36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 11
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 26, 1999
1000
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1005
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-263. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-264. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1010
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-265. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| CONTRAVENTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-266. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-267. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-268. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| RECALL ACT
|
| Bill C-269. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1015
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-270. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Iraq
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Property Rights
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Gun Registration
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1020
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Canada Health Act
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1025
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| Marriage Act
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Amendment
|
1200
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1245
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1250
1255
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1320
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1325
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1345
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1350
1355
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HISTORICA
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1400
| SASKATOON—ROSETOWN—BIGGAR BYELECTION
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| TELEPHONE SERVICE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BREAST CANCER
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1405
| CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| GREAT LAKES BASIN
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| MAURICE RICHARD
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| DIWALI
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1410
| NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| IRVING OIL
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1430
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1435
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| PROFESSIONAL SPORT
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. John Manley |
| IRELAND
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1440
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1445
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
1450
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1455
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EQUALITY
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1500
| DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| THE LATE HON. IAN WAHN
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1510
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments in Chamber
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1515
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1540
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1545
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1550
1555
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1600
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1605
1610
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1615
1620
| Mr. David Iftody |
1625
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1630
1635
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1640
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1645
1650
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1655
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1725
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1730
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1735
1740
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1745
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1750
1755
1800
1805
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1810
1815
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1820
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1825
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
|
1900
(Division 45)
| Motion agreed to
|
| (Bill read the third time and passed)
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1905
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1910
| Fisheries
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
1915
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 11
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 26, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order this morning to clarify certain remarks
that I made in the House on June 8, 1999 regarding our colleague,
the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
1005
Earlier this year the member for Burnaby—Douglas presented a
controversial petition in the Chamber on behalf of a certain
fringe group which was seeking the elimination of the reference
to God in our constitution.
In my original statement on the matter I affirmed my strong
support for the reference to God in all acts and proclamations
devised by the House. I also quoted remarks attributed to the
member for Burnaby—Douglas as printed by the Ottawa
Citizen.
Although I still strongly support the reference, today I would
like to clarify my original statement. Before I do, I must say
that I was very pleased to receive a telephone call from the said
member earlier this month. It is my understanding that it is not
his intention to rise in the House to correct this apparent media
misrepresentation himself. He has assured me that he does not
share the views expressed by the petitions he presented.
That being said, and given his newly found support for the
reference to God in the constitution, I would ask that my
previous statement be amended to reflect this new reality.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for setting the record
straight. He did recognize that the original statement he made
was based on inaccurate information. Without in any way
endorsing the premise of his statement today, I do want to thank
him for correcting his previous inaccurate statement.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-263, an act to to amend the Criminal
Code (hate propaganda).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present this bill
today which would expand the definition of “identifiable group”
relating to the area of hate propaganda in the criminal code to
include any section of the public distinguished by sexual
orientation.
The current provisions of the code include reference to colour,
race, religion and ethnic origin. The purpose of this amendment
is to expand the protections of the hate propaganda provisions to
include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to protect
these groups against public incitement of hatred.
Finally, I would note that the bill would give law enforcement
officers the power to stop people like the Reverend Fred Phelps
from crossing our border to spread his message of hatred and
homophobia.
Too many gay and lesbian people are victims of crimes based
solely on their sexual orientation. The bill will send out an
important signal that Canada condemns all violence, including
violence directed at gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
people.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-264, an act to provide for the taking
of samples of blood to detect the presence of certain viruses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first of three bills I will
be introducing today.
This bill would give individuals such as police officers,
firefighters, emergency response personnel and good Samaritans,
should they be subjected to blood products or body fluid products
in the commission of their duties, the right to know the HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C status of the blood of the person
with whom they have been in contact.
1010
This would be a fair law and one which would protect individuals
performing their duties in an effort to save lives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-265, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(violent crimes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly simple bill which has
wide ranging ramifications.
Basically, if somebody commits a violent act such as rape or
murder three times, on the third commission of that offence the
person would automatically serve life imprisonment without parole
for 25 years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONTRAVENTIONS ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the
Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(marijuana).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the last bill which I will be
introducing today. It deals with the simple possession of
marijuana.
Essentially the bill would decriminalize, not legalize the
simple possession of marijuana. A person who is found in
possession of marijuana would receive a fine. There would be
three levels of fines. The fines would then be used to pay for
prevention and education programs for children to deter them from
using illicit drugs.
I introduce this bill as the result of the huge overloading of
our courts, particularly in British Columbia. It would save the
taxpayer money, it would improve prevention programs to dissuade
children from consuming illegal substances and it would go a long
way to relieving the congestion in our courts. It would also
help in preventing people from taking up illicit substances.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(registration of political parties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the reintroduction of a private
member's bill which was introduced in the last session. The bill
addresses the problem of the 50 candidate rule which, as most
members will know, was struck down by a court in Ontario. The
court in Ontario said that two members would make a party. There
are 12 in my bill, consistent with what we do here in the House.
I hope members will enjoy debating the issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-268, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(electronic voting).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as members may know, about three years
ago the Government of Ontario introduced electronic voting in its
elections act. Now it is quite common for voting for council
members and mayors to be done electronically.
There is no such provision in the Canada Elections Act. The
chief electoral officer has asked that it be included. Therefore,
this bill would simply insert that into the Canada Elections Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
RECALL ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-269, an act to establish the right of electors
to recall members of Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, of course this is a fairly scary piece of
legislation for some members of the House who cannot come to
grips with the fact that the voters who actually put them in this
place should also have the right to remove them if they are not
performing.
1015
The bill would introduce the right of recall as is done in other
jurisdictions like California, which, I might mention, has not
recalled anybody for maybe 25 years. It is effective to have it
there as a tool.
I look forward to a meaningful debate on the legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to protect persons accused
of a crime from undue public speculation and suspicion before
guilt has been established.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to
protect persons accused of a crime and their families from the
effect of media reports that cause public suspicion, speculation
and outrage before guilt has been established. Early publication
of criminal proceedings can cause irreversible harm that is not
justified in the case of an accused who is later acquitted.
I would like to note that this enactment does not in any way
impede the right of the public to attend any court proceedings.
The resultant restriction on freedom of expression, which is in
effect a requirement to delay publication, is demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society in order to protect
the principle of presumption of innocence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition today on behalf of members of my constituency
and many Albertans.
The petitioners would like to express their astonishment at the
legal determination that possession of child pornography is not
criminal. They feel that the very existence of child pornography
is ample evidence that a criminal act has been committed against
a child. They want to express that opinion.
IRAQ
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition that draws attention to the terrible
consequences of the sanctions against Iraq.
The petitioners call on parliament to urge that all Canadian
military personnel and equipment now taking part in the blockade
of Iraq be recalled, and that Canada use all possible diplomatic
pressures to urge the U.N. to end the sanctions.
The petitioners point out the devastating impact particularly on
children. As a result of the embargo, 650,000 Iraqi children
have died.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have quite a number of petitions to present.
The first set of petitions I am pleased to present totals 11
pages with the signatures of 158 concerned Canadians from the
provinces of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. For those who are keeping
track, that is a total of 15,415 signatures of people who are
demanding better protection of property rights in federal law.
These citizens are most concerned that there is nothing in the
charter of rights and freedoms which restricts the government in
any way from passing laws which prohibit the ownership, use and
enjoyment of their private property or reduces the value of their
property.
These Canadians are also concerned that there is no provision in
the charter that prevents the government from arbitrarily taking
these lawfully acquired and legally owned properties without
compensation.
The petitioners request parliament to support my private
member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights.
GUN REGISTRATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next group of petitions I am pleased to present is
154 pages long with 3,649 signatures of concerned citizens from
eight different provinces and one territory in Canada.
Canadians from coast to coast are united in opposition to the
federal government's fatally flawed, billion dollar gun
registration scheme.
1020
My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of repeal
Bill C-68 petitions that I have introduced. Since April 1998, I
have introduced 2,009 pages of petitions with a total of 49,914
signatures.
The petitioners are calling for an end to the government's
firearm fiasco because: First, registration will do nothing to
curtail the criminal use of firearms; second, registration is
not an effective way to address the violent crime problem in
Canada; third, registration is opposed by the vast majority of
frontline police officers; and fourth, registration is being
challenged in the supreme court by six provinces and two
territories, comprising more than 50% of Canada's population.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I present a petition on behalf of the people in my riding.
The petition is addressed to the House of Commons and parliament
assembled. It states that we the undersigned citizens of Canada
draw the attention of the House to the following: Whereas, a
majority of Canadians understand the concept of marriage as only
the voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried male and a
single, that is unmarried female; and whereas, it is the duty of
parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known
and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation, such as Bill C-225, so as to define the statute that
a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on the subject
of God and the constitution. The petition was signed by
residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, as well as many
other constituencies in Canada.
The petitioners note that the laws of our country have always
been based on Judeo-Christian morals and values which have been
passed down through the centuries via western civilization; that
the majority of Canadians believe in the God who created the
heavens and the earth and are not offended by the mention of his
name in the preamble of the charter of rights and freedoms; that
the preamble of charter of rights and freedoms acts as a
foundation upon which the subsequent sections are based and sets
forth the basic transcendental understanding for our rights and
freedoms.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that parliament
oppose any amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, or any other federal legislation which will provide for
the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our
constitution and laws.
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I present one other petition on the subject of medicare,
also signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas
and others.
The petitioners urge that the federal government preserve and
enforce the Canada Health Act, the foundation of medicare, in
every province and region of Canada and maintain the five key
principles of medicare.
They call upon parliament to enshrine the Canada Health Act and
the five principles of medicare in the Canadian constitution to
guarantee national standards of quality, publicly funded health
care for every Canadian citizen as a right. They call for this
in the Constitution of Canada.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today.
The first petition contains 120 signatures. It draws the
attention of the House to the fact that a majority of Canadians
are in favour of a fair agreement with the Nisga'a and that it is
complete and equitable to all Canadians.
It points out that there are court cases presently outstanding
regarding the Nisga'a treaty, some of which, including one by the
Liberal Party of B.C., question the constitutionality of the
agreement, and that the citizens of British Columbia should have
a vote on the referendum before changes are made to our
constitution.
They therefore pray and request that parliament reject this
treaty as it will divide Canadians forever.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 629 signatures. This is one of a series
of several thousand signatures. It is in connection with the
arrival of a ship earlier this year bearing illegal Chinese
migrants.
The petitioners point out that bogus refugee claimants cause
undue hardship for honest, bona fide refugees; that the current
immigration system encourages international people smugglers; and
that there is no effective system in place to quickly separate
legitimate asylum seekers from illegal migrants.
They call on parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's
immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the deportation
of obvious and blatant abusers of the system.
1025
CANADA POST
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am presenting a petition this morning on behalf of the
rural mail couriers who work for Canada Post. Most of the time
they earn less than minimum wage and have working conditions
reminiscent of another era.
Furthermore, these Canada Post employees have not been allowed
to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working
conditions like other workers.
They are therefore petitioning parliament to summon Canada Post
to give them the same level of consideration as regular and
permanent employees.
MARRIAGE ACT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by many residents in
my riding and others who are asking parliament to ensure that
marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada,
be preserved and protected.
They ask that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the
Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): The second
petition I have, Mr. Speaker, also signed by constituents and
others, asks that parliament, through the enactment and
enforcement of the Criminal Code, protect the most vulnerable
members of our society from sexual abuse and in particular child
pornography.
They ask that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure
that the possession of child pornography remain a serious
criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of
children.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition in the House which says that
section 43 of the criminal code states that every school teacher,
parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified
in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or a child who
is under their care if force does not exceed what is reasonable
under the circumstances, and that section 43 recognizes the
primary role of parents in the raising and discipline of their
children.
