply uses these special little sections to provide money to people who in lots of cases are looking to the government for support, and in return the government expects to get votes. That is why I have a problem supporting this amendment to Bill C-53.

We know that any time the government starts passing legislation it will cost money. Every act costs money. If it is not necessary or will not do the job it is meant to do then it should not be passed.

In this case financing a small business idea that is not economically viable and will not work is not where government should be priorizing its funding, or in the case where it does not put the money out directly where it guarantees the loan and ultimately ends up paying it off.

The cost of legislation can be seen in all manner of things that have been passed in the House in the last five years, probably even longer. I refer to the Firearms Act which this year is in the neighbourhood of $130 million plus the $200 million the RCMP is expected to come up with for a computer system.

The purpose of the Canada small business financing act is certainly not to support money losing businesses and ideas. The effect it has is to demoralize those business entrepreneurs who are making a go of it with a good idea and they see someone else have an unfair competitive advantage through government support.

The cost of government applies across the whole sector. At present we see small businesses near agricultural communities suffering because of the cost of government on the agricultural sector. Certainly it would help if the cost of government on agriculture were reduced.

I mentioned to the agriculture minister today that many of the user fees and cost recovery programs the government has instituted over the years could well be set aside, either suspended and/or terminated. That would leave more money in the hands of small businessmen like farmers. In essence they are small businessmen. As they spend and the money flows through the economy everyone would have more capital with which to start small businesses.

The costs to small business are the same as in agriculture. One could think of a hardware store or whatever in a small town. Some of the costs are applied to all business such as the GST and the employment insurance premiums that are taken off. In this case there is a lot more paid in than is needed to keep the fund going.

We see Canada pension plan premiums rising all the time and we end up in 20 or 30 years with a pension that is so small compared to what we invested that we should have just saved our money in the first place.

We see business and personal taxes so high they are killing investment. They kill the idea of a small business man or woman trying to get ahead. It may be financed to get the business started but if it is killed after it gets going with taxes, employment insurance, GST and all these onerous taxes, why bother starting it in the first place?

I do not support the amendment to Bill C-53. I suggest to the government that it look at getting out and reducing the cost of small business. That would have a lot more benefit than trying to finance some business that does not have a chance in the first place.

[Canadian Farmers, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is gouging farmers. It collects $138 million through user fees by agencies such as the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is within the agriculture minister's power to immediately cut these costs. To date he has done nothing.

Why does the agriculture minister keep on ripping the last of the profits from our Canadian farmers?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about listening to each other's speeches and I certainly hope that my speech was also listened to because there is no place that I would ever say that aboriginal self-government should not come about. I do not think that anybody can show me any place in Reform Party policy where it says we are against aboriginal self-government.

I would certainly not like to see condemnation by association or whatever, which the member for Winnipeg Centre is somehow trying to place on my shoulders. I think I have spoken quite clearly about what my beliefs and stand are and what I believe the beliefs and stand of the Reform Party are. My 59 colleagues as far as I know believe exactly along the lines and in the same general principles. The other groups or whatever the member for Winnipeg Centre is talking about, I do not know if they have been authorized by the Reform Party to speak like that. I would very much doubt that. In fact I know it is not true.

People in the House have made some pretty wild promises over the years. I think back to some members who are currently sitting who talked about how they would get rid of the GST and all this. I would simply say that our politicians do need to have accountability imposed on them and I think the aboriginal leaders are no different.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Provencher and I end up on the same plane lots of times, so we may even talk about this again.

I think we will refer to Hansard tomorrow and we will see that I spoke quite eloquently, I would say very eloquently, with regard to the fact that the Norway House band had serious loss of lands and that the compensation of $78 million that was agreed to by the various levels of governments, the aboriginal chiefs and the people was very fair and should be paid to them. We have no problem in agreeing on that fact.

The accountability problems deal with much more than this one agreement. As a member of parliament, where the issue at hand has brought the broad ramifications it has for the people of Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not touch on those issues attached to the bill we are dealing with. One attached issue is accountability for the moneys that will be received by the band in trust. I agree it is normally a very good legal means by which money does not go missing. As I have said, I have seen so many thousands of cases of dollars go missing over the years, millions, from non-aboriginal and aboriginal holders of trust moneys.

