Pat Martin

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day we have been hearing Reform's reasons why the Nisga'a deal should be put to bed and that it should not happen.

What we are really hearing is that any move toward true aboriginal self-government or toward the emancipation of aboriginal people should be squashed, because for some reason they are not ready for it, or they are too rife with corruption, or there is a mismanagement of funds. For two years we have heard Reform members cite isolated incidences of the misuse of funds. They have tried to thread that together into some overall picture that aboriginal people do not deserve control over their own destiny.

We just heard another speaker on this subject try to point out that there is mismanagement and abuse and that they are speaking out for the grassroots aboriginal people. It is really galling for most of us in the House to listen to the Reform Party try to paint itself as the champion of aboriginal people.

Recently we heard members of the Reform Party, such as the member for Athabasca, say that just because we did not kill the Indians and have Indian wars that does not mean we did not conquer these people and is that not why they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate and worthless parts of the country. Thankfully not all members of the Reform Party agree with this.

We also heard Herb Grubel a former MP counter this. He likened Indians living on aboriginal reserves to people living on south sea islands and being taken care of by their rich uncles. One of them thinks they live on desolate little worthless pieces of property, driven there as vanquished people by the conquerors. Another one says that living on a reserve is like living off the fat of the government, like some guy on a south sea island being taken care of by his rich uncle.

Fortunately, the most recent speaker tried to be a little more sensitive in pointing out some of the true hardships that exist on aboriginal reserves. That is what I would like to comment on. He itemized some of the genuine social problems that exist in aboriginal communities and which desperately need some measure of change.

The situation in aboriginal communities is a predictable consequence of colonialism. It is like others in recent history who were driven off their land, vanquished and then suffered alcoholism, broken families and all those things. The most recent one we could relate to is the British during the industrial revolution. People were driven off their land and found themselves in ghettoized situations. Would the member like to comment on that analogy with his own history perhaps?

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.

The debate has been heated throughout the day. When other speakers were in the Chair, there were remarks made from this side of the House toward NDP speakers, swear words, a common vulgar word starting with a that I will not repeat. We did not bother raising a question of privilege or point of order because we recognize that in the passion of the debate things are said. They were not said into the record. They were said during the debate and not on any formal record.

Seeing as these issues were not dealt with I would ask that the same latitude—

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that in the fresh start booklet the Reform Party advocates that aboriginal communities should resemble or be structured more or less in the same way as a municipality. My understanding at least in my reading of the Nisga'a deal is that is exactly the goal the negotiators of the Nisga'a deal set out to achieve. The Nisga'a will have a government comparable to a municipality and subject to the Canadian constitution.

Can the member point out where the Nisga'a deal fails to set out a structure like a municipality which would be in keeping with Reform's fresh start manual?

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that what we are seeing here today is the last death rattle of what boils down to a two year campaign on behalf of the Reform Party to try to discredit aboriginal leadership and on a much broader issue than just the Nisga'a deal to try to speak against the whole idea of self-government?

I have sat here and listened for almost two years to a day where time after time Reform members have tried to thread together isolated incidences of mismanagement on various reserves. They have tried to paint a broader picture that aboriginal people are neither able nor capable or should have any control over self-governance.

Some people think that by broadening rights to a larger group of people somehow diminishes their own rights. They have this concept of human rights as one finite pie and if one group takes too big a slice that somehow there is less of it to go around. This is the message we have been hearing over and over again.

Is the minister aware that the Reform Party has really been the spokesperson for the whole anti-Indian movement in western Canada where I live, the architects of the anti-Indian movement of western Canada, with connections that I would love to point out if I had more time?

[Immigration, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as Wednesday a parliamentary delegation from the House met with the program director of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Macedonia. The message then was an urgent need to escalate the evacuation program.

Another situation arises. Those refugees who are settled here or have sanctuary in this country are faced the prospect that if they choose to become landed immigrants they will be charged a head tax, a $975 landing fee.

