text:
Skip to comments.Former NFL QB found dead in Michigan forest - Phoned wife to explain he was "afraid"
Posted on 05/28/2013 10:01:27 PM PDT by rickmichaels
Former NFL quarterback Cullen Finnerty was found dead Tuesday night in northwestern Michigan after a solo fishing trip over the holiday long weekend.
"We were walking a good line," Scott Boyd, who was part of one search party that found the body, told the Detroit Free Press. "I squatted down. We had seen some trail. And a girl shouted. She walked right up on it. I thought, 'Oh no.'"
Finnerty, who briefly played for the Baltimore Ravens and Denver Broncos in 2007-08, had been missing since Sunday night, Lake County Sheriff Robert Hilts said. He confirmed the death at a news conference.
Around 100 current and former players and coaches from his alma mater, Grand Valley State, searched through the swampy woods northeast of Baldwin, Mich., Tuesday afternoon.
Hilts said the 30-year-old ran into the forest after having a "nervous episode" and hadn't been seen since.
"He phoned his wife and explained he was afraid," Hilts told USA Today. "He left his equipment and ran off into the woods."
Finnerty's wife and in-laws immediately drove to his location but all they found was his small pontoon boat.
"We found a fishing pole and that's all," Lake County Undersheriff Dennis Robinson said. "No waders and no fishing equipment."
Finnerty led Grand Valley State to an NCAA Division II championships in 2003, '04 and '06.
RIP. A real shame. It sounds like it's still a mystery.
Them Upppers are touchy about their stills..
What he die of.. buckshot.. machete marks.. arrow... blunt trauma.. run into a tree full blast.. what?..
If he was democrat he might of died of stupidity..
Episode? Mental illness? Paranoia,
Well, we all die of something, so have a heart.
Sad. RIP.
The concussion syndromes these men suffer from can be very devastating. I hope with a thorough autopsy the family can get some of the answers they seek. It must've been horrible to have your last minutes of life spent in terror - whether real or imagined. God bless him.
Prayers for his wife, and family.
Any fuqra camps nearby?
They train on that stuff. Hunting/stalking.
Didn't happen in Yooper Country.
Baldwin is about 70 miles north of Grand Rapids. Even though it's in the Lower Peninsula, I guess you could call it "Northwest Michigan".
Good point. I hadn't considered the possibility he actually COULD have been stalked by someone. I haven't heard of hunting parties for humans in Michigan though - even with all the Muslims in Dearbornistan and other places like that.
Are there wolves in that part of Michigan, or bears, or anything like that he could have heard and made him freak out?
We did a correlation thing years ago with the fuqra hangouts and locations where people thought they had heard, or felt threatened, by something they thought was bigfoot.
Amazing what is in the google earth-hackers forum. Their search is lousy, though.
Sounds to me like he was afraid of the nervous attack or panic attack he was experiencing, otherwise he would've identified the threat if it were something other than his own feelings.
I wonder if the IRS was after him?
I wonder if he was a Tea Party member?
Could have had good reason to be afraid.
"Uppers" are what you take to make you wide awake. I think maybe meth is an Upper.
Yoopers, on the other hand, are people who live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Lake County is located next to Wexford County, where Cadillac, MI is. It's about in the middle of the Lower Peninsula. That is where this young man was found. As a rule, we "Trolls" (Michiganders who live "under da bridge) don't do stills. I think meth labs are more common.
Just thought you'd like to know the geography and terminology involved.
Kind of a weird post you wrote.
Going out into the wilderness on a pontoon boat doesn't sound like something a man already experiencing anxiety attacks would do. Sounds to me as if his being "afraid" (and a former pro football player admitting that to his wife is noteworthy) was something that came upon him once there.
"It mustve been horrible to have your last minutes of life spent in terror - whether real or imagined."
Too late to ask him now. Maybe how they found him was telling enough.
I think a Sasquatch ate your QB.
I'm curious as to what the autopsy they are supposed to do today will show. In another article (link below) it mentioned that when the body was found there were no apparent signs of injury. I wonder if he might have had an underlying physical ailment
(like a heart problem or something). Even just being dehydrated can cause delirium, paranoia, and can lead to a heart attack.
I just hope the coroner is able to provide answers for his wife, and for his baby who will someday want to know what happened...
Your mention of a heart problem reminded me of a coworker that had stents inserted into his heart a couple of years ago. He had gone that evening to the nearby university hospital ER because, as he put it, "He just didn't feel right."
The ER doctors were downplaying his various symptoms/complaints as indigestion, high blood pressure, etc. until he told them that he had an "overwhelming sense of doom." Seems that feeling is well documented in people who are on the verge of having a heart attack. At that point, the doctors attitudes changed dramatically and they began ordering the tests and MRIs that would ultimately find the nearly clogged arteries in his heart.
Maybe something similar happened here except there was no help to be had.
Some said he was faking it or whatever for taking time off to heal, but he just being smart and trying to stay that way. Been there, done that, don't recommend it.
Kind of a weird post you wrote.
Really.. theres no news in that news..
"A man died in the woods.." is not news..
whats missing from the article would fill an article..
good point.. I was being "nice"..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Another one of the ones going in the cookbook. Gotta try this one out. It's easy.
30 Minute Chicken Minestrone
Put all this stuff in a large saucepan ...
~4 cups water
~4 14.5 oz cans of diced tomatoes (the ones with garlic/onions, or italian seasoned)
~3 large boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into bite size pieces
~3-4 cups uncooked rotini pasta
~2 envelopes of the Good Seasons Italian dressing mix
~Seasonings. I use a little crushed red, basil, oregano, garlic salt, and cracked pepper.
Bring it all to a boil. Then add roughly 4-5 cups of vegetables. I chopped up some mushrooms, green peppers, and carrots.
(An easier, quicker alternative would be to add frozen vegetables. If you do that, add em in the beginning with the other stuff.)
Once you add the veggies, just let it simmer on medium heat for about ten minutes.
Ladle into bowls, top with a little grated parmesan cheese. Serve with some crusty bread.
Made this and served four tonight. Enough left for a feast of equal proportions tomorrow. An easy, delicious recipe ... you can feed a family off of for two days. For $16-$17. Also, I'm not a huge soup guy. This is not what I call soup. This is a hearty meal.
Lemme know how it comes out if you make it ...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Greetings TeaFans, welcome to a new TeaDay. Please stop by and share what is in your cup with us throughout the day. Also dicuss the topic of the day.
Yesterday we discussed waves in tea buying habits. Please continue to discuss yesterday's topic.
Today's TeaPoll and discussion topic. What was your tea(s) of the month for September? Please share details.
We are looking forward to sharing this TeaDay with everyone. Bottoms up.


text:
Since 1999, Paul Konerko has been one of the most consistent power hitters in Major League Baseball. Over the past 13 seasons, he has averaged 30 home runs and 95 RBIs per season for the Chicago White Sox.
The former Los Angeles Dodger has seemingly gotten better with age, posting back-to-back seasons of hitting .300+, 30 home runs and 100 RBIs. (more…)


text:
Jaime Hernandez:
Jefferson War Nickels were struck from 1942-1945. The 1945-D Jefferson Nickel is fairly common and can be purchased very inexpensively up to about MS66 condition. In MS67 condition it becomes much scarcer especially with the Full Steps designation. In MS68 condition it is extremely scarce with less than a handful of examples graded by PCGS with no examples known in better condition.
Stack's/Bowers 3/2014:4012, $19,975


text:
Skip to comments.Life Survived Catastrophic Space Rock Impact [Chesapeake Bay area]
Posted on 06/26/2008 8:04:37 PM PDT by ETL
The true impact of an asteroid or comet crashing near the Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago has been examined in detail for the first time. The analysis reveals the resilience of life in the aftermath of disaster.
The impact crater, which is buried under 400 to 1,200 feet (120 to 365 meters) of sand, silt and clay, spans twice the length of Manhattan. The sprawling depression helped create what would eventually become Chesapeake Bay. About 10,000 years ago, ice sheets began to melt and once-dry river valleys filled with water. The rivers of the Chesapeake region converged directly over the buried crater, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Catastrophism Ping.
looks like its right at the old Jellystone Campground. I wonder how they knew?
Panther Mountain (New York):
The Panther Mountain Crater:
Perhaps Yogi or Boo Boo told them! :) Seriously :|, they've known about it for some time.