We should not make light or cast aspersions on members of the House or others who speak up and say that everybody who is elected in aboriginal reserves to councils and chiefs are not crooks. They are average people who are getting elected to these things. But there are enough problems that have to brought to the attention of legislators and they have to be dealt with. To sit back and pretend that nothing is going wrong and that there is no room for improvement is sheer lunacy, to put it bluntly. I take pride in speaking out in my riding for my constituents. I have had so many comments from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people that previous members of parliament did not stand up and speak in the very means that I am speaking today on behalf of aboriginal women and children and others who want to see accountability in first nations government.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be in the House once again to talk about aboriginal affairs, particularly where they come into play in Manitoba.

Selkirk—Interlake is located in the centre of Manitoba. It borders and includes the very lake we are discussing today, Lake Winnipeg, which flows north into the Nelson and Churchill river system and ultimately ends up in the Hudson Bay.

If I could reiterate a bit, Bill C-56 deals with a settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land on the Norway House Indian Reserve and on other reserves. It is with respect to the establishment of certain reserves, the adding of land to land currently held. The land which was flooded belonged to the Norway House Indian Band and would ultimately have become their land under treaty entitlements.

All Manitobans, myself included, have benefited greatly through the actions of the Government of Manitoba and its crown corporation, Manitoba Hydro. Native people in Manitoba have also benefited greatly in that we now have hydro going into most reserves.

Some members from Manitoba, including the member for Provencher, seem to indicate they are experts on Manitoba natives. I agree that no doubt the member has some knowledge. However, like the member from Winnipeg Centre, they do not have all-encompassing knowledge of what is going on in reserves. They could have had historical references for the last six to ten years when the Reform Party talked about accountability.

I will deal with the bill in two parts. The first part will be with regard to the flooding of land and the second will be with regard to some accountability issues.

The Norway House band land which was flooded was excellent trapping land. It was land they had occupied for thousands of years. They should be compensated for that land. There is absolutely no problem with that on my part. I encourage the provincial and federal governments along with the aboriginal people as they proceed to compensate for the damage.

The parties to my right, my left and opposite seem to want to isolate aboriginal affairs into a stand alone situation. We share this land together. Our national boundaries are well known from coast to coast to coast. We and the aboriginal people share this common land.

For just a minute I would like to show that is the case. Organizations on Lake Winnipeg in my riding have had some spill over effect from the flooding. The organizations of which I speak are the Lake Winnipeg Property Owners' Association and a lady by the name of Lorraine Sigvaldason who is important in that organization, along with Baldur Nelson and Mr. Nelson Gerrard of the Bifrost Lakeshore Homeowners Coalition. Nowadays the lake is at a high level in order to accommodate the generation of hydro. All Manitobans are sharing in the benefits and the losses associated with major hydro electric developments.

Some problems experienced in the south end are with respect to ongoing excessive and rapid erosion of land, physical loss of highly assessed residential property, permanent destruction of prime sandy beaches, rapid deepening of the inshore lake bottom, devaluation of prime real estate, destruction of wildlife habitat, hazards to marine activity in the form of floating and submerged debris, and severe financial losses and burdens for lakeshore residents. They suggest some solutions. This is a concern that has been around my riding and the province of Manitoba for some time.

Aboriginal people live along this lake that is affected by the flooding, including the Norway House band and the organizations I have spoken of, say the problem has to be acknowledged and addressed in an honest fashion. Lake level regulation must take into account actual water levels rather than statistically altered and wind eliminated or monthly average levels.

Their request to various levels of governments has been that those who have suffered losses deserve compensation whether such losses were the direct result of an act of God as in the flood in the Red River Valley or the acts of government and hydro.

Issues dealing with aboriginals have to be thought of in the context of dealing with all Canadians. That is what seems to be missing in some of the debates on the particular bill as it is with many other bills.

With regard to solutions on Lake Winnipeg, Mr. Wilfred L. Arnason suggested that additional causeways near Hecla Island, a narrow opening between the north basin and the south basin of Lake Winnipeg, could be spanned by additional bridges accommodating the inflows of all rivers, creeks and ditches entering the south basin. The idea that there would be an additional flow of water out of the south into the north basin would help to provide a solution with regard to erosion problems.

