Julian Reed

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, having spent 10 years in opposition in the province of Ontario I understand full well the temptation to speculate on what will be contained in something.

I should point out to the House that at this stage the negotiators are still negotiating what they are going to negotiate.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the NDP for the question. This is my first opportunity to reply.

Canada has learned the lesson over the last 10 years that doing business without agreements and without a level playing field can be a very turbulent thing indeed. Hence, the attempt is being made to create the MAI.

[Excise Tax Act, March 20th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out one small matter and ask my friend a question as well.

The debate over burying the tax in the shelf price or not is by no means unanimous. In the riding I serve a large number of retailers have begged us to proceed with harmonization. They actually want the tax buried in the sticker price and shown on the cash register receipt. The member should be aware that this is not unanimous.

If a harmonized sales tax is such a bad deal, why are chambers of commerce coming to me asking why it is not in Ontario, when it is coming and who is holding it up? I have to explain to them the offer is open to Ontario to harmonize at any time. The provincial governments held harmonization in great favour before the were elected have since reversed themselves and are not proceeding with the harmonization the business community really wants.

If the business community wants it, why is it such a bad deal?

[Renewable Fuels, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and its members are gathering in Ottawa today to discuss the environmental and health benefits of ethanol fuels. Ethanol and other renewable fuels can greatly reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions, the leading source of air pollution and related health problems. The use of ethanol in our vehicles will reduce ground level ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter in the air we breathe.

A healthy and vibrant ethanol fuel industry in Canada will provide the following benefits: clean air, reduced health care costs, a domestic and renewable fuel supply and a stable domestic market for Canadian grains.

It is time for all Canadians, both rural and urban, to adopt the vision of cleaner air through renewable fuels like ethanol. It benefits all of us.

[Supply, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, I point out to my hon. friend across the way in terms of members' pensions that 400 of the 600 living ex-members of the House get no pension whatsoever.

Second, I have a young constituent who was permanently disabled at the age of about 31. If it was not for the CPP disability clause he would have nothing. He has no family. He has no other means of support.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

The social conscience of the Reform Party.

[Indian Act Optional Modification Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up the progress of the House.

In conclusion, the minister has carried this vision along this journey and these amendments which are very important will go to committee, will be discussed and if necessary will be amended. We hope that the minister's dream will be realized.

[Indian Act Optional Modification Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is an ancient Oriental proverb that most of us know by heart: the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Three and a half years ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took the first step, the second step and the third step and moved into an area that had not been tackled with a view to making great progress, as he has in the last three and a half years. The minister must be commended for his vision, determination, hard work and the level of consultation that he has had over these years with every Indian band in Canada.

It is a privilege for me to speak to the motion on Bill C-79, which is designed to refer the bill to committee for further input, consultation and possibly for further amendment. The bill addresses concerns too long ignored and inefficiencies too long endured. It presents First Nations with an option. If they want they can remove themselves from certain parts of the Indian Act or they can choose to continue under its provisions.

The design of the bill is to reduce the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and put more authority for the day to day management of their affairs into the hands of the First Nations.

Some have suggested that the government has not adequately consulted before introducing this legislation. Those people would like to see more delay, more paper shuffling, more hand wringing, with a view to living with the status quo. That may be good enough for some members, but it is not good enough for the First Nations. It is not good enough for the minister. It is not good enough for the government.

The truth is that the Government of Canada has been trying to improve the Indian Act not just for one year, two years or three years. It has been trying to fix it for 50 years. Minor tinkering began almost immediately after the Indian Act was passed in 1876. Since then there have been a number of attempts to make the act more relevant, more just and more responsive.

The first major series of amendments came in 1951, following a report by a joint committee of the House and the Senate. These amendments were far reaching, but they still did not change the fundamentally paternalistic nature of the original act. While the minister's powers were reduced, they still remained extensive and intrusive.

Efforts were made again in 1960 with a commentary on the Indian Act prepared for a joint committee. This report was not taken up and the act remained unchanged.

In 1969 extensive consultations took place examining the whole relationship between the government and the First Nations. In their submission the United Interior Tribes of British Columbia said something which everyone then and everyone now knows to be true. "The Indian Act is definitely not the answer to the problems of the Indians of today". That was in 1969. Just as the Indian Act was failing First Nations then, it continues to do so today.

The Indian Act was revisited in 1970 when the Alberta chiefs released their citizens plus report. That report recommended amending but not abolishing the Indian Act. No amendments were made and the status quo continued.

