Roy H. Bailey

[Tobacco Act, November 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill. When I spoke earlier to this bill, I iterated that it was a terrible bill. The government had no start-up date at that time. This motion gives some teeth to the bill.

I commend the member from Winnipeg North Centre. She has done a lot of work on this bill and the members opposite, after what they have heard about this bill and after what they know about the tobacco industry and the statistics related to tobacco from a health point of view, should rally the troops there, backbenchers and all, and support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

The question of addiction does not apply only to the users of tobacco. This government and previous governments have been addicted. How are they addicted? They want their hands on the huge amount of money they can take in from the product and they want to spend very little in educating our youth, a small percentage. Governments all over have become addicted. They are addicted to gambling. They are addicted to alcohol.

In my recent return home it was sad to note that the rehab centre in my constituency has been closed down. For what reason? Money. The region could not afford it.

Looking very closely at what the hon. member has done in putting forth this amendment, we know what the amendment is all about. The tobacco industry must advertise. Why does anyone advertise? Does General Motors advertise to support the advertising industry? Nonsense. It advertises to sell more cars. Why do tobacco companies advertise? To sell more of their products. To whom are they advertising now? What is their target area? Their target area is youth.

It is absolute nonsense that we would have to phase in the advertising over a period of five years when we do not know the start-up date. At that time we would be well into the next millennium and hundreds of thousands more teenagers would be addicted. Yet we find the government reluctant to give up the addiction it has to taxes. Of course another addiction which I mentioned earlier was the huge grants the government gets during election time from the tobacco companies.

I ask the question as it relates to this amendment, would members honestly not rise in this House to support the amendment by the member for Winnipeg North Centre? This is a good amendment. Thousands of young people would be saved from the advertising and hopefully from becoming addicted. Is it not worth it? That has to be worth more to Canadians from all parties than the money the government gets. It has to be worth more to the lives of our teenagers who become addicted. It is a question of putting something first. To have the legislation open ended as it originally was planned is simply not good enough. Out west where we do a lot of curling, at one time they went to the Brier. The big curling event was called the Brier. Who was the Brier? The MacDonald Tobacco Company. People were going to the Brier. Some still use that term. Then curling associations across Canada said “No, this is a healthy lifestyle. We are not going to have the tobacco industry involved”. Is curling going downhill? No. It is on its way up. Interest is going up. Did it take five years to phase in? Absolutely not.

If the government is really concerned about this country's youth, if it is really concerned about the number of people who die each year because of this addiction, government members will support this amendment, as I am sure every opposition member will. Government members should go back to their people and say that this is a good amendment. The opposition knows what it wants. The government should let its members have a free vote on this. If it is a free vote, the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will carry.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I assure the hon. member for Churchill that the people I have talked to, not only those within my constituency, want control over their lands. No one disputes that. They want control over the development of business. No one disputes that. Even with the RMs that are losing portions of their land to the Indians to enlarge their reserves there is no quarrel.

I live in Canada. My residence is in the town of Bengough, Saskatchewan. That government is subject to a higher government, the provincial government.

If the people who form the Indian nations do not want to use the term municipality, that is fine, but they will still have to be subject to some other form of government in the rule of law scenario. We can give them provisions to pass bylaws to certain laws that apply to their own people. We are not arguing that, but there are some fundamental Canadian laws that have to be applied whether people are living in Nanaimo or Halifax. They have to be the same.

I would respond to the hon. member's question by saying that we accept that form of government, but we do not accept their having powers that are above those of the federal government or equal to those of the federal government in jurisprudence. That is not rule of law and Canadians would not accept that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take the message back. If self-government means a form of municipal government such as my town's government or the governments of the smaller cities in my constituency that are subject to provincial and federal legislation, I am all for it. I can speak on behalf of all of my constituents who are also for that. If any other meaning were to be applied to the term to create sovereignty, I would be opposed to it.

I will go out with that message. I will make a press release tomorrow if he can assure me that is the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is what I hear from my friends in Saskatchewan, and not just within my constituency. If we are to get to the bottom line I will repeat what they are saying. They want the same rights as members of parliament. They want to know where their tax dollar is going, how their government is spending their money. They want audited financial statements. They want budgets. They want everything we have always enjoyed.

If we are not prepared to give them the same benefits we have had and have nourished for well over 500 years, I am afraid the term self-government is somewhat meaningless. I thank the hon. member and encourage members to take a look at the basic principles so all people in Canada can enjoy the benefits of open and transparent democracy. That is what we must have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. That is exactly what I am talking about. It is not just to inform the House, it is to inform the entire nation of Canada.

Clearly we should not rely only on constitutional interpretation. We have to be in touch with all Canadians because it will indeed affect not just those people to whom some type of government is granted, it will also affect the rest of the people living in Canada.

There are six Indian groups, six reserves, in my constituency. I want to be as honest and fair with them as I possibly can. But at the same time I have to be honest and fair with the rest of my constituents.