I am not privy to all the details of how the $78.9 million in cash and hydro bonds with regard to how compensation for the Norway House band was arrived at, but if the Manitoba government, the federal government and the aboriginal people agreed to that it would seem to be fair. I could support that on my part. The moneys owed under the agreement are not payable to the crown as Indian moneys but as moneys to be held by the minister in trust. I will deal with that in a moment.

I certainly agree with the creation of a resource co-management board with Manitoba. Co-management of resources is exactly what I have been talking about. It will be a good aspect of the agreement. As I have noted in past speeches, the ability of an aboriginal first nation to pass laws in conflict with federal laws, in other words the aboriginal law supersedes, is not in the best interests of Canada, of all Canadians or of our living together.

As a result when I see the terms co-management and working hand in hand, the people of Manitoba both aboriginal and non-aboriginal working hand in hand, that is exactly the way it is supposed to be. That is what I am attempting to promote as the member of parliament representing Selkirk—Interlake and, I might add, representing all Manitobans. I have been involved in various accountability issues with the first nations people where people from all parts of the province and most of the aboriginal first nations approached me with their problems, concerns and their solutions.

I mentioned that this money was to go to the first nations people to be administered in trust. This is where the member from Winnipeg Centre said that the Reform Party was—he did not say crying wolf—trying to take a few little incidents and make them into some kind of statement that all chiefs and councils are either crooked or mismanaging funds.

Earlier in my speech I said that members opposite, along with the members to my right, have not kept an eye on what happened in terms of the northern flood agreement which included about six other bands. I would like to refer to what happened when the Nelson House band was paid several million dollars from the federal government. It went into a Winnipeg account and through a lawyer. I will not repeat the exact amount of money that was to go to the band. A non-aboriginal consultant and the ex-chief of the Nelson House band were involved in handling the moneys.

It is well known in the House and back in Manitoba that I was a member of the commercial crime section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We received a complaint with regard to how those moneys in trust were handled. We conducted an investigation. I will not take credit for doing the whole investigation because I had some able assistance from other members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We laid charges of misappropriation of that money which was held in trust, the big guarantee, the guarantee that is referred to in the agreement, the money in trust. Many thousands of dollars were taken contrary to the trust agreement. We ended up in a court case that went on for some time and that chief was convicted of stealing the moneys held in trust.

I hear members talk in the House about the Reform Party making up stories about possible problems. I am telling the House and all members that the problems are real. The white consultant still had some assets which we were able to seize under proceeds of crime legislation and ultimately have forfeited to the crown. He passed away before the case went to court so I will not mention his name.

Just as we have seen in many thousands of cases across the country, when people receive something in trust such as moneys or other goods like lands or whatever it cannot be automatically assumed that with the fiduciary responsibility, the trust responsibility, they will handle the moneys in a manner according to the trust conditions, in this case for the native peoples of that reserve. I have told members how the trust agreement did not protect the moneys of the Nelson House band.

Over the years I went through RCMP investigations, many times with aboriginal reserve complaints from people who felt that moneys were being mismanaged. There was no way, due to a number of different factors, of ever laying charges or having a solution through the criminal courts. We laid charges in this one case, the Nelson House case, with regard to northern flood agreement moneys.

I ended up retiring from the RCMP and in politics which is why I am standing here today. Once again I have a responsibility to the people of Manitoba and my constituency to speak out on behalf of constituents in my riding. Many people on reserves in my riding have come to me and said there was an accountability problem on their reserves. Not only did they have a lot of problems with social conditions and lack of housing. They could not find out where in the heck the money coming into the reserve was going. They saw some people doing very well on the reserve, primarily at the elected level, but they needed answers. They needed to find out what was going on.

When members opposite and the community at large in Canada see reports in the paper of Reform speaking out about these issues, we are speaking out on behalf of people who do not have a voice to speak out on their own. These are the non-elected people. Many of them are women and young people who are not in the aboriginal electoral process. They are not elected officials and are not in non-aboriginal government offices. That is why my colleagues and I speak out so strongly on this matter.

