Roy Cullen

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was wandering through the crocuses blooming this weekend and forgot to read or study the fact that this motion is not supported by the Assembly of First Nations.

If he had actually listened to what I had to say, he would have heard that I acknowledge and the government acknowledges that we need to do more work on the alternative dispute resolution process. We need to streamline it. That is precisely why this government asked the Assembly of First Nations to review it and come back with a set of recommendations. That is why the motion proposed by the NDP at committee made some sense to us.

This motion does not have the support of the Assembly of First Nations, for the reasons I rattled off. Perhaps the member did not hear that.

I find it astounding that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would talk about humility. I am not sure that he is the person who would teach this House or Canadians a lot about that.

Nonetheless, this is a serious matter. The government is seized with it. We acknowledge that work has to be done to improve this process. That is precisely what we are doing. When the member wanders through the crocuses next weekend, I think he should read some of the literature on these motions as they are presented to the House.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

The Assembly of First Nations does not support this motion. Surely that is enough.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is not unlike the Conservative Party's approach to the Gomery inquiry. Every day there is a new bit of information, so those members jump on it.

The Conservatives are not really interested, but we are in this for the long haul. They cannot pull out statistics from one year or another. We all know that it takes time to validate these claims.

I am absolutely amazed that the members of the Conservative Party would suggest that all people need to do is fill in a claim form and send it to Ottawa, where it will just be validated and a cheque will be sent to them. This is the same party that stands up in the House day in and day out looking for accountability and good financial management systems, but on the other hand it says to just send in a claim form.

The problem we have is that a lot of these cases go back many years, so some of the people who allegedly committed these terrible things are not around. The Assembly of First Nations has proposed that we forget all that and just say that the fact a person was at a residential school qualifies the person, period, and we would just pay the person a lump sum. I must say that the government is looking into it, but the problem might be that it is just so exorbitantly expensive. I do not know. The government is working with the Assembly of First Nations on it.

There is another problem I raised at committee, which the others did not really deal with. We know there are many members of the first nations who went to residential schools and had a very positive experience. What are we going to do? Are we going to cut them a cheque as well? Admittedly there might not be tons of these people around, but there are some who speak quite highly of their experience at residential schools.

Rather than doing what the Conservative Party always does, which is just pick out a statistic here and there, I say to stay in this for the long haul, be concerned about the first nations people and listen to the Assembly of First Nations.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member wants me to comment on the gun registry, which is actually demonstrating very clearly that it does have a significant effect on gun homicides and suicides in Canada. In fact, law enforcement officers are making about 2,000 inquiries a day on the gun registry system. These are front line officers who obviously know what they are doing and they are getting some value out of it.

However, I am sure the member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River really wanted me to comment on the residential schools issue and the alternative dispute resolution process. The member has raised a valid point. I know that he has been engaged with this file.

The reality is that in starting up a program like this we had to define the parameters. We had to work with first nations people. Staff had to be brought in. Lawyers had to be engaged. Program people had to be set up. A program like this cannot take off from a flying start. We cannot tell a department or a group of people that we are going to do something today so they need to start reviewing the files tomorrow.

The criteria had to be established. What would the process be? How could it be made understandable to people in terms of their culture? They might have a different way of thinking about this type of thing.

There was some lead time. I would like to characterize it this way. We look at the chart, which starts off slowly, but then once the infrastructure and the mechanisms are in place it starts to take off in a sort of exponential way.

Just comparing the numbers from the outset gives an artificial view of what is actually happening. As the Honourable Ted Hughes said, they are starting to deal with these claims in a very expeditious way and there is a lot of interest in the process.

I would just ask the member to give it a chance. If he were to ask the same question next year and there had been no significant progress and the expenditure on claims had not started to move against the infrastructure costs and the staff costs, I think he would have a valid point, but I would submit that it is too early in the process right now.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre-North should keep up with things and check his facts. It is true that this was a motion that was concurred in committee; however, Liberal members argued against it because it did not have the support of the Assembly of First Nations. In fact, there was another motion, as the member knows full well, by the member for Winnipeg Centre which I think made a lot more sense. The Assembly of First Nations does not like this particular motion. The AFN is the one that is affected and it does not like it for a number of reasons.

