Roy H. Bailey

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty hard act to follow, but I will do my best.

I agree with the hon. member for Wild Rose. It seems with this bill we are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Some may ask why I have spoken so many times on bills that relate to natives? I speak on anything related to my constituency. Because I have a lot of natives who live in the constituency on reserves, I am profoundly interested in them. I am profoundly interested in what they say to me.

I also have received phone calls from people telling me something very loud and clear and no one can escape it. Get your head out of the sand in the House of Commons. Wake up and see what is out there in the real world.

As the chief said to me the other day, how can we have an extension of a business arrangement with land management when we do not have a government to proceed with those affairs? There are fancy terms like new partnership, but we will not have a new partnership until we have accountability. The government has no business whatsoever in bringing forth bills like this until it establishes the basic ground rules for self-government.

Why is it not doing that? Why do we have no self-government? What is it afraid of? It simply does not want to face reality. Anyone can say we can have partnership, land expansion and all kinds of new businesses, but no one would be happier than Reform to see a business success survive on the reserve survive on new land. We would all love that. But if they do not have the tools to establish that business and govern that business, what do we think will happen? The member for Wild Rose stated it very clearly and saw where the money was going. There is no accountability.

I know Indians are worried about accountability and for the most part it is quite transparent. How can members opposite put out well over $6 billion with no accountability for that money?

If we are to establish a land venture and a business venture, if we are to bring in the people who want to come into line with the new millennium, we cannot expect them to do so until from the grassroots up they know about government and business and until they can walk with their heads high and know they can go to the office any time to get an accurate account of how the money was spent. Until the government wakes up to the fact that it will continue to blow billions of dollars without having accountability, it should not expect a partnership.

I will give an example from the House. Here we have the Bloc that wants to separate from Canada. When it does so, it will negotiate the terms. It is completely backwards. We should be negotiating the terms so intelligent people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada can know what the separation is about. The same thing exists with Bill C-49. We are creating land management. We hope we will create business associated with the land management but we have not provided the people who need it the most with a model for self-government. Shame on this government.

Shame on this government for ever using the term partnership. This is the most important social issue facing Canada today. This issue is so profound that it is growing every day. And what is the government doing about it? Nothing. The minister of Indian affairs says it is because we want a new partnership. I know the Liberal Party wants to condemn me for being anti-native. Do not come to my constituency or talk to my natives and say that. They want self-government and they want the leadership of this government to provide them with that.

[Tobacco Act, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Reform Party will give consent to this particular motion. I want to make it clear that in so doing we are not agreeing with the bill. We are only agreeing with the change in dates. We violently, and I mean violently, oppose this bill.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this group of amendments.

I come from a province where $250,000 is a lot of money and $250,000 in risk capital would do a whole lot for my constituency and for industry at this time.

Let us take a look at the maximum of $250,000 and what it would do for my constituency which grows the world's best durum to produce the world's best pasta. That industry could not get a loan because the government would not allow it. I challenge members opposite the next time they or their spouses go shopping to see if they can find a pasta product in any mall in Canada that is packaged in Canada.

This $250,000 strikes home. I had some producers who wanted to borrow money to produce organic grain. They could not get a loan because the government said that grain could not be handled in that way. It is making quarter of a million dollar loans to people in some areas of Canada, but raw material producers cannot even get a loan for the grain and meat packaging that should be done in my constituency and in western Canada because it violates some government bill.

I want members to think for a moment about where I live. We have the largest inland terminals. We handle more grain in one town than in any other place in Canada. No one is allowed as a private individual to turn that grain into flour, let alone borrow the money from the government to do so. While the ceiling is being raised from $100,000 to $250,000 it is not going to produce raw materials in our province, particularly in grains.

There is hardly a butchering plant left in western Canada. Most of them have closed out. At one time the city of Winnipeg had four plants. The policies of the government removed the ability of wheat and meat producers to sell finished product.

It is against the law for individuals to obtain a loan of $250,000 to build a plant to sell organic flour. As a result, the people in my area of the province are not interested in increasing the ceiling of the loan or in increasing the risk of a business to the tune of $250,000.

Again I challenge members to go to a mall to see if they can find pasta produced and packaged in Canada. We do not do it. We do not allow for that. We ship it to Minneapolis by train load and buy it back, but it must never be produced in Saskatchewan because it is a crime.

