James Bezan

[Agriculture, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent agriculture committee meeting, the parliamentary secretary said about the CAIS program:

I guess...it's a policy problem, but...part of the problem with CAIS is...it really wasn't designed...to deal with a disaster, and we're trying to have it cover a disaster at the moment.

The agriculture minister has ignored MPs and he is ignoring his own parliamentary secretary. The minister is not listening nor is he designing farm programs that respond to disasters like BSE. I ask the minister, what alternatives is he considering to get emergency cash to the farm gate right now?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the national guidelines for meat quality inspection. The federal government does have a role in interprovincial trade of products. To rely completely on the provinces to come to an agreement on interprovincial trade has been long in coming. It is something we have been talking about for over 10 years. We are at the point now that the federal government, in a desperate situation, needs to take the leadership and develop a two-tiered national standard, one for export and one for domestic trade. All I am asking the government to do is take a hard look at developing that, crediting some of these provincial plans for interprovincial trade on a different level than the current federal inspection.

The loan loss program is out and running, but it took far too long from the announcement that it was available to actually get going. One of the problems that has been brought to my attention with the loan loss program is that some of these packing plant projects that are under way are using some provincial financing through their credit agencies. My understanding is that the loan loss program is not available to those projects because of provincial government involvement and their financing.

My concern is that by not having the program available it is going to stall some of these current expansions, especially because these expansions, these smaller projects, are addressing the need of dealing with mature animals. As the hon. member realizes, we have a situation where mature cattle and mature bison are not finding a place to be slaughtered because all the expansion has taken place on the youthful animals, by far the most lucrative market.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up question to my question on October 15 regarding slaughter capacity due to border closure because of the BSE crisis. That question was specific to Farm Credit Canada's venture investment fund and the new loan loss program. This follow-up question is still focused on the slaughter capacity issue.

The government has set a goal of trying to reach 96,000 head per week slaughter capacity. Staff from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada admit that this number does not account for cull cows or the still rapidly increasing cow herd. Provincially inspected plants have a role and we have a need for a domestic meat regulation standard to enable interprovincial trade between these provincial packing plants versus the current guideline of having only federally inspected packing plants that can trade interprovincially. The federal guidelines are really there for export purposes and are not necessarily for domestic needs.

Often the government has been quoted as saying that 95% of our current capacity is inside these federal plants. There is a problem with this in that these federal plants are very big, very successful and also are focusing their entire attention on animals that are 30 months and under. The youthful animals may even have that downgraded to 20 months and under because of some things that are happening over in Asia. This does not at all address our backlog of mature animals.

The Minister of Agriculture has some new tools at his disposal. There is the loan loss program that was recently announced. There is also the Farm Credit Canada venture investment fund which could be used to direct money into the investment of new start-up plants that are trying to get going across the country. The government could also develop a national domestic meat inspection regulation. The government could play a leadership role.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, will he use those tools to specifically increase capacity for mature animals and address the regional disparity that we have across the country?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his presentation. It was very entertaining.

As an agriculture producer, I can see two sides of this story. There is no doubt that trans fat is a terrible food item that we must eliminate and hopefully eliminate it by market driven pressures, and by voluntary changes in the industry. There is also the other side of the story. Canola can replace a lot of the trans fats that are in food products right now. There is a great opportunity in the agriculture industry to benefit from it here in Canada.

Unfortunately, we have made the argument that trans fats are bad. We all know they are bad and we have to do something about it, but at the same time there are also saturated fats. A comment was made earlier today that saturated fats are just about as dangerous as trans fats in some ways and that we need to reduce them from our diet as well.

How does the member want to deal with that since it is a natural occurring fat that is found in almost all food products?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the NDP for taking on this initiative because there is no doubt that trans fats are a very major issue in our diets, in the health of our children, and our community.

However, I have some concern about this whole move toward a zero tolerance policy. I thought that we lived in a country where we have some freedom of choice. Healthy choices are part of that and we make decisions every day in our diets and in the foods we eat. I want to hear what the member's thoughts are on respecting people's choice, on educating them, and allowing them to make the choices for proper eating.

