Gerald Keddy

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

What is a serious crime? There is too much leeway in the bill. It gives the final say to review officers who may not have the clear credentials to make these decisions. It does this without appeal. It seems to me, based on the tenets of Canadian society as I understand them, that is not the Canadian way.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-11 which have been spoken to previously by other members of our Conservative caucus and addressed very thoroughly by our critic for immigration, the member for Fundy—Royal.

We are discussing something that, quite frankly, I am surprised we would be discussing in this time, place and century. I am referring to the deportation of Canadian citizens. I fail to understand the logic behind deporting an individual to the country they came from who has declined to take out Canadian citizenship even though that person has been in Canada for 25, 30, 40 or even 50 years.

I have many friends and family members who have been permanent residents of Canada for 25 or 30 years. They pay taxes and enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen except that they cannot hold public office. That is the only difference.

Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always thought being Canadian is about.

Amendment and appeal rights would be given to all who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being the subject of a report under clause 44. We have chosen a three year period to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. That to me is a straightforward, plain speaking, very smart amendment to this piece of legislation.

We are not trying to be flippant or frivolous. We are not saying that one is given permanent resident status one day and deported the next. We are saying that someone who has been here for three years has some rights of citizenship even if he or she has not applied for citizenship status.

However it takes away from the issue of permanent residents who have been here for 20 years. There are not hundreds of them out there; there are thousands. I would dare say that there are hundreds of thousands. I do not expect that all of them will commit criminal offences. However should that happen, surely in this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport them to a country to which they no longer have ties.

What would Bill C-11 do? As it is, Bill C-11 would deny an appeal to permanent residents who are the subject of a report under clause 44, which I just mentioned. As a result of a single criminal sentencing, permanent residents could be deported without appeal and without consideration of their circumstances. I do not think anyone in this place is trying to justify criminal behaviour. However under the law as we embrace it every Canadian has a right to appeal.

I would further that by saying every permanent resident who has been here longer than three years has a right to appeal. It is a fundamental tenet of Canadian justice that if someone is accused of a crime or even sentenced for a crime then he or she has a right to appeal the judgment. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be. However that is a fundamental tenet of fair play and justice. We should surely be no stranger to that in the House.

This would include people who have lived here since infancy, which may be for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. Immigration officers would be solely responsible for deciding whether deportation of permanent residents is appropriate. Many permanent residents have children who were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens even though the parents may not have obtained Canadian citizenship because, quite frankly, they do not need to. They can enjoy all the fruits and benefits of Canadian society except for and precluding the holding of public office.

Those are the rules as we have defined and made them. To say that people can be deported without the right of appeal because they have been sentenced to a crime is surely a mistake. Once the decision is made the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of the officer's discretionary decision.

For all the talk of the department that the decisions are taken seriously and that there will be safeguards to prevent the inappropriate deportation of long term residents, the legislation does not provide those safeguards. The legislation speaks of the possibility of safeguards but there is no safeguard.

I am amazed when the department speaks of an adjudicator making the tribunal decision and of the subsequent possibility of judicial review. It is only with respect to whether the permanent resident's conviction and sentence were proper. We are not appealing it. We are not taking a second look at it. We are asking if it is correct.

There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. What has been lost by taking away the appeal division's jurisdiction is one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11. While it may be necessary to remove individuals who renege on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, and specifically Canadian citizenship, for reasons of fundamental justice we need to give them a real opportunity to appeal.

That does not take away from the importance of recognizing that a country should have the ability to deport residents who are not citizens. However we need to take into account that there is a difference between someone who has been here three or four years and someone who has been here thirty or forty years. We need to rethink whether we are back in the days of Britain when they sent their convicts to Australia. Is that where we have gone?

Will deportation all of a sudden be one of the chief tenets of the Canadian justice system? Can we deport people because they have committed crimes? Let us take a look at what the crime is.

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks on Bill S-24 on an extremely important aspect of the bill and one that we should try to introduce into future pieces of legislation as we hand political and economic responsibilities over to first nations in Canada, and that is, the ability to pass laws for the first nations.

The bill would give the Mohawks of Kanesatake the power to make laws in a number of areas that were formerly made at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. It must be pointed out that the laws made by the Mohawks of Kanesatake could not be less stringent than existing municipal and provincial laws.