At the present time prairie pasta producers have the biggest project going. Would they be able to get a loan? Not on their life. The government would deny them a loan because they are violating some antique policy in the Canadian Wheat Board. The government is telling the people in the west that they are hewers of wood and drawers of water and will stay that way. That is the policy of the government.

The state of North Dakota which borders my constituency is to put up millions of dollars to build a pasta plant near the U.S. border within a few miles of my constituency. Should I come to the House to congratulate the Liberals for moving the loan level up to $250,000 when they deny western Canada the right to produce its raw products and make a sale? I will not support it for the simple reason that most of this money would be denied entrepreneurs in my province.

For that reason and until the government recognizes that we in the west have a right to produce products from our natural resources—and I am talking about grain, flour and the packaging of meat and so on—I cannot support it. When it comes to raising the amount of money that we will be put at risk I will not support it, and the people of Canada should not support it either.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said $100,000 is plenty. If $100,000 will not get a small business going, $250,000 certainly will not either. I will not support it.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, once again I am pleased to present on behalf of my constituents another long list of Canadians who understand that the concept of marriage is only the voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a single, that is unmarried, female. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Division No. 265, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I might say that the vote that we just had is somewhat alarming in that in the last parliament closure was moved 35 times either by time allocation or by closure motions. In this parliament we find that already time allocation has been moved nine times, including the bill we are now debating.

When I talk with people in the community I talk with them in private more often than in public because in private people are more apt to say things which they would not otherwise disclose.

The amendment that we are debating is designed to prevent one family member who is part owner of a small business from taking out a loan if another family member has already done so.

With respect to financing for small business, we only hear of the times when it proves to be successful. What the government never hears about are the disastrous effects of ill-conceived loans. It is my purpose this afternoon to draw this to the attention of the House. I could go from now to midnight talking about what is designed to be a positive thing which turns out in fact to be a negative thing.

I can assure hon. members opposite that it is not very pleasant to sit in the kitchen with people who have run a third generation family business and hear their story about being put out of business because of a government loan to a competitor while they continued to struggle to survive and eventually lost their business.

This is not a rare occurrence. It is very common throughout Saskatchewan. Depending upon whom a person knows at the right time, which could be a politician, they get a loan to build a business in an area when that general trading area cannot support another business.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of instances. There were four eating establishments in a small town. Of those eating establishments, three of the four were family businesses. They had been family businesses since the town virtually began. All of sudden two of those businesses received big government loans, one in excess of $100,000 and one in excess of $125,000. The total pie was divided. There was not sufficient business to support those six eating establishments in that town. Two of the businesses which were struggling went under, while the other two businesses which received the government grants continued. I might add that one of them is now closed. We never hear what happens when government makes small business loans which create competition for a family business or some other business which is struggling to survive.

There is a long list of names. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid out.

There was a small cafe owner who had always paid his local taxes. He was a part of the community and supported every activity in the town. Government money came in, his money in effect, and another business moved in and forced him to dilute his business to the extent that it is no longer a profitable organization. Did that happen once? Not at all.

When we look at the budget and the amount of money that is given to small business we never know how many times it happens. I could take two hours going through all of the business places I know of that have gone out of business because the government, with disregard, put money into an area which could not support another business of that nature. It is a sad story.

I know of as many people who have been desperately hurt and ruined by the Small Business Loans Act as I do of those who have prospered. The government only tells us about those businesses which have prospered. In all fairness, we need to look from coast to coast to see those who have been hurt.

I draw the attention of members to another incident. This was in a fair sized town where there were two bakeries. Again they were both family enterprises. They were both doing well. They both supported their community. They were both engaged in such things as the town council. A person came in who knew the right person at the right time and a loan was floated. That loan was in excessive of $140,000. As a result, that person was able to keep going on government funding until they put a community owned bakery out of business. There was not enough business to support three bakeries.

This motion is designed to stop a current practice. This motion has been put forward to prevent one family member who is part owner of a small business from taking out a loan if another family member has already done so. In other words, at present it is possible for an individual who is a member of a family running a business to get another loan. Even though the first loan was not under his name, he can take out another loan for a different purpose when the business is already operating with a government loan.

What are we doing? We do not have a careful watchdog to monitor who is getting the loans and for what purpose. I am not just talking about the banks which guarantee the loans. In my province we have business development corporations that would be a better source to inform the government under this loan procedure as to what business is most likely to succeed without hurting the businesses already in place.

