Bradley Trost

[Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude the debate today.

It is my privilege to conclude debate on this piece of legislation. I have known the hon. member who proposed the legislation since he first ran in the byelection. I had the privilege of campaigning with him as we went from town to town. In fact, in one town there was a five-finger discount done to the gasoline in his truck and we ran out of fuel. We got to talk to some of his constituents at the gas station, instead of at the door, as we tried to make it around. I have known this hon. member since before he got here.

One of the things I have most appreciated about him is his passion for his people, for the people of his constituency, for the people who have been a part of his life. I also appreciate that in the legislation he has taken his real-life personal experiences and is using them to craft the legislation.

We often are called upon to debate legislation in the House that we do not necessarily have a very intimate or personal stake in. However, sometimes we do, and for this member that is one of the reasons he brought the legislation forward. It is one of the reasons why the legislation is of the quality it is and would do the things it sets out, because it comes out of his own real-life experience. For that I want to congratulate him. This is totally and truly a private member's piece of legislation. I know, as we talked about this before he even proposed it to the House. I want to congratulate the member for doing something that is substantive, that would affect the people of his constituency and that would make life better for all Canadians who will be affected by this in one way or another.

As has been noted by other members of the House, virtually every aspect of life on a first nation reserve is controlled by the Indian Act. We in the western world and increasingly the entire world understand that free markets, free enterprise, the right to property, those very basic fundamental things contribute to wealth and well-being. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that when a government, through regulation, legislation and bureaucracy, controls those aspects of peoples' lives, they will not be able to have the prosperity that has been enjoyed by all Canadians.

Therefore, the Indian Act is a barrier to the economic development of first nations, and not just the economic development but the whole development of the broader society, the development of individuals and the development of families. As we have proven in Canada and in other nations around the world, fundamental liberties and principles allow people to grow, prosper and become what they want to be without the overbearing hands of the state.

The private member's bill from the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River would remove segments of the Indian Act that prevent first nations from selling items produced on their own land. Think about this, members who were here through the Wheat Board debate would often find it funny, strange or unusual that farmers could go to jail for selling wheat. Every piece of produce, everything that they grow, they are not free to sell from their own farmland. If people have vegetable farms, wheat farms or if they produce cattle, those farmers are not in complete control of their own property. That seems completely unreasonable to anyone who has been involved in business, anyone who has had a house or anyone else in Canadian society. However, that is actually a part of the Indian Act. This unreasonable statute or regulation needs to be put away and taken care of.

People will note that this element of the Indian Act is not often enforced, but it is still there. As the member pointed out in his speech and as other members stated, there are multiple illustrations of these sorts of archaic items that should never have been there in the first place, not in the past, present or future, but are still in the Indian Act. These archaic clauses in the Indian Act can be enforced. It is an active piece of legislation and it can be used selectively at the discretion of the agents of the minister.

As we all know, legislation that is on the books and is not being enforced should either be enforced or removed from law. It serves no purpose.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many people in the House and of many persons in the first nations community, we have entered into a new era of co-operation between first nations and the government. The member who proposed this legislation is one of those examples. He comes from a riding that is approximately half first nations in population.

First nations people of Canada do not want to be excluded from entering into our modern economy. They do not want to be held back through government legislation. They do not want to be held back from free enterprise, from the ability to make, with their own hands, prosperity with their own property and livelihoods. Prominent chiefs in the first nations communities have expressed their desire to increase their participation in the Canadian economy, and ultimately, in the international economic sphere.

By restricting trade and opportunity for first nations, we are perpetuating an antiquated 19th century mentality. Even in the 19th century, many people understood that this was wrong. Unfortunately, not enough of them stood up to stop this legislation when it was first introduced.

We have an ancient mentality that government knows best. It is a medieval idea that if we have a king who is all knowing and all wise, we cannot permit freedom. It is freedom that ultimately brings prosperity, and it is freedom that has been denied the aboriginal people through large elements of the Indian Act.

Eliminating this law from the books removes the possibility of its injudicious application. The law itself is an example of bigotry. The people who voted for it may not have intended that, but that is ultimately the result in that it exempts one specific ethnic group from the rights all other Canadians enjoy. This is something people need to actually understand.

The previous member for my riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt had a major interest in this issue. He was very good at cursing the darkness without always offering a candle to light the way. He used to criticize and go after the Indian Act, because, he said, it brings special privileges, special rights, and more benefits to the people who are under it. What I always wanted to ask him, but never got around to, was how having more government interference in one's life actually helps. If it was such a benefit and something that was so positive, we would have seen those results. Frankly, as every Canadian knows, we have not.

