David McGuinty

[Gasoline Prices, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for bringing forward his private member's motion. It is a noble effort, and I would like to speak to it today in two parts.

First, I would like to address Motion No. 165 by addressing the notion of a petroleum monitoring agency. This first proposal calls for the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency that would prepare an annual report on all aspects of the petroleum industry for consideration by the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.

The proposal is very similar to a recommendation made by the former Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in November of 2003, at the conclusion of its report on gasoline prices in Canada. The committee's recommendation, however, at that time specifically indicated that a primary role of the agency should be to collect and disseminate pricing data, by removing specific reference to the collection and dissemination of pricing data and by replacing it with a mandate to report “on all aspects of the industry, including how prices are set and competition issues”. The motion suggests an even larger role for a new agency.

Further to this last point, I should note that the committee's report concluded:

In terms of federal government action, the Committee is satisfied that the Competition Bureau has sufficient powers, personnel and resources devoted to overseeing competitive aspects of the petroleum industry.

Based on this finding, I have to ask, why do we need an agency with an expanded mandate to report annually “on all aspects of the industry, including how prices are set and competition issues?”

In particular, in its report on gasoline pricing in Canada, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology examined a significant increase in the price of gasoline that took place over several months. It found that the price increase:

--was the result of industry participants’ competitive reactions to a series of international crises and the abnormally cold weather that gripped northeast North America last winter. No evidence was presented to the Committee of a conspiracy to raise and fix prices, nor was there evidence presented of abusive behaviour on the part of vertically integrated suppliers in the form of squeezing retail margins to eliminate or discipline independent retailers.

In its response to the committee's report on gasoline prices in Canada, the Government of Canada indicated that it had given careful consideration to the recommendation concerning the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency. Still the government concluded that current activities undertaken by federal and provincial governments or agencies, combined with information collected and widely distributed by the private sector, “provide the most practical and cost-effective method of informing the consumer”.

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that the creation of a new petroleum monitoring agency, with its inevitable costs, is needed.

Let me turn secondly then to the bill's call for amendments to the Competition Act. The second part of the motion proposes that the government should bring:

forward amendments to strengthen the Competition Act, including measures to ensure that the Competition Commissioner has the power to launch investigations, summon witnesses and ensure confidentiality.

The government indicated in the throne speech that it was committed to providing an up to date legislative framework for business, and that it would propose changes to amend the Competition Act.

The government has already acted on the latter commitment. Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, was tabled in early November of 2004, and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology on November 16. The proposed legislation follows extensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders, large and small businesses, consumers, consumer groups, economists and legal experts to help ensure that the proposed amendments will contribute to a modern competition regime in Canada.

The proposed legislation, which is consistent with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in 2002, includes the following actions.

First, it gives the Commissioner of Competition the authority to seek restitution for consumer loss resulting from false or misleading representations. This will encourage companies to be accurate in their claims. It will allow consumers to get up to the amount paid if they have been duped by false claims.

Second, it introduces a general administrative monetary penalty provision for abuse of dominance in any industry. Currently, with the exception of airlines, the main consequence for abuse of dominance is simply an order from the Competition Tribunal requiring an end to the practice. Under exceptional circumstances, a structural change, such as divestiture, may be required. This amendment represents an additional tool to ensure compliance with the Competition Act.

Third, the legislation also removes airline specific provisions from the act to return it to a law of general application.

Fourth, finally it decriminalizes the pricing provisions dealing with price discrimination, regional price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances, so they can be dealt with under a civil regime, and this is very important, and the abuse of dominant position provisions of the Competition Act. This means that conduct like predatory pricing will receive the benefit of a full hearing on its likely economic effect. Cases will also be assessed by the Competition Tribunal with a lower civil burden of proof compared to the former criminal burden of proof.

The motion before us is not clear. It does not describe what amendments are being proposed, other than amendments to strengthen the Competition Act.

Let us look at the facts. The Commissioner can currently initiate inquiries if there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed or that grounds exist for the making of a remedial order by the Competition Tribunal. The Commissioner can summon witnesses, subject to judicial authorization; and the Commissioner must keep information confidential pursuant to section 29 of the Competition Act.

While not clear, Motion No. 165 may be referring to a suggestion that the Commissioner should have the power to conduct inquiries into markets or industry practices, even if there is no reason to believe that an offence has been committed when significant competition issues have been raised.