The government has indicated it may waive that landing fee for Kosovar refugees. Will it commit to abolishing the racist head tax completely for all new Canadians who seek refuge in this country?

[Immigration, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Kosovar refugees continue to flood across the border into Macedonia. The camps are bursting at the seams. Conditions are terrible and the humanitarian crisis is threatening to turn into a humanitarian tragedy.

To relieve the pressure on the camps and the entire region, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is asking donor countries to escalate the evacuation program, the airlift out of the area. Canada has provided sanctuary for 5,000.

Will the government commit to providing sanctuary for a greater number of Kosovar refugees, doubling or even tripling the current level?

[The Balkans, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the humanitarian crisis in the Balkans has escalated to the breaking point. In recent days the Yugoslav army has stepped up its cleansing activities and ethnic Albanians are again flocking to seek refuge in neighbouring countries.

I have just returned from Macedonia where as many as 10,000 people a day, 500 people per hour, are flooding across the border and into refugee camps that are already bursting at the seams. Imagine a fenced gravel compound no bigger than the parking lot of a shopping centre housing 30,000 people or more with no cooking facilities, the barest of sanitation and as many as 20 people to a tent.

The very old and the very young are already at risk from the extreme heat of the summers in that region and relief workers are even more concerned at the prospects this winter.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is calling for donor countries to host many more of these refugees in a humanitarian evacuation program. Canada is hosting 5,000 currently. There is an urgent need in the Balkans to do much more. I believe we could double or triple our commitment.

[Pensions, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all pensioners of the public service, the military and the RCMP, I want the government to clarify something. If working people have no right to the $30 billion surplus in their own pension, why does the pensions benefit act require a two-thirds majority vote by all plan members on the use of any surplus in any other pension plan in the federal sector? Why does the government not see fit to live up to the same standards it imposes on everybody else?

I want the government to tell pensioners once and for all how their retirement pension fund surplus became the government's latest cash cow.

[Criminal Records Act, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add our contribution to this debate.

Our critic in this area has already spoke to the fact that the NDP caucus finds a lot of merit in Bill C-69. We understand that the bill finds its origins in a legitimate public concern about the legitimate social issue of whether our interest comes from the fact that one is a parent and has concern about these issues, whether one works for an NGO or is one of the employers who may be concerned about a certain type of individual to be hired or the qualities the individual may possess. We are very glad to see the bill introduced because it finally starts to address legitimate concerns.

The amendments to the Criminal Records Act which we understand Bill C-69 to introduce would flag the criminal records of hardened sex offenders seeking positions of trust. That is the operative word. There has to be some burden of proof that the person is making application for a position of trust.

Bill C-69 would make them available for screening purposes by placing a flag on the records of convicted sex offenders so that police could be alerted. The sealed pardoned record would exist so they could then request the solicitor general's authorization to unseal the permanent record. Even if the individual has been pardoned and the criminal record has been sealed, the bill would give access to that information if it were deemed necessary.

In answer to these concerns Bill C-69 would develop a schedule of offences to be flagged. It does not mean that all pardoned offenders would have their records flagged. It would be a schedule of the types of things the community needs to know about and that should be flagged. It would also place a definition on children and vulnerable groups so that we would know what groups would be making application for the unsealing of closed records.

It is valuable to specify in the regulations factors to be considered by the solicitor general when looking at an unsealed pardoned record that should be reviewed, itemized and clarified.

Bill C-69 automatically revokes pardons for new convictions of indictable or hybrid offences. Someone may have been pardoned or there may be a pardon on record for a past offence but new offences obviously would have to be reviewed and revisited.

The NDP supports the overall intent of the legislation to ensure that the criminal records of pardoned sex offenders seeking positions of trust are available to law enforcement officers for screening purposes.