Where I come from I cannot afford nor do I have the time to sit and listen to those people in my cities, towns and in some cases my villages who have been totally put out of business and have moved simply because government money is going in opposition to them.

The government should reconsider this bill because a person does not deserve to lose his or her business of three generations and be wiped out with government money going in opposition to their business which has probably been in existence over the last 50 or 60 years.

I wish the government would consider this motion which I will be supporting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to such terms as risk capital, investment and all other terms which the people in my constituency are using a great deal these days.

In the last two days and in the week previous to coming back to the House a minimum of 13,000 small businesses located across the beautiful constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain are in deep financial problems. They are not unlike other businesses in Canada. They have a huge capital investment. They also have a huge expenditure each year of operation. They have reached the point in the last year where their annual income is down 70%. The bad news is that the forecast for these 13,000 businesses is that they will be down even further in 1999.

These businesses are sitting with a minimum of $500,000 or more in capital outlay with huge taxes, tremendous taxes which have gone up some 48% in five years. The products they put on the market are literally worth nothing. These primary businesses do not qualify for the same protection as the bill is talking about. They do not qualify under this type of loan. They do not qualify under the loan guarantee. They are simply sitting there suffering and many will close up.

I go to the cities and the towns and talk to small businesses. I ask what they would truly like more than anything else. The other day I went to see the person who runs the Dairy Queen. It is great stuff; there are no calories in it or anything. The owner of the Dairy Queen asked me to send some people who had change in their pockets so they can continue their spending habits. I checked with the manager of another store and asked how were her sales this August compared to last August. That is the month when parents get their kids ready to go back to school. Her response was that it was the worst August since the business was established.

What I am referring to is directly related to the bill. Because these 13,000 small business people are currently going down the tube they will pull down a proportionate number of other small business people in towns and cities with them.

I am referring to our primary industry in Saskatchewan. It is a high investment. They vary in age. Many of them, 70% in some areas, have to work for other businesses to support their businesses. I conducted a research of three separate RMs and the lowest was 50%.

We can talk about business loans, business ventures and everything else, but if the government does not take a look at how it will support Canada's number one industry which is going down the tube it is useless to have the bill before us.

I beg the government to take another look at the situation faced by these 13,000 farmers in my constituency, many of whom will not be farming next spring without some assistance. Other businesses will go as well. They get no guarantees. They cannot draw upon money which is theirs. They cannot take advantage of similar government programs. I learned that under NISA they cannot even draw from their own accounts if they are working off the farm.

I spent three weeks trying to pacify young people of 40 years of age who are walking away and leaving what was left by their ancestors, leaving what was their dream. While the government is taking a look at the bill I beg it to remember the 13,000 small family businesses in my constituency. The bill may assist businesses but it will be an absolute failure unless it takes them into account.

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

Tax, tax, tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is somewhat different from other bills that have gone forward in relation to Indian treaty land claims.

It is a huge area of land to be transferred. It is something like 1,100,629 hectares and covers much of the northern part of Manitoba. Although we are talking about one specific band right now, it will include more with the total land claim.

The $76 million being provided is not a large amount, but I would agree with the hon. member on the government side who just mentioned speed. We in the Reform Party would like to see that an additional amount of land could be added to the particular reserve with speed so that some of the items outlined in the bill could be accomplished in a hurry. With that in mind, I think we will find support from the official opposition.

We agree that there are historical obligations. There is no question about that. Across Canada most people agree fundamentally that we should honour those treaties and it is time we got at it. We in the Reform Party are no different. We agree with that as well. We have these historical obligations. As the hon. member mentioned, this land will be added as quickly as possible to the reserve status.

The term self-reliance is a very important one. It is up to the government and all Canadians to see that self-reliance in fact takes place. However we do have some questions. I have some questions in particular within my own constituency. I would like the term self-government to mean the same thing for the settlement of a land treaty in Saskatchewan or one in northern Manitoba.

I am concerned that in this negotiation, the acquisition of land and the establishment of new reserves we could have different types of government for first nations. At the same time we would then have a quasi-judicial group of people not falling under the same piece of legislation.

It is incumbent upon the government to give us some idea and to give Canadians some idea of what the new partnership it talks of is about. I believe they are being sincere about that. I believe they are talking about a new partnership, a new way or a new understanding. To me partnership means a new understanding as well.