The petitioners ask that parliament reaffirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in the Criminal
Code as it currently is worded.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-9, an act to give effect
to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to bring
forward this legislation, the Nisga'a final agreement act. The
act and the treaty it will enshrine mark the culmination of a
journey begun by the Nisga'a people more than a century ago.
Since 1887, the Nisga'a people have been actively seeking to
resolve issues related to their land, culture and government.
Generations came and went without solutions being found.
While the rest of Canada progressed into a modern and prosperous
society, the Nisga'a were left behind uncertain of their place in
the country, uncertain of whether there even was a place for them
in the country.
Today marks a major step forward for the Nisga'a people, for
British Columbia and for Canada. There is a great deal of
excitement these days about the dawning of a new millennium and
the opportunities it presents for our nation. However, as we
enter the 21st century we still face the challenge of unfinished
business from the 19th.
The bill represents a major step forward in bringing closure to
unfinished business from a century ago. It marks a new era of
reconciliation and renewal between Canada and aboriginal people.
By doing so it sets the stage for Canada to realize even greater
achievements in the new century.
1030
For six generations the Nisga'a people refused to give up hope
or to doubt that their goals would be achieved. The fact that we
are debating the bill today is testament to their dedication and
perseverance. I am sure history will prove that their efforts
will make Canada a stronger and more complete nation.
I also recognize the efforts of my predecessors and colleagues
in the House who have contributed so greatly to where we are
today. I pay tribute to the government and people of British
Columbia for demonstrating that our country can and will
accommodate the needs and aspirations of all those living within
its borders.
Bill C-9 is a national achievement. It represents a milestone
not only for the Nisga'a people but for all British Columbians
and Canadians. The Nisga'a treaty is a reconciliation between
past and present, between native and non-native. It lets us put
the mistakes of the past behind us. By clearly setting out our
relationship it will foster community economic growth for the
Nisga'a and for other Canadian citizens.
The treaty is an important step in the long process of
nationbuilding within Canada. As Dr. Joe Gosnell, president of
the Nisga'a Tribal Council, pointed out on numerous occasions, we
are negotiating our way into Canada, not out of it.
With this endorsement from the House a century old goal is
within our grasp. The Nisga'a treaty represents a pivotal point
in the relationship between Canada and the Nisga'a people. It is
an opportunity to demonstrate our mutual trust and respect.
The Nisga'a people have been living in northwestern British
Columbia for thousands of years. When Europeans first arrived on
the Pacific shores they found a well established society, one
that was self-sustaining and able to care for its members. The
Nisga'a were prosperous people and entrepreneurial in spirit.
They lived in organized communities and governed themselves
according to the ancient Ayuukhl Nisga'a laws, their rules of
social obligation and conduct.
The arrival of European settlers had a dramatic effect on the
Nisga'a and on other aboriginal people in British Columbia. As
in other parts of Canada the imposition of foreign laws, cultural
and religious customs had a negative impact that is still being
felt today.
Diseases that had never before been seen in North America had a
devastating effect on entire communities. The Nisga'a population
was once more than 30,000, a number that subsequently declined to
only 800. Today the Nisga'a number almost 6,000 but that is
still a far cry from where they once were.
In British Columbia the circumstances of aboriginal people were
further affected by the lack of comprehensive treaties with the
crown. In most other parts of Canada these treaties were a
prerequisite for settlement. They provided some degree of
certainty over land tenure and defined a relationship between the
crown and aboriginal people.
The absence of treaties in British Columbia means that to this
day most aboriginal people in that province are unsure of their
place in Canada. It also means great uncertainty for all
residents of British Columbia.
For more than a century the Nisga'a have sought to rectify the
situation. They did not let the events of the past outweigh
their desire to achieve an honoured and valuable place within
Canada. Despite serious obstacles that were placed before them,
generations of Nisga'a leadership continue to pursue their goals
through peaceful and lawful methods.
In more recent times the efforts of the Nisga'a have coincided
with an evolution in the way individual Canadians and their
governments view their relationship with aboriginal people. There
is widespread agreement that the policies of the past have failed
and a new approach is needed, one based on mutual respect and
trust. There is broad recognition that all Canadians will
benefit from such an approach.
1035
This evolution of thought has produced a number of initiatives
including the many task forces and royal commissions established
to look into aboriginal issues, the launching in 1985 of the
community based self-government policy, the passage by parliament
of the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, through to the
tabling in 1995 of the approach of the Government of Canada to
the implementation of the inherent right and negotiation of
aboriginal self-government.
The government believes that self-government is like other
aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the
constitution of 1982. As the courts have suggested, these rights
are best negotiated, not litigated, and this is precisely what we
have done. The Nisga'a treaty is the logical result of the
evolution of Canadian thought and policy and measures up as a
practical and workable arrangement that operates within the
constitutional framework of Canada.
The Nisga'a treaty establishes a shared understanding of how the
Nisga'a people and other Canadians can coexist and achieve common
goals. It provides a fair, affordable and honourable settlement
that accommodates the interest of all Canadians and will promote
stability and opportunity for all residents of the Nass Valley.
By clearly setting out the rights of the Nisga'a people as
related to the ownership and use of lands and resources, the
treaty provides certainty. This certainty will foster an
economic climate conducive to attracting investment and creating
jobs while at the same time providing an opportunity for the
Nisga'a to protect their culture.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of certainty to the future
of British Columbia. During the approximate 500 public
consultations and information meetings which were held in B.C.
during the Nisga'a negotiations the business community made one
thing perfectly clear: certainty is essential to a strong
economic future for the province.
What is the cost of the status quo? A 1991 Price Waterhouse
study concluded that unresolved land claims in British Columbia
cost the province $1 billion in investment and 1,500 jobs each
year in forestry and mining alone. The Nisga'a treaty is a major
step toward ensuring that kind of economic activity is not lost
for future generations of British Columbians.
So long as certainty is achieved I know that the business
community welcomes the opportunity to work in partnership with
aboriginal people. This is as true in my own region as it is in
British Columbia where partnerships are springing up throughout
the province as the private sector and aboriginal communities
work together on economic ventures.
Those who have known me for a while know how much importance I
place on these kinds of partnerships and the ability for native
and non-native people to work together. Throughout Canada but
mostly in rural regions native and non-native Canadians live side
by side. They share many of the same challenges and dreams, but
for far too long they have lived isolated from each other.
In today's world that isolation cannot continue. The only way
for aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians to realize their full
potential is by working together. The Nisga'a treaty will
encourage that process in northwestern British Columbia. It is
important that members of the House and Canadians in general are
aware of what the Nisga'a treaty will and will not do. I will
outline a few of those items.
Most important, the treaty establishes a full and final
settlement of all outstanding Nisga'a claims in respect of
aboriginal rights and title. The Nisga'a will receive a
settlement package including $196.1 million paid over 15 years,
approximately 2,000 square kilometres of land in the Nass Valley
area including surface and subsurface rights, and a share of Nass
River salmon stocks and Nass area wildlife harvests.
1040
The total estimated one time cost of the treaty including land
value, implementation and other related costs is $487.1 million
in 1999 dollars. Canada's share is $255 million. I want to be
clear on the cost of the agreement. It does not involve, as some
have implied, a cash transfer of a half billion dollars. While I
am sure members will go into great detail during committee study,
it is important to underscore this point for all Canadians to
clarify the record.
A strong economy requires land and a resource base. With this
achieved the Nisga'a will be able to participate more fully in
the local and provincial economies. Once again the Nisga'a
people will have the tools necessary to be self-reliant. They
will be able to harvest timber on their lands for housing or
commercial use. Given the natural beauty of the Nass Valley
region it is likely the Nisga'a will explore economic
opportunities such as outfitting, wilderness camping, ecotourism
and sport fishing.
Other residents of the Nass Valley will benefit as well.
Increased economic activity will produce inevitable spin-offs
throughout the area. As infrastructure on Nisga'a lands and the
Nisga'a highway are upgraded jobs will be created and local
businesses will profit from an injection of new cash. A
prosperous Nisga'a people will contribute to a stronger economy
in northwestern British Columbia.
As significant as is the Nisga'a treaty it is equally
significant that it has been achieved within Canada's existing
constitutional framework. It does not directly or indirectly
change the constitution. Nor is a constitutional amendment
necessary to bring the treaty into effect. The Nisga'a treaty is
a practical arrangement that defines the rights the Nisga'a
people will exercise under section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982. Although rights will be protected under section 35 it does
not mean they are absolute. The courts have confirmed that those
rights may be infringed where proper justification exists.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of
the Nisga'a government envisioned by the treaty. Quite simply
the Nisga'a government will be a democratic government for the
Nisga'a community. It will work to protect Nisga'a language,
culture and property and to promote the future prosperity and
well-being of the Nisga'a people. It will give the Nisga'a the
control over their own lives and destinies that most of us have
long taken for granted.
The treaty does not create an order of government apart from
Canadian law and society. Let me be clear about this. The
charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the
Nisga'a people.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Let me see if I can say that again.
The charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the
Nisga'a people, the Nisga'a government and all people living on
Nisga'a land. The charter will apply to all actions taken by the
Nisga'a government, including when it can make laws and take
decisions such as issuing permits and licences. The Nisga'a
government will only be able to enact laws that are consistent
with the charter of rights and freedoms.
Not only will the charter continue to apply. Nothing in the
treaty takes away from federal or provincial authority under the
constitution and the sovereignty of the crown is clearly
acknowledged. Federal and provincial laws such as the criminal
code or B.C.'s family relations act will apply. Where the
Nisga'a government can make laws they will operate concurrently
with federal and provincial laws. There will be no areas of
exclusive Nisga'a jurisdiction.
Throughout history treaties have been used to define the
relationships people have with each other. They represent solemn
commitments. As such they cannot and must not be changed at the
whim of one party or the other.
For that reason the Nisga'a treaty and the Nisga'a final
agreement act will prevail when there is a conflict with federal
or provincial legislation. This is consistent with the
constitutional protection of treaty rights.
1045
That does not mean Nisga'a laws will necessarily prevail over
federal-provincial laws. The treaty clearly lays out the areas
in which the Nisga'a government will have the right to enact
laws. These laws will only prevail in matters internal to the
Nisga'a people, integral to their culture, and essential to the
operation of their government.
For other areas the treaty clearly spells out the rules of which
any conflict between Nisga'a laws and federal or provincial laws
will be resolved. In general, federal and provincial laws will
prevail, or the Nisga'a law will have to meet or exceed existing
federal and provincial standards in order to be valid.
As well as providing clear avenues of authority, the Nisga'a
treaty is a sensible and practical arrangement that will provide
for the political, legal and financial accountability of the
Nisga'a government. The treaty, its related fiscal financing
agreement and the Nisga'a constitution all contain provisions to
provide that the Nisga'a government will be accountable to its
members and to the governments from which it will derive some of
its funding.
The Nisga'a government will be required to prepare and provide
audited financial statements to its members and to Canada and
British Columbia. These statements must meet generally accepted
accounting standards and any funding provided by Canada will be
subject to review by the auditor general. This standard of
accountability has been embraced by the Nisga'a leadership.
Beyond any government's moral obligation to be accountable to
those it represents, obviously there is a practical reality.
The modern self-government arrangements in the Nisga'a treaty
clarify the responsibility for land management for all those who
do business with the Nisga'a government and for those who live on
Nisga'a lands. In order for the Nisga'a to attract economic
development, their laws and decisions will have to be open and
transparent with their administrative policies and review and
appeal procedures both clear and fair.
While the Nisga'a government will be unique to the Nisga'a
people, it will operate under principles of democratic,
representative and accountable public administration common to
other local and regional governments throughout Canada.
We should be proud that this treaty finally sets out the rights
of the Nisga'a people. We should be no less proud, however, of
the measures it takes to reconcile Nisga'a rights with the rights
of others. The treaty protects the rights of other aboriginal
people and the rights of non-Nisga'a individuals who reside on
Nisga'a lands.
