Gerald Keddy

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. It is a fantastic example and one that is extremely pertinent to this very issue. I am going to make one little correction because the issue is not gun control; that is what the Liberal government wants to sell it as. The issue is long gun registration. The government wants to stand in this place and say it has done its job with gun control. It has done nothing with gun control. Gun control was looked after by Bill C-17. That was the bill that involved safe storage and safe handling and actually made safer streets in the country.

The government in its wisdom has done with that piece of legislation the same as it is doing with the Indian affairs legislation. It is smoke and mirrors. The government is saying, “Believe us. We will make our streets safer because gun control has worked”. Sure it has worked. Gun control is not a bad thing. Long gun registration has cost Canadians $1 billion which could have been spent on education, safer streets, better health care or a multitude of issues.

Whenever we have a bill from the government we must beware because the devil is in the details. Gun control sounded good but in reality gun control was nothing more than a ruse to take the public's mind off the important issues of the day. It had nothing to do with public safety.

We must beware that this bill has anything to do with fiscal management, that it is nothing more than a ruse and an opportunity to put more power in the hands of the minister and that he or she will decide what is best for Canadians, because obviously the government knows best. It is the government of the day and rather than deal with the difficult issues, it will just take credit for the good governance of past regimes and fail to deal with the issues of the day.

Watch Canada's position in the world continue to be diminished. There is a reason that we are not at Camp David with Bush and Blair talking about the possibility of Canadian troops going to war. We are on the periphery of the international community. We will continue to be on the periphery. We have a diminished level of respect in the world. We are no longer a NATO ally that is listened to at the boardroom tables.

We are the country that goes to Kosovo and borrows bombs and communications equipment so we can talk to our allies. We are the country that sends troops to Afghanistan without fresh water, without food, without proper uniforms.

Anything the government does needs to be examined in minute detail. The long gun registry is a perfect example of the type of waste that is based on a good idea but is totally out of control under the hands of that regime. It is total mismanagement.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Elk Island's comments about our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. Certainly our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River has worked hard on this and other files. We do miss his presence in the House and certainly wish him a speedy recovery and a quick return to this place.

The aspect of management of funds is different in all first nations communities. There are some great examples and there are some terrible examples. They are no different from any other level of government anywhere in the country.

I would like to comment on another point that directly comes from the hon. member's question and which was mentioned in the House in the discussion on Bill C-19. That is the whole issue of first nations land management. I supported that legislation in the House. It was an important piece of legislation. It allowed first nations for the first time to be responsible for their own reserve land.

It is unbelievable to most Canadians, to most people living in a town, a city or a municipality in this country, that before first nations on reserve could cut their fuel wood, before they could open up a gravel pit, before they could put in a septic bed, before they could dig a well, they had to get permission from the federal government, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There was no local authority they could go to. It was absolutely unbelievable.

It was my belief that first nations land management, even though it was not a perfect piece of legislation, certainly opened the door for more self-government. With more self-government comes more democracy, more economic opportunity, more affluence in the community and more ability for first nations to fend for themselves. Quite often with that rising opportunity comes more responsibility on behalf of the governance of first nations, including the chiefs and band councils who govern first nations.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Apparently the government was so secure in its knowledge that this bill would be passed simply by bringing it to the House without amendments that it could publish it for first nations and the Canadian public to look at, not as a proposed act but as an act, last summer, before Parliament, parliamentarians and critics for Indian Affairs and Northern Development had any opportunity at all to look at it.

This draft was not even a bill, much less the law of the land, but the fact that it was presented as such shows the little esteem that the government has for due process and the parliamentary regime that we are all sworn to uphold.

In closing, my final difficulty with the legislation is that once again, like many pieces of legislation that the government has passed in many departments, it enhances the power of the minister.

It is not much further down the road when ministers of the government will not need Parliament at all. They simply will be able to sit in an ivory tower somewhere, issue decrees and bypass Parliament entirely. If we continue to give the minister discretionary authority over everything then we will not have to get into that sticky, difficult job of actually governing the country or showing up for question period and answering questions that are important to Canadians.

We will continue to study the legislation. I do believe it is a step in the right direction, albeit a step that needs to be taken very carefully and with full discussion with the first nations communities across the country.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points of view have been brought forward today and I am pleased to add another one to the mix.

It is a pleasure for me to stand and speak to Bill C-19 on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, as well as on behalf of our aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Dauphin—Swan River, who could not be here today to speak to this important legislation.

Several issues are at stake here. I think in general the Conservative Party agrees with the original purpose and premise of the bill but, like all legislation that the Liberals propose, one has to go beyond the apparent purpose and premise of any legislation to see exactly how it will unfold and exactly how it will affect the aboriginal community in this particular instance, or the individuals who will be most affected by any piece of the government's legislation.

The principle of giving more autonomy to first nations is a principle that the Progressive Conservative Party supports, and I would go so far to say that I believe it is a principle that most parties in the House support.