Being under the Indian Act is not something that has helped our first nations communities develop, be it economically, socially, or culturally. Therefore, the discrimination of this act and the way it prevents people from enjoying their freedom needs to be repealed.

First nations residents are unable to own their own land. This hinders the ability to obtain loans and capital with which to build homes or improve property. As was noted earlier, they cannot sell produce they have grown themselves.

The time to allow first nations members the ability to generate wealth and prosperity by furnishing them with the rights every other Canadian has taken for granted is long past due.

By giving first nations real control over the use of their own lands, we can open the door to economic development and renewal. By paving the way to a more modern Indian Act, we also pave the way to more modern first nations who could fully participate in the Canadian economy without a multitude of crippling restrictions. I close today with these general points.

I wish to thank the member for bringing this issue to the House. I will be supporting it, because it is good for all Canadians, first nations and non-first nations alike.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is one of my goals to bring that together. I have seen it, as the member for Kings—Hants noted. We were on committee together. The international trade committee during that period engaged in some very difficult debates, but it was a good committee to operate in because people wanted to work together even when they were at loggerheads. Therefore, what the hon. member is suggesting is one of my goals for this motion.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous for a politician to talk before he has thought through something very thoroughly. This is the first I have heard of that suggestion. I can see some merit to the argument. Having said that, honestly this is the first time that the proposal has been put to me.

However, I appreciate what the hon. member is trying to do, and this is what I noted in my speech. He is trying to look at it and say that we should not confine the reforms to one area but that we should take a broad approach and see what we can do collaboratively. I can think of some parliamentary secretaries who would be very much supportive of something like that and some who would be opposed. While I am standing here, I could probably see quite a robust debate. I think the member's idea has merit, but since I am so new to the idea, I cannot endorse it at this time.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted in my speech, the British parliament has done a review of the reforms in the original Wright report. There were a couple of things that the report said, particularly with committees and the election of committee chairmanship, that the U.K. members thought had an interesting impact.

Number one, in their opinion, the committees actually, by and large, became more active and more engaged. That is a good thing. There was more of a sense of ownership and committees were more vocal. One of the ways, which no one anticipated originally, was that four particular committees became more engaged with the public and much more media active.

As we now know, unless there is some major disruption in our committees, our committees tend to be very quiet and off the radar. Perhaps there is a very exciting witness who may bring media attention, et cetera. However, the report noted that with the enhanced credibility of this there was more public engagement through the media. The correlation was drawn that it was largely to do with the enhanced credibility that came with elected committee chairs. It is an interesting insight and not something I would have thought of when I first looked at this proposal, but it is something we should perhaps think of as we study this.

[Election of Committee Chairs, October 21st, 2013]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (a) consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session and prior to the establishment of the membership of the standing committees; (b) study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; (c) propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and (d) report its findings to the House no later than six months following the adoption of this order.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this motion today. Before I start I should thank the interpreters. I am probably one of the worst MPs when it comes to handing in my speeches ahead of time for their interpretation. They are going to have to work from my notes and show their rather extraordinary talents of translation today. My apologies.

The history and the background of this motion come from two basic sources. The first, and probably the most relevant to this place, is the debate that was held in 2002 on an opposition supply day. It was a very interesting day. Even though there was a majority Liberal government, the motion actually passed.

There were members of the Liberal government in caucus, and the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP, who worked together to get a motion through. The motion at that time was about the election of committee chairs directly by their committees. It was a fascinating day. It was interesting to read some of the motions and debates of that era, and to follow some of the remarks.

I used this quote the first time I spoke to this issue. It was from the former member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and former minister of defence, who is now Minister of Justice. He said:

An independently elected chair...would demystify and give greater credibility to the process. What we are talking about is not the election of opposition members to fill those important positions of chair, but government members.

Again, and I used this quote the last time I spoke on this matter, the former NDP member for Palliser, Mr. Dick Proctor, said:

Frankly we make it far too easy for the media to cover politics in a very partisan fashion. There is a high angle shot which highlights, maybe even exaggerates, the neutral zone between the government side and the opposition side.

That was the general tone of the debate that day. These were members getting together and talking about ways to enhance the credibility of committee chairmanships, their powers and election. The many members who were not here prior to 2002 may not understand that the appointment of committee chairs was done purely through the Prime Minister's office.

The second inspiration for this motion is what is known as the Wright report, a report by the British House of Commons. Several years ago, Great Britain was going through a bit of a crisis of democracy; that's one of those terms that political scientists use from time to time.

