Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 588
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-24 10:10
I think Mr. Bagnell makes two very, very relevant points. There's nothing prohibiting the letter being read into the record, with translation. There's nothing that would prevent the Auditor General from passing an opinion if she chooses. She may not pass an opinion on this particular piece of legislation outside the realms of this committee. That would be available to us as parliamentarians in a third reading debate, which we all know is probably a little bit of a long shot at this particular point, but nonetheless, there will be an opportunity for her to do that.
I'm not sure what the procedure is around auditors general commenting on bills that may have some impact prior to them being brought into force or brought into effect by either the House of Commons or the Senate. For instance, I can't recall the government having the Auditor General do a review of their budget, their prison agenda, their jets agenda, or any of their fiscal policy. If somebody can tell me what piece of financial legislation or fiscal policy they have called the Auditor General in to do a review of, I'd like to see it. But I don't think it happens.
I think the real crux here is, do we want to get to clause-by-clause? The motion speaks to postponing clause-by-clause on what I would call very spurious grounds that don't make much sense. So I call the question on the motion.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to each of you. It's good to have you with us again.
I have a couple of questions, and I'll leave it open to any of you to answer.
First of all, we talk about 12 reports, now spanning something like three decades, or getting up towards that. You talk about the challenge of housing on reserve and about the lack of funding. You say that it's partly the success of the communities that's adding to the pressures on this social need.
What can you observe and say to us today about what those improvements have been? I've never visited some of those communities. I'm just trying to get a firmer sense of how you see the improvements in the social and economic conditions of these communities, with the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and the subsequent amendments that have been made. How would you quantify that or qualify that?
My next question, because it was raised at this committee a couple of years ago, is on the status of negotiations regarding the establishment or the creation of the Nunavik regional government. It seemed to be a bit of a contentious issue in terms of at least some of the Naskapi communities within that territorial area. I'm wondering if you could give us an update on where those negotiations are.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Minister. It's good to have you and your officials with us again.
I want to ask a couple of very specific questions. Responses shouldn't take long, I don't believe.
I had the honour of meeting with the Sayisi Dene this past week. It was my first experience meeting with their leadership, their elders. They certainly took me through their tragic relocation story of the 1950s.
I understand there was an impromptu meeting beteeen some of your officials and them this past week. They indicated that you had agreed to meet with them and to discuss Dr. Bartram's report, which was presented to the department in 2009 and was reviewed by your predecessor, Mr. Strahl, in 2010. I want to confirm whether that meeting is going to go ahead, sir.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you for that, Minister. I'm sure they will appreciate the opportunity to meet with you.
On a separate issue, the Sliammon negotiations, there was a handshake deal—I guess they had reached a deal on a final agreement—in June 2010. It's my understanding that the community itself, with support from the Municipality of Powell River—I had an opportunity to meet with the mayor and also with the leadership, Chief Williams, yesterday with my leader, Michael Ignatieff.... They and the province have signed off on this.
They have indicated that similar agreements, such as the Maa-nulth and the Tsawwassen agreements, basically advanced in about eight weeks, and now we're into the ninth month. Can you give us a quick sense of why there is delay in the negotiations and where they might stand in terms of looking to the federal government's moving forward with it?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
I thank you for that. Of course, these negotiations are tough. They have been going on since 1994, and people want to get to a resolution, as I'm sure the government does as well.
Moving to the east coast of Labrador, can you update us, Minister, on two particular claims in my riding? There's the Innu Nation claim. I know there are significant issues regarding some overlap with the Innu of Quebec, but there's an environmental assessment happening now over a major hydroelectric project, the Lower Churchill project. No doubt claims negotiations with the Labrador Innu and the Quebec Innu are going to significantly impact upon this. I'd like to know what stage these are at.
As well, the Nunatukavut have a claim, formerly the Labrador Métis Nation. They've had a claim in since 1990, resubmitted in 1996. Additional information has been provided, I think, up until last year. The department had undertaken to speedily review this additional information and arrive at a decision around acceptance or non-acceptance for negotiation.
Can you update me on both of those particular files, as they're very relevant and very important.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
Primarily it's the Innu of Labrador situation and the Nunatukavut. On the Nunatukavut, do we have a timeframe for when we're going to have a response from the department?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-10 10:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're glad to have you with us, Deputy Minister, Mr. Nadler, and Ms. MacGowan.
I want to follow up on a couple of questions I asked the minister relative to Labrador on the Innu Nation claim itself, but there are significant overlap issues. The minister indicated he'd had meetings with the former premier, the premier, and the leadership and negotiators of the Innu Nation. Can you give us a bit more detail on where we are with that? Do we have any sense of a timeframe? These negotiations bear significantly on the potential for the Lower Churchill hydro development at Muskrat Falls.