I guess the devil is in the detail, so to speak. The complications with this come when we look at exactly how the government is drawing this road map toward greater aboriginal self-government.

Like my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has mentioned, will we actually see greater aboriginal self-government or will we simply see more government bureaucracy, because more government bureaucracy does not mean greater aboriginal self-government. They are diametrically opposed to one another.

It is my understanding that adhesion to the new financial institutions would be optional. I listened closely to my colleague who said that there was no guarantee in the bill that this would be optional and that it may end up being mandatory down the road. That is certainly not my understanding of the legislation but it is an aspect that I will look at in great detail.

We agree with the approach that first nations communities have different needs and different goals. Federal legislation dealing with first nations needs to reflect the differences in the communities.

When one reads the précis of Bill C-19, it states that 83 first nations groups have passed similar laws and that they generate in excess of $40 million in property taxes every year, which allows those first nations to be more autonomous and self-sufficient and pursue projects for the general betterment and good health of all of their band members.

The purpose of the bill, if we believe the government, is to give more first nations that same power to raise taxes and issue bonds as other levels of government already have. The intent of the bill is to make first nations communities more financially independent and attractive to investors. Under these proposals, property tax money and resource revenues could be pooled and used to issue debentures and bonds to raise more capital to, for example, pay for new infrastructure projects, such as roads and water systems, the same process that any other level of government would use to raise its own funds.

Four separate institutions have been proposed. As I mentioned earlier, this is where we start to find that the devil is in the details. The first of the new institutions would be a first nations tax commission. The commission would consist of 10 commissioners appointed by cabinet, including a chief and a deputy chief commissioner, who would hold office for up to five years and may be removed by cabinet at any time for a direct cause. In this case the commissioners must include one taxpayer who uses reserve lands for commercial use, one taxpayer who uses it for residential use and one taxpayer who uses it for utility purposes, which should bring some level of democracy and direct involvement of the people, who are actually using the land, to the board.

The second board would be the first nations financial management board and it would have 15 members. The third board would be the first nations finance authority and it would have a five to eleven member board. The fourth would be the first nations statistical institute.

The fourth board bears closer perusal. The management of the board would be comprised of at least nine directors and no more than fifteen. The institute would provide statistical information on fiscal, social and economic conditions of first nations groups, members of other aboriginal groups and others who reside on the reserves. It would be given the power to collect, analyze and extract data related to a variety of areas, including health and welfare, agriculture, commercial and industrial activities, education, law enforcement, finance, language, culture, labour and employment, environment, fishing and population.

I do not think anything was missed there but I am sure there must be a couple of other areas that could be added at a later date.

It also has been mentioned in the House that the Auditor General, in her report on first nations, has already said that there are over 150 separate documents that must be compiled by first nations to stay in compliance with the federal overseers at this very time. I see this first nations statistical institute as one more part of an overly bloated bureaucracy. I question whether it is required because I suspect all that information is out there now. It is a matter of compiling the existing reports that have already been given.

It is well understood and well agreed upon that, to use a tired cliché, the status quo is not acceptable. Most of us would agree on that. Whether or not Bill C-19 is the answer for first nations fiscal and statistical management act, I do not know, quite frankly, if it is the answer. It is perhaps a step in the right direction but it is one that requires much more indepth study, much more participation by the aboriginal communities themselves and will need amendments at committee.

Although I am no longer the critic for aboriginal affairs, I was the PC critic for a number of years and I put forth many amendments, some of which were accepted by the government, but the majority of which were not. I have not seen, in any other department, the government being willing to take a serious look at amendments to any legislation it may have before the House. It would much rather pass legislation that does not fully deal with the situation in front of it, whether it is in Indian affairs or in any other department.

There is also concern that the establishment of the four new institutions would require a significant amount of money to establish and subsequently maintain. One estimate of the amount of money alone is $10 million annually. I suspect that $10 million must have a better home, whether it is clean water on reserves, better educational facilities, better training or more economic opportunities. I am certain that $10 million could be used by any of the reserves anywhere in Canada.

Some first nations groups have stated that they would rather see the money directly invested in infrastructure on reserve. That has been raised by the first nations communities themselves.

These measures could have a long term impact on bettering the lives of Canadians living in first nations communities but we feel that the government is doing little to address the short term problems. What are the short term problems? They are health, housing, clean water, education, and we could go on. It seems that we are, in one way at least, putting the cart in front of the horse.

There is one more item regarding this particular legislation that causes me great concern. Last summer on August 15, 2002, when Parliament was not in session, a draft version of this bill was put on the INAC website. It was presented as the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, even though there had been no such bill tabled in Parliament.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the leader of the Bloc spoke eloquently and with a lot of passion. I very much appreciated his comments. I have a comment to which I would like a reply.