It sure made a nice fishin' hole.
Really Neat DelMarVa PINGEROONEY!!!!
Thanks go to Posterchild for the heads up on this one.
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·
Thanks Blam.
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
That's why we don't flinch at the comet disaster warnings.
What are the odds another one will hit ~here~, again?
As some character played by Harrison Ford once hollered, "don't give me the odds".
[The Knights Who Say "Nil"?]
A shrubbery!
Hey, it had been a while since I visited your profile, nice additions / updates.
You'll get no shrubbery from me.
Do your worst.
Thanks...it keeps me outta trouble....mostly.....;]
A path! A path!
Sorry...I don't have any coconut shells to clap together.
[how about a vaguely insulting minstrel tune, instead?]....;]
"She turned me into a newt!" "A newt?" "I got better..."
Peelers....ie soft shelled stuffed with crabmeat. double your pleasure.... Yummmm!
This event also introduced strange, alien lifeforms into the region that have been preying upon the local populace for years.
She must shop at the fat man's shop
Same to you!!
BTW: what the heck is "YEC INTREP"??
What are the odds another one will hit ~here~, again?
That's why I always carry a bomb when flying.
I mean, what are the odds of there being two bombs on any given flight?
NOTE TO THE TSA, FBI, DHS, etc. THIS IS A JOKE!!!
Hey, a little white fur trim, a pointy cap, and a snow white beard...
The link with the article has 14 pictures of other craters. One, #3 is Popigai Crater in Siberia which is the same age as the Chesapeake Meteor. It is more than 60 miles in diameter. There was also a similar date, 9 mile diameter crater off Toms River, NJ. At the link, picture #2 also shows a crater which could be from the same period. There is a book by Poag (sp?) about the Chesapeake Meteor. [Can't find the book right now to be more accurate. Darn, even with the internet I still have too many books and too much paper.] Here is the link which as I said may be the original or might link directly to Popigai: http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=273&gid=21
Please see my FREEPER profile
For those who might want to search maps, and/or like technical detail, check out this link on how river flow is affected by craters:http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=273&gid=21
Well, that didn't work. I go the same link as previously. For some reason the hydrology link did not copy. Is it because there was (PDF) before the title? At any rate I found it by Googling "Mistasin Lake, Canada", the article was about 10 down, and including about four different crater drainages.
Impressive profile, especially your giving spirtual comfort to our solders during the Vietnam war, but I didn't notice any explanation for what "YEC INTREP" means.
The Kennedy's?
Google Maps: Panther Mountain Crater in Upstate NY:
(it's the circular feature to the upper left of the two small bodies of water (one is the Asokan Reservoir)
Here's a contour map of the same area from wikipedia.
Panther Mountain (New York):
http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Panther_Mountain_Crater#Natural_history
The Panther Mountain Crater:
"INTREP" = Intelligence Report - from my old artillery days. References an entry that I disagree with, as anything positive about Obama would be an INTREP. Likewise, secularism, naturalism, atheism, etc.
"YEC" = Young Earth Creationist - somehow, the entry assumes an old Earth Worldview.
I use these as markers for my study and class preparation.
Thanks. It would have taken me about 4.5 billion years to have figured it out! :)
[p.s..would you like me to come visit you after they put you in federal prison for that little giggle?].....;D
Ancient impact may have created deep niche for life, Jeff Hecht and Maggie McKee, NewScientist, 26 June 2008
Please. And bring a cake with a file baked in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
1989 CRX SiYear: 1989Mileage: 190 +Title: CleanPhone number: 305-613-6693Price: 10K
Miles 191,010
engine 8-9k miles
asking $5500 OBO
Im selling this car because I can't keep up with it anymore. I have too many other things I'm trying to take care of.
Now on to the car.
Exterior is stock with paint from about 3-4 yrs old
Rust has come out in the Driver rear qtr panel, sunroof panel, and passenger side corner of the trunk lid by the wiper.
Wheels are
Full Polish ROTA 15x7 Slipstreams with 195/50/15 tires Kuhmo Ecstas. tires have 90% thread or more.
KYB shocks
lowering springs for which i dont know the brand
ENERYGY SUSPENSION BUSHINGS in every place possible including rack and upper shock bushings as well.
SUSPENSION TECHNIQUES F & R Sway bars with ENERGY SUSPENSION BUSHINGS
WICKED TUNING rear adjustable toe kit and rear camber kit
ebay front camber kit
INNOVATIVE Front Crossmember with ENERGY SUSPENSION bushings
B18C1 bottom bored 0.25 over with NEW BEARINGS, TYPE R pistons
B16 HEAD machined and cleaned as well as bottom with SKUNK2 CAM GEARS, retainers, GSR CAMS
TYPE R Intake Manifold
MAgnaflow Exhaust 2" all the way back with TEST TIPE
TRi-Y Headers
CHIPPED AND "tuned" P28 CAR makes 180WHP
Hasport Cable to hydro conversion kit
Clutchmasters clutch, pressure plate
light flywheel but dont know which one.
AVID Shift linkag with ENERGY SUSPENSION Bushings
Removable steering wheel (ebay brand and horn works!!)
aftermarket floor mats that say EF
Buddy Club Drivers SEAT with LOW DOWN RAIL thats for a CIVIC or INTEGRA (Its like that because I had to move the car and Idont have seats for it, but that will be the seat you get, you can purchase crx rails to use these seats and sell the low downs
CLIFFORD G770 installed on the car.
89's came with rear drums so I converted it to rear disc brakes
Motor has about 8-9kmiles
The NEW Parts I have I can sell seperately and make the money on them because it sells and most are discontinued. I also think due to the bad body parts on the car, Whoever takes it will have a frsh start with all new seals if decided to repaint the car. Its a great start.
CAR needs a new master cylinder, doesnt have a radio but has pioneer speakers, trouble with idle because I don't have the right bracket/throttle cable and possibly the fact I'm running the wall mounted MAP sensor (which is simple to remove and swap but like I said I don't have time anymore I need this gone)
CALL/TEXT Or PM
The Bad


text:
A serial bank robber has robbed banks in Georgia, along with Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. In each of these bank robberies he is captured on the surveillance cameras sometimes posing for the camera and making no attempt to hide his face. He often sneers at the camera and brandishes his gun in the faces of the FBI officials reviewing the tape.
The FBI has decided to use the bank robbers arrogance against him, by putting his face on electronic billboards all across the southern United States. The FBI stated that the bank robbers targets have spanned for at least 600 miles north, and about 500 miles east. The FBI believes that the billboards will help in bringing this modern day John Dillinger to justice.
(Via WSB Radio)
Read More →


text:
Panic! At The Disco joined the Fueled By Ramen Photo-A-Day Challenge. Here they are giving their rock hands for Day 4.
You can still join in if you want! Click HERE to see the photo challenge for each day. Today make sure to post a 'crazy face.' Prizes like FBR Merchandise and a copy of the limited-edition Fueled By Ramen 15th Anniversary Book & DVD will be awarded at the end of the month. Just make sure to tag #FBRPhotos on Instagram, Twitter and Tumblr.


text:
Century Vinyl 8 lb Medicine Ball
Product Information:
Tone up and shake up your regular workout routine with the Century® Vinyl 8 lb Medicine Ball. This 8 lb vinyl medicine ball is sand-weighted for unbeatable durability, a solid grip and long term wear and tear. Perfect for both cardio and strength training routines, this versatile workout aid can help improve your coordination, endurance and overall fitness to help you reach your goals.
- Weighs 8 lbs
- Sand-weighted with a durable vinyl cover
- Build and tone muscles during aerobic or strength training workouts
- Helps improves coordination and endurance
- Style: 2494-900808
- Century
Country of Origin: ChinaWeb ID: 13063682
Customer Reviews:
Rated 5 out of 5�by 1 reviewer.
Rated 5 out of 5�by dfp74 great product really good product,really good product,really good product,really good product June 19, 2016
1-1 of 1


text:
Research In Motion (RIM) on Friday announced plans to greatly expand the application ecosystem for the BlackBerry PlayBook. In particular, the tablet from RIM will support BlackBerry Java and Android apps. In addition, developers will get a number of new tools to design programs for the Blackberry slate.
RIM will launch two optional "app players" that provide an application run-time environment for BlackBerry Java apps and Android v2.3 apps. These new app players will allow users to download BlackBerry Java apps and Android apps from BlackBerry App World and run them on their BlackBerry PlayBook.