I look forward to committee stage, but I can tell the hon. member that I have great fears about the constitutionality of this if what I read in the royal commission report will in fact establish sovereign states. Approximately 150 to 300 little islands would be created within Canada, which simply could not survive under the totality of rule of law in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have delivered a speech in three different segments. I can assure the House that the best part will be the last five minutes.

There are some fundamental questions in relation to this bill, and the bills that no doubt will be coming down the line, that Canadians, all Canadians, wherever they live, deserve answers for from the government.

We have before us, delivered to us about two years ago, the largest, most costly royal commission report ever presented to the House. It totalled some $58 million. It deals specifically with what we are discussing today.

Canadians want to know if we have changed the meaning of rule of law. Canadians need to have a debate on that issue. That debate should take place in the House by their elected representatives.

From time to time we hear the term self-government. If we ask a municipal official, he will tell us what self-government means. If we ask a town, a village or a city official, they will tell us. However, there are 30 million or more Canadians out there who simply do not have an explanation of what the term self-government means as we are using it in the context of this House. It is incumbent upon members of parliament, it is incumbent upon government members, to say that we need to have a debate in the House so that all Canadians, not just our native friends, but all Canadians understand what we mean by self-government. I have asked at least seven different sources and I have never received a definitive answer.

I wonder if any members opposite could provide this House with a definitive answer today as to what is meant by self-government as it relates to the royal commission report which we have before us. I owe that to my constituents. Members from Manitoba owe it to their constituents. Everybody needs to know.

We have introduced a bill. There is a vote being held today in northern B.C. Obviously there are going to be more. I am facing five or six land claims in Saskatchewan and nobody can tell us what the government means by self-government. We have to know before we can intelligently pass more legislation, or even this legislation.

The bill before us does not answer the questions of the grassroots people. It does not give them the authority from the bottom up. It does not give them the right to control. It is not a democratic process. For that reason, and for the reasons of people across Canada, I cannot vote for the bill. Nor can I continue to have the term self-government being used in all of its various contexts in the House without having a clear cut definition.

It is incumbent upon the government to be honest with the House and with people across Canada and tell us what is meant by self-government as it applies to the treaties or any other legislation that comes before the House. If that cannot be done, the government should not expect Canadians to support its actions.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday, November 11, Canadians will pause to honour the men and women who fought so bravely to defend Canada and thus preserve our democratic heritage.

I call on all Canadians to remember the sacrifices of our Canadian native soldiers who fought shoulder to shoulder with other soldiers from coast to coast.

Following the war our native Canadian soldiers were denied the recognition and many benefits paid to other veterans. This is a sad and shameful chapter in our military history.

Time is running out. I call upon this government to immediately deal with this national injustice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my delivery from yesterday. I was discussing some of the many injustices that have taken place in the past. I will deal specifically with the land claims agreement in Saskatchewan and how it continues to fail daily in terms of the obligation of this government. It drives the wedge, a feeling of inequality, between rural Saskatchewan and this government. I am talking about a debt owed by this government to the rural areas of Saskatchewan.

Let us go back 10 years.

A promise was made to the rural governments of Saskatchewan that when the natives would acquire Indian land, the RMs would be paid 22.5 times the assessment for the land taken out of the assessment role.

In other words, the deal was that they would get 22.5 years of taxes in lieu of services they provided. When this government came into power, it changed this so that the rural municipalities of Saskatchewan get a mere 5 years taxes.

That is an injustice. The debt owed to the RMs is owed by the government and the people of Canada. It is a national debt.

How does the government think that 200 or 300 people left in a rural municipality can pick up the entire debt of losing 20% of the assessment of their land forever? It has gone into reserve. The RMs are not quarrelling about the acquisition of land. The quarrel is with this government.

What happens to the remaining farmers in that area? They have to have their taxes raised considerably in order to provide the same services.

The previous minister of Indian affairs flatly refused to meet with the delegation from Saskatchewan. I throw this question out to the minister of Indian affairs now. Would that hon. member now, in her new position, not meet a delegation from Saskatchewan hoping to correct the unfair decision the government has made? That is key to the survival of rural Saskatchewan.

When I want to have an understanding how my rural municipality is doing, I have the right to go down to the office, ask for a financial statement and it would provide that for me.

Since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede, we have progressed in the democratic way so that we have a type of government, both at the municipal level right to the federal level, in which Canadians are demanding they have accountability.

As we deal with the bill, why are we denying the right of fellow Canadians, grassroots people who live on our native reserves, the same type of accountability we have?

Would any one of us here want to turn back the hands of time to an autocratic way of government? Would we want to go back to even before this century where we did not have the necessities laid out and spelled out of how we have to handle people's money?

I was 20 years on local government. What did we have to do? We had to prepare a financial budget. When that was completed and sent to a superior government, which is the province, we then every year had to have an annual financial statement done by a registered auditor. That had to be returned.

Why are we trying to operate any differently in all of Canada from the privileges that members of this House enjoy as citizens? That is the big question. That is the question the bill does not address.

If a group of us want to go into business, there are guidelines in legislation, both federal and provincial, which require certain things to take place. There are certain checks and balances.