He spoke about our role as a nation, as a confederation. Part of what is wrong with our role is our lack of respect in the international forum. Canada no longer has the same prime ministers and the same ministers of the past. We have become trivialized and marginalized. We are begging for bombs and communications equipment for our planes in Kosovo. We have a government that would dare to think about going to war without even going to Parliament. I would like a reply.

[Question No. 95, January 27th, 2003]

Can the government provide information on how many contaminated sites are in the riding of Perth-Middlesex, Ontario and the breakdown of the chemicals that are contaminating these sites?

[Liberal Government, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not good managers. Time and time again the Auditor General has slain the Liberal mismanagement dragon, only to see it reborn again in a different department.

There is a long list of Liberal failures, most of them directly linked to the Prime Minister and his replacement hopeful, the member for LaSalle—Émard. Let us look at the list.

There has been $1 billion wasted in a long run registry that will punish law-abiding Canadians, while at the same time Canada's worst and most heinous sex offenders will not be on the Liberals' sex offenders registry. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted. Some $7.2 billion have been wasted in foundations and there are new scandals every day. We do not have funding for the military. Ten years after the fact, $4 billion has been wasted in penalties and lost revenues. We have Sea Kings the Minister of National Defence will not fly in.

Every stone we turn over, out crawls a Liberal patronage scheme or another scandal. Liberals are not good managers.

[Firearms Program, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government stood in the House this morning and repeatedly said that this issue was about gun control. Do we not wish it was so? It is absolutely a deception to say that this issue is about gun control.

The Auditor General herself said, “the issue here is not gun control”. Excuse me, the issue here is not gun control. It is not even the astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What is really inexcusable is that Parliament was kept in the dark. If we were take that a step further, Canadians were kept in the dark. Victims of family violence were kept in the dark. Victims of assault with a firearm were kept in the dark. Women, who are being threatened because peace bonds are not being enforced, were kept in the dark. This is absolutely about waste, inefficiency, deceit and deception deliberately imposed by the government.

The minister, if he wants to have a career in politics, has an opportunity to do something about it but he just stood in the House and told us that he would not, that he will allow it to continue.

We started out with an estimate of $117 million for the cost of a long gun registry. The net cost to run the program was supposed to be $2 million a year, for a total cost of $119 million. This is unprecedented deception on the part of the government.

Let us review the administration. There has been no ministerial responsibility and that was proven again this morning. Where is the responsibility on the shoulders of the member for Etobicoke Centre, from the member for Edmonton West, from the member for Outremont, from the member for LaSalle—Émard, from the member from Shawinigan? Does Shawinigan sound familiar? It should sound familiar.

What have we accomplished? We have had cost overruns hidden in the supplementary estimates. We have had a refusal to follow procedure in Parliament. Very little has been accomplished other than wasting a billion dollars. What would that billion dollars have done to protect women in this country?

This is not about long gun registration. Most parliamentarians support reasonable, responsible gun control. What saves lives is the safe handling and safe storage of guns. We have a gun registry in place and homicides have gone up 19%. Members should listen to the facts. The government has not done its job. It has lied to Canadians. It has lied to victims of violence. The government cannot do that. It is not acceptable.

The government has not done the job that it set out to do. It is time to scrap the long gun registry, to walk away from it and do the parts of gun control that work: training, safe handling, safe storage and making sure people are screened before they have access to a firearm.

There are millions of safe firearm owners out there and those are the people the government is targeting. It is not targeting the criminals. It is not targeting Mom Boucher who has a registered firearm. That makes me sleep better at night and makes me feel a lot better about the gun registry.

The government has not done the job that it started to do. Government members should be embarrassed to stand in this place and try to tell members of Parliament, and the Canadian public that we represent, that they somehow have been transparent in the application of their duties, because they have not been.

[Firearms Registry, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is a call to the Liberal backbenchers. Surely they have much to consider before they vote tonight.

The Auditor General stated in her audit of the long gun registry that there were significant shortcomings in the information provided; imagine that.

In response, the government has hired KPMG to do a special audit of the information that the Auditor General could not find, or could not see, or was not allowed to see, or was hidden from her. This is worse that ridiculous; it is ludicrous. It is simply smoke and mirrors to pacify Liberal backbenchers so that they acquiesce, roll over and vote one more time to support the unsupportable one billion dollar gun registry. It will not save lives. It has not saved money. Ministers have not been held accountable for their deeds. Yet, Liberal backbenchers have an opportunity to save their self-respect and they can vote against this ill-begotten spawn of Liberal incompetence.

[Firearms Registry, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, only 30% of the $1 billion cost of the gun registry has come from the government's main estimates which are approved by Parliament. Seventy per cent of the cost overruns come from the supplementary estimates. Under the government's own rules the supplementary estimates are only to be used for unknown and unexpected expenses.

Why did the government deliberately hide the cost of the gun registry from Canadians?