Tom Lukiwski

[Telecommunications Act, October 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation and also my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc for his. I first have an observation to make before I ask my colleague from the Bloc a direct question.

My observation is that the committee clearly did good work to bring forward these exemptions and amendments. I think the original piece of legislation that was proposed in December 2004 was, as my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc put it so eloquently, a mess. I think this is one of the benefits of having committee work. Committees can take a perhaps flawed piece of legislation and make a bad piece of legislation better. I would certainly applaud all members of the committee, because I do agree with the spirit of the legislation.

I do have one concern. That is the area on which I would like to query my hon. colleague from the Bloc. My concern is the potential for cost overruns.

From what had been originally projected as a $2 million registry, we have seen the national firearms registry balloon and spiral completely out of control, to where its costs are now probably close to a thousand times more than originally projected. I have somewhat of a concern, even though I think this registry will be a good thing for all Canadians. My concern is that the registry itself may get into a situation where its costs start spiralling out of control.

Does my colleague from the Bloc share those concerns or does he have some suggestions that might be able to prevent an independent registry from escalating costs, thus making this more an embarrassment than a benefit to Canadians?

[Government Aircraft, October 6th, 2005]

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Challenger jets were only to be used when “there is no other alternative that would allow government business to be discharged reasonably”.

On January 29 of this year, the finance minister flew back to Regina by himself on the Challenger when, according to his own media advisories, his next event was on January 31 back here in Ottawa.

Could the minister explain why he spent $67,000 of taxpayer dollars on what appears to be a personal trip?

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-54, which is important legislation as I mentioned in my remarks to the parliamentary secretary.

I come from Saskatchewan and although I do not have any reserves in my home riding, I live on native land. My house is on a portion of land that is controlled by six Indian bands. I am quite familiar with many of their projects, including a golf course which they operate, plans for expansion of the golf club and plans to one day perhaps apply for a casino licence.

The one difficulty the bands have in my small area of the world is the lack of funding for the expansion of some of their planned projects. In previous years a lot of funding came from the federal government, but there were always strings attached, which is normal between any level of government and first nations people or any stakeholder that goes to the government for financial assistance. That in itself has always caused some problems. Rather than being accountable to themselves, first nations people were accountable to the federal government and in many respects dependent upon the federal government for their funding.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

I believe it is important for first nations in all their activities and in their pursuit of their economic development plans, dreams and aspirations to have control of their own destiny. One critical way to have control over their own destiny is to have control over their own revenue. This legislation would allow first nations, if they wished, to fully control and manage the revenue from their own oil and gas.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this is not to say that all first nations people will take advantage of the legislation. Some may still wish to fall under the purview of the federal government and have their oil and gas revenues controlled by it. I would hope that most first nations people would take the revenues produced from oil and gas on their land and administer it, manage it and use it themselves.

By my records, the White Bear reserve would be earning at current oil prices approximately $32 million per year gross revenue. That is an incredible amount of money. Currently, that money is managed by IOGC, but I believe first nations people on the White Bear reserve could manage it more effectively than any federal government agency. Aboriginals and first nations people on White Bear reserve are looking forward to the challenges that will come with this legislation being enacted.

Let us make no mistake about it. I truly believe and anticipate that there will be challenges. There will be problems. There will be growing pains, but that is to be expected. Any time that we move toward the ultimate goal of self-government for first nations people, there will be hiccups along the way.

However, I think it would be remiss of us as parliamentarians and of any other level of government to suggest that we should not pursue the ultimate goal of allowing first nations people their goal of self-government. I think it is absolutely critical. I think it is something in which all of us on both sides of the House and in all four corners of the House need to take an active part, that is, assisting first nations people with their ultimate goal of self-government.

Therefore, again I suggest that this piece of legislation is an extremely important first step, a small but very important first step toward achieving the goal of aboriginal and first nations self-government.

I hope, however, that what comes as a result of the legislation and what comes as a result of first nations people being able to control and manage their own oil and gas revenues is that there are no other impediments or drawbacks imposed upon them from the federal government. We have seen this before when it comes to the ownership and management of natural resources, not necessarily directly with respect to first nations people, but certainly with jurisdictional management, accountability and ownership of oil and gas revenues.

