Merv Tweed

[Health, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported this week that for profit health care is thriving in this country, not out west but in the Prime Minister's home province of Quebec, in fact within driving distance of his own riding. It is understandable that the Prime Minister would not know this, as he said he did not know anything about the millions of dollars being taken through the sponsorship scandal either.

While Alberta and B.C. are penalized for offering some private services, Quebec gets away with it right under the Prime Minister's nose. Is the Prime Minister really committed to eliminating for profit health care in this country or just scoring some political points by bashing the west?

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell mentioned it in his comments, and this is not new. The last three ministers of agriculture have put together a cadre of colleagues to go around the country to find out what the problem is. That member was in my riding in the last few weeks. His major announcement, after meeting with municipal leaders across Manitoba, was that it was obvious we had a problem in agriculture. I resent that comment and the very fact that the government does not even acknowledge that problems exist.

We are asking the minister and the government today to move on a motion that would save our producers. I ask him to respect that motion and vote for it.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to provincial governments, they will all tell us that the program, and what they hear from their producers, is has not worked. If the Liberals are not hearing it from their producers, they probably should get out of the office more.

Again the minister is doing the predictable thing. We stand in the House day after day and question the minister. I can quote him the numbers that he uses constantly. What that does is it sets the public up to believe that all the money and available resources are being sent out there for access to farmers, to producers. We are telling him that they are not.

He talks about extending deadlines and flexibility in the advance program. I am asking him to be flexible one more time. The producers in our province and in the country are saying that the bar the government has set for the deposit is impossible for many producers who are in a dire predicament. Through the motion, we are asking to have that eliminated.

I ask the minister to be flexible on this point.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my comments by saying to the House and to Canadians in Brandon--Souris, who I represent, that surprisingly at an event I attended prior the new year, we were advised how much our communities and our constituencies were involved in agriculture and how much the income of the people living in our communities was involved. Although recognizing that agriculture plays a large role in my community, I was certainly surprised at the number, the percentage and the dollars involved.

I want to deal specifically with the motion before the House today that calls on the government to immediately drop the CAIS deposit requirement and honour the commitments it has already made to Canadian producers.

We hear time and time again from the government about all the announcements it has made to support our Canadian farm industry. While the numbers may be large and for some overwhelming, it continues to be a problem with the producers as to when the money will arrive, if it will arrive and who will benefit from it.

I want to outline this for the government, which continually talks about the amount of money that it puts into a program. It seems to believe that the money it allocates for the program will solve the problem. If the money is not being circulated and is not being moved down through a system in a functional way, it benefits no one. It benefits the government to crow about the amount, but in essence it is not benefiting the producer.

When do we know a program is not working? I would suggest it is when the deadlines are extended one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight times.The Liberals may stand up and say that they are listening to the people and that they are adjusting everything. However, when they continually extend the deadlines, it outlines a serious flaw in the program to begin with. It tells me that the producers are not accessing the funds that were made available or announced to be made available. That is the issue that we should focus on today.

Members from the other side have talked about the issues. We have heard them say that we should be support the Minister of Agriculture. I take a different tack on that. We should be supporting our producers. I implore the government to read what is being presented and being put forward today so they can understand. We are not saying that some of the programs have not reached the producers. We are not saying that some of the programs have not worked. We are saying to the government of the day that producers are in dire need to have a change in a program that will impact not only the current month but the months to come and into the future.

This program, if we were to drop the requirement for a deposit, which is what we are asking the government to do, would help so many producers and communities. It is not just the producers that benefit from the programs and the money that is available. It is the entire rural community that is suffering. I suspect and I would suggest that the long term downfall of these types of programs that do not work, do not apply and are inaccessible will eventually hurt our major centres too, where the manufacturers produce the products that these producers buy.

It seems like the government, and I hear this time and time again from my producers, believes that by announcing numbers and putting numbers out on the record, the public will be soothed and think that everything is being looked after and that it is dealing with everything.

The minister and his colleagues continue in their comments to talk about the dollar value, but they do not talk about the accessibility. They do not talk about whether the program is actually working. It is easy and it is confusing. It seems to be a game that the Liberals choose to play. They put a number out there and they talk about the number. They do not talk about whether it is being accessed or utilized or benefiting the people that it was designed to benefit.