The one thing we have to be careful about in this type of legislation is that the rights of the individual still must be protected. The test of legislation of this kind is if it meets that challenge and we can be comfortable that the rights of the individual are not being trampled because that would not be to anyone's benefit.

Bill C-69 strikes a sufficient balance between the rights of the individual and the safety concerns of the community. That is the ultimate test and that is the thing we have to be worried about.

By giving law enforcement agencies the authority to access all records relating to the previous criminal conduct of an individual we may be able to prevent future tragedies. This is something that all members of the House, and I am pleased to see all speakers so far, are firmly committed to.

The NDP has always recognized that the true measure of our community and our culture is how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. Nobody would argue that children placed in a position of trust are easily those who are the most vulnerable. We believe that legislation like this takes us one more step down the road of making sure that our society can provide a safe and nurturing place for those people who are most vulnerable.

We have always maintained that history will judge us not by the illustrious buildings in our capital cities nor the might of our armies. We will be judged by what measures we have taken in this very privileged time to make sure we all enjoy the benefits not only of the redistribution of wealth but also of having some measure of safety and security no matter where we and our children are.

We are glad to vote in favour of Bill C-69. We are very pleased this measure came forward. It is the right thing to do and a very timely thing to do. We compliment the movers of the amendments. I give my assurance that the NDP caucus will vote in favour of Bill C-69.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, many of the motions that have been put forward in my name deal with trying to take out of the bill the language that would enable government to seize the $30 billion pension plan. That of course is the whole goal of the bill.

If we look back at how this whole debate got started, we will see that it was framed around one simple statement made by Alain Jolicoeur, the chief negotiator for HRDC in these matters. About 18 months ago he said that employees and pensioners had no priorietary interest in any surplus in the pension plan.

This statement was further compounded when the President of the Treasury Board said, “The employees and the unions don't stand a chance in hell of getting their hands on the pension plan”. That is a quote, Mr. Speaker. I am not trying to use language that is not correct. This is where we started from.

Obviously it is a basic tenet of the trade union movement and anybody involved with employee benefit plans that all pension surpluses are the exclusive property of the employees who paid into the plan because it is wages. It is part of the pay package and wage package.

As we look at this, it makes one wonder, if the President of the Treasury Board really believed that the employees have no right to claim that money, why then is he changing the legislation? Why then is he going to all this trouble of drafting 200 pages of legislation to get the enabling language to now say that the government can take the money out of the pension plan?

In the changes we have put forward, we are trying to challenge the myth being perpetrated that the employees do not have any right to any part of any surplus. That is certainly what we are being told by the minister's actions.

If one needs further evidence of the fact that the money is the employees' money, it is used that way at the bargaining table. Whenever the bargaining agents for the various public sector employees are at the table with the government, the government uses the whole pension package as part of the wage issue. It says “Well, we can't give you much of a raise this year, but don't forget that you have always got that lovely pension”. When it is to its advantage, the government uses the pension as part of the wage package. Now we are being told it is something completely separate.

As I pointed out earlier, there was a handshake deal if you will, a longstanding recognition of an issue when back in the 1960s the government wanted pensions off the bargaining table. It did not want to negotiate pensions at the same time it was negotiating wages because it was far too complex. The deal was that if the pension issue was taken off the bargaining table, the government would never unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of the pension plan while this deal held, while this pact or accord was in place.

That has been violated. It has been shattered. It has been broken. Exactly what this bill does is it alters the terms and conditions of the pension plan without going to the other party and without negotiations.

There is further language in here that gives the President of the Treasury Board the right to further alter the contributions any time he sees fit. Any time an actuary says it had better crank up the contributions from the employees' side, that can be done without coming back to the advisory board or the House of Commons, which is where it should come back to because the terms are being changed unilaterally. It gives unprecedented powers to the minister that way.

Many of the amendments put forward by the Reform Party and by our party deal with this issue. They try to take that language out of the bill that enables the government to seize not only the current pension but all future pension surpluses generated by the new public sector pension investment board.