Other members of the Bloc Québécois have publicly indicated that this would represent an improvement to the Competition Act, and have cited a study of the gasoline industry as an example of why such powers are needed.

However, this is the government's experience. Recent nationwide consultations on various options to strengthen the Competition Act included a proposal to allow the Commissioner to ask an independent body, such as the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, to inquire into the state of competition and the functioning of markets in any sector of the Canadian economy. While some stakeholders supported the idea of market or general inquiries, many stakeholders raised strong objections to this proposal.

Serious concerns were raised with respect to procedures, length of time that these types of inquiries typically take and substantial costs likely to be incurred by both government and businesses in inquiries of this nature.

It is my understanding that in response to these concerns, the Competition Bureau is now presently examining the approaches used in other jurisdictions on a comparative basis that have general inquiry powers for competition related issues.

This brings me to my final point. The Competition Act, which dates back to 1889, is legislation of general application which provides a framework within which business can operate. It is important to approach changes to it with very careful consideration and to fully understand the possible implications of proposed amendments. There is no evidence indicating that a petroleum monitoring agency is needed.

Second, if the motion refers to general or market inquiries, I understand that more work is currently being undertaken by the Competition Bureau to resolve issues raised by stakeholders during consultations.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what is remarkable about the work of this Prime Minister that all members of the House should keep in mind is that he was one of the earliest proponents of the expansion of the notion of the G-7 to an L20.

Why did he drive that? I am convinced he drove it because he understood that there are a number of mid-power nation-states all over the world that needed to come together and serve in some ways as a counterweight to, for example, the economic power of the United States of America.

This is not to say that this party is anti-United States or anti-American, but simply to admit that there is an L20 need out there, and I think the Prime Minister should be congratulated in fairness and objectively for his work in pursuing this notion on an international basis.

The Canada Corps is a wonderful opportunity for young Canadians to go abroad and take the message of Canadian multilateralism, Canadian tolerance and Canadian diversity to all four corners of the planet.

This is something that the split or the hiving off of the Department of Foreign Affairs will further facilitate in terms of the management, the support and the spreading of the message that the L20 concept is a positive one for Canada and the globe, and the Canada Corps messages that informed its creation are desperately needed at a time when there are so many different hot spots and conflicts all over the world.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, again I was trying to discern a question. I appreciate the comment.

Again, let us be clear with respect to CIDA. Why is the role of the CIDA minister not dealt with specifically in this legislation? This legislation is simple. It is to codify in law the December 2003 order in council. There are no ghosts hovering around this bill. Second, the amended act continues to provide for the Minister of International Cooperation to assist the Minister of Foreign Affairs, clearly in his or her responsibilities relating to the conduct of Canada's international relations. There is nothing omitted here that was not already included before.

Third, the government has decided to maintain the existing close integration of international development assistance, policies and programs with our foreign policy more generally. We all know of the symmetry, for example, between Canada's multilateral approach, which some describe as part of Canadian DNA, and our international development, our good governance work, our rule of law work in other jurisdictions. An example of that is what we are doing today in Afghanistan.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to discern a specific question or two with respect to the comments, but let me react to a few things the member said earlier.

To begin, she spoke about the question of CIDA and whether or not CIDA has a particular mandate, a specific mandate, a legislated mandate. This is an interesting question. As a former lawyer who has performed a lot of international development work, who has acted in an executive capacity for CIDA and whose own spouse spent five years working for CIDA, I find that an interesting comment when 1,100 employees of the Canadian International Development Agency and several thousand consultants do not believe they have a mandate.

The mandate of CIDA is crystal clear. It is informed by a series of principles and objectives, including the sustainable development of the planet, as CIDA pursues its development projects all over the world in dozens and dozens of countries.

The second fact the member has omitted to share with the House is the fact that many and in fact dozens of government departments have international activities. Each of these is coordinated through and under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is another reason why we needed to hive off and form a separate department. It was so we could better manage what is happening at Agriculture Canada, at Environment Canada or at the Treasury Board in terms of international projects and in terms of technical assistance which is going on all over the world. This is a strengthening of our capacity to deal with these internal management challenges.

Furthermore, just to be very clear, how can the governor in council simply create a new department? Does Parliament not have to approve a new department? The creation of new departments occurred within the statutory framework provided by Parliament. Under the authority of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, this governor in council has the ability to transfer portions of the public service and ministerial powers, duties and functions from one part of the public service to another or from one minister to another.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to contribute to the introduction of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I think that this measure will definitely help Canada produce a more balanced and more consistent foreign policy as we enter the 21st century and will thus ensure a more certain and more prosperous future for all Canadians. I agree with my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and I invite all members to support this bill.