Great Britain had had some substantive issues with expense accounts. I know members are thinking about things that have been in the news here. However, it was much more widespread and encompassed members of all parties. More importantly, the members of the House of Commons were very deeply involved.

Great Britain began to look at a considerable number of reforms to make its House of Commons work. One of them, among other things, was to look at the election of committee chairs. In the last year it has looked at and revised the changes that were implemented by the Wright report, and by and large it has come to a very positive conclusion. It seems to be working, and it seems to be very substantive.

I will read a quote from the U.K. House of Commons political and constitutional reform committee from July 18, 2013.

The Wright Committee recommended a number of changes to the way the membership of select committees was decided, including most notably “an initial system of election by the whole House of Chairs of departmental and similarly select committees...”

That was the recommendation. Following up, it concluded that was one of the best recommendations that was made.There were several different positive results from this change. Some of those are the reasons I am proposing this change to the House of Commons.

The first reason, and the British found this to be the case in its experience, is the perception of independence. We are in a unique business in politics. Reality is not always reality in politics; perception is reality. That may seem strange, but I am getting some smiles from members in the House who understand what I am saying. What we do substantively does not often have the greatest impact, but what we are seen to do has an even greater impact. If we take steps to democratize and bring forward more independence, and more perception of independence, we enhance the reality of democracy.

That is not to imply any sort of criticism to current chairs. By and large, in my nine-plus years in the House of Commons I have dealt with excellent committee chairs. However sometimes in various situations, where they act based on their best judgment and in their own independent way, they are not always seen to have that. That is one of the reasons that this is an important and useful reform. It enhances the credibility of their position, the independence and understanding that they are acting—as they do, by and large—based on their own good judgment and not under anyone else's influence.

The second reason I am making this proposal is that members are more likely to be engaged. One of the areas where we do get engaged as members of Parliament, in a very deep and substantive way, is at our committees. We often do not have the time to become an expert on all aspects of debate here in the House. There are some members who are very widely read and who can cover a multitude of policy areas with extreme fluency. Unfortunately, that is not the reality for most of us, so we tend to engage and specialize in areas where we either have expertise or where we are appointed to committees. As members take responsibility at committees, through election, engagement and increasing independence, members will be more engaged and able to act.

The other thing I would like to point out is impartiality. In my experience, the committee chairs have been impartial, and vice-chairs as well. However, again, the perception is important, and it also helps with the reality. If my party were in opposition and I voted for someone for committee chair from whatever party in government, I have some stake in that. I have some responsibility in getting that person to that position. I am less likely to make the charge of partiality when I have had some responsibility for putting that person in the office. I think it would bring together a more collaborative and positive result.

In the first hour of debate on this motion, there were some questions put to me, and I have had questions when I have interacted with members throughout this process. I am going to deal with a few of them directly, to help members understand what we are talking about.

First of all, the motion would not change who would be eligible to run for the chair of a committee. In a situation with a minority Parliament, opposition members would not choose from their ranks to fill the committee chairs that are normally filled by the government. We have some committees that are chaired by opposition members, and government members would not be able to take over positions, such as public accounts, and a few other committee chairs. The eligibility for who would be able to stand for these positions would be same.

The second question I have had is why did I not put forward the same motion for vice-chairs, particularly first vice-chairs, as frequently second vice-chairs are from a party which has a very small representation. On principle that would be a very good step, to treat the first vice-chairs in the same way that we do the chairs of committees. However, I understand there are a couple of things. First of all, as one complicates a motion, the odds of its being successfully accepted go down. Second, I do not want to send the message that I, as a government member, from whose party most chairs are currently chosen, want to be seen as imposing something on the opposition.

I would suggest that opposition members who tend to agree with that on principle advocate and speak to their respective critics and members on the committee that will be handling this to include that concept, because it is consistent. However, I for one do not want to be seen to be imposing, as a Conservative, on opposition prerogatives.

Having said that, I should note this change is unlikely to affect this Parliament and would happen in the next Parliament. Therefore, members who are thinking about how it would affect their particular individual situation should maybe think of the broader principles involved because many of us may not be in the next Parliament. Frankly, what we are interested in most of all in this place is not what is best for me but what is best for this place and what is best for this country.

Then there is a fairly direct question. How would this change function?

In my motion, I have left the ultimate decision to the committee. It would have to come back through another motion for this to be implemented. However, this is the way that, in a general sense, the British Parliament has found and the way that I would envision it, on a very cursory preliminary glance. Again I would be open to the members of the committee to make suggestions.

