Garry Breitkreuz

[Justice, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn said in this House: "Everybody knows Clifford Olson will not be granted parole".

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he agrees with this former chair of the justice committee. If so, why is he allowing Clifford Olson to terrorize his victims over and over again?

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 3rd, 1997]

Since the passage of the gun storage laws in Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, how many incidents have there been where firearms have been stolen from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, from Provincial Police Forces, from Municipal Police Forces, from individual police officers, from military establishments and from members of the armed forces in Canada, and for each incident include the date, description and details of each of these incidents complete with the results of the investigation, and with respect to each incident, advise ( a ) whether the incident was a violation of Section 86(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and ( b ) whether charges were laid and if not, why not?

[Indian Act Optional Modification Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-79.

I attended the news conference when the minister introduced this legislation. I was not impressed then and I now have had the chance to study the bill and I am still not impressed.

I listened with interest to the minister's concluding remarks. He talked about the need to destroy the wall. Yes, there probably is a

wall there called the Indian Act. The only way it will be destroyed is to repeal the Indian Act.

However, I do not think that is a good analogy. I think this is a pit. It is a pit that we have put the aboriginal people into and they cannot get out. Now we are providing another pit, we are giving them a choice between two pits by introducing Bill C-79.

After the minister spoke at the news conference, Assembly of First Nations Chief Ovid Mercredi spoke on behalf of 500 Indian bands which oppose this legislation. He said "we do not like Indian act No. 1, why should we like Indian act No. 2?". He was referring to this. He referred to the Indian Act as a cage. He said "why should we be happy because the government says `look at the new cage we made for you?"'

The minister of Indian affairs promised to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-79 is not an amendment to the Indian Act. It is an act that allows Indian bands to opt out of the current Indian Act and into a new one.

Specifically, Bill C-79 removes the need for ministerial approval for the sale of agricultural products and certain artefacts. It is not clear whether they can also bypass the Canadian Wheat Board, which we were debating earlier this morning. The question should be answered as to whether they would have to comply with the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Additional bylaw making powers are conferred on band councils. Fines levied for violation of the Indian Act, the regulations or band bylaws are increased to $5,000 and are payable directly to band councils. None of this revenue needs to be accounted for nor does it have any effect on the amount of tax dollars flowing into the community. Again, we need an answer. We need to know why this is so.

Bill C-79 allows bands to create a voluntary ticketing scheme in order to expedite law enforcement.

Also by virtue of Bill C-79 the minister, rather than the governor in council, is given the opportunity to set aside elections. The term of office for a chief and council is extended from two to three years. This will not make many of the native people I know who are living under anti-democratic band councils very happy.

The minister is authorized to enter into agreements with band councils for educational purposes. It seems this is already happening. Is the minister simply putting into legislation what is already happening today, legitimizing it?

The minister's authority for road construction and repair is removed in Bill C-79. However, the bill does not say who will be responsible and liable for public safety on these roads and bridges under band control. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

Bands are now given the authority to manage natural resources on band held land. However, the revenue flowing from these resources is once again unaccounted for. Nor will this revenue reduce the amount of grants and contributions flowing from the federal government. The fundamental relationship between crown and aboriginal peoples is not changed.

Bill C-79 includes a non-derogation clause. Aboriginal treaty rights remain protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Nothing in Bill C-79 affects taxation, Indian registration, band membership or the protection of reserve lands. Bill C-79 is like its cousin, Bill C-75.

First Nations land management which was introduced December 10, 1996 creates two categories of bands with special status for those who opt into Bill C-79.

Bill C-79 does not meet our party's litmus test for equality, financial accountability or democratic accountability at the band level. Those are the three tests we measure legislation with.

Bill C-79 is the first bill introduced by the minister that is not an initiative of the previous Tory administration. Bill C-79 does not fulfil the minister's promise to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-79 stands on its own. It is not an amendment to the present Indian Act.

Bill C-79 was rushed to fulfil a promise and respond to the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. Review by justice officials is suspect because changes were being made until the evening before it was tabled.

The Assembly of First Nations claims that only 100 of the 600 First Nations support Bill C-79. Bill C-79 does not bring democratic equality, and raises serious concerns with powers granted to chiefs and councillors.

Bill C-79 does not bring financial accountability and reduces the minister's scrutiny. The auditor general is still excluded from auditing band books, just like he is excluded from scrutinizing the Canadian Wheat Board.

Bill C-79 will probably be constitutionally challenged as a consequence of this opting in provision. It will create a bureaucratic nightmare and a field day for lawyers and consultants. That is a major concern of ours.