The PlayBook tablet itself is based on QNX software technology which RIM acquired last year. Just like Google Android, QNX utilizes the common POSIX [portable operating system interface for unix] standard that defines application programming interfaces, utilities interfaces, shells and other technologies. Technologically, it should be relatively easy to allow Android applications to run on QNX.
While the RIM BlackBerry platform for business and enterprise users is successful on its target markets, more and more are looking forward more advanced features, applications and other benefits from their smartphones. As a result, many users of BlackBerry are turning their heads towards Apple iPhone or Google Android platforms, which have better support from software developers. In case RIM manages to make apps for Android work flawlessly on its Playbook tablet and eventually on at least some smartphones, it may gain a substantial advantage over all the other mobile platform holders. Potentially, the effort may wed ultimate security and best-in-class messaging capabilities of Blackberry with broad set of software designed for various phones and demanded by mass customers.
In addition, RIM will release the native SDK for the BlackBerry PlayBook enabling C/C++ application development on the BlackBerry Tablet OS. For game-specific developers, RIM is also announcing that it has gained support from two leading game development tooling companies, allowing developers to use the cross-platform game engines from Ideaworks Labs and Unity Technologies to bring their games to the BlackBerry PlayBook.
Developers currently building for the BlackBerry or Android platforms will be able to quickly and easily port their apps to run on the BlackBerry Tablet OS thanks to a high degree of API compatibility. The new optional app players will be available for download from BlackBerry App World and will be placed in a secure "sandbox" on the BlackBerry PlayBook where the BlackBerry Java or Android apps can be run. Developers will simply repackage, code sign and submit their BlackBerry Java and Android apps to BlackBerry App World. Once approved, the apps will be distributed through BlackBerry App World, providing a new opportunity for many developers to reach BlackBerry PlayBook users.
"The upcoming addition of BlackBerry Java and Android apps for the BlackBerry PlayBook on BlackBerry App World will provide our users with an even greater choice of apps and will also showcase the versatility of the platform," said Mike Lazaridis, president and co-CEO at Research In Motion.
BlackBerry PlayBook is based on a dual-core ARM microprocessor and features 1GB of memory, an unknown amount of flash storage, dual HD cameras (5MP rear facing and 3MB front facing), Wi-Fi - 802.11 a/b/g/n (3G and 4G models to be available in the future), Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, microHDMI as well as microUSB connectors and so on. The product fully supports MP3, full-HD video playback (1080p, H.264, MPEG, DivX, WMV) as well as WebKit/HTML-5, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Adobe Mobile AIR, Adobe Reader, POSIX, OpenGL, Java. The slate features 7" screen with 1024x600 resolution and weighs less than a pound (400g).
The BlackBerry PlayBook with Wi-Fi will come in three models, featuring 16GB, 32GB or 64GB of storage at $499, $599 and $699 respectively. It is scheduled to be available from all Best Buy stores and Best Buy Mobile stores in the U.S., as well as Best Buy and Future Shop stores in Canada, on April 19.
Tags: Blackberry, RIM, PlayBook


text:
Debates of Oct. 31st, 2003
House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.
- Specific Claims Resolution Act
- Confederation Centre of the Arts
- Apprenticeship Competition
- Canadian Forces
- Youth at Risk
- Martha Curgin Tevlin
- Marijuana
- Royal Winter Fair
- Member for LaSalle—Émard
- Jordin Tootoo
- Member for LaSalle--Émard
- Unicef
- Mervyn "Butch" Blake
- René Lévesque
- Women Politicians
- Dwight Bishop
- Influenza
- Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
- Veterans Affairs
- Justice
- Quebec
- National Defence
- Finance
- Veterans Affairs
- Finance
- Infrastructure
- World Trade Organization
- Member for LaSalle--Émard
- The Environment
- Ethics
- The Environment
- Elections Canada
- Fisheries and Oceans
- Health
- Human Resources Development
- Justice
- Agriculture
- Child Pornography
- Official Languages
- Justice
- Highway Infrastructure
- Equalization Payments
- Trade
- Harassment
- Ethics
- Presence in Gallery
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner
- Government Response to Petitions
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order Paper
- Question No. 254
- Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
- Hazardous Products Act
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:05 a.m.
Maurizio Bevilacqua for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:05 a.m.
New Brunswick
Charles Hubbard Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, the specific claims resolution act. It is one of the initiatives the government is bringing forward aimed at putting the tools of self-sufficiency into the hands of first nations enabling them to play a fuller part in the life of this country.
The specific claims resolution act proposed is a cornerstone of the government's overall strategy to have a new system to resolve specific claims that will be more efficient and effective than the process we now have.
As this proposed legislation made its way through the parliamentary process we heard from various first nations and first nations organizations express their concerns and perspectives. The Senate, in hearing these concerns, has put forward a number of important amendments to Bill C-6 that would directly address the concerns of first nations and render a better piece of legislation. This should give first nations the confidence to use the new claims resolution centre as outlined in the legislation.
It is comforting to see that the parliamentary process has worked and is responsive to the concerns of first nations and that better legislation is derived from the cooperative efforts of all stakeholders and parliamentarians in the House and Senate.
With respect to the proposal now before us, we have heard that the current specific claims process could be improved to make it more efficient and effective, and to avoid costly and slow litigation in the courts. Every dollar wasted in court is a dollar less for investment in economic development, governance, and real bread and butter issues facing aboriginal people.
With the current claims process, we are only able to settle a few claims each year. At this rate, we would have to leave it to our children to clear away the existing number of claims that are on inventory, and that inventory is growing each day.
The new centre that Bill C-6 would put in place under this proposal would be called the claims resolution centre. It would consist of a chief executive officer who would be responsible for the day to day administrative affairs, a commission to facilitate negotiations, and a tribunal with the authority to make binding decisions. This would greatly speed up the process in a much more cooperative atmosphere than in a courtroom. In an atmosphere of cooperation, I am sure the centre would play a very important role in helping us bring this new system forward.
It is important to be clear about what kind of claims the new centre would deal with. Its authority would cover a variety of claims that relate to Canada's management of first nations land and other assets. It would not deal with comprehensive land claims, which are based on the concept of continuing aboriginal rights and title, and which have not been dealt with by treaty or other legal means. There is a separate policy and negotiation process designed to find resolution to those types of claims.
To refresh our memories, this new legislation was arrived at through extensive input from first nations. That led to the recommendations from a joint task force concerning the need for an independent claims commission. The fact that we are here today looking at this legislation demonstrates that the work of the joint task force was for the most part successful.
The Senate committee heard from numerous witnesses concerning the bill. One of the concerns that was repeatedly put forward was the jurisdictional authority placed on the tribunal.
As originally proposed, the legislation set the jurisdictional limit on the tribunal at $7 million on awards for claims resolved under the new system. Following extensive consultations and presentations before the Senate committee, an amendment was proposed, and is now before this House, to increase the tribunal authority to a maximum limit of $10 million.
We are confident that this new ceiling is a realistic one and meets the needs of first nations. As we have heard, most of the claims currently before the Government of Canada would be dispensed with under this new increased amount. In fact, as of March 31, 2002, the average specific claim settlement was some $5.6 million.
We have heard from those who say that there should be no ceiling at all. We wish there could be an unlimited budget. But again, in the interests of our country, our spending priorities and all, there must be a maximum amount set.
Another important element from first nations that we heard in the Senate hearings were concerns regarding the appointment process for the chief executive officer, the commissioners and adjudicators of the proposed new body. We listened to these concerns and have proposed an amendment that would give first nations a greater opportunity to make representations with respect to appointments and to be more actively involved in the review process. We also proposed to confirm post-employment conflict of interest rules.
Another important change that the Senate has recommended to the current proposal would deal with increased subpoena powers of the tribunal, thus giving greater credence to the independence and fairness of this quasi-judicial body.
Much work has been done in the drafting of this bill and it would appear that we are getting some improved legislation back from our Senate colleagues. As I said, this is very important because a key aspect of how it will work is a built-in regime of reporting requirements and mechanisms to allow us to fine-tune the practical applications of the new system. For that reason, I will sketch out a few of these important developments.
Accounts and financial transactions of the centre would be audited annually by the Auditor General. A report on the work of the centre, including the Auditor General's audit, would be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development after each fiscal year. This report would be tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate, and made available to first nations and public scrutiny.