Why would we not, as the senior government, the Government of Canada, ask for the same procedures in business and accountability no matter where people live in Canada? That is the question. We would not want to turn back the hands of time. I would not want to live in a town where I could not get information as to how my tax dollars are being spent. I would not want to live in a municipality where the reeve and the councillors made sure they did not have to report to the people. Why are we accepting this? That is the big question facing Canadians.

In Saskatchewan our local government did not have the right to pass legislation which belonged to the province, just as the province cannot contravene legislation that belongs to the federal government. This is a problem facing all Canadians at this time. When we say natives in Canada are to have a type of municipal government, that simply is not true in the light of how we define municipal government in Canada.

Let us be honest with Canadians. That is not true. With any group of people given sovereign powers within a province, if that is the intent of this legislation, we are creating something which our grandchildren will have to deal with as we will have sovereign areas in an area where sovereignty does not belong. How will we handle this? What are we doing with the series of legislation bills which will be forthcoming?

The people in northern B.C. today are voting on a referendum as it relates to the Nisga'a treaty. I am very much at home there. My wife and I spent our first year of married life in a village with the Nisga'a people. We were both teachers there. Our roots go a long way back. We note that there are positive and negative votes coming in the referendum today. I got back to some of the people I still know there. They are saying they will vote against the treaty because they want the same right as I have as a Canadian citizen to know exactly the amount of money coming in, how it is being spent and how the distribution is taking place.

Can this House not honestly say that we must not deny the grassroots people the same rights we have fought for in two world wars, that we have fought for through the ages since the Magna Carta in having reliable, honest and open government?

It is time for us not to proceed any further in land negotiations. While I admit we are not arguing in Saskatchewan that the land belongs to them, everybody admits that, what I am saying is that we have to—

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this debate for a number of reasons.

My province of Saskatchewan has the largest percentage of Indian people of any province. I am very familiar with that, besides the fact that in my constituency I have four or five or maybe more reserves.

Wednesday is November 11. When I look at this date, I really feel sorry for the misdeeds and the wrongs that have been done to those people of native ancestry who joined the Canadian forces.

I take this opportunity to say that I fully extend my sympathy with them. They volunteered. They were not recruited. They fought. Some of them gave their lives but they were never given full recognition for their services.

To this day, as far as I know, the Department of Veterans Affairs has never issued an apology for the way those fine young men were treated. I have some of those veterans of the Indian ancestry within my constituency.

Throughout history we, meaning caucasians, committed many wrongs against the natives of this country. But one is so outstanding as we approach November 11. It really hurts me. Some of them were even denied the right that they were really people within the army. They were denied such things as Veterans Lands Act rights. The Department of Veteran Affairs denied them the same rights for continuing education. I have talked to many of them. I hope someday I will be able to correct that wrong whether through a motion or a private member's bill.

In my constituency we have Moose Mountain, part of the name of the constituency. I want to tell members about another terrible wrong we did to those people just before the turn of the century. We allowed white people, caucasians, to come in. Yes, they gave a dollar for the land, but within a few years these same speculators sold the same land for $2.50 an acre. They really destroyed a whole potential reserve at that time.

Since that time we have tried to correct, through the Indian lands entitlement act, a wrong that was done. As a result of that, we have created two new Indian reserves out of what was forced into one reserve.

I want to say this to correct a wrong. Every member in this party believes fundamentally, without question, that we want to see the treaties honoured. It is a fallacy for the members opposite to say we do not want to see the treaties honoured. We do. But what we do not want to see is a continuation of these piecemeal events as they relate to natives in Canada which will only perpetuate the myth that we have in Indian affairs at the present time. We really are not taking any substantial measures with this bill to correct a problem in the societal system we have out there. We simply prolong it. This is what my colleagues and I agree on fundamentally.

In 13 months we are facing a brand new millennium. It is time we got with it. It is time that we took a look very seriously at the greatest social problem we have, honour the treaties and let us go into the new millennium, not with the same old rolling over of disputes but with something that looks new, is new and will respect the dignity of every man, woman and child.

This bill will not do that. The Indian Act today does not do that. I do not know how many times I have had people come to me and say “I want the same right that you have, Mr. MP. I want to be able to go down to my office, just like you go to your town office, and look at a financial statement. I want to see an audited financial statement”. It is not only one call; this goes on and on.

For us to say that they are not ready for it, I say if they are not ready now, and I know the women and children are ready and most of the grassroots people are ready, this bill does not face that issue. Until that issue is faced, we are going to continue with the big social problem.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago in the House we debated a bill which would restrict tobacco advertising. The purpose of the bill was to discourage people from becoming involved in that habit.

Would my hon. colleague from Elk Island agree that there is a lot of false advertising in terms of gambling? We only see pictures of someone winning a million dollars. We only see what can be purchased, such as a dream home and so on. The fact is that we do not see in the advertisements the results in the community of massive gambling. They do not show poverty. They do not show marriage break-ups. They do not show what happens once a person becomes addicted.

Are we not illegally advertising the gambling industry by only showing the small percentage of people who win and not showing the despair that it brings to a community?