If the treaty were found to adversely affect an aboriginal right
of another first nation, it will be read down to accommodate that
first nation's rights. The parties would be obliged to make best
efforts to amend the treaty in order to remedy the situation.
For non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands, the treaty contains far
stronger protection of their rights than the existing Indian Act.
Those individuals will continue to enjoy the right to vote in
federal, provincial and regional district elections. They will
also have the right to vote for, or become members of, elected
Nisga'a public institutions, such as school boards and health
boards.
The treaty also provides that non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a
lands will have the right to be consulted about all decisions
that might directly and significantly affect them. The Nisga'a
government will have a duty and an obligation to give their views
full and fair consideration. Like Nisga'a citizens, non-Nisga'a
people will have full access to procedures allowing them to
appeal administrative decisions of the Nisga'a government,
including judicial review.
Throughout the negotiations leading up to the treaty, all
parties were very mindful of the rights and interests of others.
For example, people who are not Nisga'a citizens but reside on
Nisga'a lands may very well benefit from services provided by the
Nisga'a government.
However, they will not be subject to taxation by the Nisga'a
government.
1050
The Canadian public will continue to enjoy reasonable access to
Nisga'a lands for recreation and other non-commercial purposes.
Access required to construct and operate licensed water supplies
is protected, and the Nisga'a water reservation, amounting to
only 1% of the Nass River flow, leaves ample volume for other
uses which may be required in the future.
These are but a few of the many ways in which the Nisga'a treaty
protects and respects the rights of others. This protection I
should emphasize is not available under the Indian Act.
The Nisga'a treaty is a complex and carefully balanced
agreement. If any of my colleagues have yet to read the text, I
urge them to do so in order to see the extent to which the
concerns and aspirations of all Canadians have been addressed.
Anyone taking the time to do so will realize that, as with all
negotiations, there has been give and take by all parties,
including the Nisga'a.
One is in the area of taxation. Once the treaty is ratified the
Nisga'a will enter an eight year period to phase out exemptions
from sales tax and a 12 year period to phase out exemptions from
income tax. At the end of the phase-out periods the Nisga'a
people will pay taxes the same way that other Canadians do.
The Nisga'a will also undertake a share of the responsibility of
funding their government. The reliance of the Nisga'a people on
transfers will be reduced over time and it will contribute to the
cost of programs and services through the operation of an own
source revenue agreement.
The more that people actually learn about this agreement, the
stronger their support for it becomes. I am certain other
members will expand on areas of the treaty that are of particular
interest to them. However, I would encourage members to bear in
mind how historically and symbolically significant this debate
is. In many ways this debate is about how we as Canadians see
ourselves and our country. The fact that we have a treaty to
debate is a testament to the spirit and intent of “Gathering
Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” in which we committed
to address the needs of communities by building a real
partnership with aboriginal people.
We would not be at this point today if Canadians had not made it
clear to us that it is high time we resolved the unfinished
business of the past in order to move into the future. At the
same time, while the Nisga'a people will never forget what they
have endured, they have come to know a different Canada in recent
generations. It is a Canada that respects and embraces people of
all heritages, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal; a Canada
that is grateful for the contribution aboriginal people have made
and will continue to make; a Canada that is committed to
reconciliation and renewal; and a Canada that knows its strength
lies in the ability to forge partnerships among all those living
within its borders.
The Nisga'a treaty says a great deal about how far Canada has
come over the last century and our limitless potential to go even
further in the future. It is a significant step in the path
toward a better Canada. It is fitting that we are poised to
ratify the treaty during the United Nations decade of the world's
indigenous people. What better way to mark that occasion than a
treaty that has become an example to nations around the world and
a sign of hope to indigenous people in Canada and abroad.
In closing I would like to once again quote Dr. Joe Gosnell:
“Now it is time to ratify the Nisga'a treaty for aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people to come together and write a new chapter in
the history of our nation, our country and indeed the world”.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Given the importance of this issue to Canadians and given the
need to clarify some of the comments that the minister made in
his opening remarks on this legislation, I wonder if I might ask
the House and indeed the minister if we could have unanimous
consent to have a 15 minute question and comment session.
1055
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have 15
minutes of questions and comments on the minister's speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to
the Nisga'a final agreement. In doing so I want to assure the
Nisga'a people, the people of British Columbia and the people of
Canada that our sole interest in the debate on this bill is to
establish a new and better future for the Nisga'a people in
relationship with each other and other Canadians.
We understand that after years and years of negotiation within a
framework dictated by the Indian Act but controlled by the
federal government and Indian affairs, most Nisga'a leaders feel
they have no alternative but this agreement and the principles on
which it is based. For them it is this or nothing. We understand
that. We understand why they have to support it.
The official opposition is not in the same position. We will
oppose this bill because we do not believe the agreement to which
it gives effect is in the long range interests of the Nisga'a
people, the long range interests of the people of British
Columbia or the interests of the people of Canada.
My colleague, the member for Skeena and other official
opposition members will present the evidence and the reasons
behind our convictions. The House should pay particular attention
to the perspective of the member for Skeena because he is not
only the member of parliament for 2,300 Nisga'a people but is
also the member of parliament for 20,500 other aboriginals in his
riding and 62,500 non-aboriginals all affected by this bill.
The member has had intimate contact with these people to a far
greater degree than the rookie minister. It is the people in the
member's constituency who will have to live with the immediate
and practical consequences of the Nisga'a final agreement and so
we should pay particular attention to what he has to say. His
speech was not written by departmental officials. It will have
been written by himself out of his own experiences.
Members of this House should also recognize that the NDP
Government of British Columbia that has supported this agreement
is to all intents and purposes on its way out of office. It is in
extreme disfavour with the people of British Columbia. I suggest
that its continued support of this bill and agreement should be
severely discounted because of that fact. We should recognize
that British Columbia will no doubt soon have another provincial
government whose members will oppose this agreement, both in the
legislature and in the courts.
I am also hopeful that by the time this debate is over,
Canadians in all parts of Canada and members of parliament
representing all parts of Canada will understand that this bill
and the agreement to which it gives effect have ramifications for
them. In our judgment many of those impacts are negative. The
fiscal impacts will be negative. The resource management impacts
will be negative, like those of the Marshall case, and the impact
on aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations will be negative.
This is not simply a bill or an agreement affecting a particular
group of aboriginal people in British Columbia. It is a bill and
an agreement with ramifications for all of British Columbia and
for all of Canada. For that reason we are pleased to see the
attention and scrutiny that the national media and media in
different parts of the country are giving this bill and agreement
because it will have effects far beyond the Nass Valley and
British Columbia.
The agreement we have before us is an arrangement providing for
the government of the Nisga'a people, the government of their
local economy and the government of their relations with each
other and with non-aboriginals. The purpose of my comments this
morning will be to make two main points.
The first point is that the whole underlying approach to
aboriginal government and economic development in this country
and ratified by this bill is wrong. The whole approach that is
taken and the underlying principles are defective and will not
lead to the desired ends. This we intend to demonstrate in
concrete ways.
1100
My second point is that an entirely different approach to
aboriginal self-government and economic development based on
better principles is desperately needed for the 21st century, and
that alternative approach we will attempt to describe.
Let me start by making the case that the bill and the agreement
it reflects are based on the wrong approach. Surely there is no
one in parliament with the nerve to say that the approach the
Government of Canada has taken to aboriginal people in the 20th
century has been a success. No one believes that. It is the
reason for embarrassment on the part of Canadians when we raise
the subject because they know that something is terribly wrong.
Surely there is no one here who is proud of the old treaty system
or how it was arrived at, if we study how those treaties were
arrived at.
Is there anyone here who would defend the reserve system as a
great social invention of the 20th century that was a smashing
success for aboriginal people? Is there anyone here who would
defend the Indian Act? Is there any member in the House who
would stand today if the Indian Act did not exist and move that
it be adopted by parliament as a statement of our approach for
the 21st century? I do not think there is a single member
regardless of party who is proud of the system, the approach and
the track record of the poverty, family breakdown, violence,
illness, shortened lifespans and the despair that system has
produced for thousands and thousands of people.
The unemployment, mortality, illiteracy, suicide and
incarceration rates on reserves among aboriginal people,
particularly young people, are the consequences. This is the
legacy of a 130 year old system for dealing with aboriginal
people in this country. It was established and mismanaged over
the century by successive Liberal and Tory governments.
Of course there are exceptions. There are bands which have been
able to raise their standards of living and which have succeeded
in various economic enterprises and undertakings. There are
bands and aboriginal leaders who have improved services for their
people and who do run responsible and accountable governments.
There are individual aboriginals who make remarkable
accomplishments in the arts, business, sport and other fields of
endeavour, but it is sad to say these are the exception rather
than the rule. What they have achieved has often been achieved
in spite of the system, not because of the system.
I find some of the accomplishments of these people amazing
because of the obstacles they have had to encounter at every step
of their career from childhood to their successes. If the Indian
Act did not exist, would anyone in their right mind get up in the
House and introduce it today as a framework or solution for
anything? If the reserve system did not exist, would anyone in
their right mind in the House get up and propose it as a
solution? No, because the system does not work and is going from
bad to worse. It is defective in principle.
I will describe the three greatest defects in the system. The
first is that the current approach grants special status to
aboriginals based on race. That is what status Indian means and
it is defined in a statute supposedly approved by parliament.
The status provided by the Indian Act is not privileged status.
It is far from it. That status denies aboriginals many of the
political and economic tools available to other Canadians, from
responsible self-government to all the tools of the marketplace
and private enterprise for economic development. That status in
essence denies aboriginal people access to tools that the vast
majority of Canadians take for granted. That status builds
barriers rather than bridges between aboriginals and the rest of
the Canadian community.
The second defect of the current approach is that it provides
for undemocratic and unaccountable governments. The current
approach to aboriginal political development fails to demand or
to provide for genuine fiscal and democratic accountability from
local aboriginal governments.
How did the people of Britain get democratic government? How
did the people of upper and lower Canada get responsible
government 150 years ago? They got it by controlling the
pursestrings. Yet under the system created and managed by the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development local
aboriginal governments get their money not from the people to
whom they should be accountable but from the government and
Indian affairs.
Therefore aboriginal people do not have the most elementary grip
on their own governmental institutions because of the way they
are funded.
1105
I do not need to get into the examples which abound on every
hand. They are in the report of the auditor general. There are
in the newspapers every year examples of fiscal and electoral
abuse on reserves. The federal government has failed to provide
responsible government for aboriginals in either the fiscal or
democratic sense at the local level.
There are signs of change. There is a grassroots movement
starting among ordinary aboriginals demanding fiscal and
democratic accountability from their governments and from Indian
affairs. So far their voice has been largely unheeded and I see
no reflection of their concerns in the agreement we are being
asked to pass this week.
The third big defect in the approach that has been taken in the
past with respect to aboriginal economic development, and that is
perpetuated by the bill, is that it is based largely on socialist
economics, collective ownership of land and resources, government
ownership of land and resources, and excessive regulation of
every economic activity.
There is an absence on reserves of the most basic of property
rights. There is an absence of contract rights. There is an
absence of free markets in housing, labour and capital. The
tragedy of the current approach is that to succeed economically
many aboriginal people have had to leave the reserve in order to
get the tools that other Canadians take for granted.
I spent 20 years in the management consulting business. One of
my areas of business was trying to facilitate relationships
between aboriginal business people and oil and gas companies. I
could tell the House story after story of aboriginal
entrepreneurs who had all the smarts to make it in business and
had to go through hurdles to try to base their business off
reserve: the simple business of being able to get capital and
being unable to secure a loan by offering their property because
if it was on reserve the bank would not accept it as security, a
simple thing like that.
How many small business people in the country got their start by
pledging the little assets they had behind some loan to undertake
some economic venture? That simple tool which has probably been
responsible for starting the majority of small businesses in the
country was denied to native entrepreneurs because of the system.