Like Bill C-75, it lets the minister off the hook and allows him to wash his hands rather than take on those elements of the Indian Act that warrant amendments and/or repeal.

Canadians, both native and non-native, were looking for leadership and vision. They got neither. Why is the minister afraid of giving equality a try? Here are some of the crucial steps we need to take toward equality. When I talk about equality, it does not mean assimilation.

The Indian Act must be repealed and replaced with legislation that will move us closer to true equality. Maybe we should call it

the equality for Indians act. We need to agree on a definition of self-government, something that has not happened.

The majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian people, will support aboriginal self-government as long as the federal government's relationship with Indian reserves is similar to the relationship between provinces and municipalities. Most of Canada's aboriginal people-there are about 500,000 of them-already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000 treaty Indians currently living on reserves or crown land across Canada.

Treaty Indians deserve the same rights and freedoms and should share the same duties and responsibilities enjoyed by the tens of millions of municipal residents across the entire country.

For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the charter of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to aboriginal people and Indian governments. We cannot have two systems.

Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic nor financially accountable until and unless a normal local government to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal government must make treaty entitlements payable in part directly to individual treaty Indians living on reserves. The local band administration could then establish a local tax system to pay for local services. Government payments for welfare and housing could easily be transferred in this manner. All treaty entitlements and benefits should be considered a taxable benefit in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

Every treaty Indian should pay income taxes, excise taxes and the GST, just like every other Canadian. Every treaty Indian entitled to compensation benefits or services promised by a treaty should have the choice of receiving those entitlements directly from the federal government or through local Indian governments and should be able to exercise this option at any time.

Both the federal government and the Indians should fully honour the commitments they made to each other in the treaties. Land claim settlements should be negotiated publicly. They should outline specific terms. They should be final. They should conclude within a specific timeframe and they should be affordable to Canada and the provinces. All reserve or settlement lands should remain part of a sovereign Canada.

There should be public discourse on the value and extent of all land claims. That should be the first step in addressing Indian land claims. For the equality alternative to work, every treaty Indian entitled to land under the formula articulated in each treaty should have the choice of taking personal possession of the property or having the land held in common and administered by the local Indian government.

Any treaty Indian who wishes to permanently move off the reserve should have the option to negotiate with the government a personal compensation package to help with the transition to a new job and a new life living off the reserve. The compensation should constitute a fair exchange for treaty entitlements.

Bill C-79 creates two classes of natives. It will make the equality and accountability issues worse, not better. Like Bill C-75, it will become a bureaucratic and constitutional nightmare, further dividing natives and non-natives, creating a money pit for lawyers and consultants. The best thing we could do is to let Bill C-79 die on the Order Paper.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

No, they are not.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

On the railroads.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed once again. I thought that by allowing the member to go ahead we might get the answers to some of the questions we have been raising but we never got any such thing. We just heard another one of those speeches written by the bureaucrats in the backrooms. The member never got down to discussing some of the concerns being raised by farmers in my constituency and as the member knows, by farmers in her constituency as well.

I will outline what this debate is all about for the hundreds of thousands of people across the country who are wondering what we are talking about today. Most of the western MPs who are concerned about agriculture are debating the issue. The issue deals with the Canadian Wheat Board.

In agriculture the government has singled out the Canadian Wheat Board as a special area of concern. The government has been maintaining a lot more tighter control especially over the marketing of wheat and barley. It maintains this tight control through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the essence of the debate we are having today.

Most people in Canada may not realize why the debate is important to the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is because they do not have the freedom to sell their grain, wheat and barley that the people in Ontario and Quebec have. They are being treated very differently. People need to understand the context of the debate.

Who am I representing? Why am I standing up to speak about the issue? It is because many, many people in my riding have come to me. I am their representative. It is my duty to analyse legislation the government puts forth in a certain area and to critique what the government has done and to suggest changes.

The biggest concern people have is the delay which is occurring in making some of the changes that will give farmers the tools they need to market effectively in today's world. Why is the delay a concern? The delay has been horrific. We are three and a half years into this government's mandate and it still has not made any changes. The people in my riding are very concerned about the weakness of a minister that would allow this kind of situation to develop.

The hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River mentioned that the government must be sure it is making the right changes and that there are huge divisions developing within the farming community. Why have those divisions developed? It is because of inaction and the frustration farmers have experienced. The minister has created those divisions and he is continuing to widen them by the ineffective legislation he is introducing in the House.