In 1982 the House established a parliamentary task force on Indian self-government. This task force included, as ex officio or liaison members, representatives from the National Aboriginal Association as well as the Native Women's Association. It tabled its report, commonly known as the Penner report, in November 1983.

If implemented, that report would have fundamentally altered the relationship between First Nations and the federal government. The Indian Act would have become largely irrelevant, but again there were few results to show for the effort and the Indian Act remained in place.

Further consultations were held with chiefs across the country and the government did produce legislation in 1984. Unfortunately First Nations opposed that bill and the legislation died after second reading.

The government of the day introduced another bill, C-31, the very next year. That legislation dealt with several specific provisions of the Indian Act which discriminated on the basis of gender and made the application of the act much more equitable. That legislation passed but the underlying problems of the act remained unchanged.

In 1986, the auditor general conducted the first comprehensive audit of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That report focused on lands, revenues and trusts, areas governed by the Indian Act. As a result of the auditor general's report, the department undertook an extensive review of these areas, culminating in the government's introduction of Bill C-115. The amendments proposed by that bill grew out of recommendations by the Kamloops band in British Columbia.

These recommendations had been studied by the government and band councils and were then referred to all chiefs, provinces and MPs for comment. From April to December 1986, further consultations were held with bands, organizations, provinces and federal officials. These amendments, known as the Kamloops amendments, were finally passed into law in 1988.

It was also in 1988 that Bill C-122 was introduced. This legislation was aimed at a very narrow issue with respect to the Indian Act emerging from a report of the standing joint committee on regulations. That bill did not proceed beyond first reading.

Further modifications were made to the Indian Act in 1988 through Bill C-123, which dealt with the provision of support for minors and Bill C-150 which cleared up a technical error which was discovered in 1985 Indian Act.

We come to the present time. I have gone into some detail with respect to the past efforts to alter the Indian Act because it is important to put the Indian Act optional modification into perspective. The legislation before the House has its genesis in many years of frustration, many years of study. Government after government has revisited this issue. Government after government has consulted, debated, reviewed and considered. The Indian Act has become one of the most studied pieces of legislation in our history. However, all of that study has produced few results.

We find ourselves in 1997 with an act that has remained largely unchanged since 1951. We find ourselves with an act that First Nations understandably find demeaning. We find ourselves with an act that treats First Nations as wards of the state and which gives the minister authority to intervene and intrude in the lives of First Nations' communities.

The time has come to provide an alternative, to begin to step away from the paternalism of the Indian Act. Before introducing this legislation we conducted our own consultations with First Nations and I will briefly review that process.

The minister first raised the idea at the Alberta chiefs summit in March 1995. The next month he wrote to every chief, councillor and leader of First Nations organizations asking for their views and suggestions about changing the act, the one step at a time along that journey as described in the Chinese proverb.

Based on numerous discussions with First Nations and the input he received, in September 1995 a package of proposed-

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Yes, they are and the hon. member knows it if he watches the grain prices. The temptation and the desire is always there to want to escape from the wheat board and deal independently. When prices are low then that opinion shifts and some of those grain growers then want the protection of the wheat board again.

They want a dual system where grain can be marketed independently or not. How in the world is the wheat board going to survive in that situation? In a year of higher prices there will be a shift

away from the wheat board and all of those employees and all of that wonderful infrastructure that is set up to market wheat sits idle. Then in a year when prices go down there will be a run back to the wheat board again and all of sudden it has to get back in gear.

It is totally unacceptable to operate in that way in international markets. Either we go all the way in marketing grain outside of the wheat board or we keep the wheat board. Let me tell the hon. member that as long as there is a majority of farmers in Canada who want the wheat board maintained then the wheat board will be maintained. If there was a great movement away from the wheat board, if the majority of farmers did not want the wheat board, the government would not be forcing it down their throats.

My hon. friends will have all sorts of time to debate this at the agriculture committee. They will be able to go there whether they are members of not and sit down and express their concerns. They will be listened to. I happen to sit on that committee and I will make sure that they are listened to.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

On the railroads. I notice his leader made that statement in the press. I suspect the next move his leader will make is to call for the railroads to be taken over again by the government so those charges can be absorbed out of the public treasury. Is that what the hon. member wants?

One of the wonderful things about the wheat board and the service that it provides to grain growers is that it allows them in times of difficulty to level out those costs. Right now when grain prices are relatively higher than they have been in a number of years-