It does not like it because the motion recommends terminating the current ADR process. The Assembly of First Nations believes that the ADR processed should be repaired and not terminated.

The motion recommends that the process be handed over to the courts to supervise and enforce. The Assembly of First Nations believes that the first nations must negotiate the settlement with the assistance of the courts if required.

The motion recommends a partial truth commission involving survivors only, whereas the AFN recommends a comprehensive truth commission involving governments and churches.

The motion is silent on a need for an apology. The Assembly of First Nations calls for a full apology.

The motion is silent on the administration of a reconciliation payment. The Assembly of First Nations insists that the administration be through a first nations entity.

The motion is silent on the need for a reconciliation. The Assembly of First Nations sees reconciliation as the rationale for the entire compensation package.

Therefore, the very people that this motion is supposed to be representing, supporting and helping, are not supporting the motion.

Here we are in the House debating something that does not even have the support of Canada's largest and perhaps most influential group of first nations peoples.

The alternative dispute resolution process for victims of sexual and physical abuse at Indian residential schools is unfairly represented in this motion as well. The so-called fact-finding by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was undertaken to provoke drama and headlines, not to learn, not to understand, and not to bring realistic solutions for individuals who were harmed as children attending Indian residential schools.

This motion represents the worst of all worlds: uninformed or intentionally misleading political notions built on the hopes of abused aboriginal people in our country.

Former residential school students and their families deserve more than this and we must not let them down. Simple compensation will not make up for the evils we know that happened. Adding up the cost and dividing it by 86,000 people will not fix the problems that we face as parliamentarians, as leaders, and as Canadians.

The most difficult challenge is to accept that there are no easy answers to the various questions raised by this institutional system. No action, be it a program to heal the wounds, a forum on truth and reconciliation or compensation, will successfully close this dark chapter of our history.

For the country and the government, the effects of the Indian residential schools represent an exceptional problem which requires innovative and realistic solutions.

Lawsuits against the government filed by more then 11,000 former students still remain. Unless we continue to vigorously implement an alternative dispute resolution approach, it will take forever to move these existing cases through the traditional courts. It will cost much more than what we will spend using other avenues.

The motion would have us believe that the alternative dispute resolution process has sprung from nowhere. How insulting to the many individuals and organizations from across Canada who have put many years into creating a workable and approachable system.

The government's approach has been developed in concert with the input of hundreds of former Indian residential school students and other important stakeholders, such as the churches. The alternative dispute resolution process is the result of listening, not to political whimsies and short term expediencies but to the vital visceral desire to put the past to rest with dignity.

Former students are seeking options to waiting years for the courts and options for validating their experiences. They seek financial support for personal and community healing because of the widespread effect of damaged lives. They seek spiritual support and they seek to have their loved ones with them at a hearing. Together, we are seeking options for cross-examination on details that may have taken place 50 years ago. We all want to avoid isolation from friends and family.

Clearly, our challenge has been and continues to be to find a timely, safe, and effective option for former students to settle their claims. We need a holistic approach, one that facilitates access to justice and that treats former students as humanely as possible.

All Canadians expect their government to be accountable. Former students themselves have called for a credible process to validate their experiences and to educate Canadians about what happened to them. These are complex cases, usually involving many parties. It takes time and resources to appropriately address these claims.

The motion would have us run away from our responsibilities. Resolving the legacy of Indian residential schools must address not just compensation, but the longer term need for healing and for reconciliation. This is all part of the program and the support system. This is all well in progress as we speak.

The motion before the House would have us abandon the alternative dispute resolution process that has been so carefully developed and which continues to be the subject of ongoing refinements. It would have us abandon the some 1,200 former students who have put their faith in this process and whose hearings will take place over the coming months.

