Larry Bagnell

[Canada Pension Plan, June 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, is there anyone in the House who agrees with the ad hoc amendment that was thrown out at the last--

[First Nations Governance Review Act, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it will be hard to follow the hon. member's act of statesmanship and debate. I will do my best to be diplomatic.

I would like to make a few remarks concerning Bill C-399 to establish a first nations ombudsman and first nations auditor to assist with administrative and financial problems. While I appreciate and commend my hon. colleague's intentions, or at least some of them in the bill, I have no choice but to express concerns about his proposed solutions to the problems facing first nations and aboriginal communities.

Bill C-399 was drafted with perhaps the best of intentions but does not include all the aspects and solutions of the government's proposed legislation, which was recently referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for review.

The government's proposal is the product of consultations with thousands of Canadians, analysis by financial and constitutional experts and refinement by a ministerial advisory committee. My esteemed colleague's bill is the result of a more limited approach and, as a result, clearly does not reflect as much in put of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The hon. member's bill proposes to establish two new offices, a first nations ombudsman to assist with conflicts that arise concerning first nations and a first nations auditor operating under Canada's auditor general. Creating these offices is clearly in some respects not in the best interests of aboriginal people and could in fact generate more problems. For instance, the proposed bill provides no mechanism for first nations communities to shape the mandates of these new positions.

Under Bill C-399 the roles and responsibilities of a first nations ombudsman and auditor are ambiguous. Consequently, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could be obliged to intervene directly in the affairs of first nations. The history of ministerial control over the affairs of aboriginal people is not in many respects a happy one. It is clearly in the interests of all Canadians that first nations communities direct their own affairs.

I would also like to point out that the ombudsman model does not allow for the resolution of situations where responsibilities lie with other jurisdictions, such as provincial and territorial governments. Nor does the proposal address areas where responsibilities are shared. We believe that these shortcomings could lead to years of expensive constitutional wrangling.

Finally, Bill C-399 does not provide a framework for increased accountability for first nations governments. Under the proposal, complainants would be encouraged to bring their problems to the attention of the ombudsman, instead of to band councils.

For all those reasons, I have no choice but to choose Bill C-61 instead of my esteemed colleague's proposal. However my decision is easy because the issues of my colleague and more are dealt with in Bill C-61, the first nations governance bill. I will now explain this in more detail.

The proposed act is more comprehensive and would ensure that first nations improve their accountability and transparency in their governance structures and develop impartial mechanisms for redress and disclosure.

The process that led to the government's proposed legislation began more than a year ago and included consultations involving more than 10,000 aboriginal people. Throughout 2001, thousands of Canadians shared their ideas and opinions at community meetings, via a toll free phone line, in letters and through e-mails.

To provide overall guidance, a joint ministerial advisory committee was established, comprised of first nations representatives and government officials. This committee presented its report to the minister for review three months ago.

The legislation now before the committee would overhaul the fundamental relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada. The act would provide tools for first nations governments to manage their communities effectively and become more accountable to their memberships. Impartial, community based redress mechanisms will be established.

As a result, first nations communities will build self-sustaining communities, and ultimately increase the prosperity of all Canadians. In the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development “This legislation puts the power to handle community governance affairs where it belongs, in the hands of first nations people”.

I believe the minister captured the essence of the government's proposal. First nations communities will decide how to govern themselves, how to track their finances and how to development their economies.

The proposed legislation offers guidance to first nations communities and includes a series of templates on governance and accounting systems. Should a first nation be unclear on how to avoid a conflict of interest for example, it can adopt the legislation's template quickly and easily.

Bill C-61 enables first nations to design codes for leadership selection, financial management and accountability, and the administration of government, all according to the will of their communities. I am sure everyone recognizes that the key to effective democracy lies in representing the wishes of constituents.

The proposed act establishes standards for the administration of government. Leadership selection for instance must include provisions to ensure majority rule. The act stipulates the number of band council meetings that must be held and indicates how the notice of those meetings must be provided to facilitate the participation of community members. Budgets must be presented and approved annually. The act sets out rules pertaining to conflict of interest, protection of privacy and access to information.

