Richard Nadeau

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, a life is priceless. We are now talking about saving lives. How can that be done? Is there a way to prevent murders and homicides completely? If there were a simple and concise formula, all human beings on earth would use it. Right now, there are firearms in our society and the vast majority of murders are committed with firearms.

Health workers tell us that there are fewer people arriving in hospitals injured by firearms since the introduction of the gun registry. It is the health sector that inspired my very simple proposal to maintain the registry because it saves lives.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that you yourself are quite sure that I am going to speak in support of my party’s proposal.

I believe we should not extend the amnesty on gun control requirements set to expire on May 16, 2009, and that we should maintain the registration of all types of firearms in its entirety—I repeat: in its entirety.

The Bloc Québécois is the federal party that best represents the interests of Quebeckers and that calls for the consensus in Quebec to be respected. As a result, the Bloc Québécois is firmly committed to improving firearms control and maintaining the registration of all types of firearms in its entirety, as I said.

For the umpteenth time, the Conservative government is attacking the firearms registry; it wants to exempt unrestricted firearms—rifles and hunting weapons. This stubborn persistence, which can only be described as ideological, is hard to justify when we see how the gun registry has led to a drop in tragic events involving firearms. But the Conservatives do not care about that.

We already knew that when it comes to justice and public safety, the Conservatives care only about their partisan interests. Was it not the Minister of Justice who said, on July 17, 2008, “We do not govern by statistics. We are governing by what we promised Canadians in the last election and what Canadians told us”?

The bills that are currently before Parliament regarding the registry quite simply provide the evidence that the Conservatives are wilfully blinding themselves to reality. It is not the Bloc Québécois members who see the benefits, it is police services in Quebec and Canada, which say that the registry is a useful and effective tool; it is public health agencies, which report the situation on the ground and observe the significant declines in homicides, suicides and accidents involving firearms; and it is the statistics—and this is very important—that show that firearms control reduces the number of crimes, including the most violent crime, murder.

This is obvious when we compare Quebec’s track record to the United States. The rate is five times lower in Quebec than in our neighbour to the south.

When it comes to justice and public safety, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still and will always be prevention. This means that we have to tackle the root causes of crime and the conditions that lead to tragedies in the home. We have to tackle the causes of youth crime and violence, rather than waiting for things to get broken and then trying to fix them, that is the wisest and most importantly the most profitable approach, in both social and economic terms.

This can be clearer, and I will spell it out. First, we have to tackle poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which provide fertile ground for frustration and its manifestations: violence and crime.

And in addition, we have to limit access to the firearms that make it easier to commit serious crimes. The evidence is in on this point: gun control is one of the most effective ways of preventing crime, particularly the greatest danger of all, homicide.

There is a direct connection between the homicide rate and how easy it is to acquire guns. They go hand in hand. Now that the cost of setting up the firearms registry has been covered and the actual registration only costs about $15 million a year, it would be a huge mistake to deprive ourselves of a tool that has proven its worth.

Most importantly, it is wrong to assume that removing non-restricted firearms from the registry would result in fantastic savings. That is totally false. Somehow the Conservatives need to understand that the cost of registering hunting guns is only a small fraction of the total cost of the registry.

The Bloc Québécois was in favour of removing certain obstacles that might annoy hunters and target shooters, including making registration free. That was done back in 2004. Considering the advantages of a gun registry, its low annual cost and the lack of any serious disadvantages to people who meet their obligations, the Bloc Québécois is convinced that the registry should be maintained and gun control should be improved. I want to point out as well that the Quebec National Assembly has twice expressed its unanimous support for keeping the gun registry.

The Government of Quebec has also indicated its intent to assume more responsibilities in the area of gun control. On May 17, 2007, the Quebec public safety minister sent his federal counterpart a letter asking him to amend the Firearms Act to give Quebec and the provinces that so desire more regulatory authority over firearms. The Government of Quebec asked specifically for the power to tighten the rules governing the control and storage of restricted firearms. On the same occasion, Quebec repeated its support for keeping the firearms registry in its entirety. The Quebec government reiterated this stand during the last election campaign when the Premier wrote to his federal counterpart asking him to continue registering all firearms.