Where has all this led? Where have special status,
unaccountable governance and socialist economics led? Has it led
to peace, order, prosperity and good government for aboriginal
people? No. It has led to the record of poverty, misery and
despair for thousands of aboriginals whom I have already
described. It has led to a series of land claims, court cases
and court actions that are further poisoning relations between
aboriginals and non-aboriginals from the forests and fisheries of
British Columbia and now to the east coast. In addition, the
billions of dollars that Canadians commit to Indian affairs every
year is now leading to an additional contingent liability for all
Canadians of up to $200 billion.
I saw an article in the newspaper this morning. I will read a
bit of it. Can members imagine the enthusiasm created among
investors or business people thinking of doing business in areas
contingent to aboriginal lands and treaties? It is entitled
“$200 billion price tag placed on native demands” and reads in
part:
The federal government has calculated the cost of satisfying all
aboriginal demands at $200 billion.
This figure is bigger than the entire budget of the Government
of Canada for an entire year. It continues:
The $200-billion figure is the federal government's first
official estimate at adding up the potential of giving natives
absolutely everything they are asking for. It includes
every...outstanding aboriginal claim against the government, big
or small, serious or spurious.
“There are thousands of these cases, and they are coming in
every day”, said one Finance Department official.
The staggering figure will be explained further today in the
1998-99 Public Accounts of government spending, officials said.
The article goes on to talk about the impact of the Delgamuukw
decision by the courts, in essence putting a lien on virtually
every acre of land in British Columbia. It goes on to describe
the chaos created in the east coast fishery by one supreme court
decision based on an interpretation of the faulty approach to
economic development I just described.
1110
It is the kind of article that, if read by people who are
thinking of investing or doing business with aboriginal people or
with anyone else, is a signal not to proceed rather than a signal
to proceed.
The tragedy is that all three of those defects in the approach
to aboriginal development and economic development are carried
on, perpetuated and even strengthened by this agreement. This is
not a 21st century agreement. This is the perpetuation of a 19th
century approach to aboriginal governance and economic
development that has not worked in this century and will not work
in the future.
Let me point to various parts of the Nisga'a agreement which
evidence that it is based on a 19th century approach and not a
21st century approach. Let us look first at the evidence of
special status perpetuated by the agreement rather than a move
toward equality. I will give three examples in this regard.
The first example refers to the form of government established
for Nisga'a people under the agreement. If the agreement were to
give the Nisga'a people a form of federally chartered municipal
government like the form of local government enjoyed by most
non-aboriginal Canadians, one could argue that would be a step
away from special status and a step toward equality, providing
the Nisga'a people with the same tools of local government as
other Canadians enjoy. The government itself has argued that the
Nisga'a agreement allows for municipal type self-government for
the Nisga'a people.
However I would contend this is a gross misinterpretation of the
facts, and the government knows it. What municipal government in
the country has paramount power over 14 areas of exclusive
jurisdiction and shared powers in another 16 fields of federal
and provincial jurisdiction?
Nisga'a laws according to the agreement will override provincial
and federal laws—and we must remember this is law that derives
its status from a race based approach—in the following areas:
Nisga'a citizenship; structure, administration, management and
operation of Nisga'a government; Nisga'a lands and assets;
regulation, licensing and prohibition of businesses, professions
and trades; preservation, promotion and development of Nisga'a
language and culture; direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens;
adoption, child and family services, preschool to grade 12
education and advanced education; organization and structure of
health care delivery; authorization and licensing of aboriginal
healers; Nisga'a annual fishing plans for harvest sale of fish
and aquatic plants; and a Nisga'a wildlife and migratory birds
entitlement.
Second, the taxation regime established by the agreement
perpetuates special status based on ethnicity rather than on
moving toward the tax regime to which all Canadians are subject.
It is true that within 12 years Nisga'a people will be paying
income tax like other Canadians. This is something we in the
official opposition support, but that is where the movement
toward equality in the tax regime ends. The Nisga'a government
will be exempt from a range of provincial taxes and stumpage
fees. It will not have to pay GST. Individual Nisga'a citizens
will be permanently exempt from having to hold or pay federal and
provincial licences, fees, charges and royalties on fish and
wildlife entitlements provided under the agreement.
On the surface these points may appear minor to some, but when
we remember the agreement is supposed to become the template for
50 or more agreements to come in British Columbia, the precedent
that is being set is for race based tax exemptions throughout
British Columbia and indeed throughout all Canada.
Third, I should make special mention of the commercial fishery
entitlement to the Nisga'a which will be granted for the Nass
River. This entitlement will comprise 26% of the total allowable
catch on that river. The parallels with what is happening now on
the east coast are obvious. There the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled that natives possess an unrestricted right to earn a
reasonable livelihood from fishing lobster. This decision has
led to violence between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen
and if perpetuated will lead to the destruction of the biological
base of the fishery.
The major difference between that situation and the one created
by the bill and agreement before us is that in this case the
government cannot hide behind the Supreme Court of Canada. On
the west coast, particularly in the case of the Nisga'a
agreement, the government is setting the precedent for special
race based access to the commercial fishery entirely of its own
free will.
This is a further example of the perpetuation of access to
resources based on race which can lead, as we have seen on the
east coast and we have seen with the disaster in the aboriginal
fishery on on the west coast, to nothing but conflict and
mismanagement of the resources it perpetuated into the 21st
century.
1115
Let me turn to the lack of fiscal and democratic accountability
in the agreement. The various layers of Nisga'a government, the
central Nisga'a Lisims government, four village governments and
three urban locals, will have a broad range of powers. Due to
the terms of the agreement, individual Nisga'a will be very
dependent upon this government in a variety of areas such as
housing, social assistance and employment. Indeed, most of the
employment on Nisga'a lands will either be with the Nisga'a
government or with Nisga'a government owned corporations.
While the Nisga'a leadership may be an honourable one, and I do
not dispute that and have never disputed that, the concentration
of political power in the hands of government on Nisga'a lands is
worrying partly because the government will in fact largely be
spending outside money provided by the Canadian taxpayer and
because of the precedent this arrangement sets for other treaty
settlements.
Gordon Gibson, a former advisor to Mr. Trudeau and a former
Liberal leader in the province of British Columbia, has written
“Small governments with large powers may acquire the ability to
control the citizens rather than the other way around”.
To effectively constitutionalize such an arrangement as the
Nisga'a does is a very disturbing precedent. I would suggest
that it is the rank and file of Nisga'a, it is the ordinary
aboriginal person who, from time immemorial, suffers from these
unaccountable governments that have been established under
mandates from the Government of Canada. It is not the chiefs and
councils that suffer under that system, although some do. It is
the ordinary citizen. What this treaty does is once again
concentrate power in the hands of governments on aboriginal
lands, not in the hands of the people.
As disturbing as these provisions are, they pale in comparison
to the effect section 9(k)(ii) of chapter 11. It states:
Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands are disenfranchised by this
provision. They will have no right to vote in local elections or
hold office.
In their recent agreement in principle which the federal
government signed with the Labrador Inuit, non-Inuit were at
least granted up to 25% but no more of the seats on local
councils. Even that provision has not been preserved or
perpetuated in the Nisga'a agreement.
The federal minister of Indian affairs has tried to pretend that
local elections really do not matter. He has said that
non-Nisga'a will still have the right to vote in federal and
provincial elections and have certain rights with respect to
judicial and other proceedings. So do the Musqueam leaseholders
and look what good that did them. The right to vote at the
federal and provincial level has not protected them from the
actions of the local band council which this minister of Indian
affairs so enthusiastically endorses. It is hardly surprising
that his words are of small comfort to those who are
disenfranchised.
Is it really the federal government's vision for the future of
aboriginal government across B. C. and the rest of Canada that
racially specific enclaves would exist in which one's bloodlines
determine one's right to vote? It is stunning that any
government on the threshold of the 21st century would even sign
such an agreement. It is hardly a wonder that the government
refuses to allow the people of British Columbia a chance to vote
on the agreement because it knows very well what the people of
B.C. would have said.
I might also divert for a moment to respond to a comment the
minister made in his remarks that somehow people would be
protected in the democratic and political rights sphere because
the charter of rights and freedoms will apply to Nisga'a people.
The minister is right in saying that, but he forgets that the
charter of rights and freedoms, besides defining those rights and
freedoms, also contains section 25:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to
the aboriginal peoples of Canada including—
Any rights or freedoms may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples
of Canada by way of land claim settlement.
This is also part of the charter and, I suggest, leaves a great
gap in charter protection for people subject to the agreement.
1120
Let me deal with the third defect of the current approach and
evidence of its existence in the agreement. It is the evidence
of the socialistic approach to economic development. The model of
economic development proposed in the agreement is one in which
nearly all the revenues flow from the federal and provincial
governments to the Nisga'a government. It does not flow to the
Nisga'a entrepreneurs, workers, taxpayers or citizens, it flows
to the Nisga'a government in order to generate economic activity.
Former British Columbia premier Glen Clark was quite excited as
to who would pay a major share; the Canadian taxpayer of course.
On December 14 of last year he bluntly stated that British
Columbia would be the net beneficiary of money coming in from
Ottawa. Perhaps this would explain his enthusiasm for this. It
had nothing to do with the Nisga'a people. It had something to
do with the $200 million injection from Ottawa; over $200 million
for the Nisga'a treaty alone coming in from taxpayers outside of
British Columbia.
Not only will the revenues be flowing in from outside, it will
be flowing through the Nisga'a government. All of the nearly
2,000 square kilometres of Nisga'a territory will be collectively
owned by the government in fee simple. It is the Nisga'a
government that will decide which lands, if any, will be sold,
leased or held as private property by Nisga'a or non-Nisga'a
citizens.
The treaty thus bypasses the individual and concentrates
economic and political power in the hands of the Nisga'a
government. In effect, the Nisga'a deal enshrines one of the
worst aspects of the reserve system and does it in a so-called
modern treaty.
Let me speak for a minute on the responsibility for these
defects. Anyone who is looking for a 21st century approach to
aboriginal government and economic development, and given the
track record of the country in this century, would wonder how on
earth these defects, which everyone knows about and no one on
either side of the House would defend, got into the treaty.
First of all, it is certainly not the Nisga'a's fault. The
Nisga'a have never been offered any other approach in these years
and years of negotiations because their negotiations are with the
department whose philosophy contains these three defects that I
have mentioned.
This approach comes from this and past parliaments, from the
federal government and the department of Indian affairs. It
comes from and is reinforced by a swarm of bureaucrats,
politicians, consultants and interest groups with a vested
interest in the status quo, even though the status quo does not
work for aboriginals, for British Columbians or for Canada.
After spending time in the consulting business and getting
involved in the area of native economic development, I knew there
was a cloud of consultants and lawyers from Edmonton and Calgary
who lived off the system like parasites. They had no interest at
all in the economic well-being of aboriginals. They had a
checklist of who the band manager and chiefs were. When they got
booted out of one place for corruption they would go to the next
one. They lived off that system. Those are the types of sick
people who want to perpetuate the system. There are far too many
of them still active and influential on the government today.
Why does parliament not acknowledge these defects I have talked
about and start anew? Why did the government not do that when
it had a chance with Nisga'a? I would like to tell the House
why. For the Liberals to do so would be to admit that they have
been on the wrong track for almost 130 years.
One of the things that is very hard for us proud, egocentric
politicians to do is to admit that we were wrong, in particular
when we have made decision after decision that perpetuates the
wrong original decision.
The one bright light—and I remember reading this 30 years
ago—that might have led in a different direction was when Mr.
Trudeau in 1968 recognized this defect, in particular where
special status based on rights led. He made an attempt to depart
from that when the current Prime Minister was his minister of
Indian affairs.
Let me just take a minute to read a couple of things that Mr.