Quarterly reports to the minister concerning compensation paid respecting resolved specific claims would be required under the act and a requirement for review of the entire process is built in and would take place between three and five years after the legislation came into effect.
A report on the review, to include any recommendations for changes to the legislation or functions, powers or duties of the chief executive officer, and the commissioners and adjudicators would also be submitted to Parliament.
These are extensive mechanisms that can help us make the new system work better. If not perfect, it certainly is a major step in the right direction. But until the system is running, we will not know what needs to be fixed.
It has been a long road to get here. The bill came before this House last year. It has gone to the Senate and is back now for its final approval. As a government, we pledged to have a system in place to resolve first nations claims in a way that would be accountable, transparent and impartial. We want to have a system that would level the playing field for negotiation and would resolve claims more quickly and efficiently. This will allow aboriginal people to get on with their lives with enhanced opportunities for economic development in a climate of certainty.
With this act in place, we would finally be able to leave behind a process that has frustrated many first nations communities and other stakeholders. We will begin a new direction that will give first nations a more fair and efficient means to settle their long outstanding grievances and begin dealing with their affairs in a more prosperous way as full participants in this great nation of ours.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:15 a.m.
Canadian Alliance
Maurice Vellacott Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts.
This means that the bill before us today is designed to set up a permanent centre to evaluate specific claims brought against the federal government by first nations across our country. An Indian claims commission already exists, as most of us are aware, but it was put in place some 12 years ago, back in 1991, as a temporary measure, just like our taxation and many other things. It has lasted this long and now there is an attempt to put something together in a different fashion. This proposed centre for resolving first nations specific claims is supposed to replace that temporary commission of some 12 years ago.
For the most part, as my colleague across the way mentioned, specific claims deal with outstanding grievances that first nations have regarding Canada's fulfillment of its obligations under historic treaties or its administration of first nations lands or other assets under the Indian Act. That of course is in contrast to more comprehensive claims, substantial land claim treaties such as Nisga'a and Delgamuukw, which have been debated at length in the House over the last number of years. There is a difference with these claims in the fact that they are outstanding grievances in terms of their reserve lands not being handled by or being sold off by an Indian agent with funds being pocketed by that individual, or other things of that nature.
The House has already considered the bill, but now the Senate has sent it back to us and is reporting suggested amendments. The Senate examined Bill C-6 and found it to be unsatisfactory as it was written. Most of us on the aboriginal affairs committee had some sense that there were some major concerns around some things and probably some flaws in the bill. It comes as no surprise to those of us who served on that committee that the bill has come back from the Senate with some suggested amendments, but we do not think they go far enough.
In what was often a very passionate debate in the other place, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative senators condemned the legislation. They even tried to kill it with a hoist amendment. These senators observed all of the most serious flaws in the bill, which had already been noted by members within the committee, by myself and, in the House, by the Canadian Alliance before the bill went to the Senate.
As a result, after its scrutiny and examination, the Senate has proposed several amendments to try to improve the bill, as was mentioned by my colleague across the way. We think there is some partial merit to them. That would be faint praise, I suppose, in support of these amendments, because they go only a small way in an attempt to mitigate or improve the worst aspects of the bill. Unfortunately they do not go far enough, so we continue to oppose the bill itself.
In the Senate, a hoist amendment was introduced during third reading debate after the amendments had been tabled by the Senate's aboriginal peoples committee. We can see, then, from the public record that even with these amendments, this particular bill still generated strong opposition. In fact, the bill generated much more debate than the government expected, so the Liberals resorted to the use of a time allocation motion to terminate debate.
We have become quite familiar with that anti-democratic tool in this place. It has become a very popular weapon in the hands of governments and of this government in terms of using closure an unprecedented number of times, but for the record and for the viewing audience, it is rarely used in the other place. It is rather uncharacteristic to use closure in the Senate.
The disgust expressed against the government for stooping to such tactics in that place came not just from the opposition members in the Senate but also from Liberal senators. That is another experience that we in this House are unfamiliar with, as often protest or outrage is not expressed by members on the government side when closure is being used in the House of Commons.
My point in recounting some of these events that happened in the other place is to demonstrate that the Canadian Alliance is joined by many others of different political and cultural persuasions in our opposition to this government bill. That opposition to Bill C-6 is across party lines, across cultural lines and from aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
To show how obstinate the government is, it bulldozes forward with this agenda in the face of widespread, reasoned opposition. I believe it is another example of how the government has not been listening as it should. Maybe the majority it has in the House is far too large. Maybe there is too big a gap and it needs to have its feet held to the fire a little more.
In committee, we had some very reasonable amendments that were dismissed and summarily swept aside. That does not sit well with members of a committee who carefully thought through these things, had discussions and listened to the testimony and so on only to have it just simply batted aside as being of no account, with the bureaucrats and the department saying that they knew what was best and they were just going to ram this thing through come hell or high water, that it did not matter what we on the committee said.
A government that gets to the point where it figures it has all the answers and is arrogant and unresponsive to the needs and circumstances of real people is a government that will not be bringing forward the kind of legislation we need. Its legislation will be badly flawed and marred. To say that it will be imperfect is an understatement.
As a result, a lot of the House's time is wasted on badly drafted legislation that does not suit the purposes, has a cosmetic and very superficial effect and is not for the good of the individuals directly affected by the bill.
Initially I was prepared to say I was pleased that some amendments have been made to the bill and that the minister has condescended to accept them, but I am not even sure that I am pleased with this situation. A couple of the amendments might have some consequential impact, one might say, on the specifics claims process. I will come to that in a moment.
We believe that others, like increasing the tribunal cap from $7 million to $10 million, are little more than tokenism in terms of the real substance of the issues involved in this particular bill. That increase from $7 million to $10 million came by way of the Senate report to the House, by the way.
It has been some time since this bill has been before us, seven months to be exact, so I want to remind the House of what Bill C-6 proposes to do in establishing a specific claims process. Then I want to go on to discuss some of those Senate amendments and how they relate to the concerns we and others in the committee process have raised about Bill C-6.
Bill C-6 would set up a claims resolution centre made up of a commission and a tribunal. A first nation could file a claim with the commission. If it were to meet the terms of an "admissible claim" for the purposes of the commission, the claim would then be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs for his consideration. The commission would then convene preparatory meetings to help the claimant present its case to the minister. Upon completion of this phase of the process, the commission must suspend proceedings until it receives a written response from the minister as to whether or not he will even consider to negotiate the claim.
One of the major flaws in this is the fact that the minister is not given a deadline of any kind with respect to making his decision. I think there might even be an admission from the government in its heart of hearts that this is a problem; in a quieter moment, off to the side, not in this more contentious atmosphere, this more partisan place, I think there might be an admission. It is a major problem. It is a recipe for stonewalling, for obfuscation and for never getting back. It is really very unfair.
In a court of law process or in any other kind of procedure across the country one would assume that at some point there must be deadlines. They might be protracted and extracted and long, but there must be some kind of deadlines. None of that is here for the minister and we think there is very major problem with that. It is not justice. It is not even the norm in respect to other contexts in our country.
If the minister were to decide not to negotiate the claim, the commission would sit down with both parties in an attempt to help them resolve the question of the validity of the claim, using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. If that process did not work, then the claimant could request that the case be sent to the tribunal, but only if the amount of the claim did not exceed $7 million, or $10 million if the House accepts the Senate amendment to that effect.
If the tribunal were to decide that a claim was valid or, if at the earlier stage in the process the minister were to decide that he would negotiate the claim, the commission would then have to try to help those two parties arrive at an agreeable amount of compensation.
Again, if the compensation question could not be resolved by the commission, the claimant could then make an appeal for the tribunal to hear the case, but only if the compensation being demanded by the claimant--and this is the kicker--did not exceed, in the case of the Senate amendment, $10 million. The tribunal then has the power to make a binding decision after it has heard the case. The government, however, can request a judicial review of the tribunal's decision.
The goal behind this bill, or at least what we are told is the goal behind this bill, is to expedite the process of resolving specific claims. Between 1970 and March of last year, Indian bands across the country had filed 1,146 claims. Only 232 had been settled. That backlog is terrible and it is only getting worse. It is not diminishing, with both the government and first nations, I would have to say, becoming increasingly frustrated with the current system.
