Bill Casey

[First Nations Governance Review Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all those words but they did not really say one single thing.

We first raised this issue in the House on May 9 and we raised it again on May 23. The government has had a lot of time. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us exactly what role the federal government will play in helping the community of Lewisporte.

[First Nations Governance Review Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on an issue I raised on May 9 concerning the Lewisporte Marine Terminal which is being closed by the Department of Transport thereby depriving the city of its major industry. It is the biggest employer in the area. It employs between 30 and 40 full and part time people. It will be devastating to the community when it closes.

The government has no backup plan and no assistance to provide to the community of Lewisporte in Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears even though on May 23 the hon. member for Gander--Grand Falls raised the issue and asked for help. He asked for the government to come up with concrete solutions and ideas for the town of Lewisporte that could be put in place to help offset the economic devastation that will result from the movement of the port.

Lewisporte has been the main terminal in that area for decades. It is to be closed with all the work and shipment facilities transferred to another port. It will have a negative impact on the community. Marine Atlantic and Coastal Labrador Marine Services are the only major operations out of Lewisporte.

Not one dollar from the federal government has been offered, put in place, or even suggested, to help offset this action which is the result of a government decision. It is through no fault of the people in Lewisporte. It is a government decision that will close the port and have a negative impact.

It goes along with the census of 2001 that showed that every federal riding in Newfoundland and Labrador suffered a decline in population. It is actions by the government that result in this decline in population. If the government does not address these issues in general then the out migration of people from Newfoundland and Labrador and other smaller provinces will continue and eventually they will not be able to maintain their health care systems, highway systems and academic facilities, It is important that the government in general address the out migration of people from smaller communities in poorer provinces to Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

In this case it is a specific action that the government is taking. It is its decision to close the Lewisporte Marine Terminal. It should and must act to help the community and its people maintain their quality of life, culture and standard of living by helping them replace these 30 to 40 permanent and part time high quality jobs.

I would hope that the hon. Minister of Transport or the distinguished parliamentary secretary will have an answer for us on what the government will do to help the people of Lewisporte as a result of its decision to close the marine terminal.

[First Nations Governance Review Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak tonight to Bill C-399. I feel very comfortable with the debate and the discussion because I have a close relationship with a first nations band in my riding, the Millbrook Band, whose chief is Lawrence Paul.

First, I want to compliment the hon. member for raising the issue of the auditor and the ombudsman proposal. Many first nations bands have problems with negotiations and controlling money. I believe we do have an obligation to ensure that all first nations people are treated fairly, have access to justice and have a fair approach to dealing with the finances of the first nations. Not all do, so the hon. member's proposal may have some merit.

I also want to mention the new Bill C-61. I congratulate the minister for taking a courageous step. This is a very difficult issue to deal with. For years and years not a lot has been done but I believe the bill on the table now deserves a lot of consideration. I applaud the minister for his courage in bringing it forth because it is not an easy subject and not an easy issue to deal with.

I have often felt that not enough has been done. We often deal with first nations issues as they happen. We deal with the symptoms not the root causes of the problems. I believe the new bill starts to do that. I know it will come under a lot of criticism, scrutiny and opposition, but fundamentally it is a good direction and a good start. It will be very interesting to see how it unfolds, how first nations people deal with it and how they respond.

I want to talk for a minute about the Millbrook Band. One of the previous speakers mentioned the Westbank Band and how it could be used as an example for other first nations. I believe the Millbrook Band outside of Truro, Nova Scotia could also be used as a model. Chief Lawrence Paul has done a great deal in economic development to bring a higher standard of living to his people. He has worked very hard to attract businesses and use every asset that he has at his control.

Chief Lawrence Paul and I do not always agree, in fact, quite often we disagree, but I admire him for his spirit, his initiatives and his determination to help his people. He has recently developed what he calls a huge power centre along the Trans-Canada Highway at a very high traffic area in Nova Scotia, and perhaps the highest traffic area. He has attracted a Tim Horton's, an A&W, theatres and an Ainee's Convenience Store to the centre and has plans for many more developments to create jobs and employment for his people. He has also installed an entertainment centre at this location which is a form of entertainment where his band takes in a lot of revenue.