I do not know why the minister has not bothered to speak to this but farmers want an answer. They want to know why he continues to review the situation. In 1993-94, during the first year of this Parliament, we asked the minister to begin to make some of the changes. He gave us the standard answer: "I am reviewing the situation". He has been saying that for almost two years. Then he put a panel into place. Now he is going to study it even further.

Every delay tactic possible has been used not to make changes that would give farmers more control over the marketing of their products. Farmers on both sides of the debate no matter what their perspective is are asking for the same thing. They are asking for more control over the Canadian Wheat Board. I did a survey in my riding and the vast majority, 90 per cent of the people who replied, want the board to be controlled by farmers. Not by the bureaucrats and not by the politicians in Ottawa; they are much too slow to respond.

One of the biggest problems with the bill is that it reduces the possibility of future changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is entrenching and putting more power into the hands of the minister of agriculture rather than giving farmers more control over their own affairs. To the people across Canada who are listening, if you do not think this is an injustice, then what is? We need to have that and farmers are asking for it, no matter which side of the debate they are on with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

Some of my colleagues have pointed out some sections which are of a huge concern. An example is section 3.94 where the corporation will pay the bill for any one of its directors or officers who may make a mistake. The farmers will still be liable to pay the bills.

The wording of course is lawyer talk: "The corporation shall indemnify a present or former director, officer, employee of the corporation or a person who acts or acted at the request of the corporation" and it goes on to describe it. In other words, it removes accountability on the part of the people who are transact-

ing business on behalf of the farmer. It removes their responsibility. Why is that a concern?

We are all aware of what is happening on the west coast. Demurrage charges by the ships that are waiting in the harbours are being charged to farmers who have absolutely no control over the situation yet the farmers have to pay the bill. Now we have legislation which puts that into law with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is absolutely wrong that farmers should have to pay the bills for things they have no control over. Why is the responsibility not put on those people who are causing the problem?

Farmers are coming to me every day saying that their transportation costs have gone up astronomically, especially since the government removed the Crow rate without any warning. They have appealed to me asking if there is something I can do.

The problem is that the people who are causing the problem are not accountable. They do not have to pay. It is entrenched in this legislation. It is a huge concern.

The government says it is implementing the recommendations of the panel. Again it is simply cherry picking. It is only picking those minute things which it feels it can do without lessening its power.

The essence of the problem farmers have is that they are battling big government. They are being held down. Their freedom is being limited by the minister and the bureaucrats in Ottawa. They are not being given more control over their own affairs. That is of real concern to them.

I noted some of the words the government used in the introductory speech that would sound good to farmers. For example, it said that the Canadian Wheat Board will be evaluated on its marketing success and performance or on its financial competence. Is there anything in the bill that allows an arm's length third party such as the auditor general to evaluate the performance of the board? Farmers do not even know what is happening. They have a very difficult time deciding whether the board is doing a good job.

The minister knows what is going on. No one can tell me that the minister does not know what farmers want. They want control over the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does it have to be controlled by the bureaucrats here in Ottawa? That question has not been answered.

If the minister set out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, he could not have done a better job of destroying it than he is doing right now with this delay and the way he is handling the situation. People on both sides of the debate are telling me that the minister of agriculture is destroying the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers are frustrated. They are very concerned about what is happening.

If we are to have an effective marketing tool, we must begin to make some of the changes which Reformers have been asking for. This process does not facilitate that. Sending the bill to committee now is simply another delay tactic as far as I can see. I do not think the debate this morning will facilitate the changes which need to be made to the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

That is fine as long as I get to speak.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, would I still be able to speak? There has been a real absence of members from the government side to address this issue. We have had no response. This has not been a debate. It has simply been a raising of issues by the Reform Party and one NDP member with regard to this issue. If government members would have something to say we would be happy to hear it. We have not even heard the minister address this issue.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are probably a lot of people across Canada listening to the debate today via the parliamentary channel. They will be wondering what we are talking about. Why are the MPs from the west concerned? I am from Saskatchewan, some of my colleagues are from Alberta and Manitoba. We are concerned about agriculture and a very specific matter with the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what we are discussing today.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 3rd, 1997]

-For each of the last 10 years, how many seized firearms have been destroyed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and ( a ) how many of these firearms could be described as firearms commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes, including how many prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, rifles and shotguns, and ( b ) what is the fair market value of these firearms with collectors, hunters and sport shooters, and ( c ) why did the RCMP Forensic Laboratories, Firearms Section, destroy approximately 2,617 firearms in 1994 rather than offer these firearms for sale to individual firearm owners who are authorized by the RCMP to own these types of firearms?