We are receiving on average 20 applications to the alternative dispute resolution process each and every week. We cannot abandon these people and this process. Rather, we should be asking why, to date, over 1,400 former students have chosen this process to pursue their Indian residential school claims.

What is the alternative dispute resolution process? What sets it apart from the courts? First, we recognize that we are approaching fragile individuals who have suffered more in one lifetime than we would like to know. They need to be believed. If they have the strength to come forward, the system has to support them. Hearings are private affairs and only the adjudicator can ask questions.

What kind of support is provided to former students, whether they choose the ADR process or litigation? There are crisis lines, mental health workers, traditional support, and travel money to attend a hearing, so that there is a loving family member or friend to lean on.

Former students are encouraged to retain legal counsel to advise them on completing their application and undertaking the process. The government pays legal costs that would otherwise come out of former students' pockets. We know of former students who, despite our efforts, have suffered by telling their stories through the ADR process.

We cannot undo the pain they suffered by examining their past. We all regret the suffering, and health supports are in place and available to offer ongoing support to former students during these times of crisis.

We continue to fine-tune the alternative dispute resolution process. We know that we must look at every possible way to further streamline the process. We know that more can be done and will be done.

This is not enough. We are working with our partners and other stakeholders on further innovation. We asked the Assembly of First Nations for its views and we received solid ideas that are now under active consideration.

We need to open the door to redress for more than the victims of sexual and physical abuse. We are working with the Assembly of First Nations and other partners on an ongoing and regular basis to examine the ways suggested by the Assembly of First Nations report to acknowledge the impacts of Indian residential schools on former students.

The alternative dispute resolution process may not be for everyone. However, it provides a respectful, honourable and more expedient option for former students who suffered sexual and physical abuses and it presents a strong option to using the courts.

This motion before us would have us believe that, based on its first year of operation, the alternative dispute resolution process is a dismal failure and that it and the thousands of people engaged in seeking redress, healing and reconciliation should be abandoned. That is what this motion is saying.

I have strong evidence to the contrary. The Honourable Ted Hughes, chief adjudicator for the alternative dispute resolution process, wrote to me last week and described the performance of the adjudication secretariat. He reports that his adjudicators have delivered 150 decisions and that another 100 files are at the hearing stage. The total value of these decisions now amounts to over $6 million.

Mr. Hughes grants that there may not have been unanimous satisfaction with the ADR hearings process, but he also makes clear that the level of dissatisfaction is nowhere near what the committee would have us believe.

Mr. Hughes goes on to say:

I sincerely believe that the measure of satisfaction with which the efforts of the Adjudicators are being met far exceeds the negativism that the Committee's Report projects. I have no doubt that the 'positives' of which I speak will continue to grow as we deliver the 1,000 decisions expected of us in the current fiscal year.

This process is not failing. It is not perfect either. That is why we are in active discussions with the Assembly of First Nations and our other partners to take a serious look at how our approach might be improved or supplemented.

We are not cowering in the face of criticism. We are not prepared to be hijacked by wavering political interests. Most important, this government is not prepared to turn tail and abandon thousands of former students and all the work done to date.

Also, we fear neither change nor improvement. We are honouring our commitments and accepting our responsibilities. We are dealing with the consequences of our actions and will continue working with our critics to find the best solutions possible for the thousands of former Indian residential school students.

I challenge all members of Parliament to examine carefully their own thinking on this motion. I challenge them to understand that undoing the wrongs of a century cannot be achieved overnight. I challenge them not to abandon the aboriginal victims of abuse and our responsibilities to them and to all Canadians.

[Committees of the House, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell raises a very good point. If it was a priority, it was not a priority enough for the opposition to put it into its allocation of time. I have a question for the member for Calgary Centre-North. I wonder why he is clinging onto a motion that does not have the support of the Assembly of First Nations. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has noted, she has made a commitment to meet with families of the victims very soon. As part of her meeting with families she has also said that she is willing to discuss with the families what questions need to be answered and how best to answer them.