What puzzles me with land treaty agreements is that no one seems to be able to identify what is meant by self-government, as the hon. member mentioned. Is it right from reading the bill that self-government is up for negotiation by each of the land claims? As a new reserve is established or land is added to a reserve in my constituency, in moving toward self-government is it a negotiating matter, much like when they are given money to buy new land, which land is acquired through an agreement of the seller? Nobody quarrels with that, but as the land moves over into the reserve and falls away from the tax base, is there any compensation for the loss of another type of self-government, the municipal government?

We do not seem to have anything carved in stone or concrete about what we mean by the term self-government. I support the bill wholeheartedly. It was a long time coming. I believe it was started in 1977 and here we are 21 years later. That is nothing anyone can be proud of.

To be quite open with the government opposite, it is incumbent that the rest of Canada knows or has some idea in the settlement of treaty lands what is being negotiated. I have five reserves in my constituency and I know these people. I have 43 rural municipalities. They are all subject to one set of rural municipal law and regulations. I cannot imagine in rural Saskatchewan the government functioning without an act, some guidelines or some frames of reference. It just would not work. I think the hon. gentlemen opposite understand that.

If we are to have a new partnership then that partnership is between the new governments and the rest of Canada: other municipal governments, the provincial governments and with the federal government. Until that is clearly spelled out that partnership is an unknown quantity. This concerns Canadians.

I mentioned the other day that I first worked among the Nisga'a people the second year of teaching school. I was there with my wife. It was a great time. They were great people. I made a return visit there. I talked to the people I hunted moose with and the fellow who cut my hair. I had more hair then; I needed a barber. I asked them at that time what they wanted from self-government. They were not quite sure in this partnership. For instance, one chap was very interested in an economic venture.

If my hon. colleague opposite who just spoke to the bill and I were going into a business agreement, we would have to follow the business agreement criteria set out in the province in which we were working. I think he understands that. If we were to be in negotiation with the local RM, we would have to appear before that RM.

I understand that for people wishing to come on to reserve status land and wishing to enter an agreement need some government. There also needs to be rules in which they can operate and in which the other people coming in can operate. We could have all kinds of different agreements and arrangements without a clear definition of the statutory laws that must be in place. It would not be healthy for any first nation not to have some consistency.

In talking to these people I find that this is exactly what they want. They want to break from their traditional past. They want self-government but they want it from the grassroots up like in the recent municipal elections in Saskatchewan where so many are elected each year and follow the guidelines within the municipal act. We understand that.

I agree with the use and control of their lands as they see fit. We agree with that. We agree that a municipality, a city or a town can pass bylaws in control of their land. There will not be any opposition or quarrelling in that regard, but there will be strict management rules as was mentioned in a statement of another hon. colleague. Once that applies and if I live in the RM of 40 in southern Saskatchewan I must follow certain management rules of that RM. Therefore, if I move into another RM, for example No. 72, the same set of rules apply. Then there would be continuity. In this partnership we have an understanding not only among natives but among other citizens in Canada.

I like the term the hon. member used respecting accountability and safeguards being in place. In order to have accountability and safeguards in place we must move immediately to establish the groundwork of self-government.

We must have accountability. They are crying out for accountability. All Canadians are crying out for accountability, yet more and more we are moving away from accountability. The further government gets from people, the less accountability there seems to be.

While I agree with the bill and while I will be supporting it I do not support the continuance of further legislation unless the House has some idea of a bill or of anything else that may be used to describe the situation so all Canadians will know what we are negotiating. Are we negotiating self-government with each individual parcel? Does self-government mean the same with the Nisga'a as it does with the Norway House Cree? These are questions Canadians are asking. Can the hon. gentleman opposite answer those questions or does each individual Cree nation become a separate identity in itself where the laws and regulations regarding the people will not be governed by some other source?

It seems we are going down a trail in terms of future development, which may include mineral development or whatever, where there will be all kinds of lawsuits open to ourselves and all kinds of lawsuits open to the first nations unless we put together some kind of package. They cannot be sovereign unto themselves. That is not what Canadians understand. Canadians understand that the Government of Saskatchewan is not sovereign unto itself. They understand that its capital city of Regina is not sovereign and that it must fall under provincial jurisdiction.

