Pat Martin

[Housing, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, zonolite is an asbestos laden vermiculite that the government promoted for use in its Canadian home insulation program. Now hundreds of thousands of Canadian homeowners are sitting on a ticking time bomb in terms of the health of their families. On some Indian reserves it is too late and at least four deaths have been tied directly to zonolite.

The government helped pay for the removal of urea formaldehyde foam insulation in the 1980s because it was irritating. This is deadly.

Will the minister responsible for housing and CMHC commit to establishing a program similar to the UFFI program to help homeowners pay for the high cost of removing this hazardous material from their homes?

[Employment, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, work permits are being given to foreign nationals when qualified Canadians are available.

In one alarming incident in Gold River, B.C., an employer was given permission to bypass local Canadians and bring in cheap labour from India to dismantle the local pulp mill. When he was asked why he did not use Canadians, he wrote “because the cost is too high”. On this basis a permit was granted and foreign nationals took work from Canadians.

On the other coast, Swiss nationals were given permits to come in and erect the new printing press at the Halifax Chronicle-Herald . In this case there were 80 local unemployed millwrights available as 15 foreign national millwrights erected the printing press.

I call it economic treason to deliberately give our jobs away to foreign nationals when qualified Canadians are available. We want this practice stopped. We want some assurance from the government that a better process will be followed before our jobs are given away.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the enlightening speech by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois and was sympathetic to the points he raised from an intergovernmental point of view.

Speaking on behalf of the province of Manitoba, does the member share my view that one of the most serious problems with the current equalization strategy is the government's persistent dishonesty in estimating budgetary surpluses from year to year and the difficulty that provinces have in doing any long range planning if they cannot believe the numbers they are told by their own minister of finance of the federal government as to what they might be able to expect at year end in terms of transfer payments to the provinces?

Does he find in his own home province of Quebec that it is very difficult to do any long range planning without knowing whether there is stable core funding coming from the federal government? Would he agree that something has to be done about the estimating process so that we know what the surplus will be from year to year?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in stark contrast to his rhetoric about social justice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is cutting his budget for the next fiscal year by $322 million, or 6%, while leaving intact his department's spending on administration and management.

Any cut to social programs is outrageous when his government is in fact faced with a surplus of $9 billion and the needs are so urgent.

Will the minister agree today to reverse these unfair cuts and to go back to his cabinet demanding an increase in spending that reflects the desperate need that exists among aboriginal communities today?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, in the work I have done with first nations people, I have become sensitive to customs and traditions, and sometimes it is hard to understand from my Anglo Saxon background.

I met with one group of aboriginal women elders. They said that in their home community women are not even allowed to run for chief and council. A number of us shook our heads and said that was shameful. Then one woman said that men are not allowed to vote. In some way over thousands of years in their community they had managed to work out a balance of power situation that worked for them that may not seem suitable to us.

In this situation, I point out that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply. No one is undermining the basic human rights which we afford to all citizens. I can accept the hon. member's right to raise these objections. We will deal with it at committee in more depth when we do a clause by clause, line by line analysis of the bill.

I listened to the hon. member's speech. Both its tone and content would lead one to believe that the Conservative Party is opposed to the Tlicho agreement on the basis that it gives away too much.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I think those guys killed the Progressive Conservatives. They do not seem to be evident in that party at all.

The Tlicho government will have a very defined range of law-making powers. Those are clearly spelled out in the agreement. The primacy as to who has the authority over what matters has been very carefully laid out and thought out by others in the 10-year-long agonizing process, while this group of people negotiated their way out from under the Indian Act.

Ultimately, we should be all work toward the elimination of the Indian Act. It is unworthy of any western democracy. It is an international embarrassment that we still have the Minister of Indian Affairs in complete control over the lives of first nations people, the aboriginal people of the country, without agreements such as this.