Accountability should be included in these agreements. Actually it should be included for aboriginal governments at the band level because each of the bands is separate. Certain things make for accountability in government. One of the biggest accountability factors is money, and I will start with that one.

The member from Winnipeg Centre certainly tried to indicate that we were trying to scare people and to paint people with a broad brush. I hope what I have said today shows how untrue that is. I would certainly be pleased to answer questions after my speech.

I have been advocating a couple of cornerstone democratic principles since the accountability meetings were held. I will list them before finishing speaking so that they remain in everyone's mind.

On October 31 the aboriginal people of Manitoba, not the Reform Party, organized a big meeting in Winnipeg at the Airliner Inn. Before that meeting took place I stood in the House and told all members about it. It is in Hansard . I told them October 31 was the date of the meeting and that all were invited. It was organized and run by the aboriginal people.

One outside politician came. It was not the member for Provencher. It was not the member for Saint Boniface. It was not the member from Winnipeg Centre. It was the Indian affairs minister David Newman from the province of Manitoba government. He attended the meeting and spoke for at least half an hour about all the serious issues dealing with financial funds and problems with aboriginal leadership and what could be done about it.

From all these meetings I have four basic cornerstones of democracy that would help provide accountability for the chiefs and councils. The first one is absolute, independent, fair election laws to ensure that elections of the chiefs are fair and true.

The second is an independent auditor general. That is the one that would provide for accountability of the financial funds. There is no reason the leadership of the aboriginal people in Canada and the federal government could not already have set up some kind of independent auditor general to take care of moneys that are for the benefit of aboriginals on our reserves.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could comment for the next half hour on the things the hon. member for the NDP brought up.

First off, democratic rights for every Canadian is not nitpicking. That is a fundamental each of us living in this country deserves. Without democratic rights, who is not liable to be locked up arbitrarily or have laws applied to them that are inconsistent even with human rights.

With regard to women, children and the poor, approximately 18,000 aboriginal people live in my constituency. Looking back over the past five to 10 years, I have seen no member of parliament stand up and do anything for the aboriginal women and children in our community. They tried through the official methods, but no one listened to them. They tried the RCMP. They tried Indian affairs. They tried individual members of parliament. They tried all these official methods of addressing their problems and got nowhere.

I am so proud to have held the accountability coalition meetings in Manitoba. The last one was on October 31. I announced in the House beforehand that it was open to everyone. Who did I see at my meeting? I saw a member from the Manitoba legislature. One of the Progressive Conservative members saw fit to come and contribute to the meeting. I saw no other elected members of parliament or members of the provincial legislature, other than a couple of Reform members.

I will let the House and the Canadian people judge who stands up for women and children in our communities. By ensuring democratic rights and bringing to the fore the complaints of these people, it is the Reform Party that is standing up the most for the disadvantaged people and natives in particular. That is my answer very simply to nitpicking and women's rights and problems in our country.

How many countries do we have in Canada? Do we have one country? Do we have two? I believe that there are in the neighbourhood of 600 aboriginal reserves with land rights in Canada. Are members on both sides of the House, and NDP members in particular suggesting that we should have 601 countries? Are we headed to 601 countries making agreements with each other or making agreements with foreign nations?

These basic principles have to be clarified to the Canadian public. We are being left in a big mishmash as we move forward toward self-government.

The term self-government could be applied to the provincial government in Manitoba in that it has rights and responsibilities. In this process of self-government for aboriginals we have to do two things. We certainly have to clarify that basic democratic cornerstones apply to absolutely every aboriginal person. We also have to clarify just where the process is going to end up. If it is to negotiate out 601 countries, why not divide it up even more until we are not a country at all?

I have spent a lot of my lifetime working in the public service and working for Canada. I have done that because I believe this is a great country. It can stand improvement in areas, certainly in the financial and spending areas. But those areas do not touch on the very basic right of every Canadian to have the democratic principles available to them in dealing with their elected officials.

Democracy is the only thing that protects us. It protects us from the possibility of a dictatorship, the possibility of abuse by elected officials toward the people. It may never be perfect but that does not mean we cannot go forward and make things as good as they can be.