I have no intention, of course, of repeating the minister's remarks; rather I will describe the proposed changes in more detail and provide some context.

As has already been mentioned, a year ago the Governor General signed an order in council separating the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade into two distinct departments. The order in council created the two departments and integrated them into the legislative framework governing all departments.

The order was made under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, which enables the governor in council to transfer any portion of the public service and powers and duties from one portion of the public service or from one minister to another. This act also gives the governor in council the power to reorganize the administration, which is essential to give the government sufficient latitude, but not the power to give or increase powers without the prior approval of Parliament.

The bill at hand only codifies the changes to the operations of the former Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in accordance with the order in council regarding the Department of Foreign Affairs. In actual fact, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of International Trade have been operating as distinct entities for nearly a year.

This bill is being studied in parallel with the bill creating the Department of International Trade. That said, I shall limit myself to a brief review of the amendments it proposes to make to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act.

Bill C-32 simply gives official status to the responsibilities given to the Minister and Department of Foreign Affairs by the December 12, 2003, order in council. Broadly speaking, the proposed amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act consist in erasing references to international trade.

Because of the creation of the Department of International Trade, the reason for these changes is obvious. Therefore, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act will become the Departmentof Foreign Affairs Act and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will simply be called the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The changes will allow the minister and the employees of the department to use the new name in their official and legal correspondence.

The bill confirms that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will remain the head of the department whereas any mention of the Minister of International Trade as additional minister will be removed. However, it still mentions the Minister of International Cooperation, who supports the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his duties concerning Canada's international relations and has access to the services and facilities of the department.

However, there are now only two foreign affairs associate deputy ministers instead of three, the minister having the power to appoint one of them as deputy minister for political affairs. The bill eliminates reference to the associate deputy minister for international trade, which can now be found in the International Trade Department Act.

The powers and duties of the Minister of Foreign Affairs remain unchanged with the exception of his responsibilities over international trade which will now be under the purview of the Minister of International Trade.

For example, the section which describes the duties of the Minister of International Trade is totally removed as is the mention of international trade development. I want to underline that the international economic relations coordination function has been changed to reflect the general mandate given the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the administration of the foreign policy and the coordination of international relations.

Of course, the bill stipulates that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will no longer have the power to develop or implement trade development programs. The bill also adds on a section on allocation of funds stating that the funds authorized by Parliament for the Department's capital expenditures that are not used before year-end become obsolete at the end of the following year, unless otherwise stated in an appropriation act.

It goes without saying that the bill also provides for the addition of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the schedules of the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Privacy Act and the Public Sector Compensation Act. The bill creating the Department of International Trade will remove all reference to the former DFAIT in both pieces of legislation.

The powers and responsibilities of the Minister of International Trade will henceforth be set under the Department of International Trade Act, which will also amend certain other acts to replace “Minister of Foreign Affairs” by “Minister of International Trade” or to add reference to the “Minister of International Trade” if needed.

This measure is not expected to have any repercussions on the daily activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Consular services and passport services for the public will not be affected, and Foreign Affairs Canada has promised to maintain these services for all partner departments in missions.

On an operational level, all the major aspects of the separation should soon be in place. As I was saying earlier, the two departments already operate independently and coordinate their activities. The division of resources and personnel is a complex matter, but I am sure that if it is well managed, the two departments will be able to focus on their respective main mandates and Canada will be able to follow its chosen path, reinforcing its place in the world and giving itself a 21st century economy.

As the parliamentary secretary has already said, our entire foreign policy and the Department of Foreign Affairs itself, should be in step with globalization. This requires more than one department or internal agency, not to mention the provinces, to have a presence abroad. It is important to lay out a consistent strategic framework based on partnerships to achieve this.

Given the crucial role of international trade, investment and the integration of the Canadian economy to the global economy, it goes without saying that the Department of International Trade has an important place in this collaboration. For its part, once the Department of International Trade goes its separate way, the Department of Foreign Affairs will be in a better position to focus on its fundamental mandate, which will give increasing importance to achieving consistency between international programs and programs within the Canadian government and its new partners. It will be incumbent upon the Department of Foreign Affairs to interrelate the various repercussions on foreign policy of each partner's actions in trade, defence, development, environment, and so forth, and to promote in interdepartmental authorities an understanding of the larger international context.