Unfortunately, as I made mention of earlier, Bill C-6 is not the legislation that we need to solve the problem. In fact, the mechanisms proposed are likely to make matters worse. Liberal senators were very forthright, more forthright than government members in the House, when it came to acknowledging the imperfections in this particular bill, but those commissioned to push this bill forward essentially said that it is better to pass a bad law than no law at all.
I do not think I have ever known people as passionately committed to mediocrity as those in the current government, which says that it is better to get bad bills through than no bills at all. I do not buy that and I do not think a lot of the public does, because it then creates messes that have to be cleaned up thereafter.
Liberal Senator Anne Cools put it very well during debate in the Senate when she stated:
Honourable senators, I want you to know that we sit here again and again and feel compelled and driven by governments to pass bad bills or insufficient bills or inadequate bills.
I want to repeat that because I think it bears repeating. Senator Anne Cools, who is a Liberal senator, stated:
Honourable senators, I want you to know that we sit here again and again and feel compelled and driven by governments to pass bad bills or insufficient bills or inadequate bills.
Rarely if ever is it appropriate, in my view, to pass a bad bill rather than no bill at all. Even aboriginal people, those whom the government claims it is helping by implementing this legislation, are telling the government that it is better to fix this bill than to pass it in its current form. That is the message the government has heard from the Assembly of First Nations as well as many individual bands. That is also the message the government heard from three of Canada's five aboriginal senators, all of whom are government members, as well as from Senator Gerry St. Germain, a Canadian Alliance senator who counts Métis as part of his ancestral heritage.
The Hon. Charlie Watt from Quebec, one of Canada's aboriginal senators, in reference to urging from the government to pass Bill C-6 as it began to turn up the heat and tighten the screws, stated this with regard to Senator Austin saying that action is needed now:
Maybe action is needed now, but is this the right instrument that we are providing to the aboriginal people? Will it advance the rights of the people? I don't think so
The Hon. Aurélien Gill, another aboriginal senator, made similar comments, stating that:
It became clear in committee that National Chief Phil Fontaine [the new head of the Assembly of First Nations] is urging the government not to pass this bill, but rather to discuss it further. Peter Hutchins, an expert, told us: "Wait, take your time; there are some major issues in this bill".
The fact that the Senate sent Bill C-6 back to the House with amendments is actually a good thing. It gives us one last chance, one might say, to fix it properly before the government passes this particular piece of legislation. The House can accept the Senate's amendments or reject them or amend them. The government is recommending that we just simply accept those recommendations and breeze on through, but my party and I do not believe that is the right solution. Rather, this House should amend those Senate amendments, strengthening them even further and adding to them before sending the bill to the other place and before sending the bill to the Governor General for royal assent.
Let us take a few minutes to look at some of the specific amendments proposed by the Senate. One of those amendments would raise the cap for cases that can be heard by the tribunal from $7 million to $10 million. This deals with clause 56 of the bill. This cap is the maximum award that the new claims centre is permitted to authorize for any single claim.
In light of the figures we are dealing with when it comes to specific claims, increasing the cap from $7 million to $10 million is ridiculous. It is almost not worth the effort. We proposed in committee a cap of some $25 million.
If there is validity to the claim, and if they do not deal with some of the railway claims in B.C. and so on, then on average they are more than this. We think it is cosmetic, it is superficial, it is just on the surface and really not about the business of getting a better result for things here.
The Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development has claimed that the $7 million cap has been set high enough to conclude most specific claims. At least that was the argument made at the earlier stage in committee when we had it before the House. Yet in a footnote to its legal analysis of Bill C-6, the Assembly of First Nations notes that AFN technicians have been informed by Miss Kathleen Lickers, commission counsel for the Indian Claims Commission, that of the 120 claims the ICC has dealt with, only three have been settled for less than $7 million. The AFN analysis adds that in the past three years, from 2000 to 2003, 8 of the 14 claims paid out by the federal government were for amounts about $7 million.
The Assembly of First Nations acknowledges:
It is true that in the earlier period from 1990-91 through 1999-2000, a majority of payouts actually were for less than $7 million; but there is no reason to believe that this earlier record of relatively low settlements can be projected forward.
Some of these, as I said, reflected claims regarding railway land, and it was all small stuff. However, we could add up the numbers and say that we go through ICC a lot of claims, when in fact it is all small potatoes and there really is not a lot of stuff in dispute.
There is no reason to believe that this earlier record of relatively low settlements can be projected forward into the future. There was likely bias in the system for settling smaller claims, and without reports to an independent tribunal, first nations were in a very weak bargaining position.
Interest on the value of claims will also increase their value through time. If inflation is worked into it, then we have problems that are not taken into account by the cap, even in the amended cap that the Senate has suggested.
I have heard recommendations from first nations representatives calling, as a bare minimum, for an increase to the cap to anywhere from $14 million to $30 million, to enable the centre to hear the majority of current claims.
I introduced an amendment when this bill was being studied by the aboriginal affairs committee to increase the cap to $25 million. I thought it was a reasonable one. After all, this is about getting it out of the very expensive, drawn out court system for the government. These people do not work for nothing and lawyers bill on a pretty good rate per hour. It is costing our taxpayers a considerable amount of money.
If we can get the right mechanism and the right kind of a claims centre together, such that there is a perception of independence, then we can save taxpayers a considerable amount of money. We will actually do service to the aboriginal peoples as well.
Some people might be concerned that making the cap higher is fiscally irresponsible because it will commit the government to greater fiscal obligations than would be the case with a lower cap, but really that is not the case. The government has dealt separately with the question of how much money is available annually. It is a different issue. It has already set an amount. It has already indicated what is available annually to distribute to the claimants who have won their cases.
As well, the claim centre does not increase the number of claims before the government. It simply provides an alternative process for hearing them. Whether they were heard in the courts or resolved through this commission and tribunal, if the judges or adjudicators found in favour of a claimant, the government would be obligated to settle in either case.
Cases take longer and cost more when dragged through the courts, having the effect of delaying the time when a final decision is brought down and also postpones the date at which the government is required to pay out a claim for a decision made in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the imposition of a cap on the tribunal looks more like a strategic stalling tactic by the government rather than as an example of fiscal prudence, and I think members have commented on that.
I would think independent objective observers would say this is a recipe for disaster, a recipe for stalling by the government. The imposition of a cap complicates things and undermines the great thing we are trying to achieve by way of an expedited process.
The cap also looks like a stalling mechanism when examined from another perspective. The minister of Indian affairs has tried to play down the significance of the cap by noting that it only applies to the tribunal and not to the commission. In other words, it will only be applicable for screening out claims that cannot be resolved by the commission and therefore might be brought before the tribunal for a binding decision.
I thought I had unlimited time, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this matter.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker
As a matter of fact not that long ago, through the modernization committee, we made some rule changes that in fact allow during the first round of debate each member to have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes of questions or comments. I would simply remind the hon. member that he has approximately one minute remaining.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
Canadian Alliance
Maurice Vellacott Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, are you sure that applies in respect to the first opposition speaker of the day?
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker
The member may remember that the former practice used to be that the first three members had 40 minutes, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister or the leader of the official opposition had unlimited time. The practice has been changed. Each member in the first round, including the government party and the four opposition parties, has 20 minutes plus 10 minutes of questions and comments. These are the new rules that have been put in place.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, in today's Projected Order of Business I see that the mover of the motion has unlimited time for speaking—that is fine, since it is the parliamentary secretary—as does the first member replying immediately thereafter.
The first member replying is my colleague from the Alliance, and according to the Projected Order of Business, his time is unlimited.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker
Indeed, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is absolutely right. I am wrong, and I apologize.
The hon. member is correct in his assumption because this is a motion and not the normal bill process. The hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin has unlimited time. I apologize to him and to the entire House for not having been correct in my first intervention.
Specific Claims Resolution Act
Government Orders
10:35 a.m.
Canadian Alliance
Maurice Vellacott Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your admission and concession. I appreciate the rules of the House and your diligent application of them in fairness to all of us.
As I was saying, cases take longer when they are dragged through the courts to no end. They have the effect of delaying the time when a final decision is brought down, postponing the time at which the government is required to pay out the claim for decision made in favour of the claimant.
We believe this kind of strategic stalling by the government is not an example of fiscal prudence. I am a fiscal conservative and I think taxpayer dollars have to be watched carefully and closely. When we drag it out through the court system, which is the other route to go, it serves no one. In fact it is very negative in terms of getting disputes resolved in a very difficult area.