He has also developed a Millbrook fishery. He has two approaches to the fishery. One is that he is involved in the fishery on the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean. He is also involved in the fishery through an agricultural project which is just beginning. This is very innovative, dynamic and very imaginative for a first nations band.

I believe the Millbrook Band has managed its funds well. It has been able to return money to all its residents in the form of scholarships and housing assistance, and in many other areas. Therefore I think the Millbrook Band could be used as a model. It is certainly not perfect but it has done a lot of things right and has done a lot to help its people.

The challenge in the future will be to bring all of the first nations together to agree on this new governance model. It will be difficult because there are over 600 first nations and many are governed under different models and in different ways. The circumstances are completely different from first nation to first nation. Some are very small, some are quite large, some are prosperous and some live in poverty. It will be difficult to find one formula that fits all. Each first nations band will need the flexibility to develop in its own direction. Each band must be transparent and accountable to its people.

The bill we are debating today goes in the direction of ensuring there is accountability and transparency for all first nations people, not just the leaders. This is a critical part of the future for first nations.

Whether it is through Bill C-399 or through the new Bill C-61, we in this party hope the circumstances for first nations people improve. We hope they gain more ability to govern themselves, more control over their own destinies and able to use their resources and their ingenuity, like they have in Millbrook, to improve the quality of life for all natives.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment would address questions like this now, in the future and would have in the past had it been there. I have not seen the words to the amendment but based on what I have heard, it sounds like it would address and resolve the issue we have raised and continue to raise. Again it would move toward honouring the Prime Minister's promise that he made back in 1993 but which he has never honoured.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes my point exactly that the leadership at the top is the problem. In 1993 the leadership at the top, the Prime Minister, said to the Canadian people “vote for me and the ethics counsellor will report directly to parliament”. That was a promise by the current Prime Minister to the Canadian people. The deal was, the way I see it, that if they voted for him he would give them an ethics counsellor who reported to parliament. That has never happened and it has not happened now in this bold eight point plan which just goes all around the concept and avoids it.

All of these issues could be put to bed with one single stroke, making the ethics counsellor an ethics commissioner who reports to parliament. That person would then have the respect, I believe, of the Canadian public as the auditor general has. However now the ethics counsellor does not have any respect as far as I am concerned from the media, the opposition or the Canadian public. Again it comes down from the leadership of the party. The leader promised the Canadian people he would do this but failed on that promise and continues to refuse to do it.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot comment knowledgeably about those provinces. However I can say that I was involved in an instance where a federal minister of transport signed a contract with the province of New Brunswick with a particular person, the minister of transport of New Brunswick. When the federal minister of transport was defeated and lost his job, he immediately signed another contract as a private operator of a company to take over the very same Trans-Canada Highway sector that he had paid for as a minister of the federal crown.

We took that to the ethics commissioner in New Brunswick and it was not effective at all. The same thing happened in Ottawa, even though the same two people signed the contract originally who signed it later on. Again, the federal minister of transport signed the contract with the provincial minister of transport. Then when the federal minister was defeated, he signed a contract as the president of Maritime Highways Corporation with the same minister of transport to take over that highway and all the funding the federal government put into it. I thought that was contrary to the post-employment ethics criteria in the ethics commission report, but again the ethics counsellor is there to protect the ministers and not to get to the truth and to ensure ethics.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the exact details but I can assure the hon. member that it would happen with the snap of a finger, because from what I have heard today every opposition member would support that act. The only reason it would not pass is if Liberal members voted against it. However every single person who has spoken on this, except for the Liberal member, said that the ethics counsellor must report to parliament and must become an ethics commissioner.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In my haste I just read the name off the newspaper article.

Basically it is an article entitled “Double Standard Part 1”. I will not go into details on the headline but it goes on to detail how the ethics counsellor cleared the Prime Minister of an accusation of a conflict under the Ethics Act brought in by Brian Mulroney, the Conservative prime minister who introduced the ethics package that the current Prime Minister did not even honour when he did not declare a $300,000 debt, which he was supposed to do.