Trudeau said back in 1969. He said:
1125
This is what this treaty does.
In 1968 in the House he said:
There is a long term intention on the part of the government—and
this to be debated, I suppose, as part of our Indian policy—to
arrive eventually at a situation where Indians will be treated
like other Canadian citizens of the particular province in which
they happen to be.
He went on to say “We do not think that there are different
categories of Canadians. We believe that all Canadians should be
equal”. We get castigated in the House for talking about the
equality of all Canadians under the law. This is the former
prime minister, a more influential Liberal than any of the ones
we see across from us today.
Mr. Pierre Trudeau, in the House of Commons on April 30, 1982,
said “We believe that all Canadians should be equal and it would
be desirable to define rights in a way which does not distinguish
between ethnic groups”.
Let me quote a little from the current Prime Minister. Some
members in the House will recall that the current Prime
Minister's first portfolio was minister of Indian affairs. He
was there at the time Mr. Trudeau was articulating this doctrine
of equality. He was the one who brought forward the so-called
“red paper” that contained that statement, an attempt to go in
a different direction.
At that time—and I have to assume that the Prime Minister was
speaking from his own perspective, not just reflecting the words
of Mr. Trudeau—these are things he said “Special treatment has
made the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart. Obviously,
the course of history must be changed”.
In the House of Commons in 1969 he said:
For many Indian people, the road does exist, the only road that
has existed since Confederation and before: the road of
different status, a road which has led—
Where did the Prime Minister say the road to different status
led? He said:
—to a blind alley of deprivation and frustration. This
road...cannot lead to full participation, to equality in practice
as well as in theory...the government will offer another road
that would gradually lead away from different status to full
social, economic and political participation in Canadian life.
This is the choice.
What happened between 1968 and 1999? The Prime Minister knows
in his heart that the current system does not work and
desperately needs to be fixed. He knew in 1968 and must realize
more pointedly today that it is failing the very aboriginal
Canadians who he obviously cares a lot about. He took an
aboriginal boy into his own family. I think his heart was where
that was. It was not just a policy decision. Does he not lie
awake at nights regretting that he did not more vigorously pursue
equality when he had the chance in the 1960s, or wonder whether
it was too late to find a solution?
It is not too late but the time is shorter than it was 30 years
ago. As with the national debt, the first rule for getting out
of a hole is to stop digging. If we want to start on the road to
equality, the first step is to stop discriminating, which is what
this does.
The Nisga'a agreement was the opportunity to take that other
road, but apparently the Liberal government is too rooted in the
past and the status quo to provide the leadership required.
Let me turn to the other groups in the House and perhaps some of
their reasons for supporting this agreement. The Bloc will not
protest the bill because it provides a form of sovereignty
association for an aboriginal group in British Columbia. The
Bloc sees the principle of sovereignty association as a stepping
stone toward its ultimate objectives for Quebec. The document,
therefore, just incidentally, is diametrically opposite to the
position the government takes when someone argues for special
status for Quebec.
The NDP will not protest the bill because many of its members,
in their hearts, are still committed to socialist economics.
Even though socialist economics have been abandoned by most
developed and developing countries around the world, the NDP
still clings to it and seems to think that the only place
socialism still exists in the 21st century is on Indian reserves;
that this is some kind of progress.
The only party whose position I find inexplicable on this
subject is the Progressive Conservatives.
It is true that the Tories are as much to blame for the current
system as the Liberals due to their early complicity in the
treaties and the establishment of the reserve system.
1130
But this bill and agreement was a chance to abandon all that
baggage. No one in the House would have castigated the Tories if
they had got up and said, “We were part of the early treaty
system and the reserve system and the Indian Act. We thought,
our forefathers thought, it was the right thing to do”. If they
had stood up and said, “It obviously was wrong and the
principles of it were wrong; we are going to acknowledge the
wrong and we are going to go with a new route”, no one in the
House would have catcalled or hooted. In fact we would have
stood up and applauded, but they have not done that.
The Tories ought to reject the sovereignty association features
and socialistic features of this treaty because it is contrary to
their own principles, for example the creation of another race
based aboriginal fishery, because that is already creating
horrendous difficulties in Atlantic Canada where the majority of
PC members are from. We would think that the warning bells would
be going off all over. But the PCs in the House apparently have
decided to support the bill despite all of that.
Fortunately the official opposition is not subject to any of
these conflicts or restrictions. We are not responsible for the
present approach. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. We
were not on the scene. We are free therefore to criticize it and
to pursue alternatives.
We do not believe in special status for anyone and we never
have. We argued that in the big constitutional debate. We do not
believe in special status for English or French. We do not
believe in special status for aboriginals. We do not believe in
race based status of any kind. It is a formula for disaster.
We do not believe in socialism. We understand why the prairies
embraced agrarian socialism in the depth of the depression. We
understand that. We do not criticize it. But we do not believe
in it. We do not believe it is the economic instrument of today.
If we are trying to develop economies today, the last thing we
would do is offer people collective ownership, state owned
enterprise and that approach to economic development.
I might also add we just happen to represent the majority of
federal ridings in British Columbia. So do not let anyone think
that there are not a lot of people out there who agree with the
position that we are stating.
The official opposition is therefore in a position to dissociate
ourselves from the old approach. We want nothing to do with it.
We want nothing to do with the Indian Act except to repeal it
over time. We want nothing to do with the department of Indian
affairs except to dismantle it over time and transfer its
functions and funding responsibility to accountable aboriginal
governments.
We want nothing to do with the traditional approach to treaty
making. We do not want our name connected with it for historical
or political reasons. It has been nothing but a disaster for
aboriginals and an embarrassment to non-aboriginals, as it should
be.
Reformers are therefore in a position to explore and offer an
entirely different approach to aboriginal government and economic
development based on different and better principles for the 21st
century, better principles than those found in this agreement.
That is what I would now like to do.
The first principle that we believe should govern our
development of a new relationship with aboriginal people is the
principle of equality of all Canadians in law. In place of
special status and entitlement based on race, we offer equality
of all Canadians in law as the guiding principle.
For further clarity, and we never pretend that it is easy to get
there from where we are, the aim is one law for aboriginals and
non-aboriginals alike. To illustrate at a more practical level,
there would be one law for fishery and resource development, not
one set of laws for aboriginals and another set for
non-aboriginals.
Let me answer two objections that often come in comments from
across the way to this commitment to equality.
The first objection from some of our friends that do not think
this through very carefully is to say that the equality approach
fails to acknowledge, recognize or provide for uniqueness. Some
of the Liberals say, “You cannot treat people equally in law
because they are not the same”.
The way we answer that is to give everyone the same rights,
entitlements and powers in law but give them the freedom to use
them differently. It is possible to treat everyone equally in
law and still allow people to exercise those rights in different
ways to give expression to their uniqueness and diversity,
whatever it may be.
This is precisely the point that the premiers addressed in the
Calgary declaration.
They wanted to affirm the principle of equality in law and
equality of the provinces. They wanted to give some recognition
to the uniqueness of Quebec. How did they say we do that? We do
it by giving everybody the same powers.
1135
There is nothing wrong with the fact that Quebec uses those
powers to build a different house than Alberta or Nova Scotia.
That is how we preserve the diversity of the country. But we do
not preserve it by giving different powers to different
jurisdictions. That is why they argued that any power given to
any jurisdiction ought to be given to everyone. We can answer
that objection that somehow equality suppresses diversity,
whether it is in Canada as a whole or among aboriginal people.
Another objection to the equality approach made by Liberal
members is that it will not allow them to give special help to
people who need special help. If we are going to treat everyone
equally, we cannot give special help to someone without giving it
to everyone and not everyone needs it. We either perpetuate the
inequality or we do nothing. There is a false premise in that.
Equality does allow for special help. All we have to do is make
sure that the entitlement to the help is not tied to things like
race, culture, language or religion.
For example, suppose we all agreed in this House that a large
number of people in northern British Columbia needed special help
in education. Let us say that we discovered a large number of
people with less than a grade 10 education. It is very hard to
make one's way in the modern knowledge based economy without
getting to that first rung which is a good basic education. A
large number of people all across our country still do not have a
good education.
Suppose we agreed among ourselves that we wanted to give special
help to people who are educationally disadvantaged. This is
basically in the provincial area but suppose there was
co-operation, we could devise between the provinces and the
federal government a program that gave special help. Everyone
who has less than a grade 10 education would qualify for this
service, but we would not tie that special help for a grade 10
education to a person's race. We would offer it to everyone. In
northern British Columbia or northern Alberta the majority of the
people in that program might be aboriginal, but they would be in
that program because of the need. They would have responded to
it because of the need, not because of their race.
Someone will say that from an aboriginal standpoint it does not
matter. Either way aboriginals get special help. I will tell
members where it does matter. If we want to get the support of
that program from the entire community, it has to be available to
everybody. A non-aboriginal could ask, “What is this special
program for helping the educationally disadvantaged aboriginal
people? I see that three-quarters of the people are from that
community. Are they being given some special consideration?”
We would say, “No. Anyone who has less than a grade 10
education will qualify for this program just the same as the
others”. The equality approach is useful not just for
addressing special needs but for getting community support from
the others by treating everyone fairly.
We acknowledge that the mistakes of our ancestors, for example
the old race based treaties, complicate achieving the goal of
equality because we have made certain commitments to people based
on race. Where rights have been granted on the basis of race and
now conflict with the rights of other Canadians or sound resource
management or whatever, they should be acknowledged and we should
at least offer compensation for voluntary extinguishment. We
should move in that direction rather than perpetuate it.
How tragic it is that the federal government has missed the
opportunity to pursue this alternative approach based on
equality.
British Columbia is the one part of the country where
aboriginals are not subject yet to the weaknesses of the old
treaty system. As members know there never was a treaty
negotiated with aboriginal people in British Columbia. There was
a chance in B.C. above all other places to go down the other
route. What does the federal government do? Rather than go down
the new route, rather than even experiment with it, the
government takes the system that has not worked in every other
part of the country and jams it on British Columbia. I find it
inexplicable.
Let me turn to the second principle we think should govern a
modern arrangement with aboriginals. Instead of accepting the
current defective system of aboriginal government and its
relationships with the department of Indian affairs, we believe
we should institute this principle. All Canadians, including
aboriginal people, are entitled to the services of local
governments which are fiscally and democratically accountable to
the people they serve.
Who would have thought that in the last year of the 20th century
someone would have to stand in this House and press the argument
of the entitlement of some Canadian citizens to responsible
government, something that the rest of us have enjoyed for 150
years?
1140
Where does affirming this principle lead? It leads to doing away
with the department of Indian affairs and eventually transferring
its functions and funding responsibilities to local and
accountable aboriginal governments. But there is one catch, and
it is a catch in here for the benefit of aboriginal people:
local and aboriginal governments that are fiscally and
democratically accountable to their own people.
I say to aboriginal people when I discuss doing away with the
department of Indian affairs that what will govern the rate of
that will be the rate at which fiscally and democratically
accountable local governments can be established. The sooner
they are established, the more quickly the power and the funding
can be transferred. The slower we are in establishing those
governments at the local level, the slower the process will be,
because their own people do not trust an unaccountable government
whether it is aboriginal or not.
This leads us to propose reforms in the procedures and processes
for the election of local aboriginal governments on reserves,
including making available the services of Elections Canada to
deal with allegations of vote rigging and intimidation on
reserves.
This leads us to propose the reform of fiscal accounting
procedures for local aboriginal governments, including the
provision of the services of the Auditor General of Canada to
ensure fiscal responsibility.
We propose a third thing. This point to be made in principle is
difficult to implement, but I think we should pursue it. It is
the direction of a greater portion of the department of Indian
affairs funding directly to aboriginal persons on reserves so
that local aboriginal governments have to tax it from their own
people in order to get access. That would put the purse strings
of the local aboriginal government in the hands of the people to
whom that government should be accountable.