Surely, the minister understands that this cap gives government officials much greater leverage for claims than is to be expected in the ballpark of $10 million. Let us use an illustration to make the point.
Take a situation in which the claimants believe their claim has a value of $13 million. In this scenario the government refuses to accept the claim and negotiations collapse. The claimants therefore have to decide whether to lower their demand to only $10 million in order to proceed to the tribunal or to insist on their demands for the full amount. In this case the claimants have to start from scratch all over again in the court system, drag it out to no end and add a great length of time. That is even if the band has the funds necessary to launch a court case.
This illustration demonstrates how the existence of a cap, and such a low cap at that, can greatly benefit the government victimizing the claimants all over again. In some of these cases it is quite heart-rending to read of how Indian agents took advantage of a first nation and pocketed the money themselves. There was great injustice. The first nations in an earlier time, in a different era, did not have the means to defend themselves and they were victimized. Now they are being victimized all over again.
Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development really believe that this kind of policy is helpful in building a culture of trust and mutual respect between the Canadian government and first nations people?
There is another aspect to the cap, and I think it is a trap, that troubles me. It is not addressed by any Senate amendments, but it was discussed as an observation in its report to the House, and it was a topic of debate in the Senate.
The government could deal with the matter if it chose to do so by amending the Senate report that was delivered to us rather than simply accepting the Senate amendments as written. The troubling aspect of the cap revolves around the fact that Bill C-6 requires a claim to be heard twice by the commission and by the tribunal if the claim cannot be resolved through the commission.
It first has to go through a validity phase which is designed to determine the validity of the claim. After that claim is deemed valid, if the government decides to negotiate it or if the tribunal rules that the government must negotiate it, the claim then has to go through a similar process to determine compensation.
What is astonishing to me is that $7 million, or if we take the Senate recommendation to amend it to $10 million, that cap, whatever it is, applies to both stages. In other words, just to have the tribunal determine the validity of a claim prior to any consideration of the value of compensation that might be determined through compensation related negotiations, the claimant is then expected to waive the right to a payout higher than $10 million.
There is absolutely no good reason why the potential value of a claim should have any bearing on the right of the tribunal to consider it for the purpose of determining its validity. That is another question. The validity and compensation amount are so interwoven, so inseparable that I think it does hurt the process.
Requiring a cap at the validity stage of the process greatly weakens the potential usefulness of the proposed claim centre. Since the bill clearly separates these two parts of the process, it should be relatively easy, we would think, to eliminate the cap requirement for the validity stage. Is it valid or is it not? Let us not get into the issue of the compensation at that point, but is it a valid claim?
In committee the Canadian Alliance introduced an amendment that would have done that but, unfortunately, there was no intelligent discussion of the amendment nor any give and take. There might have even been some adjustment on our part to hear some wisdom in respect to that, but it was just summarily swept aside.
In the Senate, the hon. Nick Sibbeston, an aboriginal senator who was supporting the bill, indicated that this matter was raised with the government by the Senate committee examining the bill. According to Senator Sibbeston, the response the committee received was to this effect. He said:
--the government sees the situation as putting a system in place. No one is perfectly sure how it all will work--
I admit that because that is the way it is with most bills. He goes on to state:
--and it wants to see how the system works before it makes more improvements.
The last part is the telling part. The government will use this as a guinea pig, a trial and error kind of system, not having any sense of the degree to which it will be effective and how it will work before it makes more improvements.
What kind of answer is that for the government to say that it is the government and therefore it will give it a shot. It will simply see what kind of mistakes there are, what kinds of messes are left and then it might take a look at it later. I do not know if this is too strong a word but I think it is a bit of arrogance when that attitude is taken and it oozes from the remarks in that statement.
What is wrong with the government in this respect? Has it lost its ability to think clearly and seriously consider reasoned amendments from others around the House? All wisdom does not reside in any one party. It does not reside on the government side or any party on this side. I would be the first to admit that but why does the government have to assume that it is all on its benches?
Has it lost any interest in developing effective, responsible, workable legislation? That is the role of members in this place. The role of the opposition is to constructively and positively go after these things and try to get a better piece of legislation and a better result.
If the government cannot defend an aspect of its legislation, but only say that it will try it out and see what kinds of messes and problems we have, what on earth is it doing here? If it does not have a reasonably good sense or projection that it will work, and that is the only response when questioned in respect to the perceived flaws in the bill, then what is going on in this place?
I want to read into the record the brief statement that the Senate made on this aspect of the bill because its observations following committee hearings are very instructive. It states:
The Committee frequently heard, both from First Nations and neutral observers, that the requirement for claimants to waive their rights to compensation above the specified cap (as set out in Section 32) in order to obtain a Tribunal ruling on the validity of their claim was the single most significant flaw with the Bill. The government expressed concern that removing this requirement would pose undue and unpredictable financial risk and might imbalance the overall operations of the Commission and Tribunal. Given the safeguards built into the legislation (Section 71), this seems to reflect an excessive concern with risk aversion.
That comes right out of the brief statement that the Senate made on this particular aspect of the bill. Those are not my words. Those are not the words of a possibly perceived partisan individual. Those words come from the Senate's report on this aspect of the bill. It says that it is the single most significant flaw in the bill. Those were not the words of the Assembly of First Nations, a member from the opposition side, some other native group nor somebody with a bigger axe to grind. The senators are telling the government that imposing the cap at both stages of the claims resolution process seems to reflect an excessive concern with risk aversion.
Let me continue from the Senate report. It states:
We are concerned that the financial cap on validity will create two categories of claims within the system and could create a significant impediment to the settlement of larger claims.
The committee then explains its views by saying that an incremental approach in this area may be better, which is why it recommends including it in the three to five year review of the bill rather than making it an amendment at this time.
I do not see any reason to wait to amend this section of the bill. If all kinds of groups saw it as the single most significant flaw in the bill, the Senate included, then if it remains in the legislation how will it encourage an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect surrounding the specific claims resolution process?
I want to stress that the first nations have indicated that without the potential for a tribunal to issue a binding decision on a claim, the government lacks the incentive to process the claim in an expeditious manner. We can see clearly their lack of confidence in this new system.
The claims centre proposed in Bill C-6 is seen as useless in terms of dealing with claims that are valued higher than the very minimal cap that is being proposed in the bill. If the cap is going to remain in the legislation it should be increased, as we suggested in committee, to at least $25 million and should be removed altogether from the validity stage of the claims process. That is another issue: determining the validity, looking at the evidence, looking at the historical facts and so on to determine the validity of the claim itself.
The Senate also made a couple of amendments that would allow for some input from first nations in the appointment of the commissioners and the adjudicators for the centre, as well as for the agency's chair and for the vice-chair. This amendment affects clause 5, clause 20 and clause 41 of Bill C-6. Specifically, first nations would be able to "make representations in respect of appointments to the office or offices in question".
In other words, after the Minister of Indian Affairs has made his appointments, first nations representatives can provide input as to their thoughts about the people who have already been appointed. That is about as backward as it can get. It is a process that happens in our country maybe far too often when the PMO appoints individuals and then we have our chance to fire away, but what good does it do after the fact? We would like that in a whole range of things, in respect to judges and some of the other appointments where they are vetted through the appropriate standing committee, before not after.
What good does it do if the appointment is made and then after the fact we get to write letters and e-mails that go in the wrong files? We get to badger away and play it up in the media if they have an interest at that point because it is a done deal.
This is very disrespectful and not at all helpful when we just simply allow them after the fact. It is already a fait accompli and at that point then the first nations representatives can provide input as to their thoughts about the people who have already been appointed. What a useless, senseless thing to do in the bill. What good would it do when the person is appointed and already in place?
This is certainly a far cry from what was proposed in the 1998 joint task force report produced by the government and first nations following several years of discussions. I want to spend some time later reading large sections of that report. The government spent three years negotiating with first nations, the back and forth, the give and take, around the table together. Some rapport, some mutualities and some respect I assume was built up over that time. They spent some three years coming up with a plan for dealing with specific claims.
The report from the joint First Nations-Canada task force on specific claims policy reform reiterated the longstanding recommendation for an independent claims centre, this being a fair bit of writing to which we can look at and refer to in respect to the independence of this bigger claim centre.
