Merv Tweed

[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.

[Canadian Forces, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a very important event that will be happening in my constituency. November 13th will mark the official welcoming ceremonies of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to CFB Shiloh. Preparations have been taking place since the move was announced, and the 700 soldiers and their families moved in over this past summer.

The residents of Brandon--Souris have welcomed the Princess Pats with open arms, reaching out to them and making them feel at home in their new surroundings. Soldiers and their families have reciprocated by becoming active in and bringing a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to their new communities.

As member of Parliament for Brandon--Souris, I am very pleased to welcome these honourable men and women in uniform and their families to the riding. I look forward to meeting with them at the official welcoming ceremonies on November 13.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a history of antagonizing the United States, our largest trading partner and neighbour. Comments by senior Liberals, calling Americans morons and idiots, does not help to solve the softwood lumber and BSE trade issues. Now we have cabinet ministers picking sides in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Does the Prime Minister believe these comments from Liberal MPs will help our Canada-U.S. trade relationship?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the member opposite talked about programs that the government has presented to the Canadian farmers over the past 17 months. He talked about the CAIS program which I hear from my producers they cannot access. Everybody they talk to in the CAIS program says, “The cheque is coming 30 days from now”. The only thing is that was 120 days ago and they are still being told the same thing.

The government has failed to address the problem and the member still wants to talk about the border opening. Let us get past that. Let us talk about the things that we can do to help our industry today within Canada. Let us not keep talking about the promise of a border opening. It is a ruse the government uses when it cannot solve the problems facing our producers. It throws it out there saying, “We are talking about the border opening”. We are no longer talking about the border opening. We are talking about a solution to save the producers in our beef industry and our livestock industry in Canada. I wish the member would pay attention to that.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is the arrogance of that statement that makes our producers angrier every day. The government wants to pay lip service to a problem that has been around for 17 months, and on September 10 of this year the government came forward with a made in Canada solution. Where was it last May 21? That is what the people of my constituency want to know. The government has failed to acknowledge that agriculture even exists in Canada. Until it does that we are not going to have a resolution to this problem.

The member talked about September 10 and these grandiose announcements. When people are dealt a severe blow such as the border closing, they want to deal with it immediately. What the government has laid out to those people are promises, promises that they do not even believe will happen. What has happened is that everybody is angry, everybody is waiting and now we see producers falling. Our neighbours and friends in our communities are collapsing under the wish of a government that says, “Give us 17 months to find a solution to a problem that is facing us now”. Even today all it has promised is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I certainly want to begin by thanking the people of Brandon—Souris for the encouragement, support and trust that they have put in me in representing them in Parliament.

I have had the opportunity to sit through several debates on the BSE crisis. It is something that has taken place in provincial legislatures for the past 17 years. In fact, many of the provincial legislatures have passed unanimous agreements supported by all members in support of the BSE crisis, in support of finding a resolution and in support of the producers.

As we have heard over the last few hours and on a previous evening, the issues are similar across the country. It does not matter what part of the country, the issues and concerns are the same and, in a lot of cases, the solutions are the same.

We have all heard people talk about the increased packing plant, the increased slaughter capabilities. We have heard about getting money into the hands of the producers at this point in time when they so desperately need it. We have heard the stories of how our producers are suffering, and it does not, as we know, just impact the cattle industry. It impacts several industries in the livestock industry.

We have to address this but the challenge for the government and where it has failed is its failure to act. I have been told that of the people who get their income tax done in Canada less than 60% of them require accountants, and yet I am told that of all the agriculture producers applying for any of the current government programs, about 98% of them need accountants to do it for them. That should send a clear message to this government right away that the programs are too cumbersome, too awkward, quite often the paperwork does not follow the announcements and people are left out in the cold wondering how to apply and how to access the programs.

We have heard it from all of the members on this side. I suspect the member opposite hears it from his colleagues when they are in private conversations. However when they stand in the House with the bravado and arrogance that they display, it only indicates to the producers in the rest of Canada that the government does not care about the issue.

I have a couple of solutions to put forward and I would hope that the member opposite would pay attention and perhaps present them. Throughout the entire campaign my issue with the current government was its failure to acknowledge that agriculture is an industry in Canada that needs the support of the government. The Liberals have neglected it and have ignored it. They ran on the fact that after 17 months the border still might open and, after listening to the comments and the rhetoric tonight, I still believe their only standing position is that the border may open some time in the future and all our problems will disappear. That is a complete neglect of its responsibility as a government.

In my mind, a government should identify the problem. We all have. We understand the BSE crisis and the impact that it has had on people. It is imperative that the government present options to the public to deal with the issue. That would be a plan and one which we could debate and improve. It would also give us the opportunity to present something that would work for all.

Finally, it is imperative that the government move forward and implement the plan, not just keep making announcements over and over, creating a frustration level with our producers that is far beyond what this member understands and would even be prepared to acknowledge. We have a government that after 17 months is still saying to the public that it is working on a solution and that it is working together with people to present a plan.

We cannot run an industry, a business or a government that way and it cannot be run on the hope that the border will open in the future.

I opened my comments by suggesting that the people of Brandon—Souris had put a lot of trust in me to be their representative, to speak on their behalf. What they are telling me right now and what they want to tell the government is to cut the crap, move forward, implement a plan and help resolve this issue. They do not want the government to go out and constantly promise the people of Canada that the border may open tomorrow.

Let us acknowledge that the border has not opened in the past 18 months. Let us have a plan that will resolve the issue. It will be a made in Canada solution. There is the option for a minority government to work with all parties to bring forward a resolution. I would encourage the government to do that.