I mentioned the letter from the B.C. native women. I am sure that certainly applies across the prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. Their complaints reflect exactly what I am saying. They are saying they do not feel secure. They do not feel that self-government is going to protect them. They have stated in the letter exactly why that is the case. I will pass the letter to another member in my party who will be able to bring that out and show the exact words of these people and what their concern is.

It should be clear to this House that the Reform Party is not saying that Bill C-49 is a total disaster. We are saying it is not addressing the basic concerns these people have in regard to democracy. Until we have that in place, we should not proceed in making it tougher and causing more litigation between the parties that we are trying to get to live together in a unified Canada.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the last cornerstone I would speak about would be an ombudsman to assist people who are unable to deal with their elected officials due to a possible lack of education, a disability, or mental lack of capacity to understand exactly what is governing their lives.

Opposition to self-government within the native community is a fact of life. There is also widespread concern within the non-native community as it sees child poverty and the terrible living conditions that have resulted in the last 70 to 80 years. They see a gigantic gap between rich and poor. Many aboriginal people say that the rich among them got that way by getting a much larger share of financial resources intended for a much more equitable distribution among the people.

This opposition to self-government includes women's rights. How can it be that aboriginal people do not have the same democratic rights and protections available to the majority of Canadians? The royal commission could have made a big step in clarifying this and making sure all future discussions between the federal government, aboriginal peoples and elected officials include the bottom line that without democratic rights for everyone nothing goes forward.

The Liberal government and the aboriginal leaders who prepared these documents could have eliminated this opposition to self-government by simply stating and ensuring through action that Canadian aboriginals have all the democratic rights enjoyed by the non-native Canadian population.

Bill C-49 will ratify and bring into force the framework agreement on first nations land management. The framework agreement, it is my understanding, was signed by a group of 14 first nations and the federal government. It enables first nations people to opt out of land and property sections of the Indian Act individually and to establish their own land codes to manage reserve land and resources.

I reiterate that I support aboriginals' managing their land. As a land owner in Manitoba I have certain responsibilities and rights to manage the land I own. I accept, though, that the federal government has the final say with regard to how I use that land under some circumstances. For instance, if I am to use my land in a way that harms my neighbours or destroys the environment of my area, obviously we need the government, parliament, to be the final arbiter of what goes on in this country.

Bill C-49 deals with land management. Yet in purpose and function it amounts to the creation of a partial yet substantial form of self-government for the first nations that are signatories to this framework agreement. The framework agreement grants these powers of self-government in two primary ways. Individual first nations will establish a land code which will give them authority to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of first nations lands. It will allow them to control the issue of leases, licences and other interests.

In short, there is no constitutional basis for the creation of this kind of third level of government because under this framework agreement where there is a contradiction, a conflict between whether aboriginal law applies or Canadian law applies, under certain conditions aboriginal law can take precedence. That is one of the big concerns I have.

Clause 37 is particularly questionable. It says in effect that in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this act and any other federal law this act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.

In essence, Bill C-49 would not only give first nations authority to create laws in areas that fall within the jurisdiction of their land codes but it would give them powers which could and probably will supersede federal laws.

Once again I get back to the discussion that were those laws and uses of these lands to be detrimental to their neighbours there has to be one final authority and that final authority has to be the elected officials who represent all Canadians, members of parliament.

Another significant dimension within Bill C-49 is that major sections of the Indian Act will no longer apply. In the absence of these sections and with first nations no longer being subject to either federal or provincial laws in the areas where they have or would have authority to create their own, this bill has the potential to create a serious legal and legislative vacuum.

I hope this was not a clever plan by the legal profession of Canada to create a lot more cases in court. However, it certainly seems it will have that effect.

My greatest concern deals with women and children on reserves. They seem to have the greatest concern over this whole issue of self-government and the laws being passed and the agreements being made. It is a legitimate concern, one that we as parliamentarians must address before this bill is passed.

Parliament has to ensure that those people who are less able to help themselves are fully protected and are able to lead good lives, lives that the majority of Canadians accept as being normal.