I can again point to my home province of Saskatchewan, where we have been in a long and ongoing discussion, debate and, some would suggest, fight with the federal government over oil and gas revenues. I refer specifically to the ongoing battle our province has with the federal government on equalization payments.

Currently, as hon. members might know, Saskatchewan is considered a have province, but for many years prior to this we were considered a have not province and have been recipients of oil and gas revenues through equalization payments. The problem is that even though Saskatchewan has generated significant wealth over the past number of years through oil and gas revenues, the clawback system that the federal government has imposed upon our province literally makes it almost, at best, revenue neutral.

In other words, Saskatchewan has been clawed back anywhere from 90¢ on every dollar to $1.25 on every dollar for the amount of oil and gas revenues we generate. By conservative estimates, and I note that is small-c conservative, Mr. Speaker, over the past decade Saskatchewan would have received an additional $4 billion to $5 billion in revenue had the federal government not clawed back, through the equalization formula, all of the revenue that we have generated.

In fact, if Saskatchewan had a proper, fair and just equalization formula right now, at today's oil prices Saskatchewan would be receiving, by my calculations, anywhere between $800 million and $1.5 billion in additional revenue each and every year. Of course we do not have that agreement, and even though this legislation looks attractive and is something I would very actively and vocally support, I would hope that down the line there will be no other impediments placed upon first nations people by the federal government.

I would encourage and certainly urge all members across the floor to take that into consideration and to take that message to the minister and to the Prime Minister, to give some guarantees to first nations people that they will not at some point in the future be burdened by the same clawbacks, by the same impediments from the federal government on the ownership, management and control of all of their oil and gas revenues. If members opposite can guarantee me that, I will certainly endorse the bill.

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the start that I certainly will be supporting the bill because it is important legislation.

I must preface my remarks by saying that the White Bear, the Saskatchewan Indian band, is not in my riding but I have attended many functions on the White Bear reserve. It is a very progressive band. It has its own casino and a wonderful golf course. Economic development is a very critical part of their strategic approach to governing.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on self-government. I see the legislation and the ability for aboriginals to manage their own financial affairs with respect to oil and gas revenue as a small but a very important first step toward self-government. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she shares those views and what future does she see emanating from this agreement?

[Petitions, October 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today to present two petitions from several Saskatchewan communities including Tugaske, Central Butte, Aylesbury and the fine community of Craik. Residents of these communities are extremely concerned about the potential closure of rural post offices.

These petitions have been signed by several hundred residents of those communities. They are encouraging and urging the government to retain its current moratorium on rural post office closures.

[Government Aircraft, October 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the finance minister has been using Challenger jets as his own personal taxi service. On four separate occasions Challengers flew the minister home to Regina and then returned to Ottawa empty. The minister has cost the government and the taxpayers over $250,000, all the while commercial flights were readily available.

I know that Liberals are not very popular in Saskatchewan. Is the minister so afraid of the voters that he will not even fly with them any more?

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the introduction of Bill C-55 there was going to be, if my memory serves me well, introduction of a private member's bill sponsored by the member for Winnipeg Centre. I think it was Bill C-281. I was prepared to support that bill, as I am prepared to support Bill C-55.

One question I have is on a point of clarification. Before I get to that let me say that I am prepared to support this bill even though there are some questions as to whether the passage of this legislation might tighten up the financing options of some small businesses. Lending institutions may feel that they are getting squeezed out of what might be a situation in which they had to recover money but are dropped in the order of preference. There may be some question as to whether lending institutions are going to be as willing to lend money to small and medium size businesses in the future.

I still think this is an important piece of legislation. It has certainly been my realization that when insolvency and bankruptcy occur, the people who, quite frankly, really get screwed are the workers. This is an important step to ensure that at least the working men and women who perhaps have worked for 25 or 30 years at a company that eventually goes bankrupt have some recompense.

My question is one of clarification and it deals with pensions. Let us assume hypothetically that someone had worked for 35 years for a company and was already receiving a pension. How will this bill deal with that? Let us assume for a moment that the individual who was in a contributory pension plan had over the course of his or her lifetime contributed close to $100,000 into a pension fund and had received, because he or she had retired a number of years earlier, $50,000 in benefits and then the company eventually went bankrupt. What steps, if any, does this legislation take to protect the pension of that individual? Exactly what rights would that person have under this legislation?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick points in response to an observation from my colleague on the definition of the largest political scandal in Canadian history. He mentioned the Devine government in Saskatchewan.