In Manitoba as in many provinces, I believe the provincial governments were brought into this kicking and screaming. They believed that this was a trade injury and should be dealt with in the national area as a disaster issue. The government chose a different tact. From my experience and from what I have seen, I think it strong armed, cajoled and forced all provinces, which did participate, into doing so only to access the absolute desperate need of the producers they represent.

The questions that have arisen today do not deal specifically with the motion. The motion is very simple. If members are truthful and honest in their comments, when they travel throughout their constituencies, particularly in the rural communities, they will hear from their producers that they have no money or access to the funds that will kick the CAIS program off for them. They will know that there is a desperate need to change the program. Again, I cannot understand how a government wants to continually put up roadblocks that stop our producers from accessing the much needed money for which they are ask.

The Liberals have to immediately drop the CAIS deposit requirement. That is not a huge request. I think it is something that can be done. They talk about the money that they have put out. Obviously, it is available. Now we have to make it accessible, and that is what they are refusing to do.

We have heard from the start that CAIS has been a difficult program to understand, and not only for our producers. I am told that most of them had to hire accountants just to understand and apply for the program. Many are getting bills from their accountants of $700, $800, $1,000 or $1,500, then finding out that they do not qualify. How can a government with a conscience suggest that this is benefiting the people that it represents?

I support the motion. I urge the government to talk to the Minister of Agriculture and encourage him to support the motion, get the money in the hands of the producers who desperately need it and help save an industry that has struggled in the last few years.

[Border Security, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want to know is how it is working.

There are 107 border crossings in Quebec alone. Forty-seven of them have gates and only three are manned 24 hours a day. An official has said, “We are being told not to put ourselves in dangerous situations. When alone we are to lock our doors and we don't take chances. Upon the slightest doubt, we allow vehicles to pass”.

In the last few years many things have changed and Canadians are very concerned about their safety. Is it still going to be government policy to continue with unmanned borders?

[Border Security, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent visit of one Texan, U.S. President George Bush, it appears that another George from Texas was busy smuggling revolvers, machine guns and ammunition over the Canadian border.

George Farnsworth, wanted in Canada for child abduction, is suspected to have easily slipped over an unmanned border at Lacolle, Quebec, with weapons destined for gangs in Montreal. Is the minister jeopardizing Canadian safety with this porous border crossing policy?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the posters are up and graffiti is appearing on the streets in Ottawa. No, it is not a festival, but a planned demonstration on the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush to Ottawa. The slogan of the demonstration is, “When Bush comes to shove“. I am concerned this may be a call to violence.

Will the minister guarantee today the safety of all visiting dignitaries, Canadians and property, both public and private?

[Liberal Party of Canada, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, here are today's top ten ways to know that a person is a Liberal.

Number ten, the person thinks that the public purse is his or hers to match with his or her shoes.

Number nine, the person hears rumours of civilization outside Canada's major cities, but dismisses it as Conservative propaganda.

Number eight, the person knows the firearms registry is really just a ploy to supply our armed forces with registered guns confiscated from hunters.

Number seven, having the person's spokesman threaten only one province is that person's idea of asymmetrical federalism.

Number six, upon finding a wallet, the person removes half the cash as the government's share before returning it.

Number five, the person thinks moron, bastard and idiot are terms of endearment.

Number four, the person thinks the government's number one priority means every campaign promise.

Number three, a campaign promise is more of a theoretical concept than a commitment.

Number two, a person is surprised that the red book is in the fiction section of the parliamentary library.

The number one reason a person knows that he or she is a Liberal is when fast-tracking immigration claims, stripper tops his or her list of a skilled trade that Canada is desperately lacking.

[Sponsorship Program, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, evidence confirms that senior Liberals were heavily involved in the sponsorship scandal. Canadians are demanding answers as to the involvement of the current Prime Minister.

We know there are written documents complaining that the then minister of finance was breaking the rules in the awarding of contracts and that his Department of Finance was the only department to do so.

Does the Prime Minister continue to say that he knew nothing about rules being broken?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join our party in opposition to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claim agreement.

