Maurice Vellacott

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, September 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak in respect of Bill C-33. My party will be watching the bill very closely in committee. We will scrutinize and vigorously question the witnesses to see if it is workable. We hope it is for the people of Nunavut.

The minister mentioned that at least on the surface the bill would implement the provisions of the 1993 Nunavut land claims agreement relating to the management of waters and the creation of a surface rights tribunal for the territory of Nunavut.

It is my understanding the bill is similar to what is operating in the territories and elsewhere in the country. As mentioned, versions of this bill were before the House of Commons in two previous parliaments; in 1993, Bill C-51 and in 1996, Bill C-62.

What could be better than promoting the conservation and utilization of water, as well as waste disposal, through a licensing system, which would be overseen by a board consisting of people from that part of the country?

Our party will raise in committee the issues of the powers of the minister, the terms of reference of the board, the length of terms for board members and so on. We notice that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintains the right to appoint and release board members. We do not know if they can have indefinite terms. We probably would want to see some limits in respect of that. We will be pressing that in committee.

The minister has the power to issue and rescind licences, as well as to expropriate land. There is a lot of power in the hands of the minister. We will want to know exactly what the checks and balances are in respect to that.

We have been told that the arrangement is similar to the arrangement with other territories. We will be looking more closely at this and no doubt there will be amendments to improve it, to add to it and to increase the value of the bill when it comes before committee.

As a general principle, the Canadian Alliance endorses efforts to decentralize the decision making process, taking it closer to the people, at local level of government, and allowing them to make decisions that affect in this case their water resources. Our intent will be to ensure that the past concerns about the bill have been addressed.

If we go back through the Hansard record and the committee discussions and so on, some of those may in fact have been addressed, but other ones that may require further examination.

Bill C-33 would amend a portion of the Nunavut Land Act. It is not a secret to anyone that our predecessor name, the Reform Party, expressed concern over some of the financial costs and the duplication of services that were involved in the establishment of Nunavut. It is a known fact, and it is on the record, that Nunavut receives $580 million in annual transfer payments. It is projecting in this fiscal year a $12 million deficit. Nunavut receives federal transfer payments of approximately 90% of the territorial budget.

All these matters need to be watched carefully and closely. We believe that if people pay for their own resources through tax dollars and in support their governance, the more they will hold their government accountable because of that vested interest of dollars.

Because of the remoteness of Nunavut, costs of providing a lot of the services are excessive. Some people have criticized this, but fair minded people in the provinces, territories and particularly in the House should ask whether we have too much government in some of these places. We want to be careful and watchful because sometimes there can be over governance, which is not good for any territory or province.

We notice the Nunavut water board will have eight appointed members, plus a chair for a population in the range of 24,000. There is a bureaucracy of some 930 civil service jobs, as set out in the 1992 Coopers and Lybrand report on the establishment of Nunavut, plus 705 public service which were transferred from Yellowknife.

We notice that there will be eight members on the Nunavut water board. We will be questioning whether that is necessary. In comparison, the entire Northwest Territories water board currently consists of four. It can go up to nine, but it is normally four. The Northwest Territories has twice the land and twice the population.

Various groups of people in the north have said they want those additional board members to guarantee representation for different population groups, including the Inuit of Nunavut and the Inuit of northern Quebec. We will have to look carefully at those claims and try to get some sense of whether that is merited.

Also a couple of things that have been raised by members of the House thus far and questions will need to be addressed to provide us some assurance. Some have asked if Bill C-33 will affect the water quality and a safe drinking water supply. As we understand it, Bill C-33 refers to water quality, but does not define those water quality standards and regulations. As was mentioned by the minister, they will be developed by the water board.

We would like to know what are the parameters for those regulations. Will they be as good as any other regime or place in the country? Hopefully so or better. Will they be similar to the Northwest Territories regulations?

Also another important question for the economic development of Nunavut is will regulations be cumbersome and stand in the way of sustainable development? Jobs are an important part in all places, especially in Nunavut. Will these regulations stand in the way of sustainable development? We want to be environmentally sensitive, but there needs to be economic development. Frequently, we have heard that some the regulations in the territories and Yukon do stand in the way of seemingly feasible sustainable projects.