This is the text of the document included in the Premier’s letter to the Prime Minister of Canada.

To prevent events such as those at the École Polytechnique and Concordia from happening again, the Government of Quebec has taken steps to protect the people of Quebec.

Recently, the Government of Quebec passed the Anastasia Act. This act is designed to protect the people of Quebec by tightening gun control, regulating gun ownership in certain places and creating a system to control the practice of target shooting with restricted or prohibited firearms.

The Government of Quebec would have liked to do more to protect the public, but as you know, criminal law comes under federal jurisdiction. After consulting with the province's police forces, the Government of Quebec asked that the gun registry be maintained.

The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to make a commitment to maintain the gun registry.

The Government of Quebec is also calling on the federal government to make a commitment to strengthen gun control by tightening the rules for transporting and storing firearms.

In conclusion, the Premier of Quebec said:

If you [at the federal level] do not want to proceed in this way, we [in Quebec] ask for a delegation of powers so that we can achieve the objective stated above.

We must act accordingly. We must maintain the registry of all guns.

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries.

The issue of social and environmental responsibility for Canadian companies abroad, particularly Canadian mining companies, has long been a concern for the Bloc Québécois.

Canada is a world leader in the mining industry. It has a huge presence in Africa, where most companies are Canadian or American and are incorporated or listed in Canada.

For some years now, a number of Canadian mining companies have been directly or indirectly associated with forced population displacements, significant environmental damage, support to repressive regimes, serious human rights violations and sometimes even assassinations.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always defended the need to impose standards of social responsibility on companies when operating abroad. But the federal government has always defended the principle of laissez-faire, preferring a voluntary approach.

Also, we have always defended the recommendations in the advisory group report entitled “National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries”, whose recommendations were unanimously supported by civil society and the extractive industry.

While Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction, we believe it has flaws in terms of what the national roundtables advisory group recommended. For example, Bill C-300 does not provide any clear, independent and transparent process to ensure accountability or to monitor Canadian companies' compliance with accountability standards.

Here is a review of Bill C-300 by Delphine Abadie, Alain Deneault and William Sacher, the authors of Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique, published by Écosociété in 2008.

First, the bill does not take the Canadian International Development Agency's policies and activities into account.

Second, it does not take Export Development Canada's lack of transparency into account.

Third, it does not take into account instances of political interference attributed, in some cases, to Canadian diplomacy in southern countries on behalf of Canadian mining interests.

Fourth, it does not take into account the harmful role of the Toronto Stock Exchange in the appreciation of mining claims often obtained suspiciously in southern countries.

Fifth, it does not say whether and under what terms, Canadian companies can or could be prosecuted civilly or criminally in Canada for injurious actions attributed to them abroad.

Sixth, it does not provide for an independent body to receive complaints from foreign nationals, leaving it rather to the minister.

Seventh, it does not provide a process to evaluate the damages to populations outside Canada and consider implementing redress programs.

Eighth, it totally ignores the numerous cases of abuse by Canadian companies already recorded in many credible documents. I am thinking of expert reports from the United Nations, parliamentary reports, conferences held in parliamentary precincts, reports from independent organizations like Amnesty International and Global Witness, comprehensive investigative reporting, compelling documentaries, assessments by recognized experts, and so.

Here are some representative cases cited in Noir Canada with respect to Canadian mining companies' detrimental activities in Africa.

The first example is from Bulyanhulu, Tanzania. In the summer of 1996, bulldozers and the national police force were used to expropriate several hundred small-scale miners and clear the way for Canada's Sutton Mining to exploit the area. Fifty-two people were buried alive in that operation. Sutton Mining was then bought by another Canadian company, Barrick Gold. Canada's diplomatic service was actively involved in the affair; allegations of interference are well founded. The Government of Norway, the Lawyer's Environmental Action Team, Friends of the Earth, Rights & Democracy—an organization founded by the federal government itself—Mining Watch and master's student Dennis Tessier have all stated publicly that these allegations are credible and alarming.