The Conservative Party agrees with the spirit of the agreement but it has grave concerns relating to four areas of the treaty specifically. Those are the absence of finality, incursions upon Canada's international autonomy, jurisdictional confusion and the adoption of governance structures which are racially based.

This agreement is most notably unique in that it ratifies both land claim and self-government agreements at the same time. This is the first time this has happened and for this reason it will serve to set a precedent for all future agreements for as many as 600 first nations in this country that are still negotiating land claim agreements.

I want to deal with the four points that I mentioned at the start. The first one I will deal with will be the absence of finality. It is the first problem. I know many of my colleagues have spoken to the issue that the agreement is not a final agreement. I think what most Canadians are asking and what the people in my constituency in the province of Manitoba have asked is finality; that when the deal is made a deal is done and a deal is completed. This certainly does not allow for that.

It is my understanding that land claims are supposed to be final settlements. It was the case in the Nisga'a agreement, but apparently it is not in this case. I do want to put on the record some of the portions of the final agreement with the Nisga'a. The agreement states:

This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Article 23 reads:

This Agreement exhaustively sets out Nisga'a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of thoserights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed, and those rightsare:

a. the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, as modified by this Agreement, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation and its people in and to Nisga'a Lands and other lands and resources in Canada;

b. the jurisdictions, authorities, and rights of Nisga'a Government; and

c. the other Nisga'a section 35 rights.

Further to that article, article 26 reads:

If, despite this Agreement and the settlement legislation, the Nisga'a Nation has an aboriginal right, including aboriginal title, in Canada, that is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement, the Nisga'a Nation releases that aboriginal right to Canada to the extent that the aboriginal right is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement.

Article 27.6.1 grants that if the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories ever gives another aboriginal people greater tax powers or tax exemptions, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation than that negotiated with the Tlicho, then the federal and territorial governments must reopen negotiations with the Tlicho to provide them with equal benefits.

We can be sure that every one of the 600 first nations still negotiating agreements will demand the same clause in their own agreements.

Potentially what this agreement could be doing is setting up a system of perpetual one-upmanship among Canada's first nations. Do not think that this could not happen, as the Akaitcho and Deh Cho First Nations that border the Tlicho are both seeking their own land claims as we speak. They will not settle for less and that could start the trend upward very soon.

The second part in my opening comments concerns the incursions upon Canada's international autonomy. Article 2.9 does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. This, in my understanding, means that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

Does the Government of Canada have veto power over an agreement if it could have potential negative impacts on Canada as a whole? It is unclear, as this agreement is so ambiguous and poorly written that one cannot even answer these questions without vague assumptions or outright guesses.

To add to the confusing morass, the agreement indicates under article 7.13.2 that the Government of Canada will have to consult with the Tlicho if an international treaty may affect the rights of one Tlicho citizen. Provinces do not have these rights, and the government may be giving them out without thinking twice.

Our next concern is with regard to jurisdictional confusion. This agreement would effectively create a third order of government whose authority would be superior to that of the federal and territorial governments in certain matters. The jurisdictional confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the wording of the agreement is confusing as to which legislation, federal, territorial, Tlicho or the charter, is paramount in the event of conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramount provisions.

First, in articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4, 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 the Tlicho laws.

Continuing on this confusing path, article 2.8.3 introduces yet another concept of paramountcy, in that it makes the settlement legislation, presumably Bill C-14, paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho laws.

Unfortunately, for the sake of consistency and clarity, article 2.10.7 prescribes yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of arbitration.

The problem here is that there seems to be multiple definitions of how to determine supremacy in the event of conflict between the Constitution of Canada, the charter, territorial legislation, Tlicho legislation and the agreement itself. One can only imagine the legal problems and confusion that this agreement will create if passed in its current form.

My final point is that it would create a racially based electoral system. The agreement also would create a category of citizens called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs, and 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens. This is arguably counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we can almost be assured that it will be subject to a charter challenge, if the charter even ends up applying in Tlicho territory.

We believe that aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement in the same manner as was achieved with the Nisga'a. We believe that self-government agreements must be structured so as to ensure constitutional harmony and so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada.

We believe that the principles of the charter must apply to aboriginal self-government and that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada.

If those principles cannot be upheld, then I cannot support this agreement.