I do not know if the hon. member is aware. People cannot avail themselves of the resources on their traditional territory or on their reserve. The Indian Act spells out what things first nations people can use for economic development, such as sand, gravel, mud, moss and a few things. It does not say anything about gold, oil, gas, ores of any kind, molybdenum. None of those things are cited.

Until an agreement like this is put into force, first nations people have no hope of being able to develop their way out of the third world conditions in which they find themselves, on reserves they were placed on by virtue of the Indian Act.

This is why agreements like this are so heartening and give hope and optimism to generations of aboriginal people. There are other outstanding claims grinding their way through in an agonizingly slow process. We are critical of the federal government for not opening the tables and being more generous at the tables in view of Supreme Court rulings as they pertain to aboriginal title and use of resources, et cetera. In fact the government is not paying any attention to Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Corbiere and any number of recent rulings. The government is bound by policy directives that date from the 1970s when it is at the bargaining table on comprehensive land claims.

When one actually gets to this point, it is almost a miracle if it gets here in spite of all the obstacles thrown in its way, not the least of which is the wholesale opposition to the idea of self-government articulated by the Reform Party, by the Canadian Alliance Party and by some members of the current Conservative Party. They seem to feel that by setting up independent first nations and self-governance, that sets up a third order of government that will somehow compete or have primacy over the legislative authorities of the House of Commons, or provincial legislatures or even municipal by-laws. That is simply not true.

This is tantamount to fearmongering to imply that by passing this bill it will somehow pass something that has primacy over the House of Commons and elected representatives here. We still have all the power, so there is nothing to worry about ultimately. We have afforded this group of aboriginal people to develop their own traditional land and traditional territory and to get out from under the oppression of the Indian Act.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why he keeps calling me the hon. socialist. I could call him a number of names too. I am not sure if that is parliamentary or not, but it does not really bother me that much. The--

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to Bill C-14. I am especially pleased to represent my party in voicing our views on the bill because it deals with a fundamental issue that is very dear to my heart, and that is the eventual emancipation of the aboriginal people.

The bill would give force and effect to an agreement that was laboriously negotiated among the parties to deal with the self-governance and land claims of the Tlicho people in the Northwest Territories. I am heartened today to hear the views of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the views shared by my colleagues in the Liberal Party as they speak in favour of the bill and in favour of the House of Commons recognizing the legitimate aspirations and goals of freedom and self-governance of these people.

Let there be no doubt that the Tlicho people meet all the tests of being recognized, not only as a nation but as a people. They have a language, a rich culture, heritage and tradition. They had and have land and a land base that pre-dates Confederation and pre-dates European contact on this continent by not only hundreds of years but by millenniums.

I am pleased to voice the views of the New Democratic Party that the bill should have speedy passage through the House of Commons at this stage and be sent to committee where I hope it also gets favourable treatment.

However I was disappointed to hear some of the views and criticisms put forward by the representative of the official opposition, the member for Calgary Centre-North. I feel like I am having déjà vu because one of the proudest moments of my career as a member of Parliament to date was being able to advocate and speak on behalf of the Nisga'a deal, which was the only other contemporary or modern day treaty signed in recent history that dealt with self-governance and a land base.

It was our pleasure to see that bill through. It was one of the proudest moments of my career to stand and vote in favour of that bill but we also had to stand 472 extra times because the Reform Party of the day opposed self-governance for aboriginal people. The Reform Party of the day opposed the right to self-determination for aboriginal people. The Reform Party and later the Alliance Party did everything it could to block the Nisga'a deal, mostly using political mischief by moving 472 amendments to the bill which were clearly designed to block, delay and stall.

I am disappointed to see a repeat of this in that we are getting opposition to what should be a unanimously accepted bill. I am not convinced that we as members of the House of Commons should even have a right, frankly, to interfere with the passage of the bill. The bill was negotiated between the Tlicho people, the Government of the Northwest Territories and federal government representatives, and the agreement has been struck.

