Pat Martin

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates regarding process issues that arose during the review of the proposed appointee to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 12th report later this day.

Madam Speaker, just to give an indication of what a busy committee we are, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates entitled “Disclosure of acts of wrongdoing against the public interest and the protection of whistleblowers: Canada must now adopt a more specific legal framework”.

I should point out that the work of the government operations committee regarding whistleblowers stemmed from the Radwanski scandal. We are seeking to act in the interests of public servants who had the courage to come forward to give evidence regarding wrongdoing in this regard but who, under the current legal framework of Canada, have no protection whatsoever.

I am very proud to present this report, which accurately reflects the work of the committee in trying to protect whistleblowers in Canada's public service.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

[Health, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP fully supports the creation of the National Health Council as an integral aspect of health care reform. However, as Roy Romanow has now pointed out, the province of Alberta is blocking its creation.

It seems Premier Klein was happy to take the extra cash last February, but he has reneged on the rest of the deal to establish this critically important institution.

What concrete steps is the Minister of Health taking in her home province to get Premier Klein on board and what is she doing to ensure the National Health Council gets up and running without any further delay?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that we are debating a group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-19, but 54 out of 56 amendments put forward by the NDP have been disallowed and will not have the benefit of debate. We will not have the opportunity to re-craft the bill with language more acceptable to first nations on whose behalf we speak today. We were hoping the minister would stay and listen to our arguments because he did not listen to first nations in crafting this legislation.

I can say categorically that first nations across this country oppose Bill C-19 just as they oppose the rest of the minister's suite of bills, Bill C-7, Bill C-6 and Bill C-19. They viewed it as the reincarnation of the 1969 white paper which is something with which the current Prime Minister is very familiar.

We are debating two amendments to a bill that we in the NDP fundamentally oppose and that is the least crucial point. First nations oppose the bill as well.

I have in my hand a letter dated October 31, 2003 from the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. He is prepared to admit and concede and put on the record that he too opposes Bill C-19 on behalf of first nations across the country. I will read it because it is important. To hear the minister and the parliamentary secretary tell it, the Assembly of First Nations wants the bill but we and a few first nations are somehow blocking it.

I would like to read from this recent letter from the legitimately elected leadership of first nations. He said simply:

As many of you know, an AFN Special Assembly was held in October at Squamish First Nation.

I was there, as was the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. During that meeting, a resolution was put forward concerning the AFN's position on Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19. The resolution which the chief endorsed called for the rejection of Bill C-7, the rejection of Bill C-6, but proposed to support Bill C-19. I quote:

The resolution failed to receive support from the Chiefs.

In other words, the chiefs voted down support for Bill C-19. I want to be perfectly accurate here because this is critically important. The letter continues on:

We must, as an organization, remember that unity is often best measured.... And while we do not support Bill C-6, Bill C-7, and Bill C-19, the AFN's view respects and gives dignity to those First Nations who disagree.

Fair enough. It is as clear as the writing on the page that the Assembly of First Nations oppose it. Therefore it is the height of colonial style arrogance for the Minister of Indian Affairs, in the last days of his being the Minister of Indian Affairs, to shove the bill down the throats of aboriginal people. We have seen this consistent pattern with Bill C-7, Bill C-6 and now with Bill C-19.

Will those members never learn? Will they never listen to first nations people across this country who have said categorically and unanimously that they oppose this suite of legislation? They are offended and insulted by the manner in which it has been rammed down their throats without consultation. They reject it and we in the House of Commons should reject it as well.

I have been denied the right to move 54 significant amendments which were drafted not by me and my researchers, but were drafted by people in the Assembly of First Nations. Leadership in the aboriginal community fed us material. They provided us with changes that they found acceptable. We are not even going to get to debate those amendments.

I regret that this will probably be the last time I will have a chance to share my thoughts with the House on this very flawed bill. In the few minutes that I have, I want to pay tribute to the courageous leaders in first nations communities who have dedicated months and months, actually years now, standing up for their rights and opposing the strategy of the Liberal government.

I have to begin with Chief Roberta Jamieson of the Six Nations of the Grand River. She has tirelessly led a campaign to coerce the government into respecting aboriginal and treaty rights and to bypass this flawed package. Also, the vice-chief for Ontario for the Assembly of First Nations, Charles Fox, representing all of the first nations in Ontario, is vehemently opposed to this bill. The vice-chief for the Assembly of First Nations for Quebec, Ghislain Picard, is vehemently opposed to this legislation and has said so categorically in print and verbally.

The vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations for Manitoba, Grand Chief Francis Flett, is opposed. The grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Dennis Whitebird, is opposed. The grand chief for the Southern Chiefs Organization, Margaret Swan, is opposed. Stewart Phillip, the grand chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is opposed. Stan Beardy from the Nishnawbe Aski nation in northern Ontario is also opposed. Leon Jourdain represents the treaty 3 people in the minister's own riding, the 54 first nations in the minister's own riding. They are unanimously opposed. They do not want it.

What is so difficult to understand? Where do the Liberals get off being so arrogant in thinking that without consultation, without cooperation and without the participation of first nations they are going to fundamentally change the way the first nations are supposed to govern themselves? It is the very antithesis of self-governance to impose government structures on a free, independent and sovereign people. It makes me mad just thinking about it.

I attended the Assembly of First Nations national assembly in October and the Squamish first nation of British Columbia and I saw the debate. There are, legitimately, first nations leaders from British Columbia who support Bill C-19 which is fair enough. However there is nothing stopping them from moving forward with the issues we find in this bill without national legislation because of the 633 first nations, the majority of which are overwhelmingly opposed.

I also would be remiss if I did not mention the courageous battle and the energetic, enthusiastic actions of my colleague, mon frère autochtone, my brother in aboriginal issues, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Both of us had the honour of being recognized by the Assembly of First Nations for the positions we have taken on this bill. Both of us were given spiritual names, which is an honour that I will never forget and an honour that I will value all of my life. I could not have been more proud if I had received the Order of Canada when we were brought before the Assembly of First Nations and thanked.

We were told it is a rare thing when non-aboriginal people actually get it for a second, actually understand the issue of sovereignty and self-governance and the inherent rights of a people to be independent and sovereign. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has no problem with that concept. I learned that concept more recently perhaps. We were both very honoured and very proud to work hand in hand with the people in the Assembly of First Nations.

I also want to recognize some of the elders, the clan mothers of the Oneida, the Cayuga, the Mohawk and Six Nations who came out night after night to represent the interests of their people. They reminded us that frankly the eurocentric view of the government does not honour and respect tradition, culture and heritage. The clan mothers reminded us that we must think seven generations back and seven generations forward before we introduce this kind of change. My thanks go to them. They have my never-ending respect for the work they have done in their representations.

We should defeat this bill in its entirety. We should go back to the drawing board. We should work with respect and cooperation to craft self-governance legislation, as the emancipation of aboriginal people is the civil rights challenge of our time.

[Privilege, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the same point of order that was raised by the member for Winnipeg South, who read a letter from Mr. George Radwanski.

I believe that it is a poor substitute for the actions that we as a standing committee chose to take, which was to point out our displeasure with Mr. Radwanski from the very start of this painful exercise.

The member for Elk Island made a good point. We should be concerned with what kind of precedent we are setting. If in fact we are the highest court in the land, we have a person who has made misrepresentations, possibly stolen public funds, lied to a standing committee, falsified documents and records, and ultimately will walk away with nothing more than a stern talking to.

It is not unusual for people, once they are found guilty, to do a few mea culpas and try to minimize the impact. I do not believe that Canadians would be satisfied that in one of the most obvious cases in recent history of abusing the system as a civil servant and violating the public trust, that it is satisfactory to simply accept a letter of apology from this person.

We have watched the standing committee move to a fairly firm consensus that we should be calling Mr. Radwanski to the Bar. The House of Commons should find him in contempt with consequences and sanctions up to and including time in prison. That was the starting point in our standing committee. We have seen that position watered down to the point now where we are going to accept a letter of apology from Mr. Radwanski.

Surely, we are not satisfied with this. We believe that this sets a terrible precedent for other courts and other situations. We have other cases where senior civil servants have been caught in the maladministration of funds that are yet to be dealt with by Parliament. I am talking about the Groupaction sponsorship scandals and the scandal around the Virginia Fontaine Treatment Centre with Health Canada in the Province of Manitoba.

We will have senior civil servants in the same situation and this sets a precedent where they, too, will simply write letters of apology. That is not satisfactory. I believe we should at the very least today find Mr. Radwanski to be in contempt of Parliament and nothing less will be satisfactory.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, as the NDP representative on the government operations committee, I would like to briefly say that we too believe that Mr. Radwanski deliberately misled our committee, provided false and misleading information, falsified documents, and in short, we believe violated the public trust.

I believe strongly in the recommendations of the report. We also commend the work of the committee and the generosity of spirit that dominated the committee in the actions that led to this thorough investigation and this unanimous recommendation that you have today, Mr. Speaker.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you did a head count, you would find that there is less than quorum to hear this important debate.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, further along those lines, I would like the hon. member's view, as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament, on the circumstances that first nations find themselves in when they avail themselves of the process.