Application of this principle of fiscal and democratic
accountability to relations between aboriginals and
non-aboriginals also means doing away with the tortuous, closed
door, conflict of interest ridden approach to the negotiation of
settlement of land claims and local aboriginal agreements
employed unfortunately in the development of this agreement.
Those processes would be replaced with an open, transparent
negotiating process in which all interests are appropriately
represented and which Indian affairs is not put in a conflict of
interest situation.
How can Indian Affairs go into these negotiations, profess on
the one hand to be discharging a fiduciary responsibility to the
aboriginal people and claim to be representing the fiduciary
interests of other Canadians who have a different interest? We
cannot do that. When we ask people to do that, we end up with
defective agreements, particularly ones where people will
question the integrity.
I want to note that because of this defect, because this
agreement is the product of a long, closed door, top down,
conflict of interest ridden process, that is why it ultimately
will not carry the judgment of the majority of the people of
British Columbia. Those who watch polls, and we politicians
study the polls, will notice that the support for the Nisga'a
agreement in British Columbia is on exactly the same trajectory
for precisely the same reasons that the Meech Lake accord became
unacceptable in that province.
Members will recall when this agreement was announced, and when
Meech Lake was announced incidentally, with all the public
relations and all the press releases and the minister giving
grand statements et cetera, public support started out in excess
of 60% in favour, 40% against. There was 60% in favour because a
lot of people did not know about it, but the rest were against.
In March a survey by Feedback Research Corporation showed it down
to 42% in favour, 32% opposed and 36% only vaguely familiar. In
August 1999 a poll conducted by Market Trends Research showed 45%
opposed, 36% in support and 12% undecided. It is on that same
downward trajectory as Meech, which started at 60%, 65% and ended
up being voted down. Why? For the same reason that Meech was
rejected, the top down, closed door approach. People do not
trust what goes on behind closed doors, particularly if they
think political people are involved unfortunately.
The more the public finds out about the content of these
agreements the more it is the same as happened with Meech. When
it was just a press release they thought it sounded good, but as
people find out what is actually in it, they become less
supportive rather than more supportive.
1145
The refusal of the provincial or federal governments to allow
the people of British Columbia to voice their approval or
disapproval for this agreement, Canadians being what they are
when told they will not have a voice, results in the net effect
of increasing their opposition to whatever is wanted, not
decreasing it.
For the minister to make statements that it is too complicated
for the people of British Columbia to understand is an insult to
the electorate. The Nisga'a people had a referendum on it and
presumably understood it. I compliment the Nisga'a people on the
effort they went through to try to inform their own people.
The minister says the Nisga'a people can understand it with the
educational effort made, but the rest of the people of British
Columbia cannot understand it so they cannot be given a chance to
say it. That is the way to generate opposition to the agreement.
I will now address the third principle that we believe should be
incorporated into a new approach to aboriginal economic
development. Rather than offering the Nisga'a or any aboriginal
band the outmoded, discredited tools of collective ownership of
property, centralized government planning, government ownership
and excessive regulation, we should begin to find ways and means
of adapting private enterprise and market based tools of economic
development to the needs of aboriginal people. That means
finding a way to establish private property and contract rights
on reserves. That would do more to stimulate economic
development than all of the collectivism in the agreement put
together. We should start to develop real housing and labour
markets on reserves, including equal economic rights for men and
women.
The government professes to be passionately concerned about
equality of economic rights for men and women in the federal
public service. Why does it not look at the reserves that are
under its jurisdiction by virtue of the Indian Act? No one
disputes its jurisdiction. There is more discrepancy in economic
and civil rights between men and women there than anything to be
found in the civil service, no matter how bad it is.
The government seems passionately concerned about that principle
when it is applied to non-aboriginals. It does not seem to be
very interested in that principle when it applies to aboriginals.
The government should look at the removal of trade and
regulatory barriers for aboriginal business people rather than
erecting more.
Bill C-9 is riddled with references to regulatory powers or the
right to establish regulatory powers. Have we not learned in our
own experience with economic development that government
regulation kills economic enterprise? Excessive regulation kills
even more enterprise. There is no recognition of that in this
agreement whatever.
What has to be done? No one has all the answers, but surely we
have to start down the road, which this bill does not. The bill
and the agreement to which it gives effect make the same mistake
as Indian affairs made on the prairies when it decided that
aboriginals would be turned into farmers. What did it do? It
gave them horses at the same time that non-aboriginals were
getting tractors. It gave them the technology of the previous
generation. That is exactly what this agreement is doing.
I will touch on accountability for this bill and the Nisga'a
agreement. We in the official opposition recognize that we
cannot by ourselves bring the principle of equality under the
law, fiscal and democratic accountability, private enterprise and
free markets to bear on aboriginal government and aboriginal
economic development. That would require a majority in the House
committed to such principles and there is obviously not such a
majority.
What we can do is advance the principle of accountability for
aboriginal government and economic development at least one step
in relation to this bill and the agreement it represents. The
vote on this bill will force MPs to declare whether they are on
the side of perpetuating the 19th century approach that does not
work or whether they are searching for a 21st century
alternative.
The editorial comments on this bill will tell the public on
which side the commentators and editorialists are. No one, except
maybe historians, remembers who was responsible for those
original treaties which do not work. Who was responsible for the
original reserve system which did not work? Who really created
that residential school system which everyone now recognizes may
have been well intended but did not work? Nobody can remember
who it was. The historians know, but it has all faded into the
past.
However, in this information age, an age of full disclosure, we
can ensure that the names of those who perpetuate that system
will be known far and wide. They will be known in every
aboriginal community. They will be known in every community in
Canada and they will be held accountable for that decision.
1150
I should note that the public will be especially watching the
votes of seven Liberal MPs from British Columbia: the hon.
member for Victoria, the hon. member for Richmond, the hon.
member for Vancouver South—Burnaby, the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
In those ridings I believe a majority of people would support
the argument that we have made here. These members are going to
have to decide, and I know that Liberals hate this kind of
dilemma, whether they represent their constituents in this House
on a fundamentally important principle or whether they toe the
party line and line up behind 19th century approaches to
aboriginal development. We will be watching and we will make
sure that every voter in that riding knows whether their member
is on the side of the 19th century or the 21st century.
I want to conclude by telling the House a story. I have not had
a lot of close aboriginal friends. I have had some, most of whom
have been in the business community. The best aboriginal friend
I ever had was a woman named Ernestine Gibot. She was a
Chippewyan Indian who lived the first 45 years of her life in the
northern part of Alberta, west of Fort McMurray. She made a life
trapping and living the old way. She suffered all of the things
that aboriginal women and aboriginal people in general can suffer
in those communities. I could keep the House here for a long
time listing all of the things that she suffered.
One day, for some reason, and I have no idea why she did this,
she walked out of the bush of northern Alberta. She was in her
forties and had decided that she was going to start a new life
and get a job. She went to Edmonton. She went around and around
in circles, through the social programs, the help agencies and
all the program places in Edmonton for seven years until she
finally actually did get a genuine job. I could tell the story
of all that but it would take too long.
I got to know her because I was doing some consulting for the
Esso heavy oil plant at Cold Lake. As some members from Alberta
will know, there is a Chippewyan band right next to that plant.
We were doing socio-economic impact studies. I knew a fair
amount about Cree, Woods Cree and Prairie Cree, but not a lot
about Chippewyan people and I happened to mention to somebody
that I was looking for somebody who could counsel and educate me
on the ways of the Chippewyan people.
A social worker in Edmonton who knew about that brought
Ernestine Gibot to my office. She told me her story. She told
me that she was unemployed. I said to her that when we white
people are unemployed we do not go around telling people that, we
print up little cards that say consultant. We look very busy and
we hand these cards out. Lo and behold, after a while someone
actually gives us work. She said that she did not think that
would work but we could try it. We printed up these cards that
said “Ernestine Gibot, Consulting Services”. I gave myself as
a reference because she was giving me consulting services. She
handed these cards out.
She could speak English, Cree, Slavey and Chippewyan. She used
to go to hospitals because she knew they needed translating
services. She would visit aboriginal people. She would hand out
these cards. Somebody picked up this card and said that there
was a position with the Edmonton Public School Board in native
studies that she should go to look at. Maybe the board could use
her. One thing led to another and, lo and behold, she got a job.
I was so impressed with her story that I made it a point to
study how she got from the bush to that first job. At that time
I was co-ordinating an economic discussion group that included
representatives, some pretty hard-boiled fellows, from about 15
oil companies, but they had a heart for native aboriginal
development. The group used to meet once a quarter to see if
there was anything it could do to create more jobs or
opportunities for aboriginal people.
On behalf of this group I said that I was going to study how
Ernestine got from the bush in northern Alberta to that first job
because maybe there were some lessons in it for us. I traced her
steps from agency to agency, from doctor to social worker, to
priest, to consultant, around and around the maze that included
maybe 50 or 60 contacts with organizations, et cetera.
The thing I discovered was that she got help along the way. If
she had not been in the system that I have described she might
not have met these people, but in virtually every case the person
who helped her had to step outside the box defined by the
aboriginal Indian affairs system in order to help.
The Indian affairs doctor who told her to get out of the north
said that it was not his job to tell her where to live, but he
was going to take off his Indian affairs doctor hat and talk to
her as a friend. He told her to get out of there or she would be
dead within a year.
1155
The priest that she went to said: “I am supposed to uphold the
sanctity of marriage and I cannot tell you to leave your husband
who has been very abusive to you, but I am taking off my priest's
hat and I am telling you to get out of where you are because you
will be dead in a year”. He had to step outside the box in
order to give her that kind of help.
Then there was the social worker who eventually brought her to
me. She was supposed to take people around to these make work
projects created by the government. That was her job. She was
not supposed to talk to consultants doing business with the evil
oil industry, but she stepped outside that box because she really
wanted to help.
To make a long story short, if members want to read the story of
Ernestine Gibot, it was written up in the October 1984 edition of
Reader's Digest.
I appeal to members that if we really want to do something for
aboriginal people, either on governance or on economic
development, I believe that we have to step outside the old box.
We have to step outside. This bill does not step outside the
box. It creates the same box for the Nisga'a people and puts
nails in its lid. That is why I appeal to members to oppose the
bill. That is also the reason I will move the following
amendment in order to facilitate further discussion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-9,
an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be not now
read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill
withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the
House to put some questions to the Leader of the Opposition
concerning his opposition to the Nisga'a agreement.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
questions to be put to the Leader of the Opposition following his
speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is a very important issue. I am disappointed that
the Liberals will not allow this to continue. We would like to
see some questions go to the leader, and I would like to know
from the minister why he opposes questions going to the Leader of
the Opposition on this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a point of
order. The question before the House is whether there is consent
to allow a question period. Consent was requested and denied.
The rules of the House provide that the first three speakers on a
bill of this kind do not have a question or comment period.
Without consent we cannot do it. If members want to change the
rules, of course, there are routes for doing that and I know that
members will want to pursue them.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Given the nature and the importance of this issue I wonder if I
could seek the unanimous agreement of all members in the House to
ask the government if it would bring into the Chamber at least
one Liberal member from British Columbia—
The Deputy Speaker: The House leader of the official
opposition knows that is not a point of order and that indeed it
is quite out of order to refer to the absence of members from
this House, pleasurable as that can be on occasion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The leader of the NDP asked for permission to ask
questions of the Leader of the Opposition and was denied. I
wonder if we could ask permission for members from all sides of
the House to put questions to the Leader of the Opposition.
Perhaps members of the Liberal Party would also enjoy that
opportunity.
1200
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the question I put to the
House following the intervention of the hon. member for Halifax
was for a question period to follow the speech of the Leader of
the Opposition. I will put the question again.
Is there unanimous consent to have a period of questions
following the speech of the Leader of the Opposition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak on Bill C-9.