As well, I was very interested in your response to my question about the Nunatukavut Community Council, formerly the Labrador Métis Nation. They had submitted supplementary information in concert with the department, and the department had undertaken to look at this new information in an expeditious fashion and get back to the NCC. Of course, I believe there are some agreements around other processes that may occur if there is no agreement.
You indicated that the injunction that has now been laid with the court in Newfoundland regarding the EA process may have some impact upon the department's process itself regarding the claim.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-10 10:17
Again, on the Nunatukavut claim, there is additional information that has been submitted in concert with the department, the historic claims and research branch. Can you tell me at what stage that process is? It was submitted, as I understand it, nearly a year ago, or close to a year ago. The department was supposed to get back in an expeditious fashion to respond to that new research, if it was in fact going to negotiate the claim out or if there would be other processes that would follow.
Where is the department in terms of its assessment of that information and getting the response back to NCC?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-10 10:18
Okay.
Just very quickly, on the whole issue of first nations policing services, does that impact upon the Department of Indian Affairs at all? Do you guys have any mandate around those particular services? It is becoming a huge issue, with a potential 19% cut in first nations policing services. It is something that is so vital to the safety and security of first nations citizens, and not only first nations citizens but others. I'm just wondering what involvement INAC has in that.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-10 10:19
Okay.
How much more time do I have?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Todd Russell Profile
2011-03-10 10:19
That's enough for two questions.
Thank you.
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning to you, Ms. Block, and thank you for appearing before us.
No doubt we all, around this table and in the House of Commons, share the principles of transparency and accountability, which we have criticized your own government on many times.
Your bill purports to address these principles. I would refute that. It does little or nothing to enhance transparency or accountability.
In terms of consultation, indeed I would like a list of the names and dates of individuals and people or organizations that you consulted with prior to the development of your bill. If you could produce that, I'd like to have that in written form and presented to the committee.
As you know, when it comes to aboriginal people, the duty to consult is a legal duty that we have, and we take that seriously. It's a policy the government has employed, or wants to abide by, I would hope.
There are those, Ms. Block, who say that it your bill violates the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. People say it's inconsistent with the inherent right of self-government, which the government purports to uphold. Many would say that it perpetuates stereotypes, that it is prejudicial, and that it smacks somewhat of racism.
I will only quote from the Quebec Native Women's Association from their November 29 press release, which said, and I quote,
QNW is concerned with the misleading portrait of the kind of fiscal transparency that is happening on reserves. While QNW--
--meaning the Quebec Native Women--
--believes that transparency and accountability for First Nations governments are an important part of good governance, the private members' Bill C-575, as presented by MP Kelly Block (Conservative Party) seems to be motivated by a prejudicial and racist view of Aboriginal peoples “as living off society”, by implying that the federal funds coming from “good tax payers' money” granted to Aboriginal chiefs and councillors are ill spent.
It seems to take a blanket approach to aboriginal peoples, aboriginal leadership, as all being somehow corrupt and inept. The examples you used are almost like a byline. We have this cloud of suspicion and insinuation, and then an apology saying that we don't want to spread that too far and giving the example of some first nation. If that were a byline.... It's never that there is good accountability, and the exception to good accountability and transparency is a few first nations.
In fact, the only stats provided by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation indicate that there were problems with only 7% of all elected officials.
When it comes to the issue of redundancy, I'm pretty sure you must be aware of the comprehensive funding arrangement, the national model that INAC has in place, that calls for generally accepted accounting principles and auditors general. I'm sure you're also aware of the year-end financial reporting handbook from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which has, as Annex D, a schedule of salaries, honoraria, travel expenses, and other remuneration all listed right there. It's the same thing that your bill purports to now open up. It's all there, so I believe the bill is redundant.
When we talk about consultation, one can use the words that it was unilaterally brought in, and in your own testimony speaking in the House, as noted in Hansard, you said, “I also, in speaking with my colleagues...”. That sounds like water cooler talk, sitting around talking across a few snacks and a coffee, and you bring in bills about something so fundamental to first nations people.
I want to ask you one very simple question in addition to the ones I've already asked. You've been in power for six years. Why only now did this suddenly become an issue for the government, if there were egregious issues of accountability and transparency throughout this time? Whatever happened to the collaborative efforts with first nations that were taking place in 2005 and 2006? Why was that not continued? The issue of a first nations auditor general was even being talked about in 2005-2006. Why didn't those efforts continue? Is there anything that could have stopped the minister? What legally was stopping the minister from taking this information and making it public?
Could the minister not have adjusted his policies in either of those two documents and made this information public? What was stopping him? What was fundamentally different, except that now we have this huge issue, and it's causing divisions and enhancing stereotypes?
View Todd Russell Profile
Lib. (NL)
What made you aware of this? Was it the talk around the cooler?
Can you give us a list of who approached you, of who you consulted with? Can you provide that to us prior to the development of this bill?
Results: 1 - 15 of 588 | Page: 1 of 40

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data