Our concern is that we set some parameters. When they set these regulations, the regulations should not hurt the economic opportunity and the development of job opportunities for the people of Nunavut.

A question was raised about the sale of water. We need absolute assurance that, as far as this particular act is concerned, it is a federal jurisdiction. These days there is some controversy around the issue of the sale of bulk water and whether there needs to be some further definition under NAFTA or whatever. We would also want assurances that that is a federal jurisdiction and not something that can be trumped by the Nunavut water board.

Another question is does Nunavut have control over coastal and seabed resources? Our understanding is that Bill C-33 deals with freshwater resources and waste water disposal. We need absolute confirmation and assurance that Bill C-33 does not refer to coastal waters or mineral resources on or under the seabed and that the federal government has control over those coastal waters.

In principle, there are caveats in respect of this, but the intent of local governments making decisions on issues that are of a regional or local nature that is supportable by the Alliance Party, but we want it to be cost effective as well. This is one of the caveats we throw in there. We believe in that.

This is under the purview of the federal bureaucracy, but it may be of a benefit to have it under Nunavut water board. Careful consideration will be given to this in committee.

The Canadian Alliance Party will scrutinize carefully and vigorously query those who present to the committee, so we can hopefully improve and make this better legislation for the people of Nunavut.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, could the NDP member clarify or perhaps withdraw his remarks? How could an NDP member of the House possibly compare the contemplated actions of the Americans, of which we do not know all the details, to Hitler's goose stepping? How could he compare their response against terrorism to that?

The American's current assertiveness is due to their concern about the terrible things that happened to them last week. How could the hon. member possibly speak of that in the same breath as Hitler's goose stepping? I cannot comprehend why the NDP member or his party would do that. Perhaps he misspoke himself when he said it.

Could the member withdraw his remarks and indicate that he misspoke himself?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the NDP speaker compare the goose stepping of Hitler to America's attack on terrorism?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the attack on the United States last week not only warned Americans of the destruction that terrorists can cause, but Canadians have realized for the first time that no one is safe from terrorism, including ourselves.

Given this very real danger, what do Canadians have the right to expect of their government? First, they have the right to expect strong anti-terrorism legislation that would ensure that Canada does not harbour terrorists or terrorist groups. Such legislation would define terrorism in a comprehensive manner, name and outlaw specific terrorist groups and would ban fundraising and other support activities on behalf of terrorist groups.

These changes would need to be combined with legislative changes to existing laws, including amending our laws so that we can extradite suspected terrorists.

In addition to legislative changes, Canadians also have the right to expect more resources to be directed toward enforcement. Adequate staffing is crucial at organizations such as CSIS, the RCMP and national defence. The good men and women who work in these organizations must have the tools they need to get the job done.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of constituents in the Saskatoon--Wanuskewin riding, but also on behalf of a good many people across our country who have great concerns about the very manner in which the bill is before us today. It has been mentioned countless times already. It is a very sad day. It shows us something of the dysfunction in our present parliamentary system. We need to be able to break these things up so we can get the best kind of legislation put into place for the good of the Canadian public.

As has been referred to before, the bill contains a number of virtually unrelated things, a real potluck of justice issues. There is no compelling reason that they have to be placed together in this manner. No satisfactory reasons have been provided to me as to why such things as provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography over the Internet, animal cruelty, amendments to the Firearms Act, criminal harassment, disarming a peace officer and criminal procedural reform have to be together.

Many of us would agree with a number of those topics, but there are some other things that we have concerns about in respect to others. It is fairly deceitful, and we could use stronger language, that a Liberal government would even want to do this when there is no compelling reason.

The various elements of the bill seem to have been grouped together deliberately in a tactical strategic manner in order to compel opposition members of all the parties here to raise concerns. It is not just the Canadian Alliance. The Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP have also raised concerns about Bill C-15 and its omnibus nature. The bill is designed to confuse the public, to obfuscate, to possibly embarrass members by obscuring the real reasons members may wish to hold up, slow down or vote against a piece of legislation. The public and members of parliament actually would agree with many things in the bigger bill. Certain of the topics we do agree with.

The process is less than transparent. It is sad for democracy that it has come forward in this rather deceptive manner.