The bill we are passing today would simply give force and effect to an agreement that has already been made. Therefore it would be an extension of the paternalism that has plagued aboriginal people for any of us here today to start cracking open this agreement to say that we should not be allowing Indians this much land or this much money. That is not our place. It is not for a bunch of white guys in suits to make those rulings.

This has been a long process of very sensitive and delicate negotiations. Agreements were ratified in a laborious and comprehensive way of all the four communities within the traditional area of the Tlicho people. At this point in time they simply need the recognition and the enabling legislation for that agreement to be manifest in full force and effect in the traditional territory of the Tlicho people

It seems to me that Tom Flanagan is still writing aboriginal policy for the Canadian Alliance Party. Progressive Conservatives must be rolling over in their collective graves, if that party is in fact dead, to hear the opposition being put toward the bill today. It is sad.

The mindset among those who are opposed to the emancipation of aboriginal people is a mindset that is found in the title of the book by Mel Smith, a senior advisor on aboriginal affairs for the Canadian Alliance, called Our Home or Native Land . In the book he challenges the whole idea of any kind of a land claim by stating that it would create a third order of government that would somehow have primacy over federal government laws. That is complete fearmongering and we heard 20 minutes of that fearmongering today.

The Canadian Alliance would have us believe that somehow this modern day treaty would have primacy on international affairs, that this new first nation would actually be out there representing themselves and having primacy over the federal government. All of that is carefully pointed out in the bill, if anyone would take the time to read the actual contents. There is no question which order of government has primacy. There is no question what relatively minor local bylaws and things the Tlicho people will have authority over.

The taxation rights that are within the bill are what is possibly the most meaningful financial component of the bill. Because taxation is a spending matter, the bill has to be preceded by a ways and means motion. That is parliamentary procedure. There is nothing sinister about a ways and means motion introduced by a minister to precede spending matters. That is the way this place works.

I have had to sit here for seven years now and listen to some pretty extreme views from the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance Party, and now we are seeing fairly extreme views in opposition to the bill from the new incarnation, the Conservative Party. I remember the terrible view shared by the aboriginal affairs critic when I first arrived here, who said that living on an Indian reserve was like living on a south sea island being supported by a rich uncle. That was the enlightened viewpoint of the Canadian Alliance of that time.

Other people have said that just because we did not have Indian wars in this country does not mean that they are not a vanquished people, otherwise why would they live on those Godforsaken reserves we have put them on. We can look that up in Hansard . Those were the views shared by the Alliance members then and their views do not seem to be much more enlightened today.

I do not think anyone should be standing in the way of a self-government agreement that would actually see a people come out from underneath the tyranny of the Indian Act. We should be celebrating this in the House of Commons today, not finding ways to throw obstacles and barriers in the way.

I do not need to tell anyone that the Indian Act is outdated and paternalistic legislation that is unworthy of any modern democracy. Any time a group of people, such as the Tlicho and the Dogrib Treaty 11 territory, can find their way to come out from under that oppressive document, we should be celebrating that fact.

Those who are not steeped in the issue of aboriginal affairs probably are not aware that the Indian Act essentially strips people's rights away. I heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North say that we do not want to put in place a race based set of privileges, as if the Tlicho people will now have extra privileges that other white Canadians do not have. In actual fact, the obnoxious race based issue is the fact that the Indian Act is still dominating and controlling the lives of a million Canadians in the year 2004. That is the real tragedy and that is the race based issue that must be addressed.

We are satisfied that there has been a thorough and comprehensive education and then ratification process of all the parties involved in the land claim and self-government agreement. I know it was an exhaustive tour throughout the territory to reach every last resident within that territory for, first, education, then consultation and finally, ratification of the agreement as we see it today.

Let us not kid ourselves. There was a great deal of give and take in that negotiation process. I do not believe anybody got all that they wanted out of this package, such as is the nature of negotiations. There was a lot of compromise and cooperation.

