Geoff Regan

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 101.

[Government Response to Petitions, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Parliamentary Telecommunications, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who is asking that the House install telecommunication equipment so that committees can organize virtual meetings with witnesses that are in Canada or in other countries.

There is no doubt that the upgrading of the information infrastructure on the Hill is of great interest to every parliamentarian. Teleconferencing technology is already available to committees.

In brief, the use of teleconferencing technology could greatly help parliamentarians in carrying out their daily duties, and also facilitate the direct participation of Canadians in the democratic process.

This technology would greatly enhance the parliamentarians' working environment as well as their effectiveness.

By allowing witnesses to appear before a committee through teleconferencing, the government would show Canadians how easily it is making use of the technological advances in our parliamentary system.

All members are aware that the House is a forum for debate and scrutiny of the most important issues facing Canadians. We should ensure we do not limit debate and scrutiny even unwittingly by not having the best technologies available to us. Parliament should ensure cost efficient technologies enable us to fulfill our responsibilities to our constituents.

Teleconferencing could do so in several ways. First, it would provide flexibility in scheduling for committee members and witnesses.

Second, it could save on transportation costs for outside witnesses.

Third, it could bring the public closer to the democratic process. Constituents across the vast expanse of the country could simultaneously meet face to face with their political representatives in Ottawa to participate directly in the law-making process. This would be particularly useful for witnesses from other countries.

The Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons tabled a report on June 1, 2001 which was adopted on October 4, 2001, my son's birthday. The report recommended that the House proceed with plans for increased use of communications technologies for the House, its members and its committees. In doing so it made reference to the need to adapt parliamentary practices and procedures to take advantage of new technologies while being mindful and respectful of parliamentary traditions.

Teleconferencing would respect this balance. It would increase flexibility for witnesses to appear before committees while ensuring direct consultation in the committee process.

Taking advantage of the benefits of increased use of communications technologies is one part of the government's long term vision and plan for the parliamentary precinct in June 2001. Under the renovation plan a new building is envisioned which would house committee rooms equipped with the most modern information infrastructure. The intended Bank Street building would allow for professional audio-video presentations, teleconferences, recordings and broadcast television productions. Television production rooms would also support committee rooms, the Chamber and the Senate.

The government has already recognized the virtues of bringing parliamentarians closer to constituents through the use of information and multimedia technology. As I mentioned earlier, members already have access to teleconferencing technologies for use in committee meetings.

In March 2001, the House bought two video teleconferencing systems and made them available to members of parliament and committees. The La Promenade Building is now equipped with one of these systems and, so far, those who have used it have reacted positively.

Finally, on November 27, 2001, the budget sub-committee, under the liaison committee, agreed to encourage committees to use the video teleconferencing system where feasible to speed up the process.

In conclusion, I am in favour of the motion, whose purpose is to highlight the need to integrate an advanced communication infrastructure into the Parliamentary Precinct. The government does want to ensure that the Parliamentary Precinct remains the symbol of Canadian innovation and democratic integrity for the coming century.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 64 and 99 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[Question No. 63—, February 22nd, 2002]

I am informed as follows:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: (a) In the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall, the court cited the provisions of the March 10, 1760 treaty with the Laheve Mi'kmaq. However, there are a number of other historical documents that have been identified from various archival sources and that are commonly referred to as Peace and Friendship Treaties. All of these documents are virtually identical to the Laheve Treaty of 1760 with the exception of the February 23, 1760 agreement with the Saint John, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy Indians, which contained similar promises but also renewed previous Peace end Friendship Treaties with the crown.