Quite a number of members of Parliament live in rural ridings, and I am one of them. Thirty-five per cent of the population of the riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin lives in the rural part. Farmers, ranchers and others who use animals legitimately have voiced reasonable and serious concerns. Anyone looking at them would say that they have brought forward valid concerns, particularly those regarding some of the implications of the bill with regard to the cruelty provisions.

It really puts a member in a somewhat untenable position where he or she would appear to be voting against some good laws to protect children from dangerous predators. These are aspects that we would agree with and would want to have in place the sooner the better.

Placing animals and children in the same bill really demeans the value of human life. It puts them on the same level and it ought not to do so. It also prevents the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty provisions. It does not allow for fine tuning so that no harm is done to those who make their livelihood from tagging, branding and handling animals in certain ways and that the provisions do not adversely affect the economic circumstances of many rural people of Canada including those in my riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin. With Bill C-15, there is a possible allowance for prosecuting these people under criminal law.

The Canadian Alliance does not condone animal abuse and would fully support the aim of a bill to increase penalties for those practising intentional animal cruelty. However we are opposed to substantive changes to the law that would change the definition of what constitutes a criminal offence in terms of animal cruelty.

The Minister of Justice tries to reassure us that she does not want to prohibit presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canada in relation to the agriculture or fur industries. Why then does she not simply increase the penalties for practices that are already criminal offences and make that particularly clear in Bill C-15?

The manner in which she has gone about this breeds discouragement and discontent. It does not serve the Canadians well. It makes for a fair bit of cynicism in a populace where there is already a lower voter turnout. We need to be doing all that we can to heighten regard and respect for the Parliament of Canada.

The approach taken by the Liberal government to lawmaking shows a very callous disregard to the real needs of the public across Canada and to the constituents who expect us as individual members to serve their best interests in the House.

We have pleaded with the minister and the House leader to split off those provisions dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act. Bloc members that supported the firearms provisions have concerns now as they are hearing from constituents across their province. That is all the more reason for some of that to be split off and provided for in a separate manner.

The very technique of bringing forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to move those provisions that have broad consensus. We could move them forward quickly, get the protection for children and various other areas in respect to police and so on, and subject the others to a more rigorous and full debate for better legislation. That is what we are all wanting and hoping to come out of the House.

I want the public to know that we have asked for this time and again. Canadian Alliance members will find it necessary to vote against Bill C-15 because of some of the wrong elements we find in it.

We would like to do that in a show of collegiality. Unfortunately it would not be if there is no splitting of Bill C-15. Many of us in good conscience will not be able to support Bill C-15 unless at a late hour there will be some provision to split it so that we can end up with some better legislation for all Canadians as a result.

[House Of Commons, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that I am on record as having voted no to this motion.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on the particular item today. I will be splitting my time with my Canadian Alliance colleague from Wild Rose who will be wrapping it up at the end of the hour. I would like to read the text of the motion into the record again. It states:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable.

For our viewing audience and those looking in, the important part of the motion is to come up with a workable proposal allowing for all private members' business items, meaning the motions and the bills introduced by individual MPs, to be votable.

I commend my Canadian Alliance colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, for bringing forward the motion. We should not be surprised as he has brought forward many other fine things on agriculture, opposition to the gun bill and so on. I commend him on the common sense proposal he brought forward that hopefully will have the support of members on all sides of the House when the vote is taken. I also commend the members for Scarborough—Rouge River and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik on their comments. They made some thoughtful and supportive remarks as well.

Private members' business for those of us in this place is indisputably valuable because it ought not to be on party lines. MPs have a greater latitude to vote freely, which is not generally the case with government business. There is that sense that if we do not vote a government bill forward then it is a lack of confidence. I believe that is a myth, a problem, and hopefully we will bring that down some day. As it stands, private members' business is not a perceived threat to the government. It is not perceived as a vote of non-confidence in the government of the day.

The motion we have before us in terms of all private members' business being votable would improve private members' business. Without a doubt it would give a backbencher a more meaningful role. Backbenchers from the government side and from opposition parties could put forward sane and sensible proposals called for by constituents throughout the country.

These proposals would have a good chance of being adopted on a non-partisan basis. It would be good for members of parliament and backbenchers in the sense that they would be forced to listen to debates carefully since they would be voting freely and not necessarily with their parties. They would have to form an opinion of their own rather than some ministerial department or critic crafting a particular recommendation. It is good from that point of view as members would have to assess, engage and think through the merits and implications of a particular item.