I was the critic for Indian affairs and northern development in the 36th parliament. This issue came up time and again in various legislation, especially in municipal legislation, in the Mi'kmaq Education Act and in the First Nations Land Management Act.

Each and every one of those times that aspect of those bills was refuted or ignored by critics of those bills. We cannot ignore that. We cannot give people rights and privileges without according them the powers to implement those rights and privileges.

What is important here, and it was extremely important in other pieces of legislation as well, is that the reins of political responsibility are being handed over to the Mohawks of Kanesatake. It ensures that the rights of individuals in the Mohawk nation are protected because the laws that will be passed in the areas over which they have jurisdiction will be no less protective of those areas than existing laws.

That does not preclude the Mohawks of Kanesatake from passing laws that are superior to existing laws, that are more protective of the environment, that are more protective of peace, good order and good government. However it guarantees a base from which they must start.

This is an extremely important part of this piece of legislation and others we have passed in the House. It is with pleasure that I stand on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to support this legislation.

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude after question period.

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak directly to the Kanesatake interim land base governance act, a bill which came from the Senate to this House, I will make a quick reference to the words of the member for Churchill. I have always enjoyed listening to the member speak. She brings a certain clarity and a personal reference to the subject that a lot of other members simply do not bring.

Although I have never been in complete agreement with everything the member says, she speaks from her heart and with a wide knowledge of the subject. That knowledge could certainly be listened to by a lot of members in the House and influence a lot of party policies that are dedicated and manufactured in the House.

The Mohawks of Kanesatake, also known as Oka, live on a tract of land roughly 50 kilometres west of Montreal. On these lands which have been set aside for the Mohawks but do not constitute a reserve live both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. It is extremely important when discussing the bill to understand that we are not in any way, shape or form talking about an Indian reserve.

In 1990 the problem of unresolved aboriginal land claims erupted in the Oka crisis. The Mohawks erected barricades to block roads. In response to a request from the Quebec government, the federal government sent Canadian forces to help resolve the confrontation. In the conflict that ensued one Quebec officer died.

We cannot say those words lightly in the House. The reason I say them at all is to give a little history lesson to everyone in this place. We need to look back at where we were in 1990 and come ahead to where we are today. This may not be the perfect agreement. It may not suit every member of the House. However the reality is that light years from where we were in 1990.

We are on the eve of signing an agreement so that we can step forward into the reality of the 21st century. It is long overdue. Over the past 10 years the Mohawk of Kanesatake have worked with the Government of Canada to resolve questions and grievances regarding land use.

In March 1991 the Mohawks and the federal government agreed on an agenda for negotiations within the community of Kanesatake. I must point out that since 1991 the Mohawks of Kanesatake have switched from a traditional system to an elective democratic system that includes off territory voters. They did so because they felt that everyone who has an interest in Kanesatake should be able to participate in the elections.

That being said, a lot of progress has been made over the past 10 years. In 1994 the memorandum of understanding over land purchases was signed between the Mohawks and the federal government. In 1997 the federal government made land purchases in the name of Kanesatake, and the Mohawks established their own police station.

On December 21, 2000, a new land governance agreement was signed between the Kanesatake and the federal government. Bill S-24 represents the culmination of negotiations engaged in over the past 10 years. The bill did not suddenly appear before us. The bill has taken over a decade to go from where it was to where we are today. The bill is a critical milestone for the community of Kanesatake.

Bill S-24 would provide legal recognition of the land base for the Mohawks and would include powers of law making, policing and other services. The agreement with respect to Kanesatake governance of the interim land base was ratified through a legitimate democratic process by a majority, albeit a slim one, 239 to 237, but a majority nevertheless. An independent legal review of the ratification process and recount of the vote results, both conducted by a former chief justice of the Quebec superior court, confirmed that the process was conducted in a fair and open manner.

Bill S-24 would ensure that the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base constitutes lands reserved for the Indians pursuant to the constitution but not as a reserve under the Indian Act.

Bill S-24 would also provide a framework for the exercise of jurisdiction and establish principles for the harmonious use and development of those lands.

Under the legislation the Mohawks of Kanesatake would have legal capacity to acquire and hold property, enter into contracts, borrow, expend and invest money, and be party to legal proceedings.