The then minister of fisheries and oceans, the hon. Herb Dhaliwal, provided copies of these documents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, SCOFO, of which the hon. member is a member. The following is a list of these 1760-61 documents: renewal of 1725 articles and 1749 articles, with the delegates of the Saint John and Passamaquoddy, at Chebucto, Halifax, Harbour, 23 February 1760; treaty dated 10 March 1760 with Chief Michael Augustine of the Richebuctou Tribe; treaty with Chief Paul of LaHeve Tribe at Halifax, 10 March 1760; treaty with Chief Claude René, chief of Chibennacadie and Muscadoboit, concluded at Halifax, 10 March 1760; treaty with the Merimichi Tribe, concluded 25 June 1761; treaty with Chief Claude Atouash of the Jedaick Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 25 June 1761; treaty with Etiene Apshobon of the Pogmouch Tribe, Halifax, 25 June 1761; treaty with Joseph Argimaut, chief of Mesiguash Indians, Halifax, 8 July 1761; treaty with Chief Jeannot Picklougawash on behalf of the Pictouk and Malegomich Tribes, 12 October 1761; treaty with Chief Francis Mius of the LaHeve Tribe, concluded at Halifax, 9 November 1761.

Geographic Area: (b) Each of the documents listed above relates to a specific, named aboriginal community. As these documents were not land cession treaty, the geographic area occupied by each of these groups, including their traditional hunting and fishing territory, is not specified.

However, contemporary records indicate that the 1760-61 treaties represented a successful effort by the British to conclude agreements with all of the Indian groups in the Maritimes. The British intended to consolidate these agreements into one common treaty, although this plan was never carried through.

Through the common language of the 1760-61 treaties, the terms of the LaHeve Treaty considered by the SCC in the Marshall decision potentially apply to the territory of colonial Nova Scotia, i.e. modern-day Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Aboriginal Community: There is considerable difficulty in connecting the original signatories of the treaty to specific, contemporary first nation communities. This is the result of the passage of time, the effects of migration and of intermarriage between communities, and the voluntary or forced movement at various times of Indian communities.

In general, the federal government is of the view that the beneficiaries of the 1760-61 treaties are communities that are the "modern manifestations" of the collectivities that signed the original Peace and Friendship Treaties. The core "modern manifestations" of the historic communities are likely represented today by the Indian Act bands.

Currently, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, provides programs and services to first nations in the maritimes and Quebec on a policy basis.

In February 2001, the Minister of INAC and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, F&O, announced a two part process to address the implications and pressures arising out of the Marshall decision in the Maritimes and the Gaspé region of Quebec.

Under this process, the Minister of INAC appointed Mr. Tom W. Molloy as chief federal negotiator to enter into long term processes to consider issues of aboriginal and treaty rights. In parallel, the Minister of F&O re-appointed Mr. James MacKenzie as federal fisheries negotiator to continue negotiating short term practical fisheries agreements with the 34 bands affected by the Marshall decision.

Long term processes led by INAC are currently in the preliminary stages and therefore no funds have been spent on any agreements yet. It is not expected that final agreements on issues of aboriginal and treaty rights will be reached by the end of 2002. It is also premature to predict future expenditures related to final settlements of these issues due to the early stage in the discussions and the number of parties with varying interests.

It is also important to note that the proposed long term processes to consider issues of aboriginal and treaty rights may not specifically address the individual treaties or historic documents listed in part (a) of this response. As indicated in response (b), there are many difficulties associated with connecting signatories of historic treaties to contemporary first nation communities. Canada is, therefore, engaging the Indian Act bands as the “modern manifestations/ of the original collectives which signed the 1760-61 treaties.

Fisheries and Oceans (c) Funding for the responses to the Marshall decision: 1999-2000 expenditures were $15,533,005; 2000-01 expenditures were $144,466.995.

For the reasons identified in part (b), funding cannot be linked back to specific agreements.

The main estimates for 2001-02 list $14,000,000 for contributions under the fisheries access program.

In the supplementary estimates (A) for 2001-02, Fisheries and Oceans Canada received $85,500,082 for the fisheries access program, vote 10, and $29,296,000 for its operations, vote 1.

At this time, disclosure of specific expenditures for 2001-02 would prejudice future negotiations and could be materially injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 63 will be answered today.

[Committees of the House, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of some standing committees.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 46th report later this day.

[Government Response to Petitions, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.