There is a big vacuum out there, a big void in which we have no other answers. I wish we could have some. The hon. member just spoke very well on Bill C-56 and I wish we could discuss these issues. They are very important issues not just for the development of the new land treaties but important for the rest of us in Canada to know where we are going. It is incumbent on us that we do not proceed within a huge vacuum of misunderstanding concerning the meaning of self-government.

Reform will be supporting the bill and we are pleased to support it but we also raise the question being raised from coast to coast to coast of why we do not get down and finalize what accountability and partnership mean. Accountability and partnership mean nothing until we define what we mean by self-government.

[Petitions, November 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once more to present a petition from my constituency, and there are many more to come.

These petitioners understand the concept of marriage as only being the voluntary union of a single, that is, unmarried male and a single, that is, unmarried female.

It is with pride that I present this petition to the House.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.

In looking at this bill in detail members will find that this bill is full of ambiguities. Much of the bill is not clearly stated. Where the responsibility crosses over to the provinces is not spelled out. There are many things on which this bill needs some genuine bookkeeping and homework done.

This bill changes the previous concept in Canada as to what is a park. Traditionally a park was an area relatively free for public travel. A park was established in some cases for heritage purposes. This adds to the meaning of the word park. It becomes a marine park and it is being added to the concept of a national park.

My colleague has mentioned some of the areas where all of the power vested here is given to the minister in charge. In other words we can have something take place within and under the act. Changes can be made without having to steer them through parliament. More and more often bills come before us which give the minister the power to make huge changes to an act without having to come back to parliament which has to discuss the act in the first place but then gives the authority to make substantial changes. We do not believe in that. We believe that if there is a substantial change being made to any act, this is the body that should make the changes, the elected people, and not the committee.

This is a classic example of the government sidestepping the usual legislative process. When that is done, the government gets into a dictatorial way of operating the nation's business.

Government wants the expansion of a new marine conservation area or a reserve to belong to a standing committee. It would not come back to the House; it would belong to a standing committee. The majority of the members on a standing committee are from the government side. As a result, we can almost rest assured that the standing committee is going to pass what the minister directs or asks for. That is a dangerous precedent in the bill.

It also very rapidly shrinks the amount of land that can be used for exploration, as my colleague has mentioned. As a matter of fact it could possibly contain the entire coastline of a country that has more coastline than most. This could all take place at the minister's discretion.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill would require not just the federal crown to obey it, but it would also insist with respect to the provincial waters and resources off the provincial shores that the provinces would not have a say in what becomes a new marine park or the waters thereof. We see all kinds of difficulties in this when the provinces are not consulted.

There is another item in the bill which is terribly dangerous. It violates all the Canadian principles I have ever read. Those appointed to enforce the act would be designated as peace officers as defined by the Criminal Code. These enforcement officers would be authorized to enter and pass through any private property in discharge of their duties. As I read that, it is without a warrant. They have that right.

Also anyone who contravenes the law could be fined $100,000, or if found guilty of an indictable offence, be fined up to half a million dollars.

There seems to be something missing in the bill. While we want the act to have teeth and importance, the due process of law is not mentioned in the bill.

As my colleague said, we agree to the polluter pay principle. There is no question about that. We would strongly support the bill in that regard. However, the bill violates the principle of the democratic process so much. We cannot support acts which lay the real power of the act in the minister's hands.

Further, the rightful place and supreme body for creating and interpreting the laws of Canada is this House. It does not belong to a minister by order in council, nor does it belong to a parliamentary standing committee. I do not understand why members opposite, with almost every bill that comes up, continually want to violate these principles.

This really is not a park bill but is an environmental bill. We believe in sustainability, development and management for the environment to preserve both biodiversity and conserve the environment for the present and the future. This bill expands the domain of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. As such, we have real difficulty with the bill.

We have difficulty with this bill because it gives powers to committees, gives powers to orders in council, gives powers to the minister which rightly belong to the legislative body here.

The bill requires, as I said, the provincial governments to fall in line. It also requires that natives under their land claims also fall in line without any consultation, if the government so wishes.

Note that the enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission.

All of those things are within a bill which the government is asking us to pass. It violates the rule of law. It violates the longstanding principles of justice. It violates the authority of the House as the legislature.

For those reasons we cannot support the bill even though it has many admirable parts to it. Canadians need most of the bill but we do not need to go down the road to dictatorship in implementation of the bill in its present form.