I would like to begin with a brief aside and some comments to
the Leader of the Official Opposition. Perhaps we cannot ask
him questions, but we can at least react to his speech as a
whole. I saw him, and in particular I heard him, imputing
motives to each of the political parties in the House of
Commons.
To begin with, I must challenge the entire argument put forward
by the Leader of the Opposition.
I agree with him on only one point: that the Reform members are
probably going to be the only ones voting against the bill on
native people we have before us today.
The Leader of the Opposition has just told us about the woman
who came out of the woods to conquer the work force. The Reform
Party's attitude, its intransigence on the aboriginal issue, the
immigrant issue, are what will perhaps make it the only one
voting against bills of such scope addressing aboriginals,
immigrants and so on.
I too have a story for the Leader of the Opposition. When I was
a little boy of nine or ten, I was not an army cadet, but my
friends were. I remember that they had a review every year. We
all lined the streets to see the cadets all march past together.
I clearly remember being there with my mother watching the
parade pass by. The neighbour, whose son was in the parade,
exclaimed “My goodness, look at that. My son is the only one in
step”. I looked at my mother, who smiled, and I realized she
was thinking the same thing I was: her boy was probably the only
one out of step.
It is more or less the same thing with Reform. They are pretty
much the only ones not in step as far as the aboriginal question
is concerned, probably because of their excessive intransigence
with respect to bills relating to aboriginal people and
immigrants. So I felt it was important to start off with that
little story.
I would like as well, at the start, to salute all the Nisga'a,
who must be following today's debate on television. I would
like to congratulate them and pay tribute to those who came to
parliament hill in the summer to provide support and
explanations. They are here again for the debate. I want to
tell them that I am extremely proud of the work they have done.
Joe Gosnell has been here on parliament hill for a few days, as
has Harry Nyce, who is currently in the gallery and following
the debate with interest.
Finally, after about 100 years, now is not the time to become
discouraged. I repeat the comment made by Joe Gosnell: “Just a
few more days and the canoe will reach the bank”. They will
have an agreement on self-government. On this point, they can
certainly count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois.
Here in the House, we often debate the legal scope of a given
section, the political scope of a decision the party makes, but
I would also like to draw to the attention of my colleagues in
this House the fact that there is also human scope to these
debates. As members of parliament, we defend the viewpoints of
our electors and of also certain persons we may be representing
in specific instances such as in native matters.
1205
It seems important to me as well for us to always take this into
account in our analysis grid when we consider a bill. We have
to look at how those affected by our decisions will react.
Indian affairs, in my opinion, is an absolutely extraordinary
portfolio for the person holding it, because there are a number
of ways to act. I personally am among those who believe
strongly in interpersonal relationships. There is nothing
better than visiting a native reserve to understand native life.
I have had occasion to go to a number of native reserves and I
have had the opportunity, the privilege and the honour of twice
visiting Nisga'a territory.
I am pleased to say that my first visit had nothing to do with
bills before the House. Having done some reading on the topic,
I felt that this was one of the greatest aboriginal nations in
Canada. Having some familiarity with native peoples in Quebec,
I thought I might like to get to know something about native
peoples in the rest of Canada.
I therefore went to Nisga'a territory. One thing that made
quite an impression on me was the landscape. I have been twice
now and I am still struck by it. One can understand the
attachment of native peoples to their sea, their land, their
waterways, including the Nass River, and all the fauna; all this
is woven into their philosophy.
The colour of the river running through the Nass valley is very
striking. There is nothing like it in Quebec or in Ontario.
It is greenish and crystal clear. It is the runoff from
glaciers. I could see that not only was the landscape
extraordinarily beautiful but that it played an important role
in the vision that aboriginals have of their land.
I was struck not just by the landscape, but by the people living
there, because this is where the importance of the bill before
us today begins to hit home.
I do not think I could speak as knowledgeably today if I had not
experienced life on their land. Through these trips, I
discovered not only the great Nisga'a nation, but also the human
drama behind their desire for greater control over their
destiny. I consider it very important to say this.
I was impressed by the lava beds, where close to 2,000 Nisga'a
died following an eruption which occurred several centuries ago.
The area is now a national park. People should see how the area
was devastated and how nature is coming back to life again after
hundreds of years.
The Nisga'a show respect for the terrible tragedy that struck
these communities. There were two communities and 2,000 Nisga'a
died because of the eruption.
It is interesting to see how this event is explained in the
Nisga'a territory. There is a bit of mysticism and also a great
deal of symbolism. We are told, among other things, that before
the disaster, young children had begun to not respect nature and
to make wildlife suffer.
Today, the elders explain to the young Nisga'a that they must
always respect nature and anything that lives in it. It is their
belief that the disaster occurred because that respect was lost
at some point.
This says a lot about the philosophy and the importance that
aboriginals attach to nature, to what they call “Mother Earth”.
I had the opportunity to visit a village which, in my opinion,
has the nicest totems of all. I visited many aboriginal
villages, but I never saw such fine totems as those found in
that Nisga'a community. Along the Nass River, artists build
totems that are some fifty feet high, a task that can take them
up to a year. Again, their deep respect for nature is well
illustrated with sculptures representing animals such as wolves,
owls, hawks and also whales, for which they have great respect.
All animals are represented on these huge totems, and it is most
interesting to discover the Nisga'a culture.
1210
You also meet great people. My driver, Eric, the person who was
my guide last time, is on parliament hill at this very moment.
He made a point of showing me all that and of taking me to visit
his mother, of introducing me to his family and taking me to the
salmon smokehouse, where people eat it together and where it is
shared, and with great respect once again accorded fish
resources. Such things move me and now permit me, when I come
to the bill, to say “This is not only beautiful country, there
are fine people living there as well”. Today we must make it
possible for these people to fly on their own. And here I only
hint at the symbol of the bird.
I think that, at the moment, and this is one of the first
disagreements I will have with the leader of the official
opposition, the Indian Act can no longer remain unchanged. It
represents a cage for them. The Nisga'a are like a great
powerful bird, like an eagle, and are imprisoned in a cage
called the Indian Act. The key to opening this cage is the bill
before us today, which will permit the Nisga'a to fly, establish
infrastructures, elect their people and see that the values
reflected are their very own. I think this is how they will
integrate.
In a few minutes I will speak at length of the issue of
equality. The Reform Party has not understood that equality is
not the panacea that will solve everything. We Quebecers do not
like to be told that Quebec is just another province.
I do not think the Nisga'a like to be told they are Canadians
like everyone else. I beg to differ; they are not like every
other Canadian. There were several attempts, even by the
Liberal government in 1969, to assimilate these people. The
government of the time was forced to backtrack because it would
have had a revolt on its hands if it had continued.
It is important not to assume that equality will solve
everything. That is not true. Quebecers have always demanded
distinct status; there has never been any willingness to give it
to them. Now the aboriginal people are being given distinct
status. They will, of course, continue to evolve within the
Constitution as we know it; they will continue to be citizens of
British Columbia and of Canada, but they will first of all be
Nisga'a citizens.
One does not need to be an expert in aboriginal affairs to
understand that these people's first reaction is to recognize
their own nation.
When I go on to various reserves and ask people “How do you see
yourself?” I ask those in Quebec, for instance, whether they
consider themselves Quebecers or Canadians. The answer is
always “I consider myself a Montagnais” or “I consider myself an
Inuit” or “I consider myself an Abenaki”. They go on to
identify with something else, but they acknowledge their own
status first.
I would also like to explain the democratic and peaceful process
engaged in by the Nisga'a, for this situation has been
continuing for over 100 years as the Nisga'a have tried to solve
the problem, to attain greater independence. As long ago as
1880, they were making representations to the Parliament of
Canada, saying “We would like to have greater control over our
future”. Things took a long time to get moving. During the
1970s there started to be some slight recognition of aboriginal
title and ancestral rights.
I met Mr. Calder, a great Canadian and a great Nisga'a in the
Speaker's office. In 1973, he was the first to succeed in
making any progress toward recognition of ancestral and
aboriginal rights.
He is a great Canadian, a great Nisga'a, and he was responsible
for the great step forward in case law and the philosophy of the
courts with respect to the recognition of ancestral rights.
In 1973, there was the Calder ruling and, during the
negotiations, this was what forced the federal government to
recognize that it would have to negotiate with the Nisga'a. In
fact, I have been, and am still, critical of the government for
always lagging behind the courts. It is time it showed a bit
more leadership and resolved certain native problems for once
and for all. But it is still reacting to supreme court
decisions, the Marshall ruling being the most recent example.
1215
It was the same with the Calder ruling. It was not until 1976,
a few years after the decision was handed down, that the
government said it would begin negotiating with the Nisga'a.
Since these are tripartite agreements, it tried to get British
Columbia to take part. In 1990, this province joined the
negotiations. Finally, in 1996, an agreement in principle was
signed and, in August 1998, a final agreement was reached.
That having been done, parliamentary steps had to be taken.
These too were tripartite. The Nisga'a were the first to cast
their vote: 61% of those eligible to vote in the referendum were
in favour of the treaty.
Those who want to dismiss the treaty out of hand, without
knowing anything about the more than 100 years of history behind
it, without knowing the recent history, when people have been
pushing for this for thirty some years, which is how long
negotiations have been going on, and when this has all been
worked out between three parties, chose perhaps to ignore this
or are simply unaware.
This is why I think it is important that the rules of democracy
and parliament be respected. It is true that there was also
considerable opposition in British Columbia before it was
passed. As well, there are perhaps some people around who are
scaremongering, who are dwelling a bit on the negative. I am
thinking of the leader of the opposition, among others. I have
read a number of articles that appeared in B.C. newspapers, and
I know who is stirring up the opposition in this kind of bill.
Now, it is up to us.
We are the last. Once the Senate has given its approval, it
will be law. We will see exactly what I was saying earlier.
The Nisga'a will fly on their own.
There are constitutional issues of course, and there have been
constitutional debates in British Columbia over whether we are
amending the Constitution or not. We are not of that school.
We say the Constitution is not being amended. The balance of
powers among the provinces, Canada and British Columbia is not
changed.
Sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution remain unchanged with
this bill. That is our claim. We are not saying that we have
the absolute truth. We can understand people's contesting it.
For us, however, that is what we think, and I will put it in
context right away.
In my opinion it is spelled out in the agreement. The charter
of rights and freedoms has priority. No one on Nisga'a
territory can violate the charter of rights and freedoms without
risking correction by the courts. It is very clear in the
agreement.
Finally, there will be no more reserves, as provided in the law.
Now it will be Nisga'a lands with a Nisga'a government.
There are also legal decisions and validity issues. If anything
is to be tested, there will always be the courts to turn to.
There is no way the Nisga'a can decide 56 things and there be no
possibility of appeal. There can be no appeal on Nisga'a
territory. That is not the way it will be at all. The British
Columbia superior court, the Supreme Court and the Federal Court
will always have the right of appeal. Legal guidelines have
been put in place and they are there.
Yesterday I reread the treaty for the second or third time. I
thought to myself that at last, after 100 years of trying, 30
years of intense negotiations, the ideal marriage had been
reached between aboriginal tradition and modernity. I looked at
several particular points, which I will use to demonstrate this.
The land issue: now the Nisga'a will own their own lands in fee
simple. Moreover, all the lands are listed in the agreement.
They are all given. They have already been assigned to certain
individuals. These individuals will become direct owners of the
lands in question. There is no longer collective ownership as
there was under the Indian Act, and it is important to realize
this.
It has often been said “Under the Indian Act, ownership is
collective”.
When ownership is collective, people do not pay attention, they
are dependent; the decision on how property will be allocated
comes from Ottawa, and it is often the band council that
decides. Now it is very clear: all lands will be owned in fee
simple. These people will, therefore, own these lands. This is
an important step, and also a very important difference.