For the present time, due process must run its course. This has been one of the longest and most complex trials in Canadian legal history. It lasted for almost two years, cost tens of millions of dollars and heard over 100 witnesses. The decision about an appeal of the court's verdict rests still with the province of British Columbia. This government awaits that decision.

With that behind us, we will be better able to see if there is merit in an inquiry 20 years later and what, if anything, it would reveal given the lengthy police investigations, two criminal trials and the various reviews that have already been held, notably on air transport safety and the role of security and intelligence in Canada. As well, I should note that there remains an ongoing RCMP investigation into this matter.

However, in continuing this debate, I wish to re-emphasize the exhaustive efforts that have been taken to attain justice in what was the worst ever aviation disaster over sea and the worst act of terrorism that has taken place against Canadians. As well, I want to take some time to outline some of the measures we have implemented since Air-India and since September 11 to ensure the safety of travel in our skies and the security of our citizens.

A number of other activities have been undertaken since the crash of Air-India flight 182. These include various Canadian-led studies and analyses, trials, coroners' inquests, a commission undertaken by the Indian government, and a legal settlement for the victims. As well, there have been significant improvements to the Canadian public safety and security sector and legislative framework.

In September 1985 the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence, headed by the intelligence and security coordinator of the Privy Council Office, Blair Seaborn, conducted a review of airline and airport security.

The Seaborn report, as members have already heard it called today, and I consider it worth repeating, resulted in a number of actions taken by Transport Canada to enhance the security of Canada's aviation system. These included the establishment of a restricted area access clearance program for area airport workers, rigorous background checks for airport workers, and the introduction of passenger baggage reconciliation on international flights.

As the Deputy Prime Minister has noted, the actions of the Canadian government have made Canada a leader among international efforts to combat terrorist threats in our skies and have provided a model adopted by other countries around the world.

In January 1986 the Canadian Aviation Safety Board made public a comprehensive report of its findings on the Air-India disaster. The report identified potential safety deficiencies, whether causal or not, and recommended appropriate corrective measures for implementation by regulatory and enforcement authorities. The bulk of its findings built on the Seaborn report and pertained to safety measures in Vancouver, Toronto and Mirabel, as well as a forensic analysis of recovered wreckage and expert discussion of potential causes for the tragedy.

Also in 1986, Indian Supreme Court Judge Kirpal presented an inquiry report. The findings and recommendations of the inquiry dealt with airline safety procedures such as aircraft design, baggage handling protocols and safety equipment. It made extensive recommendations pertaining to international aviation, security regulations and safety measures.

As well, in the post 9/11 world, this government has made considerable investments to strengthen aviation security. The 2001 budget invested $7.7 billion over five years to fight terrorism and reinforce public security. This included over $2 billion over five years for new aviation security initiatives such as the installation of explosives detection systems at Canadian airports, which would cover virtually all passengers travelling through our country.

We also placed armed RCMP officers on board selected domestic and international flights and provided $35 million to help airlines improve their own security. Recently the government made further efforts to improve aviation security improvements by allocating an additional $16 million over five years to develop systems to screen airline passenger information.

As members can see, the Government of Canada continues to work to keep our skies safe for airline passengers and crews, but our efforts also have gone beyond the field of aviation. In recent years, CSIS and the RCMP have improved their exchange of information and have moved forward with this and other investigations.

As well, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has shifted its focus from cold war concerns to the threat of global terrorism.

The Deputy Prime Minister noted that this action has been strengthened through a memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and CSIS to establish this relationship and coordinate their respective roles in the country's national security agenda.

Budget 2001 recognized this vital relationship and committed $1.6 billion to increase policing and intelligence efforts in fighting terrorism. Through this investment CSIS has expanded its investigative capacity by hiring more people as well as upgrading equipment and technology. The RCMP has also worked with its partners across the security community in the form of integrated national security enforcement teams in major Canadian cities.