The only thing we need to know is that all the players, all the people directly affected by this agreement, are comfortable with it. That includes the government of the Northwest Territories, the diamond mines that are resident in that area, owners of the resource properties there, the federal government negotiators and, most important, the representatives the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council.

We find no fault in the bill. We feel it is our duty and our obligation to take that information from the authorities who are directly affected by it and do everything we can to see speedy passage.

We have a window of opportunity here. This could be a very brief minority government. It would be an injustice and terribly unfair if we let this issue slide or if we somehow ground it to a halt to where it could not pass within the timeframe. We might be back in election as early as February or March of next year, God forbid. This is what we are told. That gives us very few sitting days to see Bill C-14 get through this stage in the House of Commons, committee, third reading, Senate, et cetera. We all know that whole process is fraught with pitfalls when there is political mischief afoot.

We are happy that the Nisga'a people saw social justice within their time. That was a century-long negotiating process where the Nisga'a people first took their grievances down to the parliament buildings in Victoria in a dugout canoe and were turned away at the door of the legislature.

It was a very emotional process, for me at least, as we went through the steps in this House. They were welcomed into the House of Commons by most of the political parties here. The whole process was welcomed and the final treaty was in fact ratified.

These modern-day treaties are difficult to put together because they contain two components, as has been rightfully pointed out. It is not just a land claim. It is a self-governance agreement. With that comes the richness of the idea of self-determination and a recognition of a whole people, the language and culture, the right to make laws and to chart their own destiny. That is what is really exciting and really heartening about this whole process.

Without going into a great deal of technical details, I do not think it is necessary to know what the intentions of the NDP caucus will be in association with the bill. We are satisfied that it meets the tests for which we would look. It is a deal that has been driven by the people it affects and there has been natural justice involved in the consultation and the ratification process. The people have spoken and I believe it is up to us to honour the message they send to us. This is an idea whose time has come and we want to see it recognized and implemented in this session of Parliament.

The bill has the support of the NDP caucus.

[Commercial Bankruptcies, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, every year there are nearly 10,000 commercial bankruptcies in this country leaving employees owed nearly $2 billion in back wages, benefits and pension contributions. The bankruptcy laws in this country are stacked against working people. They rank dead last in terms of priority as to who gets paid with the remaining assets of a bankrupt company. Today Canadian workers have launched a nationwide campaign to reverse this injustice.

Will the Minister of Finance agree with me that the bankruptcy laws in this country need to be changed to put the interests of working Canadians first in priority, not last?

[Energy Price Commission Act, October 18th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-229, an act to establish the Energy Price Commission.

Mr. Speaker,I want to thank my seconder on this bill, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We rise today to introduce this bill to address the spiralling, out of control and out of whack, costs of energy, home heating fuel and gasoline. On behalf of Canadians everywhere, we seek to find some remedy, some way to give comfort to Canadians who are being kicked in the teeth once again by their energy costs.

This bill seeks to create the energy price commission to regulate the wholesale and the retail costs of motor fuels including gasoline, diesel, propane, heating fuel and electric power.

The purpose of price regulation is to avoid unreasonable increases that affect the cost of living and keep businesses down. Frankly, Canadians have a gut feeling that they are being gouged. I am here to say that they are being gouged by unreasonable rip-off prices by oil cartels.

This bill would provide reasonable consistency in prices. This commission would set prices for a six month period. If the oil prices wanted to raise those prices, they would have to go before this national commission and justify why increases in oil and gas prices were justified, and then lock in for six months so that small businesses and homeowners could have some stability and some ability to cope with these costs for energy that are often out of their control.

I think there will be broad national support for this idea of an energy price commission. People in Calgary and Edmonton may be somewhat concerned, but I can assure members that this is not a national energy plan. This is a national price commission to assist Canadians so that they are not ripped off every year when it comes to gas and home heating fuel costs.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)