I would envision after the election of a speaker we would go on in a way that most of us are very familiar with due to party nominations; that is, a large preferential ballot. If there is more than one candidate who has put his or her name forward to stand, we would very simply number off: one, two, three, four. Now, we could have one ballot with all the committees listed, which is, perhaps, unwieldy, or we could have a separate ballot. We would have our 20 ballot boxes, members would vote and then the various clerks of the House of Commons would tally the results and post them the next day. It is very simple to do, not very difficult and very easy to implement. Again, that is not a decision I am trying to make or impose. It is just something that I am suggesting and that is for the committee to decide.

Here is another very good question that was put to me. How would we actually ensure diversity among the people who are committee chairs?

One of the first things I would say is that this is a very political process. Everything we do here is political. I would think all members of the House would have some interest in seeing a diverse range of people taking the chairmanships of the committees. Therefore, there would be a pressure to vote for a variety of candidates to encourage people who we know may not fit the traditional image of a committee chair to step forward.

By and large, the way caucuses work, with the way representation is, I think if there was an election where committee chairs all came from one very narrow demographic, purely from one province, for example, very quickly in the next election that situation would be solved. Because as we all know, we very are much influenced and open to political pressures both in our caucus and in dealing with the general public.

It would probably be more difficult for rookies to get appointed or elected as committee chairs than it would be for veterans. That is normative now, as we see most committee chairs are people with experience. It does help to have some idea how this place runs before we get involved in a leadership post. Having said that, if someone is an energetic brand new member with a talent and an ability to communicate, they will be known by members in their caucus and the members of their caucus will vouch for that and will help them to get their candidacy put forward.

What I am asking from other members of the House? What am I looking for?

I am looking, in the committee and from other members, for concrete ideas as to how we can take this and make this very modest reform. The mechanics should be simple. However, they need to be thought out. They need to be looked into. Problems need to be delved into to see what can be done to improve this, to make this work.

The second thing I am looking for from members is to use this as a springboard to start to think about other ways and other places we need to have reforms done, both in committee and in caucus. This would be an opportunity for members to come together, to be collaborative, to be productive. I suggest this as a very modest, positive step to help make this place a more functioning, better democracy.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague and I would tend to agree with him. However, I would encourage opposition members to prove both me and my colleague wrong by actually taking one of their private member's slots and introducing their ideal legislation.

If they do desire to make this change, with all these years, perhaps the members there could provide their piece of legislation and their changes in a private member's bill and let the House debate those changes. The government bill will pass. If they think there are improvements, perhaps later on in this Parliament we can look at those improvements.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, I am not an expert, not having sat in at all of the meetings of this committee. However, having read some notes in preparation for this debate tonight, a few thoughts come to mind.

First of all, it was noted that there would be educational packages for provincial judges to make them familiar with the context and other issues involving this. There would be an educational and integrative approach. Another thing that I noted, having listened to the debate tonight, is that reserves, particularly those that are more developed, advanced and interested in seizing the initiative, could take legislative initiatives of their own. They could apply their own decisions and cultures and shape this. That would also be done partially in the regulations, as is my understanding.

Having read and researched this, my understanding is that there would still be elements for flexibility. This piece of legislation is going to go forward. The majority of the House has indicated support for it, but there would still be ways to shape this going forward through education, regulation and dealing with the reserves that individually take their own initiative to expand matrimonial property rights for their membership.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before I get too far into my notes, I should indicate for both the House and your sake that I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

As I was saying when I started my speech, it is obvious from all sides of the House that this is an issue of passion. It is an issue that has been debated for many years, and it is interesting to listen.

I will not pretend to be an expert on the minutiae of the bill. I do not sit on any of the committees that have dealt with it, nor am I deeply enmeshed in some of the details, as some of my colleagues are.

However, I have been here for a few years. It is coming up on nine years now, and I do know that this is government legislation that has been before us a few times.

However, I want to give credit that the ideas behind it, the theme, were private member's legislation. My former colleague for Portage—Lisgar, Brian Pallister, took it upon himself to introduce this legislation as a private member's bill. It was the basic theme or idea we are dealing with tonight. I remember hearing him speaking about it here in the House. He was passionate about it.

That constituency is bedrock Conservative. This is not exactly an issue on which swing voters or political self-interest would particularly come into play, but Brian met a personal friend who had an experience on a reserve. He had been involved in a situation that this legislation would deal with. It was because of that passion that he got involved in this issue and began to drive it forward.