I would point out to the member that the total amount of money that was stolen by members of the Saskatchewan Conservative Party was far less than the amount stolen by Mr. Coffin in one example of abuse in the sponsorship scandal. Yet Mr. Coffin, it appears, gets to lecture on the university circuit while others in Saskatchewan, as the member rightfully points out, did go to jail. I would suggest that if we are looking at the scale of theft, this is by far, in terms of monetary terms, the largest scandal in Canadian political history.

The member mentioned in his remarks that it was worth the time it took to present this bill, and the years that it took in development to get it right. There were a couple of points that my colleagues and I have raised that this bill still needs some refinement in terms of clause 55, which refers to the five year period in which information can be withheld.

If a department head chooses to do so based on the fact that he or she may feel the disclosure of that information would ultimately lead to the identity of the individual, I feel that is somewhat restrictive and onerous on the Canadian public. It would allow department heads to arbitrarily say that they are going to withhold the information because they believe the identity of the whistleblower might be revealed and, therefore, the information itself cannot come forward.

Second, does the member believe there should be exemptions for crown corporations and others or should all arms of government be treated equally inasmuch as they should all be under the same umbrella of Bill C-11 as every line department or should there be exemptions as this bill suggests there should?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I basically agree with what my hon. colleague has suggested. I think the main point my colleague was trying to get at was the fact that Canadians need a professional public service. We need individuals working on behalf of Canadian taxpayers who are professional on every level, not political appointments, not individuals working supposedly on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, but really working for their political masters. We do not need that. We need to ensure that all appointments made are done with the greatest level of scrutiny to ensure that Canadians are well represented. Without question, I agree with my colleague on that point.

I would suggest that in the future we may want to look at other ways of strengthening the hiring processes within the public service of Canada to ensure that the political patronage appointments that we consistently see from the government and, frankly, other governments on a provincial level across Canada, are, for the most part, eliminated.

I am also a realist and I understand completely that in many cases governments of all stripes will continue to appoint some of their political cronies to certain high level positions. However let me state unequivocally that I am not totally against political patronage appointments as long as, and this is the qualifier that I must insist upon, they are qualified to do the job. After all, it is only natural that any government of any political stripe wants to have people who agree with its political philosophy in areas in which it can influence the direction of the department or the government agency it is representing.

In other words, any government of any political stripe, should work with the public service in the form of a ballet. If the government moves one way, the public service should move with it. If the government moves the other way, the public service should move with it. What we see sometimes is a break dance rather than a ballet and that is unproductive.

If individuals are qualified, political patronage appointments are something that perhaps we will never eliminate, but the first priority should be and must be professional civil servants in all cases.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise slightly bemused that the member would suggest that I would compliment the government on trying to clean up the mess that it created to begin with.

Let us talk some more about the sponsorship scandal. I am very glad the hon. member across the floor raised it again to allow me a few more moments to dwell on that because, again, this is something that is so reprehensible that no Canadian taxpayer should ever forget what the Liberal Party of Canada did. The biggest fraud that was perpetrated on the Canadian taxpayers was the sponsorship scandal.

Specifically, let me reference back to what the hon. member said when he asked: Should we not congratulate the Prime Minister because within 48 hours of his successful leadership bid and assuming the position of Prime Minister he cancelled the sponsorship program?

I can recall with great clarity the Prime Minister's words when he cancelled that. He takes great pride in the fact that, “I cancelled that because this demonstrates to all Canadians my commitment to ensure that we have proper, clean, honest and accountable government”. He was then asked the obvious question, “Why did you cancel it within 48 hours? What information did you have that made you make this your first official act of office?” He said, “Well, I didn't really know anything but I had heard rumours”.

It just floors me that here is the duly elected Prime Minister, who was previously the finance minister of this land, who had heard rumours about possible irregularities, or worse, within the sponsorship program and did nothing and then he tries to take credit for the fact that he cancelled it.

The Prime Minister, at that time, knew the jig was up. He knew the Auditor General was on to it. He knew this would be uncovered and that the lid would be blown off and so, after the fact, the Prime Minister tried to say that he should be the good guy. For the hon. member to suggest that we, in some form, should congratulate the government is laughable.