I will let my colleagues elaborate on the advantages this bill presents to Canada. I just want to say that it is important to pass this bill. For a year now, the two departments involved, with their partner department, have worked extremely hard to promote Canada's international program.

That said, in a nutshell, there are several fundamental messages here that Canadians should understand.

First, the legislation simply reaffirms and enshrines the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs to coordinate and conduct Canada's foreign policy.

The Bloc Québécois continues to raise issues that are far outside the ambit of this bill and its effect. They are valid and legitimate questions that surround the question of globalization and the integration of human rights, environmental rights and environmental protection, the protection of labourers, and so on and so forth, but as far as I am concerned they fall well outside the ambit of the import of this basic bill which gives rise to a separate foreign affairs department to coordinate and conduct Canada's foreign policy.

In effect, this is simply the codification of provisions in the 12th of December, 2003 order, and it formalizes the separation of both departments. As such, the legislation has no impact whatsoever on day to day government operations. If that were the case, we would have seen such impacts, given that we are now many months after the original separation of both departments.

There are four salient features that inform the highlights of this legislation. This reaffirms that the Department of Foreign Affairs is under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for the management and the direction of both the department in Canada and abroad. It makes explicit that this minister conducts Canada's foreign policy, and no other minister, and coordinates Canada's international relations. It removes from the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs those responsibilities that are simply related to international trade. It adjusts several federal acts to reflect that Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada are two separate departments.

This bill has to be read in conjunction with the bill establishing the Department of International Trade, and although there are valid concerns being raised by all members of the House with respect to the system which governs the global marketplace, the system which governs the protection of labour and labourers, the emerging system that is in place to protect our international and national environments, the import of this bill is a simple one. It creates a separate department.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table this afternoon presented by a group of very concerned citizens with reference to children suffering from autism spectrum disorder.

These citizens are calling upon the government to amend the Canada health Act and the corresponding regulations to include a particular kind of therapy called IBI and ABA for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment, and to require further that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism. They are also interested in the creation of academic chairs at universities to help with the research on IBI and ABA.

[Foreign Affairs, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Togo, a member of the Francophonie, is of great concern. On the death of President Eyadéma, Togo did not comply with its constitutional requirement for the national assembly to fulfill interim presidential duties until an election could be held. Instead, the military put the late president's son in power, throwing that country into total disarray.

What action is the Francophonie taking to protest this situation?

[Black History Month, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, February 12, 2004 marks the sixth annual Black History Month program in Ottawa. The theme of the program is “Keepers of the Story: Making a Difference--the Power of Choice”.

This history in the street is a contemporary tribute to historic persons who laid the foundation for our human rights culture in Canada. They include Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe, Chief Justice William Osgoode, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, the Hon. George Brown, Isabella Brown and Lord Elgin.

In 1793 Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe and his cabinet passed the first anti-slave trade bill in the British Empire and opened the way to the underground railroad movement to Canada. It was our nation's first anti-discrimination legislation.

The 12th of February honours Nelson Mandela, an honorary citizen of Canada who opted for reconciliation after walking to freedom in Africa on February 11, 1990.

This initiative of the J'Nikira Dinqinesh Education Centre is presented with Dalhousie University's chair of Black Canadian Studies, Library and Archives Canada, with assistance from the Ottawa--

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

This is a bill that responds to the needs of Canadian consumers. They are fed up with unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls. I am sure that every member in the House could give anecdotal evidence of the frustrations felt by our families, friends and neighbours. Many of us could speak from personal experience. Everyone can tell a story about being interrupted by telemarketers in the middle of dinner or in the midst of putting the kids to bed or some other quiet time.

There are times when we are willing to listen to people who want to sell us something, or want us to donate to a worthy cause. There are other times when these pitches are intrusive and a nuisance.

But we no longer need to rely upon anecdotal evidence to tell us what Canadians think about telemarketing. In 2003, Environics conducted a survey on consumer attitudes toward telemarketing, and 81% of respondents reported receiving unsolicited calls. On average, respondents received 3.43 unsolicited calls per week.

Of those consumers who receive at least one call per week, 44% are more likely to report receiving calls from charities; 24% report receiving calls from firms they have done business with in the past; and 27% report receiving calls from firms with which they have not done business.