Bill C-61 grants first nations peoples the right to vote on governance codes regardless of whether they live on or off reserve. All band members must have the right of appeal on matters pertaining to band elections and enjoy equal access to band information such as budget documents. They will have an impartial method of redress for administrative decision making.

Of course the proposed legislation is not only about granting rights; it also places obligations on first nations governments. Councils for instance would need to establish impartial methods to deal with complaints about the administration of government and the actions of council. For the first time, the Canadian Human Rights Act would apply to first nations governments.

Aboriginal communities have long struggled to develop prosperous economies. Often the biggest obstacle in their path has been access to capital, startup investment, seed money and new business loans. The proposed act would provide first nations with the legal authority to enter into contracts, acquire property, raise, spend, invest and borrow money.

In short, Bill C-61 would remove the barriers to economic development and would promote self-reliance.

Today first nations administer budgets that often run into the millions of dollars. The Indian Act is silent on financial management and includes no sound fiscal models for aboriginal people. Instead, first nations and aboriginal communities have followed financial models imposed by various government departments and programs. Funding agreements often include requirements to manage money in specific ways. Under the proposed legislation this would change dramatically.

Bill C-61 is just one component of the government's three-pronged legislative agenda to overhaul Canada's relationship with aboriginal people. Other components include the amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act and implementation of the first nations fiscal and statistical infrastructure initiative. All three components are necessary to ensure the ability of first nations communities to fulfill their destinies.

The first nations fiscal and statistical infrastructure initiative will enable first nations communities to establish financial institutions, raise capital for infrastructure projects and collect property taxes. These infrastructure powers are similar to those granted to other governments and would enable first nations to build and maintain roads, water and sewage systems and other types of infrastructure. There are successful precedents in this area.

Under the leadership of the Westbank first nation for instance, a First Nations Finance Authority was created in 1995. Since then several communities have relied upon the finance authority to use debentures and gain access to long term affordable financing. The finance authority has benefited from a partnership with an expert in the field, the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C., which has 30 years of experience and a triple A credit rating.

Aboriginal communities across Canada are keen to follow in the footsteps of the Westbank first nation. All Canadians want to see first nations, aboriginal and northern communities contribute to the prosperity of our nation. We want every Canadian to have both a dream and the ability to make that dream come true. We want every Canadian to be able to control his or her destiny. Bill C-61 is designed to ensure that aboriginal communities can access the resources they need to fulfill their dreams.

I am convinced that all Canadians will benefit, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. I am also sure that all would agree that the government's proposed legislation is a more comprehensive option than is Bill C-399.

Earlier this week members of all parties spoke eloquently in support of sending the government bill to committee. Many hon. members indicated they were keen to help improve the bill. I urge all hon. members to become involved in the review process.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the goals of Bill C-399 are covered more comprehensively in Bill C-61. Therefore, I encourage everyone to vote for Bill C-61 instead of Bill C-399.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my remarks today on the aboriginal issues and opportunities in the proposed species at risk act. The way opportunities have been seized in the development of the legislation is quite a story. It is a story we have ignored in a long debate that seems to have only two sides and no middle.

I will highlight some of the opportunities the proposal presents and some of the roads that have been taken. In developing the proposed legislation an important opportunity was seized and new ground was broken with respect to the involvement of aboriginal peoples and aboriginal knowledge.

So it should be. The lands and waters on which a large number of species at risk depend are inhabited and managed by aboriginal peoples. Many species at risk such as the wood bison are valued by Canada's first peoples for their ecological role, cultural importance and use as a traditional food source. There was an opportunity and we took it. We took it in partnership with Canada's aboriginal peoples to ensure their participation in the development of the new law. This was unprecedented.

I will explain. In the four years prior to the tabling of the proposed species at risk act discussions were held with all the national aboriginal organizations and most of the regional aboriginal organizations across the land. Emerging from the discussions was the Aboriginal Working Group on Species at Risk, a working group representing national aboriginal organizations. The group was established in 1998 and continues to meet on a regular basis. Once again it was a matter of opportunity.

The aboriginal working group has provided advice on the development and implementation of the proposed species at risk act. It has provided a significant advisory capacity by helping us fully understand aboriginal stewardship of the land as well as the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal peoples to help in the protection of species at risk. One result of this hard work is that the proposed act explicitly recognizes the essential role of aboriginal peoples in the conservation of wildlife.