The question of divorce laws, property rights and what a spouse who is divorced ends up with is also of paramount importance. At present it is my understanding that provincial and federal laws dealing with divorce on aboriginal reserves have no effect.

Does it not seem right that the fundamental democratic principles I was talking about, which would include property rights, the right of a woman or a man to share the opposite spouse's property in the case of divorce, be in place and part of any agreement that moves forward?

I would like to see an all encompassing application of Canadian law to aboriginal peoples. That is what they are basically demanding and asking for. Some in the community do not particularly want to see those democratic rights proceed with the equivalent rights we have in the rest of Canada. I suspect that close examination would reveal it has more to do with the possibility of self-enrichment than with what is good for aboriginal people.

I refer to a letter sent to an MP from the B.C. Native Women's Society. As members of parliament we often reflect what constituents say from across the country. We interpret and deliver to this House what we believe to be our constituents' concerns. We lay them out in our own words.

Today I bring these aboriginal women's words to the House as part of the official record in a more direct way. I would like to read some portions of this letter because their explanation, this group of aboriginal women, expresses it in ways that no member of parliament can. That is because it comes from the heart. It comes from living under the conditions and laws they find so objectionable.

In the first paragraph the women say: “You must defeat this bill, the first nations land management act”. These women are not speaking for every aboriginal person in the country. But they are speaking for a significant number. I had a meeting in Winnipeg on October 31. I heard the same thing.

As I reflect on Bill C-49 and the whole movement toward self-government, we have to make sure democratic principles are in place and that every Canadian, rich or poor, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, has the rights enjoyed by all Canadians.

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-49 which is important to all Canadians including aboriginal people.

On reflection and on examination of the bill I find I am unable to support the bill in its present form. As it goes through parliament I hope amendments will be brought in that make it more acceptable to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

I certainly support the right of aboriginals to manage their own lands, but we must think about Canada as a country. We must remember that aboriginals are Canadians. We occupy the same lands as defined by our national boundaries.

The good of all Canadians is paramount. The people of Canada need one government that is supreme, one government that is in charge and responsible for the country and for all the people residing in its boundaries. All other levels of government have to be at lower levels to the federal government. All governments and all laws have to be subject to the House.

We have heard and examined the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”. It had a lot of good features to it. It certainly helped move the debate down the road and helped to make Canadians more aware of what was going on. I question how many Canadians have actually read the report and understand it. Many aboriginal people have read it and a pretty significant number of them have some very deep concerns.

I will deal with some of their concerns in my speech today. I think I could sum them up by saying that they deal mostly with accountability and the place poorer children and women in particular will have in a future self-government.

The royal commission report should have stated unequivocally that accountability of elected representatives on our first nations lands had to be in place as self-government moved along. It should have included built-in democratic guarantees to all aboriginal people. A cornerstone of democracy would not be restricted to such things as election laws being equivalent to or better than the Canada Elections Act.

That would seem to be pretty basic to any self-governing democracy. However we find on first nations reserves which come under the Canada Elections Act contained in the Indian Act that elections are not always fair to the people who are participating.

How long will Canada and the aboriginal people in particular go along with the idea of hereditary chiefs? This was brought to my attention many times, over and over again. When there are hereditary chiefs we do not have a democracy.

The cultural aspects of hereditary chiefs are certainly important. They were a fact of life of aboriginal people. I believe that it can be accommodated through some form of governor general, a figurehead for the reserve and its people. True democratic institutions are what are required by aboriginal people. In order for them to have that they need full democracy as we know it today.

In addition to election laws that have to be clearer and fairer for everyone, there should be an independent auditor general. An independent auditor general would be free to criticize the government and government departments he is reporting on. That could have been built into all agreements with our aboriginal people. Without it there is no accountability of elected officials who manage agreements.

The third matter that would be a good cornerstone would be an access to information component. How can people be governed and assess—

[Agriculture, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what we hear from this agriculture minister is all talk and no action.

In the 1993 red book the Liberals promised to reduce input costs to make farming more profitable. Yet the agriculture minister continues to take $138 million out in cost recovery taxes.

Will the agriculture minister finally keep his 1993 promise and quit bleeding our farmers with unfair taxes today?