The primary mechanism by which it was going to be made independent was by a joint government first nations process for appointing the commissioners and adjudicators. That was in the report. Both parties were to arrive at a list of jointly approved candidates and the government would pick the commissioners and adjudicators from that list. It seems like a fair process. It seems like common sense.
The government, however, has completely abandoned that proposal. In Bill C-6 the government has the exclusive prerogative of appointing the officials and then reappointing them. Others in the peanut gallery can make comments and decry or deride these particular appointments but the government has the exclusive prerogative to increase or reduce the number of commissioners or adjudicators within, of course, the parameters provided by the bill. The Senate amendment does not change that process. Its amendment is nothing more than window dressing.
In response to demands for more first nations participation in the appointment process, government spokesmen object that there is no precedent for the government sharing the responsibility of making appointments, whether we are talking about judges or officials who serve on quasi-judicial tribunals or government boards. They say the government must preserve the final authority over such appointments, including to the specific claims agency.
While it might be true, whether we are talking about judges or other appointments, that there is no kind of precedent in our country, that is unfortunate. There is a precedent in other modern democracies around the world. Our neighbour to the south of us, just beyond the 49th parallel, has a very good process where there is that greater scrutiny, that greater look at individuals coming forth, because their background, their biases, their world view, their perceptions and so on are all pretty significant in terms of how they will handle that job and the degree of objectivity or lack thereof that might be the case. Just because we have never done it that way is not to say that might not be a considerable improvement. As we look at other places around the world where it is already in place, we think it actually allows the public to have a greater say and greater access to the process.
The government is confusing the issue with such an assertion that it has never done it that way before. I do not dispute the government's prerogative to have, and we will even concede, maybe the final say in making appointments, but the proposal recommended in the joint task force report does not take away that prerogative from the government. I still do not understand why the government has refused to implement that very reasonable proposal in Bill C-6.
The joint task force proposal gives the government the final decision on appointments to the specific claims resolution centre but it also gives first nations direct participation in the appointment process. That is a far cry from the paternalistic tokenism reflected in the Senate amendment, not to mention the complete shutting out of aboriginal input that was established in the unamended bill.
When we read the Senate debates on Bill C-6 we will hear critics of Bill C-6 repeatedly raising the question of the independence of the specific claims resolution centre. Defenders of the bill repeatedly assert that the centre was as independent as one could make it in our political system, which is not saying a lot, and in respect of the fiduciary responsibilities the federal government has toward the first nations across the country.
Critics, however, remain unsatisfied with the government's assertions, warning that the centre could not and will not win the trust and the confidence of first nations people.
I do not dispute the point that making this centre independent, not to mention giving it the appearance of independence, is a challenge, admittedly so, but what is clear to me is that the government is not up to that challenge, not at all. It is not even coming close. It is not even attempting to give it the perception of any kind of independence here. The government is not up to the challenge, as would appear in the report from the Senate back to us and the intent of the government as it bulldozes ahead on this particular piece of legislation.
Proposals to help give the centre independence and the important appearance of independence are staring the government in the face from the pages of the joint task force report and the amendments proposed earlier by the Canadian Alliance, yet the government is completely ignoring them.
I will have to wrap it up as time runs out, but I assume that I begin to speak at the point where we resume with Bill C-6 in the future. I have much to say and I am just getting warmed up and getting into this crucial topic.
Confederation Centre of the Arts
Statements By Members
10:55 a.m.
Shawn Murphy Hillsborough, PE
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Charlottetown Festival was awarded the prestigious title of Event of the Year by the Tourist Industry Association of Canada.
The Charlottetown Festival, sponsored by the Confederation Centre of the Arts, is a staple of Prince Edward Island's tourism industry. Each year it draws visitors from around the world who come to enjoy professional musical theatre and comedy, including the beloved and original production of
Anne of Green Gables.
In addition to this award, earlier this year the Confederation Centre was designated a national historic site, was named top event in Canada by the American Bus Association and received the Premier's Award for Tourism.
The Confederation Centre was founded in 1964 as a memorial to the Fathers of Confederation. Covering an entire city block, the centre showcases the best in Canadian visual and performing arts.
I am sure all members will join me in congratulating David MacKenzie and all the staff of the Confederation Centre for these impressive accomplishments.
Apprenticeship Competition
Statements By Members
11 a.m.
Canadian Alliance
Darrel Stinson Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, hats off to two Okanagan University College apprentices. Fourth year automotive service technician apprentice Sterling Logan and third year auto body collision repair apprentice Petr Ivandic, earned gold medals at the provincial competition and went on to receive silver medals at the national skills Canada competition held in Ontario earlier this year.
This is the eighth year in a row that an Okanagan University College trained apprentice has captured top spot in the automotive service technician competition at the provincial level. It is the fourth time in the last four years that a collision repair student has captured the gold medal. The automotive service technician competition was a two day, seven station test of knowledge, skills and aptitude.
Congratulations to Sterling and Petr on a job well done.
Canadian Forces
Statements By Members
11 a.m.
Sarkis Assadourian Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Invisible Ribbon Campaign is a public grassroots demonstration of support for the families of military personnel.
This campaign helps reaffirm pride in the military and lets our men and women in uniform and those closest to them know that Canadians recognize and support their vital contribution to Canada.
The invisible ribbons also underscore that families of military members are as committed to the military way of life as are the personnel who wear the uniform. This is especially true today as we have almost 3,800 Canadian Forces members deployed around the world on peacekeeping missions.
I hope all members of the House and indeed all Canadians will join me in wearing an invisible ribbon to demonstrate that we very much appreciate military personnel and their families for a job well done.
Youth at Risk
Statements By Members
11 a.m.
Charles Caccia Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, youth recidivism, namely the extent to which offenders reoffend, is alarmingly high. Youth represented 60% of convicted offenders. The majority of recidivists had prior convictions in youth court. Sixteen is the most common age of first conviction. Nearly two-thirds of recidivists sentenced to custody have been incarcerated before.
These statistics show that we are not doing enough for youth at risk, not enough to prevent youth at risk from becoming young offenders and not enough to prevent offenders from reoffending.
This is a big social problem which requires attention. I urge the government to improve and strengthen existing programs aimed at youth and at reducing recidivism among young offenders.
Martha Curgin Tevlin
Statements By Members
October 31st, 2003 / 11 a.m.
Pat O'Brien London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, this week the community of London, Ontario lost one of our outstanding citizens with the death of Martha Curgin Tevlin. I have known Martha for 40 years as a very friendly, generous and talented woman who served our community with great dedication and distinction.
A graduate of Catholic Central High School and the University of Western Ontario, Martha taught elementary school before moving to the non-profit sector in 1984.
Martha was the assistant executive director of the Canadian Diabetes Association, Ontario division. She later served as the director of volunteer services at Victoria Hospital before becoming the very successful executive director of the London Health Sciences Foundation which she helped establish. She also served with great enthusiasm as the chairperson of the London Public Library Board, as well as serving on several other boards and agencies.
On behalf of all Londoners, I offer our sincere sympathies to Martha's family. London is a better place for all of Martha's efforts. May she rest in peace.
Statements By Members
11 a.m.
Canadian Alliance
Maurice Vellacott Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, bad news about marijuana, violence and gang warfare is far too common. This week a gang-style double murder in Toronto was linked by police to the growing problem of marijuana and gang warfare in that city. This week a new poll shows that marijuana use is higher than tobacco use among teenagers.
The Liberal government discourages youth from using tobacco, but its proposed changes to marijuana legislation sends the opposite message. Canada's frontline police officers remain distressed over the Liberals' soft on pot, premature and seriously flawed Bill C-38.
The Liberals must first set up a national drug strategy that works at the street level. They must establish a progressive schedule of penalties. Minimum sentences are required to reinforce the seriousness of the crime of marijuana grow operations. Drug driving laws and roadside assessment must also be in place. The police need legislation to enhance enforcement powers in situations where drug impairment is suspected.
It is not clear what constituency the Liberal government is trying to attract with this new approach to drug legislation, but it certainly is not the law-abiding citizens in my constituency--


text:
On September 30, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton commented on the situation in Ecuador. The Secretary said, "We are closely following events in Ecuador. The United States deplores violence and lawlessness and we express our full support for President Rafael Correa, and the institutions of democratic government in that country. We urge all Ecuadorians to come together and to work within the framework of Ecuador's democratic institutions to reach a rapid and peaceful restoration of order."