The second example is Banro, a company that helped kindle the bloody conflict in the African Great Lakes region in eastern Congo between 1997 and 2002. Millions died in that conflict, and untold distress was inflicted on the people in the form of rape, recruitment of child soldiers and destruction of villages.

The third example has to do with Diama-Manantali and Sadiola. The Canadian International Development Agency steadfastly supported dam construction projects that profited Canadian engineering firms. These dams, which have a catastrophic impact on the people—think of floods, loss of arable land, ecosystem destruction, disease, social tension and so on—allowed IamGold to turn a 38% profit on operating an open pit mine in Sadiola, another project with a disastrous impact on the people.

The fourth example is the Talisman corporation, which had to leave Sudan after, according to several sources, it apparently ordered the Sudanese army to violently remove any civilian presence in the vicinity of its development site. This passage from Noir Canada shows that Talisman was pressured to leave Sudan because it was registered on the New York stock exchange, not just the Toronto exchange.

Another book that has been written on this topic is Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast, published by Hyperion in 2007. On page 62 is a paragraph that reads:

The Sudanese regime, supported by Canadian, Malaysian and Chinese oil companies, was able to wipe out whole populations in south-central Sudan, leaving the way clear for the oil companies to start pumping the oil.

This information is supported by a memo from the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The book I quoted from has an introduction written by none other than Barack Obama, who was then a U.S. senator, and a preface by Elie Wiesel.

Bill C-300 is a step in the right direction. But to put an end to injustices by Canadian and foreign mining, gas and oil companies, we must make sure that they fully respect human rights and environmental rights, without exception.

[Arts and Culture, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Accent, the part-time language assistant program, has been abolished. This program helped people in minority communities learn and improve their knowledge of French. Just last year, 390 young people became part-time assistants. This program was working well, was appreciated by both the young people and parents, and had the advantage of costing just $2.6 million.

Why is this government making these cuts on the sly, with no transparency?

[Arts and Culture, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the cultural community faces an uncertain future, Robert Lepage expressed his disappointment yesterday at the Rideau Hall ceremony where he received the Governor General's Performing Arts Award. He said, “I assume that I am receiving this honour because my work has been seen internationally. This is a perfect time to make such a gesture, because the government is jeopardizing assistance for artists who want to tour internationally.”

Once more, artists are condemning this government's lack of vision. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages restore funding for artists who tour abroad, or will he continue to ignore them?

[Indian Oil and Gas Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Although imperfect, the bill will provide the tools needed to harmonize the laws and regulations on reserve lands with those that apply in the provinces in which the reserves are located. During study in committee, the Bloc Québécois asked for further clarification of the terms and conditions surrounding the authorization to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserves and subsequently of the permits granted by the federal government for oil and gas exploration or exploitation.

As a result of the work done in committee, the Bloc Québécois does not think that the bill needs any amendments. In addition, the bill is the result of a consultation procedure the government conducted through Indian Oil and Gas Canada and with the cooperation of the Indian Resource Council, which consulted most of the oil and gas producing first nations as well as 130 band councils in 2002 and 2003.

This bill is the product, therefore, of a consensus of the 130 members of the Indian Resource Council and any amendments to it would require another period of consultations.

That being said, the Government of Canada should not use Bill C-5 to avoid its fiduciary responsibility for first nations. It is incumbent upon the government to correct the inequalities between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

To be sure we are talking about the right thing, I will provide a summary of the bill.

The bill amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act to clarify and expand the existing regulation-making powers and to add new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands and the determination and payment of oil and gas royalties. It also puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the act as well as provisions for its enforcement.

In order for us to fully grasp the scope of the bill and the need for it, I would like to provide a bit of the historical background that brought us to this point.

For more than 20 years, studies and discussions have been going on to establish a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada.

Already in 1983, the report of the House of Commons’ Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, the Penner report, recommended that the fiscal relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations should be redefined.