I have a concern that if we are going to have zero tolerance, why do we not have zero tolerance on cigarettes? Why do we not have a zero tolerance on alcohol or zero tolerance on marijuana possession? Let us just take it right out of the system. If we are going to really get serious about regulating the health of Canadians, then let us be consistent; however, if we are not, let us give people the right to choose and the right to look at these issues. Let us give them the education.

I also want to raise the issue that a lot of the foods we consume are imported. How are we going to police that and how do we do that without affecting our trading relationships?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I may not have as much experience in the House as the parliamentary secretary, but that still does not give her the right to go out and negotiate deals that are flawed. We need to make sure that the deals we put in place, ones that are going to be used as templates, have to be faultless to a T, and every i and t has to be dotted and crossed.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, definitely there is concern that the Tlicho agreement contradicts our own Constitution and Charter of Rights. We need to ensure that the agreements we are negotiating reflect the desire of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada that all citizens are treated equally.

There is no doubt that it is important we get all these existing land claim settlements negotiated. We need to continue to urge the government to work toward that means. Unfortunately, the Tlicho agreement will be the template or the standard by which all future land claim settlements will be made. If there are flaws in this agreement, we have the chance to fix them now.

I would urge the government to make note of the concerns being raised by this side of the House, so we can put in place an agreement that will be comprehensive and applicable to all the future land claims currently on the table.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to register my opposition to Bill C-14, the Tlicho agreement.

Little attention has been focused on this agreement and it is almost certainly the most significant agreement concluded by the Canadian government in recent years. The effect of this agreement is to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent but paramount jurisdiction over the federal crown. The result will be a Tlicho state governed by a Tlicho constitution which is arguably paramount to the Canadian charter. The agreement also appears to acknowledge or perhaps confer some degree of international authority upon the Tlicho government.

There are a number of provisions in the agreement which are flawed and debatable from a Canadian public policy perspective. To be fair, certain aspects of the agreement are visionary and reflective of a mature and sustainable system of self-government.

Today I will discuss four reasons why the agreement is damaging to the long term interests of Canada. They are first, the absence of finality in the agreement; second, incursions upon Canada's international autonomy; third, confusion of jurisdictional authorities; and fourth, the application of the charter in the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter.

The first point is the absence of finality. It could be argued that the agreement is generous to a fault in terms of the land, moneys and resources which are provided to the Tlicho. It is worth noting that the Tlicho lands will comprise the single largest block of first nation owned land in Canada. This might be justifiable if the agreement were a final agreement, but unfortunately it is not.

The agreement provides that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreements, tax power exemption, or legislation. In other words, this agreement is not a final agreement at all.

Please note that this agreement achieves little of the certainty and finality of the Nisga'a agreement. Frankly it is difficult to discern what concessions the federal government even achieved in exchange for the obvious generosity of the agreement.

The second point is the incursion upon Canada's international autonomy. The agreement contains a remarkable section relating to international matters. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements, which suggest by implication that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

The agreement also contains the following remarkable provision which is self-explanatory: “Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen, flowing from the agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity to the Tlicho government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum”.

The agreement also provides for an arbitration mechanism between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho government in respect of international legal obligations.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is obligated under the agreement to consult with the Tlicho government before taking positions before an international tribunal in circumstances where the Tlicho government has taken action giving rise to an international legal controversy.

It would be naive to assume that these provisions are merely reflective of poor drafting.

The third issue is jurisdictional confusion. The provisions of the agreement relating to the future governance of this part of the Northwest Territories are poorly drafted and in some respects contradictory.

The effect of the act would be to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent and paramount authority over the federal crown in relation to matters affecting the Tlicho. The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over any regulations passed under the act.

Unfortunately the agreement itself is internally contradictory resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramount provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and finally, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.