It would also encourage Canadians to vote for a local candidate because of his or her views and not just for a national party. That would be good for democracy in that it would engage more people because the individual who is going forward, be it a nomination within a party and subsequently at election time, would likely be putting the ideas he is a strong proponent of into the form of a private member's bill.

It would in some sense revolutionize the process. That is probably not too strong a word in the sense that it would engage more constituents and more of the public across our country in democracy. Many have grown cynical and apathetic and I think this would be a way of turning that around.

It also respects the democratic rights of constituents because private members' business is currently the only real way that an MP's constituents can have direct input between elections into actual legislation. Some might say if individuals are close to a minister they could have input in that way, but I think it would be fair to say that over the course of the last number of years it is the Prime Minister's Office that controls it. It is even questionable how much influence various ministers around the cabinet table exert.

In a very deep way private members' business would give the opportunity of direct input from constituents via their members of parliament. We must improve it if we can. Making private members' items votable is an obvious improvement because democracy demands that we actually vote on something. It makes sense that if there is something coming forward we should be able to vote on it.

For example, the prime minister of the day could call for an election campaign to run a certain length of time. Individuals throughout the country could simply present their ideas. If, when everyone reached an end point, which would be election day, there were no vote, there would be nothing. In this respect it only makes logical sense that if there are items put forward, debated and so on, they should be voted on.

The follow-up is that the current system is undemocratic. How could there be democracy without any voting? The problem of items not being made votable has worsened in the past while. In the second session of the 36th parliament 30% of drawn items were made votable, but in this session it is only 20%.

I will not belabour the lack of democracy because it has been mentioned by others. Some even see the subcommittee's decision making as being rather arbitrary. Some go further to say it is an unfair selection process. With regard to the stated selection criteria, there is a grid that we are supposed to fall into line with to make items votable.

It seems that most members following that criteria can make an item such that it would be votable. Yet it comes down to a judgment call by a small subcommittee that operates on a consensus basis. It is incomprehensible. It is ineffable to some of us why some are not made votable. We need something changed in that respect.

My own experience was that I had 100 signatures of members of parliament voting for something that I brought forward. It was a freedom of conscience bill, Bill C-246. I assumed that it would be a matter of a vote at the end of the day. That was the whole point of gathering the signatures. Something went sideways on it and the process was suspended. I did not have the vote as I assumed I would after having collected so much support across the House of Commons. It was only the waste of time and energy that went into it.

People talk about drawbacks but there are ways that we can respond. Some say that there would not be enough time for House business if every item were votable. The time for debate can be reduced on each item. The number of items drawn can be reduced. The time allotted to private members' business can be increased. There are all kinds of ways in which we can respond to that.

If silly items are sometimes introduced, the individual probably pays the price politically. However that has been very rare. The House would obviously vote against those frivolous things. I think any of these things can be addressed. In my view there is no concern that cannot be responded to in terms of making all items votable.

I strongly support the motion the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville put before us today. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to give it due consideration and have it put forward for the fall session.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 6th, 2001]

For each trip abroad by the president and CEO of the Canada Post Corporation between 1991 and the present: ( a ) what was the destination; ( b ) what was the itinerary; ( c ) what was the reason for the trip; ( d ) what was the total cost of the trip; and ( e ) what was the number of the accompanying persons?

[Petitions, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce the signatures of 349 petitioners in support of Bill C-246, an act to amend the criminal code to prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable.

The petitioners want to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their wills in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia. They note that Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and conscience. They lament the fact that health care workers and those seeking to be educated for our health care system often have been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

The petitioners affirm Bill C-246 because it would make these conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard health care workers' fundamental human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak today to Bill S-24, the Kanesatake interim land base governance act.

As my colleagues have stated previously at second reading and in committee, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the bill. We believe the intent of the bill is correct and that it is one small incremental step in correcting a long outstanding issue for the Kanesatake Mohawks.

I will however use this opportunity to again express our concern over the manner in which the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development brought the bill to the House of Commons.