Some of these specific claims have been going on for 30 and 40 years and have racked up millions of dollars in legal fees, money that has been borrowed from the government. In many cases the government funds the legal challenges of the first nations to the tune of millions of dollars in some cases.

I believe it will be a rare day when the $10 million maximum is ever achieved, but is the member aware that from the $10 million maximum settlement, the government will deduct all legal fees from that settlement? Many communities will end up settling for $7 million or $8 million for a claim that may be valued at much more, less $2 million or $3 million and sometimes 50% for legal fees.

Does the hon. member know of any other examples where that might be the case? Could he speak to the fairness or unfairness of that situation?

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Windsor—St. Clair for a very thorough analysis. Being a lawyer himself, he added to the debate some of the legal context. Many of us lay people have a gut feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with the bill, but it is reassuring to learn that there a basis in law for our objections and for the cautions and concerns that were raised in the House of Commons, at committee stage and more recently in the Senate.

One of the specific issues which has come to light in the Senate debate, because we are technically here to debate the amendments from the Senate, is the conflict of interest that has to exist by virtue of the fiduciary obligations of the crown in its relationship between the crown and first nations and the fact that first nations have to come forward and make claims for resolution to their specific claims to the government. Therefore, it is a clear conflict of interest.

I will cite a court ruling as well. When there is a fiduciary obligation, the Supreme Court has ruled in Guerin v. The Queen that the highest standard of conduct must apply. With first nations, when the crown is acting unilaterally in its fiduciary capacity, it must be held to the highest standards because the honour of the crown, and I heard the hon. member mention the honour of the crown, is at stake in such matters. That was the findings in Guerin v. The Queen, a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In that context, could the member share his views on the fact that Bill C-6 imposes a cap of $10 million? Notwithstanding the denial of the minister, there is a cap, or a ceiling, on any claim. Would he agree with me that it puts a first nations community, a band, in an uncomfortable and an untenable situation?

If the value of a claim is say, within the range of $10 million to $15 million, in that ballpark figure, and the option is to go ahead with the specific claims process and get a relatively quicker resolution or to carry on in the courts for another 10 or 15 years and spend millions of dollars in the court, the temptation will be to settle for an amount of money less than the real value of the claim.

Given the urgent fiscal crisis in which many first nations communities find themselves, the chief, council and the elders will say that they could get $8 million, $9 million or $10 million today or within a reasonable time, or they can go another 15 years in this mind numbing battle with an obstinate government that refuses to settle, spend another $5 million in legal fees and maybe get their $15 million down the road.

Would the hon. member agree with the fairness of the pressure, the economic violence is what I call it, and the coercion associated with having to make that kind of choice?

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to add a comment and a question to the speech from the member for Perth—Middlesex. I thank him for his thoughtful and well researched understanding of the bill. His comments had more depth and more substance than the comments we heard from the minister when he tried to justify moving closure on this critical bill as it pertains to aboriginal people.

This government's experience and in fact all Canadian governments' experience with aboriginal people can be best summarized as 130 years of social tragedy, and Bill C-6, the way in which this is being treated, only adds to that tragic legacy.

The member mentioned the fact, a very glaring fact in my mind, that the Government of Canada is in fact in a conflict of interest when it tries to be both judge and jury in settling claims against the government. In the absence of a truly independent claims commission, free from the interference and manipulation of the minister, where is the fairness?

To have a longstanding claim, where the aboriginal people are claiming the government is in the wrong, where is the fairness when the government itself is the judge and jury that decides not only the merits of the case but how much money will be the ultimate settlement should it rule that way?

Could the hon. member speak for a minute about that obvious glaring conflict of interest?

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister standing today and moving closure is the desperate act of a desperate man. He is fully aware that his first nations governance initiative has been an abject failure. It has been an abject flop because first nations, from one end of the country to the other, have denounced it. They have said that they do not want it.

In choosing to go forward with Bill C-6, is the minister not aware that first nations, from one end of the country to the other, have said that Bill C-6 is not what they want? Where does he get off, where does he get the licence and where does he get the colonial arrogance to impose this on his supposed partners in the community who have said clearly that they reject it? They have said that it bears no resemblance to the joint task force that was struck and that was supposed to develop such an institution.

Will the minister admit that his first nations governance act is a failure, that the whole initiative was a failure and that the whole suite of bills has been a failure? Will he go back to the drawing board with some respect for first nations people and start over again in consultation with first nations people? Will the minister do that, at least in this last opportunity that he has?