Hon. members will not be surprised to learn that many Canadians do not like receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The poll tells us that 38% tolerate them; 35% are annoyed by them; and fully 24% say that they hate them. In fact, some 14% of the people Environics polled reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call.

Among this subgroup 39% indicated that the complaint was resolved. A significant majority, 59%, said that their complaints were not resolved. This is an indication of a system that simply does not work. When nearly three out of five complainants state that their complaints were not resolved, we know that there is something wrong with the framework laws that govern telemarketing.

It is time to present some accountability and consumer response to the telemarketing rules. That is precisely what the bill does. It provides Canadians with an effective, easy way to curtail intrusive telemarketing and establishes the authority to set fines against those telemarketers who ignore the rules.

At the heart of the bill is the government's decision to create a national do not call list. The Environics research indicates that 79% of those surveyed would support a national do not call list, and 66% likely would sign up for the service.

The bill gives the CRTC the authority to set up an arm's length administrator for that list, and the authority to fine those telemarketing companies that persist in calling people who have registered on the list. The bill also provides the CRTC with the authority to establish fees to recover the costs of maintaining this system.

Once this bill has been passed, the CRTC will undertake public consultations to work out the implementation details. It will seek public comment on what types of organizations should be required to use the do not call list, and on who should pay for the operation of the list.

To get an idea how this system would operate, we need only look south of the border to see how a comparable system in the United States works. Media coverage has made the Canadian public well aware of the success of a national do not call registry to regulate telemarketing there.

In the U.S., telemarketing businesses are required to register with a regulator. A minimum of once every three months they must download an updated list of registered telephone numbers. These registered telephone numbers will come from consumers who have requested to not be called. The telemarketing businesses are required to delete any registered do not call telephone numbers from their call databases.

In Canada there would be penalties for telemarketers who violated the do not call list. The penalties would be $1,500 per offence for a person and $15,000 per offence for a corporation. The CRTC's decisions to impose penalties would be subject to review by the CRTC itself and may be referred to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Consumer groups, including the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, already favour the creation of a national do not call list. We know that 79% of those surveyed by Environics also said they would be in favour of a national do not call list. I am sure that if hon. members canvassed their constituents they would find them solidly in favour of a national do not call list.

I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the House have also favoured this approach to regulating telemarketing. I especially want to acknowledge the work done on this issue by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Occasionally the House has the opportunity to do something good, something great, for many Canadians. Sometimes these issues have enormous magnitude, such as improving the quality of our health care system, or ensuring that Canadians from low income families have an opportunity for higher education. However, I venture to say that there are few bills that would receive such widespread support as the one we are debating today.

It would create the right regulatory environment for sensible, smart telemarketing. It would safeguard the privacy of Canadians and their right to choose with whom they wish to communicate. For thousands of Canadians who may opt to register on a national do not call list, it would mean quiet evenings with their families free from commercial interruption.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the motion this afternoon.

I commend the member for his efforts in keeping this issue alive but, unfortunately, I think many of the things that he has put forward in the motion are somewhat misguided and not always reliant entirely on the facts in terms of what the government has been doing in this regard.

The history of first nations, Métis and Inuit military service is quite remarkable and, when called, of course Canada's aboriginal veterans answered the call by the thousands. They served nobly in all three major wars of the last century.

The first world war, with its trench warfare, its poison gas and its machine guns, destroyed virtually a full generation of young Canadian men. Among them were at least 300 aboriginal Canadian soldiers.

Over four years, aboriginal Canadian soldiers participated and earned medals for valour in practically every major land battle.

More than 200 native Canadian soldiers were killed or died from their wounds during the second world war. Natives earned a minimum of 18 decorations for bravery in action. They participated in every major battle and campaign, including the disastrous Dieppe landings and the pivotal Normandy invasion.

They also served in one of the worst imaginable theatres, Hong Kong, where just under 2,000 members of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada became prisoners of war of the Japanese. Included among them were at least 16 Indians and Métis, nine of whom died from wounds or illness.

Korea would see our aboriginal veterans answer the call to service as well.

It is for such service that all Canadians want to see that aboriginal veterans are treated with fairness and justice. If and where there has been elements of unfairness over time, we want to take steps to correct that unfairness. The government believes it has done just that.

In February 2000, some federal ministers invited the aboriginal veterans to come and discuss the treatment they received during and after the wars.