The U.S. Embassy in Quito, Ecuador provides information regarding the services which are available to American Citizens in Ecuador. On October 1, U.S. Embassy Quito issued this statement:
"The protests associated with yesterday's crisis have subsided. Reports indicate that police are returning to work today, October 1. The airports in Guayaquil and Quito have reopened, but there are few international flights at this time. Please contact your airline carrier for the most up-to-date information.
"...Roads appear to be open, although traffic is generally light. If leaving the home is necessary, American citizens are advised to take caution and be aware of the situation around you.
'The U.S. Embassy in Quito is open today, and it is anticipated that the U.S. Consulate in Guayaquil will re-open shortly. The U.S. Embassy recommends continuing to monitor Ecuadorian news outlets for any updates. We will also continue to provide new information as warranted."
Americans living or traveling in Ecuador are encouraged to register with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate and to obtain updated information on travel and security within Ecuador through the Department of State's travel registration website.
The U.S. Embassy in Quito is located at Avigiras E12-170 y Eloy Alfaro. The telephone number for American Citizen Service (ACS) inquiries is (011 593-2) 398-5000. Within the same city use the last seven digits. Add the city code for intercity telephone calls.
U.S. citizens should consult the Country Specific Information for Ecuador and the latest Travel Alerts and Warnings and Worldwide Caution at the Department's travel.state.gov website. Updated information on travel and security in Ecuador may also be obtained from the Department of State by calling 1-888-407-4747 within the United States or by calling 1-202-501-4444 outside the United States.


text:
Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2003
House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-46.
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- Specific Claims Resolution Act
- Osteoporosis Month
- Amateur Sport
- Centres of Excellence
- Government of Ontario
- Armenia
- National Defence
- Bertram Brockhouse
- The Environment
- Economic and Fiscal Update
- Westminster Club
- Aboriginal Affairs
- Veterans Affairs
- Chambre de commerce et d'industrie Lac-Saint-Jean-Est
- Yitzhak Rabin
- Member for LaSalle-Émard
- Raymond Schryer
- Football
- The Economy
- Financial Institutions
- The Economy
- Health
- The Economy
- Agriculture
- International Cooperation
- Foreign Affairs
- Fisheries
- International Trade
- Canada-U.S. Border
- Veterans Affairs
- Minister of Finance
- Gasoline Taxes
- Justice
- The Environment
- Foreign Affairs
- The Environment
- Cinar
- Child Pornography
- Ethics
- Presence in Gallery
- Point of Order
- Order in Council Appointments
- Government Response to Petitions
- Income Tax Act
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order Paper
- Criminal Code
- Specific Claims Resolution Act
- Criminal Code
Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:40 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A consul general of Canada requires the highest security clearance, particularly in a post like Chandigarh.
The government will not say when Bhupinder Liddar received his Canadian citizenship. It says that is a privacy question.
I have some security questions. Does Mr. Liddar have Canada's highest security clearance? If not, how could he serve as consul general? If so, was Mr. Liddar a Canadian citizen at the time the process began to give him security clearance?
Does the government often arrange security clearance for people who are not Canadian citizens?
Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:40 p.m.
Denis Coderre Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, without going into details on this particular case, I can assure the House that all the rules were followed and that all the criteria were met. The consul general in Chandigarh will do an excellent job.
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
Rex Barnes Gander—Grand Falls, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that ACOA is a threat to our national security so I am puzzled about the secrecy regarding ACOA funding for a Newfoundland and Labrador riding with regard to the cod closures.
Will the hon. Minister of State responsible for ACOA provide full disclosure to the House within 24 hours of all projects approved and applied for, as well as the criteria and departmental evaluation?
Did the minister give orders for ACOA representatives not to talk to Newfoundland and Labrador MPs with regard to these projects?
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte
Newfoundland & Labrador
Gerry Byrne Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, with the new innovations in the House the member can get that information right from his chair in the House of Commons because it is all on the Internet, which we have now introduced into the House.
The fact is that the hon. member is very aware of all the projects that are occurring in his riding, despite the fact that he said that there was an air of secrecy around them.
I remember not too long ago telling the hon. member about a particular project in Little Bay Islands, one that all of a sudden, when asked by the media, he had no knowledge of whatsoever.
That $575,000 will be of great benefit to his riding, but most important, to the people of his riding.
International Trade
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Alexa McDonough Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is about to meet here in Ottawa with South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki.
Mbeki was instrumental in the WTO agreement to allow generic drugs to flow to developing nations to treat the millions suffering from HIV-AIDS, TB, malaria and other deadly diseases.
Canada engaged in much self-congratulations about being the first country to amend our patent laws but the world is still waiting.
With rumours about a UN appointment for the Prime Minister, he should be more committed than ever to implementing this legacy.
Will the Prime Minister promise that Parliament will not rise until this life saving legacy is firmly in place?
International Trade
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Pierre Pettigrew Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the Prime Minister has been fully committed to Africa for the last few years that he has been Prime Minister.
We in Canada have worked very closely with South Africa to develop the August 30 breakthrough with a waiver on intellectual property.
We intend to do the same thing in this country. We will make sure that in consultation with our industry we can allow Canadian companies to contribute to this extraordinary effort in Africa.
Canada-U.S. Border
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Brian Masse Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the city of Windsor has discovered that CP Rail, in conjunction with Transport Canada and Canada Customs, is building a centre for U.S. customs to inspect rail cars going to the U.S. on Canadian soil. With no notification and no planning, it will create more transportation chaos for our industry, health and security. I understand that the Manley-Ridge plan is the driving force for this process.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the municipality or local industry was not consulted? Will he meet with them immediately and put this on hold before we have more chaos and border destruction affecting our industries?
Canada-U.S. Border
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Elinor Caplan Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, pre-clearance away from the border, whether it is for land or rail, is one of the important features of trying to have the border function safely and efficiently. All these initiatives have been undertaken to ensure that the public interest in Canada is served. I can assure the member opposite the actions that are being taken are both appropriate and well considered.
Veterans Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Roy H. Bailey Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, November 5 through to November 11 is Veterans Week in Canada. It is a week to honour those who fought and died for this country, but the government refuses to honour war widows by not extending their VIP benefits.
The parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs said on Friday:
--I would like to honour that request. However, things do not operate that way around here.
The 23,000 widows who are cut off from other benefits deserve a lot better than that. Will this government today honour the commitment to the--
Veterans Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
The Speaker
The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Winnipeg North—St. Paul
Rey D. Pagtakhan Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science
Mr. Speaker, we have been seized with this issue. In fact, as recently as last May, when we had $135 million, we decided to take half of that for other priorities of veterans and the other half for widows in the country. We started a new program, and we pledged that we would continue to work harder for others. The sensitivity of this government remains very high.
Veterans Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:45 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Roy H. Bailey Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, we have already had unanimous consent from the Veterans Affairs committee. We have had unanimous consent from this House, but still the government delays. To continue to deny these 23,000 widows is hypocrisy higher than the ceiling of this building.
Will this government commit to extending the VIP benefits to those widows and ensure that it is done before November 11, 2003?
Veterans Affairs
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Winnipeg North—St. Paul
Rey D. Pagtakhan Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science
Mr. Speaker, last May, when we had the situation, I consulted with the leadership of the veterans organizations and I asked them if we should proceed with what we had or should we wait. They advised me to proceed with what we had, and we pledged to continue to work harder for the others.
Minister of Finance
Oral Question Period
November 3rd, 2003 / 2:50 p.m.
Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Finance stated that he had paid for his trip to the Caribbean and his holiday aboard a sailboat with Sandy Morrison of the Brewers Association of Canada, whose counsel he had just followed in his budget at the expense of the microbreweries. The minister told the House that he had paid for his plane tickets.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how much it cost for him and his family to stay on this luxury boat, and in what amount the cheque in repayment was made out for?
Minister of Finance
Oral Question Period
2:50 p.m.
Ottawa South
John Manley Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, that is none of his business. I can go on vacation with whomever I like, wherever I want, at my own expense. He has no right to ask such questions.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What average-priced roni brand would work?
.... As long as the beer, wine, smokes and cat food are ok, she doesn't see the need for anything else.
Maybe skimp on the cat food for a few weeks? I mean are they really going to complain that much?If one stick cost $15, you can slice it to make at least 5 pies probably. It really is worth that $3 per pie to try at least.Just my $.02
Easy for you to say when you have me to buy it and bring it to you...