I congratulate him. He is now the leader of the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives and was the inspiration behind getting the unanimous consent of the Manitoba legislature—Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and I believe one Liberal—to call upon this House to get moving with the legislation.

It is one of the things we need to do, because when Brian went forward on this, it was not for political gain and not because a major constituency needed the legislation, but because it was the right thing to do. He was inspired because of a real case and he needed to serve his people.

That is why I am asking all members of this House to look at this legislation seriously, to look at the underlying principles involved, because this legislation is about helping those who do not have the power to defend themselves.

Every politician comes to this place with an underlying philosophy, an underlying set of principles. What is government about? What is the purpose of government?

I believe the purpose of government is fundamentally to defend a few basic things. Government should be limited. Government should be restricted, but it should be about defending people's lives. The right to life is fundamental. It should be about defending their liberty and it should be about defending their property.

These are three rights, three fundamental things that intertwine, and it is for that reason and because of those principles that I will be supporting this legislation.

What is more fundamental to human life, particularly in a country like Canada, with our severe winters and our tough climate? We take pride in it and we brag about it, but if we did not have a place to live in winter in Canada, our very lives would be at stake. That is why we need to deal with this fundamental legislation.

When a family situation breaks down, it is almost always the female member of the couple—the woman in the household, often with children involved—who is deprived of a place to live. Then it is a matter of fundamental survival. It is not about wealth, privilege or prestige; it is about whether or not the person lives.

The bill also deals with basic liberties, because if something goes wrong—if there is a dispute, if there is some issue that cannot be resolved—a woman could be turfed out of her house. She is then restricted in her freedom and in what else she can do in her life. She lives in a constant state, in some respects, of being in her own little prison.

This is a bill about matrimonial property. This is about who owns, possesses and controls the physical aspects of life.

This legislation is fundamentally on the basic principles of why a government should be involved in something. That is why I support it. It is about fundamental justice. It is about the reason many of us got involved in politics, which is not to provide and protect those who are wealthy. Those who have money, property and connections can afford lawyers and another place to live. This piece of legislation seeks to help those who are weak and do not have the strength to always fight for what they need.

Some of the critics of this bill have criticized it and said that other things are needed. Absolutely. I am not here to argue that there are other things needed, whether programming, justice or police services. However, under no circumstances should we ever permit the perfect to be the enemy or the opposite of that which is good.

I do not think there is a single member of this House who thinks the underlying sentiments and the desire to do things in the bill are not proper and just. Members may disagree with aspects of the bill. There is dispute about who was consulted, who was listened to and who was not. However, I think every member of this House can fundamentally agree that when we seek to do something to provide and protect women and children who are being thrown out of their houses, we are doing what we should as parliamentarians. We are not here to look after ourselves. We are here to look after the needs of those who most need us in this country.

As I said earlier, I am not the greatest expert on this, but having listened to a few of the remarks, I will deal with a few issues according to the notes I have been given about things that can be done to help and I will answer some of the criticisms.

One of the criticisms I heard earlier from an opposition member, and I am assuming it was well meant, was that there would be difficulties accessing justice in remote communities. That is true. I have worked in the north in my career as a geophysicist in our three territories. In many places in remote communities, it is difficult to always have justice immediately on the spot.

However, the underlying intent of this bill is to provide legal certainty to make it easier for couples to come to an agreement so that they do not have to go to court. There would be regulations that would include provisions concerning applications made pursuant to federal rules to increase access to justice.

There are aspects concerning emergency protection orders for spouses or common-law partners who could apply for exclusive occupation of a home. There is a provision that should a spouse or common-law partner not be able to apply for an emergency protection order, a peace officer or other person may apply on behalf of that spouse or partner.

In remote communities, where it is difficult to have judicial access, lawyers etcetera, this bill makes provisions for them.

As was also said, this bill is not sufficient. We on this side of the House agree. There are other things to be done. I will just note that the economic action plan of 2013 provided $24 million for a family violence prevention program, and there is other programming and funding.

As my time winds down, let me urge this House to think of the fundamental principles we need to look after and who we are here to support. This bill is ultimately meant to look after those who are weak. It is a noble bill. There are disagreements about whether it is a perfect bill. I understand that, but let us not have the good and the perfect be at odds on this legislation.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to participate in and be part of this debate. As some of my colleagues are indicating, passions are running high on this piece of legislation, and this piece—

[BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, May 21st, 2013]

Mr. Chair, very briefly, to the parliamentary secretary, how is the government balancing environmental needs and development needs? How is the government contributing to a more environmentally friendly mining sector?