The Mohawks would also exercise power to make laws formerly made at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. It must be pointed out that laws made by the Mohawks of Kanesatake could not be less stringent than municipal or provincial laws already in existence.

These laws would affect health and qualify of life, protection and management of fish and wildlife, disorderly conduct and nuisance, prevention of trespass, residency, fire safety and fire prevention, local works, zoning, waste management and public sanitation, traffic regulation and the appointment of judges.

While violators of any of these laws would be punishable by the Mohawk of Kanesatake, fines or imprisonment terms may not exceed limits established in subsection 787(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Subclause 8(1) of the bill specifies that a Kanesatake Mohawk is not governed by the Indian Act.

Before the Mohawk of Kanesatake can enact the legal powers accorded to them by Bill S-24, they must adopt a land governance code that sets out the law of the land. The code shall establish the rule of law, land use rules, conflict of interest rules, rights of appeal and redress, and procedures to amend the code. Furthermore a land use plan must precede any form of commercial or industrial activity. Storage or transportation of hazardous materials or waste disposal can happen.

Bill S-24 stipulates that Kanesatake Mohawk land should be consistent with federal standards and can exceed in strictness provincial standards. It must be pointed out that although environmental standards can exceed in strictness provincial environmental standards, they must be equivalent to or exceed standards already in place.

Before substantial land use practices can be changed, Bill S-24 establishes the process by which Kanesatake land use rules should be harmonized with the land laws of the municipality of Oka. This task will be an onerous one and is an onerous one, considering that the entire land area affected by the bill and inhabited by the Mohawk comprises many small parcels of land occupied by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents.

Bill S-24 addresses the issue of governance but does not include debate regarding first nation treaty rights or other outstanding disputes and grievances. Neither does it represent settlement of a land claim.

In conclusion, the PC Party supports the legislation. Bill S-24 has been 10 years in the making and there has been appropriate consultation with the third parties involved. We would have appreciated more time to look at the bill and have more witnesses appear before committee. However sending legislation through the Senate first has become commonplace for the Liberal government. The House should not be here to simply rubber stamp a piece of legislation but should be actively involved in it.

I will clarify this point because I do not want my colleagues in the Senate to think I do not approve of legislation coming from the Senate. That is what makes the Senate a more appropriate vehicle of governance in Canada and gives it legitimacy. We should be seeking more legitimacy for the Senate.

That being said, we are supportive of the will of the Mohawk of Kanesatake and the extensive consultations that have been carried out with the community of Kanesatake. As critic for Indian affairs and northern development in the last parliament, the 36th parliament—

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Churchill spoke about a very important aspect of the bill, that was the closeness of the vote. She enlarged on that somewhat and discussed the fact that although the vote was very close, it was a democratic vote. I have heard comments from some of the speakers which cast aspersions on that.

My question concerns a vote that was taken in her riding on the northern flood agreement where a number of communities were very close to being in a tie situation. There were a number of aspersions cast that the process may not have been correct, but at the end of the day the vote was accepted. The fact remains that we have to accept the votes for what they are, regardless if they are close or one person away from deciding a tying vote.

Could the member enlarge on what happened with the northern flood agreement and on the fact that the vote was close but ended in an agreement? There may be people, and the member may be one, who were not in complete agreement with everything that went on, but that at the end of the day we moved forward.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the operational requirements for the helicopters that will be replacing the Sea Kings have been lowered to two hours and twenty minutes with a thirty minute fuel reserve. This allows Eurocopter's Cougar to qualify for the reduced endurance capacity, a capacity that is significantly lower than the four hour flying time offered by the Sea Kings when they went into operation in 1962.

In 1996 the Liberals decreased requirements to three hours with a thirty minute reserve. In 1999 the Liberals decreased requirements to two hours and fifty minutes with a thirty minute reserve. The government now has dropped to the absolute minimum accepted by military specifications to two hours and twenty minutes and the reserve.

When will the government make decisions based on logic and reason and not based on the Prime Minister's pride?