In 1996, the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which was also known as the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, as you will recall, also recommended a full review of the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations. The proposed initiative focused on redefining this relationship within a broader context based on first nations self-government. The Tlicho self-government act is an example of this.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2006, just over three years ago now, was one of the first steps in this new fiscal relationship between the first nations and the federal government.

This optional law contains two new provisions: the first makes it possible for first nations to manage and regulate oil and gas activities on reserves; the second, to manage funds held in trust for them by Canada.

A first nation can choose either option. In other words, it need not own oil or gas to become responsible for managing these monies.

This legislation will change the way oil and gas are developed, and it will allow first nations able to do so to develop these resources on their own land. Previously, first nations had to comply with the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations, which did not allow them to manage these resources directly.

The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act allows first nations that choose to do so to be excluded from the application of the Indian Oil and Gas Act and its regulations.

That act, the Indian Oil and Gas Act, is the legislation governing exploration and exploitation of oil and gas resources on reserve land. This legislation does not allow first nations to manage the oil and gas resources on their land directly, nor does it allow them to develop an appropriate regulatory framework.

As I said, the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act is a very important legislative measure. Since 2006, it has allowed first nations, if they so choose, to create regulations concerning oil and gas exploration and conservation, on the spending of moneys derived from the exploitation of these resources, and on the protection of the environment.

As for regulations to protect the environment, those established by first nations will have to at least meet the standards of Quebec or the province in which the aboriginal community is located.

In terms of managing their finances, those first nations choosing to come under this new legislative framework will be subject to different regulations regarding “Indian moneys”. This is currently defined in the Indian Act as all moneys collected, received or held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of Indians or bands.

For these first nations, the provisions of the Indian Act will no longer apply. They will therefore be able to manage the amounts collected directly, rather than letting them be managed by the federal government. As a result, they will be able to make their own choices for investment in their communities instead of letting the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dictate priorities to them. Auditor General Sheila Fraser pointed out in her 2004 report that this department is not doing a good job of administering the billions of dollars intended for the aboriginal communities.

If a first nation does not feel it would be advantageous to come under the new legislative regime, the current standards will continue to apply to it, so it will continue to benefit from the provisions of the Indian Act, including those that apply to the administration of Indian moneys.

Bill C-5 , which is incidentally identical to Bill C-63 and Bill C-5 , which died on the order paper June 17, 2008, and December 3, 2008, respectively, amends the Indian Oil and Gas Act. It is important to point out that oil is defined in the act as “a mixture of hydrocarbons that can be recovered from a well in liquid form, with the exception of condensate”.

At present, the First Nations that have oil and gas resources but do not manage them under the 2006 act must leave the management of those resources to Indian Oil and Gas Canada (IOGC), a government agency which reports to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

IOGC is mandated to manage and administer the exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas resources on Indian reserve land. IOGC promotes their development and ensures that royalties are appropriately paid to the first nations. However the Indian Oil and Gas Act has not been amended since it was passed in 1974. It is true that the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations of 1995 have been passed, but those regulations are inadequate to deal with the evolution of the market since 1974.

Faced with an increasingly complex industry, the provinces have constantly modernized their oil and gas legislation. That is why the federal government is today deciding to modernize the act, so as to bring it more in line with reality and the various legislative enactments of the provinces.

This bill will apply to reserves that were not granted rights under the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. Hence it will apply to the first nations that are subject to the Indian Oil and Gas Act. Some 200 first nations produce or could produce oil and gas. At this time over 80% of this type of activity takes place, as one might guess, in Alberta. In 2005-06, over $270 million in oil and gas revenue was collected by IOGC on behalf of about 60 first nations that are signatories of development agreements in effect.

The purpose of the bill is to level the playing field between these industries’ on-reserve and off-reserve activities with the support of provincial legislation, in order to: reduce barriers to the economic development of the first nations; guarantee environmental protection on the reserves, something that is extremely important; and allow the government to better fulfill its industry management obligations to first nations through regulatory compliance and through the collection of royalties and other forms of applicable compensation.