As the government has noted, we have worked through the late 1980s and into the 1990s to implement new measures to enhance our national security. We introduced the Anti-terrorism Act and Public Safety Act to improve our ability to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to identified threats, while always remembering the need to guard the values assured to Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join colleagues in the government and oppose this motion brought forward by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

As I said earlier, I tried to introduce an amendment, but because of the procedures of the House I had to have the consent of the member for Newton—North Delta and the Conservative Party to introduce it. That was denied, so I am not able to do introduce it.

I do not know if the Conservative Party is concerned that the amendment would pass in the House and its main motion would be defeated, or whether it is not really interested in substantive solutions to this very difficult situation. I do not know, but it is unfortunate. I think it was a good amendment. I think there would have been a good debate and a good vote. People would have had a choice. Nonetheless, there we are.

We appreciate the feelings of the families and their desire for answers.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Nanaimo—Alberni. Earlier this afternoon I spoke to his colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, the sponsor of the motion we are debating today, and asked if he would accept an amendment. I must have his concurrence to accept an amendment. He told me that he would not give me that concurrence. There is still a bit of time left in the debate, so I will go through the amendment very quickly and maybe the member could speak to his colleague.

The amendment states: “That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word 'That' and by substituting the following: Whereas the bombing of Air-India flight 182 on June 23, 1985 resulted in the deaths of 329 people; Whereas the Air-India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history; Whereas the number of inquiries and civil and criminal processes have been undertaken...; Whereas there is a motion before the House calling for an '...independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air-India bombing...'; Whereas the appeal period flowing from the Malik and Bagri judgment has not expired; Whereas there are a range of views as to whether there are outstanding questions of public interest which remain unanswered; If the British Columbia Attorney General decides not to appeal the Malik and Bagri judgment, this House recommends than an independent eminent person be appointed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to consult with family members of the Air-India victims and others, and advise on what outstanding questions of public interest remain which could be answered today”.

In the spirit of the democratic process and in the spirit of cooperation, if we are looking for substantive answers to these questions, I wonder if the member for Nanaimo—Alberni would try to track down the member for Newton—North Delta to see if he would reconsider and accept this amendment, so we could debate it in the chamber and vote on it.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Island North got many of the facts mixed up and misconstrued what the Deputy Prime Minister said. In fact, if one were listening, one would hear that he talked about manipulation. I would suggest that to bring the motion forward today, in a climate where everyone is talking about an election, is very much a politically opportunistic type of motion, because the member knows full well that the B.C. government, the government of his own province, is still examining the question of whether or not to appeal. That does have some bearing on what the government might or might not do.

The member also mentioned polling. I guess the Conservative Party over there has done some polling on this, has it not, and it thinks this is a winning wicket. I can tell the House right now that this government is going to do the right thing on behalf of the families of victims, irrespective of what the polls say. I would welcome the member having an election on this issue because I am very confident that our government and our party will do the right thing and have done the right things.

The Deputy Prime Minister never once indicated that all is well. In this world of terrorism and the security threats that we are all facing, who would be so naive as to suggest that all is well? Of course we have challenges and of course we have to be vigilant. That is why our government has invested over $9.5 billion in security to make our country safer.

That is why we put more money, close to half a billion dollars in the last budget, into the Canada Border Services Agency to enhance our capacity at our borders. That is why our government brought in a new national security policy last year. I wonder if the member for Vancouver Island North has even looked at that and knows what that reflects and how the changed world we are living in is the issue.

The government is leaving the options open as to how to proceed. The member suggests that the first part of that is patronizing, that it is patronizing to talk about the victims' families and to meet with the victims' families. He suggests that it is patronizing. What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with dealing with the family members who are very concerned and distressed with the outcome of the trial? I am wondering if the member really understands full well how the world has changed in 20 years and what we can actually learn from a full public inquiry.