[Canada Marine Act, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question some time ago on softwood lumber. What brought my question about was the fact that from the Progressive Conservative Party's perspective we did not see any specific agenda that the government had to deal with the full-fledged crisis in softwood lumber. We felt the government did not have a plan or direction. It was treading water and not responding to a very important issue facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Rural Canada depends upon the softwood lumber industry as a major job producer. It produces a large percentage of the gross domestic product in Canada. It is an important issue.

I have another point to which I would ask the parliamentary secretary to respond. The government keeps saying that the softwood lumber industry is part of free trade. What has it done about it? How many delegations and when did we start sending them to the U.S. to speak to our counterparts in a minister to minister type of situation? The Minister of Industry says one thing while the Minister for International Trade says another. The Prime Minister is not responding at all.

Six provinces had free trade with the United States. The Atlantic accord kept Atlantic Canada out of the softwood lumber agreement and provided free trade for Atlantic Canada, which has a long tradition in free trade going back to the 1800s between New Brunswick and Maine. Manitoba and Saskatchewan were also included in free trade.

There were only four provinces that did not have free trade: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. Those four provinces obviously need to get in on the free trade agreement, but everyone has been sucked into the vortex. Now, as everyone predicted, the Americans are playing hardball by putting in countervailing duties and anti-dumping is being claimed against all 10 provinces in Canada.

The countervail was not a problem. We have beaten countervail before, especially in eastern Canada, and we would expect to beat it again. The anti-dumping became a much more serious problem because that included all the provinces automatically and there was no opt out clause for anti-dumping.

We have seen a long list of mistakes that the government has made. It did not start two or three years ago dealing with the Americans on softwood lumber. It had no plan, no direction and no initiative on the Canadian side to deal with this extremely important issue.

We have local sawmills in the South Shore riding that I represent which have shut down and are no longer exporting because they do not know what is down the road. Quite frankly they cannot put themselves into the precarious position where they possibly get slammed with an anti-dumping situation and a large fee or a countervail duty to which we do not expect to be susceptible but could be. Every time something like this issue goes to an international court it becomes a precarious situation.

I would like to hear the government tell us what it has done about the softwood lumber agreement and when it expects to see an end to it.

[National Defence, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, DND has just initiated a change to its contracting procedure which will allow it to avoid going to tender and avoid the openness and accountability which Canadians deserve.

In fact the latest bid to bring our troops home from Eritrea was sent out to Europe well in advance of Canadian companies being advised of it. Why has the minister changed the tendering process in favour of one company?

[Blood Samples Act, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of fish hatcheries is not dissimilar to the issue I am raising this evening. My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The government has shown the same lack of vision, direction and responsibility toward the issue of salmon and the three Nova Scotia fish hatcheries as it has toward other aspects of the fishery in Atlantic Canada.

I pointed out to the minister on March 2 that Chief Lawrence Paul and others in Nova Scotia have stated that federal negotiators are considering dividing bays in Atlantic Canada between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen. That would be a clearly wrongheaded policy. It would go against the spirit of sharing the fishery, under one set of rules, between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen.

The answer I got from the parliamentary secretary was not satisfactory. It did not speak to my question. I asked it in March and a couple of agreements have been signed since then. Agreements were signed with two Nova Scotia bands just a short time ago, one with the Glooscap band and one with the Pictou Landing band. I commend the government for being able to do that. Those agreements should not be ignored.

However that begs the question: where is the long term policy? What are we doing to prevent another outbreak in a very short period of time, by June 1? What are we doing to prevent another Burnt Church or another problem with the Shubenacadie band? What are we doing to protect the livelihoods of non-native fishermen who have seen licensing fees increase from $70,000 to $125,000? One could typically have bought a licence in LFA 33 for $70,000. For $150,000 to $175,000, one could have bought a licence in LFA 34. The licence that sold for $150,000 before the government started its wrongheaded policy is today selling for $700,000. How can a young man or woman even begin to imagine buying their father's fishing licence and entering the fishery today? It is impossible.

We have spent $180 million on efforts with first nations issues. My party and I are fully in favour of settling issues with first nations, signing modern day treaties, reconciling the situation and moving forward together in a new society. This type of legislation from the government does not achieve that. This type of short term policy and this type of decision making do not achieve that. It is time we addressed this. We must have one fishery, one set of rules and one opening date for all commercial fishermen. Nothing else is acceptable.