This was more than a matter of opportunity. As the government came to understand, it was a matter of necessity. I will further explain how the aboriginal working group helped the government understand its opportunities with respect to the proposed legislation.

Under the proposal before us aboriginal traditional knowledge would have to be considered in decision making. There would be strong requirements to co-operate with aboriginal peoples in recovery efforts. The government would establish a national aboriginal council on species at risk.

I will discuss each of these accomplishments and seized opportunities in turn. The fundamental basis on which decisions are made was altered by the inclusion of traditional or community knowledge as criteria for decision making. In the past the status of wildlife species as well as wildlife management decisions such as determining quotas and access to wildlife were often based solely on scientific information. Aboriginal traditional knowledge is the knowledge base of the indigenous peoples of Canada who depend on the land for their long term survival. Through observation and experimentation holders of this knowledge continue to develop a dynamic and innovative knowledge base of the land, the environment and the species within it.

Like aboriginal peoples we derive results through observation and experimentation. However the means of interpretation and recording are different. For example, scientists are trained to interpret results according to set standards in a written form to facilitate communication and understanding in the academic community. Aboriginal traditional knowledge holders use different methods to interpret results for presentation to their community in an oral form. We would be losing the chance to paint the fullest possible picture if we did not do it both ways. That is why the proposal includes this type of knowledge.

Further, the proposed species at risk act would explicitly require COSEWIC to consider aboriginal traditional knowledge in its deliberations. It would provide for a subcommittee on aboriginal traditional knowledge to be established to facilitate the consideration of aboriginal traditional knowledge in decision making. Efforts to set up the subcommittee are already underway, led by the aboriginal working group and supported by COSEWIC.

These are opportunities we cannot turn away from. We cannot lose these important additions to the body of work already underway on species at risk in Canada.

There is another opportunity in the stronger requirements for aboriginal involvement in the recovery efforts. The bill contains the requirement for co-operation with aboriginal organizations in the preparation of all key recovery documents, recovery strategies, action plans and management plans.

We have said for nearly nine years that we all share in the responsibility of protecting wildlife. Perhaps no one group represents or demonstrates a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal peoples. Under this legislation the establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk will set into law a partnership that already has produced many positive results. It will be in keeping with the kinds of discussions and advice that went into making this legislation. Its establishment will be consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthen its relationship with aboriginal peoples. This is an enormous step forward. By establishing such a mechanism for aboriginal involvement, we are recognizing and putting into law the importance and relationship of aboriginal peoples to land and wildlife.

With the national aboriginal council, with this legislation, with the incorporation of aboriginal traditional knowledge into the assessment and recovery of species, we are moving forward. The proposed legislation is groundbreaking in its regard of the knowledge of the generations of aboriginal peoples who have lived on the land as part of the process in determining species at risk and the appropriate recovery efforts. The establishment of the national aboriginal council is formal recognition and acknowledgment. It is a formal partnership that will be workable for and valuable to all parties. It is a partnership we are working hard to foster with others: landowners, farmers, fisherman, conservation groups, and those in the resource sector who will be greatly aided by the proposed species at risk legislation.

The incorporation of Canada's first people and the knowledge they have built up over generations will be an excellent addition to the bill. It will cover parts of the country where first nations still have stewardship of the land and will add particular knowledge that we can use in other parts of the nation.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the member. The member spoke about transparency in programs. I agree that it is good to fix problems as soon as we find them. I also wanted to make sure that the member agrees with the balanced approach to fixing problems.

We had some problems a while back and measures were put in place to fix them. However I think we may have gone overboard in some places. I have had a number of calls from organizations in my constituency, especially those dealing with the poor and disabled, telling me that there are so many procedures and it is so transparent that it takes a long time and it is actually hurting their operations. They cannot function because it takes some time to get the final product out.

I hope I have the support of the member as we go through various improvements to the systems to still make them functional but fast enough for our organizations that really need the support.

[Canada Games, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to the 2007 Canada Winter Games Bid Committee led by President Doug Inglis.