The National Round Table on First Nations Veterans Issues was created with the first nations veterans. Discussions took place with the National Métis Veterans Association on the subject of Métis veterans, and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association agreed to take part in a research project on the fate of non-status Indian veterans after the wars.

The grievances of aboriginal veterans relating to their treatment during and after the wars are very complex and have been examined and discussed many times in various fora over the recent past. The member opposite knows this full well.

At each discussion, the complexities become even more apparent. They are difficult matters to grasp, partially because they invariably require an understanding of issues that originated decades ago. A reading of history decades later can give rise to all sorts of legitimate misunderstandings and misinterpretations. In that reading, we are faced with different perspectives of different parties, which makes it difficult to respond in a manner that satisfies everyone.

In order to look at these issues in their context, we should examine the history of veterans' benefits offered to all who served in wartime. Here they are, in broad terms.

Every veteran who was honourably discharged was eligible for a war service allowance and a clothing allowance. In addition, if they met the eligibility criteria, veterans could choose one of the following options: first, a re-establishment credit , second, educational assistance, including retraining allowances, or third, assistance under the Veterans Land Act.

I am going to leave it to my colleagues to speak to some of the more substantial detail about how the application of these demobilization benefits played out over time.

There is no denying that for decades aboriginal veterans, that is to say first nations, Métis, non-status and Inuit, have felt that they were not treated fairly by the Government of Canada after the wars.

As I mentioned earlier, to better understand and respond to the concerns of first nations veterans, the federal government established a national round table in February 2000. Provisions were made for first nations veterans to research how various departments dealt with their requests for demobilization benefits after the wars, including, of course, Veterans Affairs Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs.

The round table also focused on collecting oral testimonies from first nations veterans, identifying acts, policies and programs available to veterans and to their spouses during and after the wars and of course gathering data on the names of first nations veterans.

There is no doubt from file reviews, research and discussions of the round table that first nations veterans received the demobilization benefits to which they were entitled after the wars. However, those who chose to return to their reserve communities after the wars had to deal with an extra layer of bureaucracy in order to receive their demobilization benefits. Veterans Affairs Canada provided the benefits for first nations veterans on reserve to their Indian agents, who in turn were to provide the benefits to the veterans.

In response to the report presented by the national round table, on June 21, 2002, the Government of Canada announced that it would provide $20,000 to each living first nations veteran who returned to a reserve after the wars or their living spouse.

Hon. members might recall that when the previous minister of veterans affairs made the announcement in the House, members of all political parties applauded the announcement. This tax free amount of $20,000 was, after all, consistent with other lump sum packages offered to other veterans' groups by the Government of Canada.

Veterans Affairs Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have worked with the national round table working group in order to get the message out about the federal offer to the various first nations communities. Although the original application date closed on February 15, 2003, late applications have still been accepted. To date, 1,195 ex gratia payments have indeed been made.

The situation of Métis and non-status Indian veterans is not the same as that of first nations veterans who returned to the reserves, because they did not have to deal with a third party. Furthermore, access to assistance provided under the Veterans' Land Act had not been complicated by issues of inalienable reserves located on Crown land.

The federal government nonetheless established a separate process to deal with these concerns.

Substantial funding was provided to the National Métis Veterans Association and the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to deal with issues concerning Métis and non-status Indian veterans respectively. It was used to pursue fact-finding discussions to investigate what happened to these veterans after the wars, to compile listings of Métis and non-status Indian veterans, and to collaborate with government in researching their post-war experiences.

Evidence to date indicates that these veterans opted for and received the same demobilization benefits as other veterans. Should aboriginal veterans feel that they did not receive demobilization benefits they were entitled to after the wars, they should contact the department and their files will be reviewed on an individual basis.

Since the wording of Motion M-193 suggests that first nations, Métis and Inuit war veterans are in the same situation when it comes to compensation for veterans, it is appropriate to provide some information.

The offer of ex-gratia payments provided to first nations veterans was based in part on the fact that many of them who returned to the reserves after the wars were unable to deal directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Furthermore, the round table found that because of the extra layer of bureaucracy, the veterans did not receive all the benefits to which they were entitled.

This was not the case for Métis and other aboriginal veterans. Veterans Affairs Canada has precise records of the demobilization benefits paid directly to these veterans. Extensive file reviews have shown that the benefits paid to these veterans were the same as the benefits paid to non-aboriginal veterans. Of course, Veterans Affairs Canada will be pleased to review the files of any aboriginal veterans who feel they did not receive the benefits that were their due.