In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho. The federal government seems therefore to have rendered specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho subordinate to Tlicho laws.

Yet another example of the concept of paramountcy can be seen where it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho law. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation. In other words, this provision creates the following hierarchy: first, the agreement; second, the federal settlement legislation, which is presumably Bill C-14; third, territorial settlement legislation; and finally, other legislation or Tlicho laws. This is inconsistent with the concept outlined in articles 7.7.2 to 7.7.4 that were mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately, article 2.10.7 prescribes yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of arbitration, namely: first, there are federal laws of overriding national importance; second, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; third, other federal legislation; fourth, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; fifth, Tlicho laws; and finally, other territorial legislation.

Certainly the general scheme is that the powers of the Tlicho government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. What is problematic is that there seems to be multiple definitions of how to determine who has jurisdiction in the event of conflict.

Finally, the agreement also contains the following rather optimistic provision:

Nothing in the Agreement shall prejudice the devolution or transfer of responsibility or powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Assuming that similar self-government agreements are put in place across the rest of the Northwest Territories, it is hard to visualize what responsibilities or powers we have left for the territorial government. This clause also begs the question as to whether the Government of Canada has held back any of its powers with regard to the Tlicho people.

The fourth point is the application of the charter and the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter. The overall scheme created by the act, the agreement and the Tlicho constitution appears to have implications for the application of the charter to Tlicho citizens. Although both the agreement and the Tlicho constitution speak of consistency with the charter, it is noteworthy that the Tlicho constitution is quite clear in article 3.1 that the Tlicho constitution shall be the Tlicho nation's highest law.

Frankly, the entire legislation scheme is quite unclear as to the constitutional relationship between the Constitution Act of Canada, the charter and the Tlicho constitution. On its face, the agreement purports to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that article 2.15.1 provides that the charter applies to the Tlicho government.

However, the agreement itself outlines a racially based governance system. It creates a category of Canadians called Tlicho citizens and prescribes an electoral system where only Tlicho citizens may be elected as chief of the Tlicho community government. In addition, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens, so too the grand chief must be a Tlicho citizen. To be a Tlicho citizen one must be a registered status Indian. Thus, the agreement creates a racially segregated electoral system which is arguably contrary to the charter.

I would note that article 2.1.1 of the agreement may insulate the agreement from charter challenge by declaring the agreement to fall within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Those who are Tlicho citizens therefore acquire a very distinct status in the north. They enjoy the electoral franchise noted above. They have all the rights and benefits of other Canadian citizens. They also maintain their identity as aboriginal people of Canada participating in and benefiting from any existing or future constitutional rights. They receive all status Indian benefits. They also maintain all their hunting, fishing and trapping rights under treaties south of the 60th parallel.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter would apply to aboriginal self-government.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues will reduce the cycle of dependency and that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.

The settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada. In particular, negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with Canada's need for certainty and finality of terms. Self-government agreements must reflect Canada's need for both efficacy and practicality in institutional structure and constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada.

Bill C-14 fails to meet these criteria fully and therefore, must be defeated.

[Agriculture, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the ruminant livestock industry is in trouble and it continues to suffer due to BSE border closures. Over 100,000 ruminant producers need help now.

It is unbelievable that the government does not hesitate to insult our U.S. neighbours, but it lacks the backbone to negotiate with the U.S. government. The government has no plans to convince the Americans that the border has to be reopened to live animals right now and not later.

Will the government take a firm stand with the American government and proceed with legal action against the United States under NAFTA or WTO?

[Terrorism, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to anti-Americanism the Liberals just cannot kick the habit. We have had Liberals refer to Americans as “morons”, “bastards” and “idiots”. Then last week we had Liberal ministers picking sides in the U.S. election. Now we have the Liberal MP for Don Valley East blaming the United States for global terrorism. In an interview she said terrorism is “the result of the policies of the United States”.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to tolerate these damaging anti-American outbursts and why do Liberals blame the victim when it comes to terrorism?