The Government of Canada along with the Yukon territory and the Canada Games Council have just announced that the 2007 Canada Winter Games will be hosted in Whitehorse. I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support for this history-making event.

The Canada Games will celebrate its 40th anniversary in Whitehorse, marking the first time that the Canada Games will be hosted north of the 60th parallel. Since the first Canada Games in 1967 in Quebec City over 50,000 young athletes have participated in the games. The Canada Games are held every two years, alternating between winter and summer games.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Mayor Bourassa, Premier Pat Duncan, Mr. Inglis and the many volunteers involved in preparing the bid for the 2007 Canada Winter Games. We wish them much success in their planning and preparations. The next Canada Games will be held in Bathurst-Campbellton, New Brunswick, from February 22 to March 8, 2003.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I notice that my colleague from Nunavut is here and I would like to ask a question in that respect. When we appeared before the Romanow commission a couple of hours ago, she again made the point that in rural parts of the northern territories some people feel that they would like to have the problems we have here in southern Canada. The differences are inconceivable. These people are faced with no running water. There is no infrastructure. Health facilities in some areas have requirements that people cannot imagine. I read somewhere that someone questioned the need for infrastructure. Such people should tour this part of Canada, these very rural parts of my riding and those of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

I would like to ask for a commitment from the minister for him to come and see some of these parts of Canada that many Canadians never see. This would enable him to tailor his programs and services and speak in cabinet about these people whose lives are totally different from the lives of the vast majority of Canadians.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I want to talk about a warning that goes along with fixing of administrative problems. When it is determined that there are administrative problems and new systems are put in place to fix them, sometimes we can go overboard. I had an experience in my riding, and I am sure it is similar across the country, where certain programs received so much attention that we went overboard.

Social service client groups told me that they were being held up so long because the administrative procedures that we had put into place to solve a problem, which was not enough care in the delivery of the program, had gone overboard. I want to warn against the Government of Canada in general doing that at any time. We need to be careful not to go overboard and over-administrate to the extent that hurts people, especially those who are the most needy.

I can see where a similar thing could come up in the minister's department if the programs and services were slowed down too much in respect to two huge megaprojects that we will have shortly in northern Canada. I hope we will have them because of the great benefits. One is the Mackenzie valley pipeline and the other is the Alaska highway pipeline. To a large extent these pipelines will go through small rural communities that then will have a massive influx of people, at least for a short time. They therefore will need government services to deal with those people and it will have to be done on a timely basis, because if Canada is not ready for this the United States will get its gas from some other source and Canada will lose all the benefits.

I do not expect a long answer to this, but I hope the minister, as he does reviews and ensures that programs are well handled, will keep in mind the fact that they are also done on a timely basis so that Canada can remain competitive in regard to services his department might have to provide.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

My next question, Madam Chairman, relates to the improvements that are going on in the Parliament Buildings. As the citizens of Canada may know, there are ongoing renovations to the buildings on Parliament Hill to make them more functional and to fit in with the modern technologies and wiring needed in buildings today. I hope that the minister will make sure there is full consultation with all of us who work in these buildings every day. I notice that there could be vast improvements in the routes, the paths we take and the functions. I hope that members are consulted in detail. I think we have good input to make to those plans.

These buildings are of course a great part of our heritage. They are a symbol of our democracy. As a matter of fact, after September 11 I wrote to the Speaker about the preservation of these buildings because they are of such importance and are seen by Canadians across the country as a symbol of our democracy. Of course the foundation of our democracy is not in the buildings. It is in the hearts and minds of our people. However, thousands of Canadians come here every year to see these buildings because they are proud of them. I would hope that the minister could give us an update on the renovations on Parliament Hill.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I will begin by congratulating the minister on his new portfolio which I believe he has been in for nine days. He has done a tremendous job over the last four and a half hours.

I have two questions for the minister. The first one will be pretty hard considering the short time he has been in the office but it relates to the rural lens. As people know, the Government of Canada has a process whereby all expenditures and new programs are looked at from the point of rural Canada. As my colleague, who spoke before me, talked about urban Canada, I wanted to make sure rural Canada received its fair time and attention tonight.