Under the Indian Act, oil and gas revenues are collected by the federal government for subsequent full redistribution to the peoples concerned. These revenues are defined in the act as “Indian moneys”, and from them flows the federal government’s responsibility as trustee.

This bill does not have the effect of transferring the federal government’s power of management and administration of the exploration and production of oil and gas resources on first nations reserve land. Its purpose is to update the Indian Oil and Gas Act and to harmonize the federal act with legislation in the provinces where first nations communities are located.

This incorporation of provincial laws and regulations will in no way either detract from or add to provincial jurisdiction, as for example with the harmonization of reserve environmental plans with provincial requirements.

The bill replaces almost all of the provisions of the existing six-section Indian Oil and Gas Act and includes a number of matters that are currently provided for in the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, 1995.

Bill C-5 expands the Governor in Council's existing regulation-making powers and adds new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands. The bill also makes changes in respect of the limitation period for actions to collect amounts owing and the determination of royalty payments.

It puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the act as well as provisions for its enforcement comprising fines and penalties, a remedy for trespass, environmental protection clauses and authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to reserves.

It would be interesting to have more information about lands added to reserves and to know what measures are being put forward in negotiations with the provinces. For example, what is meant by expanding the Governor in Council's regulation-making powers and how will the provinces be consulted before regulations are introduced? Even though the bill states that these lands have been absolutely surrendered under the Indian Act or the First Nations Land Management Act, it would be interesting to get some clarification about the negotiation process with the provinces and obtaining a permit on these added lands.

The bill also requires the minister to undertake ongoing consultations with the first nations involved with respect to negotiations with industry. The new section 6(1.1) states that: The Governor in Council may, by regulation:

(a) require that a power of the Minister under this Act in relation to first nation lands be exercised only if prior approval of the council of the first nation is obtained, if the council is first consulted or if prior notice is given to the council, as the case may be;

(b) require that any such power of the Minister be exercised only if prior consent is given by any first nation member who is in lawful possession of the first nation lands; and

(c) require that notice be given to the council of the first nation after the Minister exercises any such power.

As far as consultations prior to introduction of the bill are concerned, we need to know that through Indian Oil and Gas Canada, and in cooperation with the Indian Resource Council, the government consulted most oil-producing first nations and 130 band councils in 2002 and 2003.

The Indian Resource Council was founded in 1987 to represent first nations' collective oil and gas interests with both government and industry. More than 130 first nations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories are members. Six non-producing first nations in Quebec are also members: the Odanak Abenakis; the Natashquan Innus; the Kanesatake Mohawks; the Gesgapegiag Micmacs; the Kahnawake Mohawks; and the Wôlinak Abenakis.

Some Indian Resource Council members are dissatisfied with certain aspects of the bill, but on the whole, the council is happy with the bill and the consultations that took place.

Our position—

[Official Languages, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we witnessed the same disrespect at the launch of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Vancouver in February. The program did not include one francophone artist and, at the last minute, Luke Doucet had to scramble to translate two of his songs into French.

If the Chinese government was able to include French, how is it that a supposedly bilingual country like Canada cannot?

[Official Languages, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, favouritism does not rear its head in economic matters alone. There is also the disregard for the common language of the Quebec nation and of francophones. The recent launch of the Canadian Tulip Festival was conducted entirely in English. The excuse for the complete absence of French was that the translation was not ready. To add insult to injury the French press conference will be held in two weeks.

Does the government think it is normal, in the capital of a nation that claims to be bilingual, for francophones to be subjected to such disrespectful treatment?

[Government Contracts, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, rather than justifying his failure to act and promising to look into the matter, will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services recognize that this injustice, as in so many other files, results from the fact that the federal government prefers to defend the interests of Canada at the expense of those of Quebec?

[Government Contracts, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the federal government granted $3 billion worth of contracts to suppliers in the federal capital region. Only $38 million worth, or 1.4%, were granted to businesses in Gatineau, while 98.6% was granted to businesses in Ottawa. This situation is unacceptable and scandalous.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain this preference for Ottawa businesses, at the expense of businesses in Gatineau?