None of the other arguments we deal with here in my opinion mean anything. None of the other parts of the eight point plan mean anything unless the ethics counsellor reports to the House in the same way that the auditor general does.

That will be our point through the committee. We look forward to presenting our case to the committee and listening to the presentations at committee. We will participate as actively as we can and we hope at the end we will have an ethics counsellor who does report to parliament, because that is the only way these issues will be resolved.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that it is a pleasure to rise and talk about this issue today but it is not a pleasure. Talking about the ethics of the House and parliamentarians is not something any of us wish to talk about.

I must say this whole concept is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to diffuse the spotlight on Liberal cabinet ministers who have come under such spotlights these days for questionable activities and what has been called corruption and scandals. This attempt to spread this to government backbench members of parliament and opposition members and senators is absolutely pointless. No one can name anyone on this side of the House who has been the subject of one of these investigations by the media or the opposition for scandal or questionable activities or anything else. In order to diffuse the spotlight we are included in this great debate about ethics.

Forming a committee to discuss a committee report when only one simple thing has to be done and only one thing matters is an incredible approach to take. All of the other proposals and ideas contained in the bold eight point plan proposed by the Liberals mean nothing unless the ethics counsellor reports to parliament. All speakers have mentioned this at one time or another in their remarks today. The bottom line is that it is the essential part of an ethics package.

I often think that if the auditor general reported only to the Prime Minister we would never have known anything about many of the issues brought up recently in a variety of departments. In the last report that the auditor general brought up we would never have know about certain issues that were referred to the RCMP.

I contend that if the auditor general answered only to the Prime Minister those issues would never have been sent to the RCMP for investigation. They would never have gone any further, and in fact would have been swept under the rug until someone in the opposition or the media pried open a crack in the door shedding some light on the issue. That is the difference between the auditor general reporting to parliament and the ethics counsellor reporting only to the Prime Minister.

In my view the ethics counsellor is no longer an ethics counsellor. He is like a minister of defence in charge of defending ministers. Instead of advising them and bringing their offences to light, it is his job to defend them. This is not complicated but rather quite simple. If somebody is responsible for criticizing the boss and the boss's associates, who will do that, particularly when it is a good job with a large pay package, lots of fringe benefits, and lots of accoutrements that come with the position? There is a built in conflict of interest right from the beginning with the ethics counsellor. The way it is set up now is totally wrong.

There are two reasons as far as I am concerned why the ethics counsellor should report to parliament. The first reason is simple. The foundation of ethics is telling the truth and keeping one's word. In the 1993 red book on page 95 the Prime Minister said:

The Ethics Counsellor... will report directly to Parliament.

That was the Prime Minister's promise to Canadians. That was his word. If he cannot keep his promise about ethics, how, if a promise is broken right at the very beginning, will the ethics counsellor be effective? The promise was broken in step one.

Second, it makes sense to have the ethics counsellor report to parliament for the same reasons I mentioned earlier when I compared this position to that of the auditor general. The auditor general is effective and respected by everybody in the country for the great job she does. We are fortunate to have her. She is one of the last institutions in this place that provides an objective view on issues. Can members imagine the difference in her reputation and the reputation of the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor does not fool anybody. He works for the Prime Minister and is there to defend the Prime Minister and get his government. That is what he does.

This morning when I was rereading an article in the Ottawa Citizen written by Graham Greene, entitled “Double Standard Part 1”, which I think is the Prime Minister's favourite article, it stated “This week Jean Chrétien fired one minister and demoted another for ethical”--

[*Question No. 174, June 20th, 2002]

With respect to the correspondence sent to Ms. Andréa Léger-Boudreau on October 15, 1981, from Mr. Roger Bougie, Director, consular operations division of the then department of external affairs, now Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, regarding the death of Ms. Léger-Boudreau’s brother, Mr. Raoul Léger: ( a ) what explanations have been received from the Guatemalan government regarding circumstances surrounding Mr. Léger’s death; ( b ) since the date the remains of Mr. Léger’s body were exhumed and returned to Canada, what further steps has the government taken to obtain a background report surrounding Mr. Leger’s death; ( c ) has the said report been received and distributed to Mr. Léger’s family; and ( d ) does this file remain active in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?