The rural lens looks at all the programs. I would like to know how the department has used it, if at all, or at least that the minister is committed to ensuring that his staff uses it when they do programs.

While he is thinking about that, my second question relates to an update on the Government of Canada website. This is a very wise expenditure in the estimates for my riding. It is an important expenditure and an important investment because in the more rural ridings, the farther one is from large cities the harder one has getting information on government programs. Sometimes a community is so small, like some of the communities in my riding, that they have never had a federal government office or even a large number of employees who could answer a lot of questions. This new technology is wonderful in that respect. People can now have access to all the government programs.

Just before the minister answers those two questions, I occasionally like to talk to the people who are watching out there. In my riding of Yukon, which is in the farthest part of western Canada, it is only 8.05 p.m., so lots of people and even children are watching. I would just remind them that the Government of Canada website has millions and millions of pages on every department, on all the programs and a lot of things for businesses all on the opening page. The address is www.canada.gc.ca. I will repeat that at the end of my remarks in case they are just logging on and do not have broadband yet, which is very important to rural Canada as well, so they can get on quickly. It also has a whole section about government on the right side of the page. It has all the processes on how government works.

For those children who may be out there watching and who need to do projects for school, if they go to “About Canada” right in the middle of the page, there are maps of Canada, facts on its history, Canada's symbols and quizzes.

What I would like to know from the minister is the progress that has been made on the website. It continually needs updating and advancement and I hope we are making good progress on the Government of Canada website.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this speech has not been given by anyone else. I have been making it up to refute some of the invalid points the opposition has made with respect to the bill.

I will speak to an aspect of Bill C-15B which has not been the subject of recent discussion and has not been given enough emphasis in terms of the importance of the legislation. While taking animal cruelty offences more seriously would be entirely consistent with society's moral condemnation of the abuse and neglect of animals, an even greater societal interest would be served by the provisions of Bill C-15B. There is increasing scientific evidence of a link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against humans, particularly in the context of domestic violence. A number of studies in the United States have clearly shown the link. Recent Canadian studies have also put out interesting findings.

Last year a study was conducted of 100 women entering two shelters for abused women and children in Calgary. Some 65% of the participants were either pet owners or had been pet owners in the last 12 months. More than half who owned pets said their abusers had threatened to kill or hurt or had killed or hurt their pets. More than 25% of the pet owning participants said they delayed their decision to seek shelter from violence for themselves and their children because they feared for the safety of the animals they left behind.

One American study has noted that while most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, serial killers almost invariably have histories of animal abuse earlier in their lives. Many notorious serial killers including Albert DeSalvo, the Boston strangler, have had histories of animal abuse that started in their youth. There is increasing evidence of a link between animal abuse early in life and subsequent violence against humans. As one report noted, the literature suggests an association between a pattern of cruelty to animals in childhood or adolescence and a pattern of dangerous and recurrent aggression against people at a later age.

One of the first formal studies in this area examined the life histories of 84 prison inmates in the United States. The research found that 75% of those charged with violent crimes had an early record of cruelty to animals, fire setting and bedwetting. A later study of psychiatric patients who repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people and had also been victims of brutal parental punishment as children.

The link between animal cruelty and the abuse or neglect of children has been examined in other studies as well. In one study of 57 families being treated by local child welfare authorities because of incidents of child abuse, pets had been abused in 88% of the families in which children had been physically abused. In two-thirds of the cases the abusive parent had injured or killed the family pet. In the remaining one-third of cases it was the children who had abused the pet. In describing animal abuse as symptomatic of family dysfunction, one study notes that the research strongly suggests animal abuse is not the result of some personality flaw in the abuser but a symptom of a deeply disturbed family.

Insight into the dynamics of animal cruelty offences can be gained from research that examines the reasons given by offenders for their actions. In examining violent offenders with a history of animal abuse, researchers have found that some offenders resort to cruelty to control the animal's behaviour. Others have hurt or killed an animal to retaliate for an action by the animal such as barking. A third motivation is prejudice toward specific types of animals, most commonly cats.

I hope people understand that there are ramifications of the bill in terms of determining that cruelty to animals is an offence of violence. It would be of benefit to our society to realize the seriousness of it in that respect.