My first concern, and I say it respectfully to the minister, is the way in which the minister brought the bill to the House. It was tabled in the other place first. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan stated it previously but I believe the minister's comments during the Senate committee hearings are worth repeating.

On April 25 the minister stated:

Without being too derogatory to my own colleagues in the House, maybe things will go better if I send them here first. Perhaps that is a good trend to continue. We will test it for a while. We have other pieces of legislation that will be coming your way in the next year that we may have some discussions about and consider, with the approval of the House leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with me when I state that I and many members on both sides of the House find this attitude and this approach completely unacceptable.

The second matter I am concerned with is that without the insistence of the official opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, the bill would have been rushed through with rather undue haste without committee hearings and therefore without the opportunity to hear from concerned Kanesatake community members who oppose the bill. When there is opposition for various reasons, we need to hear from those who are opposing. Maybe we could learn from them as well.

Lastly I wish to state for the record that although we will be supporting Bill S-24, we have concerns over the process that was used in the handling of the bill through the negotiation in that territory and, in particular, the manner in which the community was not fully involved.

I fully realize that no process is perfect and that not everyone will be satisfied with the end results. However, the government and particularly the minister having responsibility need to reflect for the future on the inadequacies of this process and improve upon it for all future negotiations so that there is co-operation among parties on these matters.

Many community members feel that they were not a part of this important process. I would like to take this opportunity to read into the record excerpts from a letter that was received from a Kanesatake community member following the committee hearings. I would like to thank him and others who have attempted input in this manner. This letter was addressed to the chair of the standing committee in Ottawa and states:

Good day to you, please allow me to introduce myself, my name is Eugene Nicholas, member of the Kanesatake band, No. 0690074401, province of Quebec.

It has come to my attention that there are hearings being conducted on the Kanesatake Land Governance Agreement, referred to as: Bill S-24. I would like to extend you an invitation to our community, to give the community members a chance to voice their concerns and opinions/facts before the Standing Committee, before Bill S-24 is passed as law.

I am concerned with these proceedings because of a lack of information and input from the community level. We are not consulted or given the facts behind this agreement. Our Leaders and negotiators have neglected to properly inform and consult the population on all matters pertaining to this accord. We have not publicly debated the contents of this said agreement in which constructive and positive measures can be suggested in regards to our community.

I view the entire arrangement as questionable.

Last year when the agreement was to be initialled, no one from the community was invited/advised or told to be present for such a historical signing, other than the Chiefs of the Council, INAC representative Walter Walling, and Mr. Eric Maldoff, federal negotiator.

Last year, Mr. Robert Nault was in our community to sign or initial this agreement, and ironically it was done on Aboriginal Day, where our members were celebrating in the Pines area. Mr. Walter Walling of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, was seen riding in a Kanesatake Police Vehicle, making sure that trouble makers (opposition to the agreement) were not in the area! Why was he doing this? Is it in the Federal Government's interest to have their public servants do community police work, or is it to cover up the fact that the Minister was here and that we were not permitted to attend this event because it was supposed to remain a secret? In other facts where the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs provided funds to hire an individual to privately investigate our police officers. I found this to be quite odd. Does the federal department (INAC) other than the Solicitor General, provide discretionary funds for this?

We were not allowed to speak to the media because Mr. Eric Maldoff issued a media blackout, which meant that we could not give our opinions to the public, and they call this a free country? Only James Gabriel and anyone who favoured the agreement, was heard or published.

I urge you to hear the community speak for themselves, they deserve a chance to be heard and it is their right, after all it is a human right. Also, you will know the truth about this issue.

I strongly encourage the Standing Committee to come to Kanesatake to see for yourselves.

Yours in Peace and Friendship, Eugene Kanatiio Nicholas, Band Registry No. 0690074401

I would like that letter on the record.

In concluding, I would like to thank the Liberal members who stated to our chief critic of aboriginal affairs that they were pleased to have met those who were dissenting. They said it was good to hear other points of view. They indicated in committee that they were pleased to have met and listened to those community members, one represented by this letter, and to have had the opportunity to hear other viewpoints on this very important legislation. I believe they have realized it is imperative that the parliamentary process not be subject to whims, to just moving things through too quickly at the whim of any particular minister.

I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate and anticipate that we will have continued involvement in the future, hopefully in constructive ways, as the minister brings matters like this forward.