1220
As for forestry resources, and the whole natural resource issue,
this will be a favorite topic for my Reform friends from the
west, who will say “It is dreadful that there are so many
uncertainties”. I have looked at the forestry and fisheries
aspects and the underground resources, and there are dozens of
pages explaining how this will work.
When it is explained to us how this is going to work, I would
remind the House that this agreement was signed between the
Nisga'a Nation and British Columbia and that, despite the
minister's signature, what is missing is the legislation to give
effect to that agreement. This is what we are discussing today.
So, as far as I am concerned, the certainty is there.
As regards forestry resources, we can see that it is all set out
in the agreement, which is a lot better than the way it was
before. I have already visited Nisga'a territory, as I
mentioned before, and I visited Chilcotin territory in British
Columbia as well. I have also visited Carrier Sekani territory.
What did I find there? Beautiful countryside, I agree, but
deteriorating rapidly.
I remember visiting Chilcotin territory and meeting about 100
trucks, which were doing their best to remove the timber
resources as quickly as possible. That was before there were
agreements with the native peoples. I have often criticized
that with the minister and the main provincial ministers as what
I would call the “race for the natural resources”.
That must be criticized, because the pulp and paper
manufacturers, while I have a lot of respect for them, clearly
get themselves ready to clear cut the land when they know an
agreement on self-government is imminent and promises native
peoples “Your lands are yours; do as you will with your
forests”.
This is not what the native peoples do. I was offended that, in
the course of the steps toward self-government, there was a rush
to take away the natural resources and that, afterwards, the
negotiations mysteriously began to move. It was easy
afterwards. They were told “We will give you this land”, but,
strangely, there is nothing left.
Now there is some certainty with the Nisga'a agreement.
Everything is laid out in black and white: riparian management;
cut block design and distribution; road construction,
maintenance and deactivation; reforestation; soil conservation;
biodiversity; hazard abatement, fire preparedness and initial
fire suppression; silvicultural systems and logging methods; and
forest health.
Quite frankly, I have every confidence in native peoples
because, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, for them,
Mother Earth is their life. One has only to see how they view
the earth to understand that these are not people who are going
to engage in clearcutting. These are not people who are going
to jeopardize the future of their forests just to make a buck.
For me, this is a given.
They will also be required to conform to certain standards and
existing crown standards will apply to all this. We therefore
have certain guarantees, in my view, and anyone who says
otherwise is simply fearmongering.
As for access and roads, because the land will be turned over to
the Nisga'a, it is mentioned in the agreement that the public
will have reasonable access. Naturally, access will also be
granted to non-Nisga'a owners in fee simple because there is
something else the Nisga'a have understood perfectly well and
that is that the non-natives, non-Nisga'a who are remaining on
Nisga'a lands will not be simply cast out. They will continue
to be told “You have property; it is yours. You have taxes to
pay and you will pay them to the federal and provincial
governments respectively”.
Therefore, the agreement states that these people must have
access to their property.
I was also pleased to see that the
Nisga'a Highway received considerable attention in the treaty.
I would call that modern. As I mentioned earlier, the treaty is
a blend of tradition and modernity, and the Nisga'a Highway is
one example, an attempt to link the four Nisga'a communities by
means of a very interesting corridor.
1225
As for the fisheries, again there is certainty. I cannot
understand why anyone would try to link this with the Marshall
decision. The problem in that case was that there were no
provisions in place. Here, the agreement contains, from page 111
to 143, a clear, point by point, explanation of the way
aboriginal fisheries will be administered.
Among other things, people will not need any licences. It must
be clearly understood that, according to Nisga'a tradition,
fishing, hunting and gathering are traditions that have been
part of their lives since time immemorial.
It must be understood therefore that if these people decide to
go fishing it is certainly not our job to tell them to go buy a
fishing or hunting licence from the provincial government. They
will naturally go to the Nisga'a government. When I say that
everything is explicit, it must always be kept in mind that this
is a tripartite agreement. British Columbia, Canada and the
Nisga'a are in agreement.
The provision is for the harvest of a certain percentage of
sockeye salmon to be allowed. There is also a percentage set
for pink salmon.
If there are surpluses, how will they be divided? That is also
set out. There are also provisions on steelheads, both
summer-run and winter-run, because these fish run twice a year.
I found that the salmon wheel was a most ingenious way of
catching salmon.
I saw a salmon wheel when I was in the Yukon and I thought it
had been invented by Yukon aboriginals, but the Nisga'a told me
that they were the ones who had invented it. It is interesting
how it works. Since the salmon always swim upstream, a paddle
wheel is installed. The paddles are in the water and, because
the current is still flowing downstream, the wheel turns. When
the fish come upstream, they are scooped up by the paddles and
deposited in a box. This is how the aboriginals capture their
fish live. I thought it was quite an ingenious method and I was
told that it had been used by native peoples for a very long
time.
There are also numerous provisions having to do with aquatic
plants, as well as the three kinds of crab found there. Nothing
has been left to chance.
There are dungeness, snow and king crab. The agreement contains
related provisions, as well as provisions regarding halibut,
shrimp and herring.
There is also an annual fishing plan, which the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans will help prepare and which will reflect
the needs of aboriginals and all parties. It is an annual plan
because the resources can fluctuate.
In the end, it is not all that complicated. It is almost the
opposite of what is now happening on the east coast, where there
are hardly any provisions and where everyone is busy
interpreting the court ruling with their own interests in mind.
Here, there will be no room for interpretation since it is all
spelled out in the agreement.
Here again, we have to note the concern for conservation where
the Nisga'a, provincial and federal governments agreed on the
creation of a conservation trust, to be called the Lisims
Fisheries Conservation Trust.
The aim of the trust is to promote the conservation and
protection of species. The native people, as I have said, have
always treated them with respect. They have no interest in
lakes or rivers being emptied and the subsequent end of their
traditions. I think this is good evidence of what they want to
see happen.
There is even a provision on processing plants. There is no
desire to kill the local economy, so provision has been made for
a transition period in which the native people have agreed not
to establish processing plants. For eight years, they will let
the existing plants continue to operate, that is process fish.
The plants will be informed however that, in eight years' time,
the aboriginals will be in a position to have their own
processing plants.
1230
As far as environmental assessment is concerned, it is not
complicated. Provincial and federal laws are to apply on
Nisga'a territory. For example, environmental assessment and
protection studies must meet provincial and federal standards.
If they want even stricter standards, there will be no
objection. Once again, this is a good security device.
I will now speak briefly about the Nisga'a government.
Recognition of a Nisga'a government is consistent with
self-government. There will be a central government, and the
agreement clearly describes how officials will be selected.
There will be four governments, one in each of the villages,
with jurisdiction over certain areas. They have prepared their
constitution, which is in a way their raison d'etre, and one of
the topics it addresses is how all these powers will be divided.
They have also determined the relationship with non-Nisga'a.
Thist will be the point I will address next. The agreement
contains a Nisga'a citizenship proposal. Persons other than
Nisga'a citizens residing within Nisga'a territory have access
to its lands, its buildings, its assets and its public
institutions. The minister has already referred to this. Those
with children may want to send them to the Nisga'a village
school.
Naturally, the parents will have a vote and a voice on the
school board. They will also have a voice on the board of the
health institution, because it may be faster to seek care at the
village hospital or dispensary than to go to Terrace or Rupert.
This demonstrates considerable openness, since these people will
not be paying taxes but will be allowed to participate.
Non-aboriginal residents will perhaps pay school taxes, but their
other taxes will go to the provincial and federal governments.
The fact that the Nisga'a permit them to be part of these boards
does, however, show openness.
The Nisga'a government will, of course, be responsible for
establishing the Nisga'a institutions. It will have complete
jurisdiction over the creation of the small Nisga'a public
service.
Who is better placed than the Nisga'a themselves to administer
the powers devolved on them? Let us forget about the old system
where everything was set out in the Indian Act. In the old
days, when some small change was to be made on the reserve,
people had to contact the liaison officer in Ottawa to find out
if it was allowed.
The magnificent eagle has been let out of its cage and now it
can soar. It needs space to soar and that is what the bill and
the agreement provide, including the way the Nisga'a
institutions will be run and the way the Nisga'a public service
will be paid.
The federal government will certainly be keeping a careful eye
on things and will be prepared to give advice, but the people
must be given the ability to govern themselves, and the Nisga'a
government is going to establish precisely that ability.
There will also be legislative power. Since the agreement gives
the Nisga'a full jurisdiction over culture and language, the
Nisga'a government can be expected to introduce relevant
legislation. This should come as no surprise.
But we must recognize that the Nisga'a have shown considerable
openness in allowing non-natives a role in public institutions.
We must also recognize that now they can, and must, fly on their
own.
Nisga'a citizenship is perhaps the main stumbling block for the
Bloc Quebecois. One has to understand the Nisga'a situation.
Quebec's approach to citizenship is very inclusive. One must
also understand that our territory and population are much
larger than theirs.
There are approximately 2,500 Nisga'a on reserves and almost
2,500 elsewhere. Members must put themselves in the shoes of a
Nisga'a who is wondering how he will be able to protect his
origins.
1235
There will be a code of citizenship, which will contain a
Nisga'a citizenship law. This is where people say “Yes, but
this is a racist law”. That is what some people are tempted to
say. I have heard the Reform Party say that this is a racist
law and an ethnic government because it is based on ancestry.
I would simply reply to the member who is using this argument that
this is the way it has been for 100 years. I agree with the
leader of the opposition that it has perhaps not been working
well for 100 years, but we cannot just abolish the Indian Act
and declare all citizens equal overnight.
I said it at the start of my speech and I will repeat it: the
Bloc Quebecois cannot accept an egalitarian Canadian society.
The Bloc Quebecois has always felt, with the members of the
Parti Quebecois, that there were two founding peoples. If there
were indeed two founding peoples, their rights must be
recognized. If we are all equal, all drowned in the sea of
equality, we no longer make this distinction.
This is how we come to understand the position of the Nisga'a.
We have a critical mass of 7 million Quebecers, 80% of whom are
francophones, so we can resist equalizing trends. But the
Nisga'a may not be able to do so, as they number only about
5,000. Attempts at equalization must be resisted. In Quebec as
in Canada, the people form a mosaic.
People from different cultures add to the shared culture. I see
this in the case of Quebec and in the case of Canada as well.
We must recognize that the native culture had and still has its
own worth. If there is an attempt to equalize it, as the
Liberal Party wanted to do in 1969 with its white paper, which
said: the aboriginals must be assimilated, equalized, society
would be pretty dull. It would be equal, but there would be no
features or cultural characteristics to distinguish one group
from another.
These distinctive features must be recognized and given
expression.
I think the bill, the agreement before us, contributes to that.
It makes it possible to say to people “We recognize that you are
different; you will develop, however, in a climate of
negotiation with us in which we will come to an agreement, but
you are different”.
I think Quebecers and the Nisga'a are proud of being different.
That is why we can understand them. Clearly, the government
would much prefer an all inclusive approach. That is what it
wants to do in Quebec, but for reasons of critical mass and
population size, I understand the Nisga'a have to do it this
way. I understand things have been this way for 100 years,
otherwise who would be Indian today and who could decide who is
Indian? The Canadian constitution decides it to some extent, in
section 35.
But then there are rules whereby an Indian Affairs registrar is
responsible for determining who is and is not an Indian. Not
everyone wishing to be determined an Indian can be.
Unfortunately, that is how the law is, and the native people are
the victims of this. They have been told for 100 years that, if
they marry whites, their blood will be diluted and they will
eventually no longer be aboriginal. That cannot be done away
with overnight, otherwise the Nisga'a nation will eventually
disappear.
I think that the people have taken the necessary steps to
safeguard their culture, their language and their nation. This
is why, even if there have been certain problems around defining
citizenship, there will be agreement because we are sufficiently
open-minded to acknowledge that they need this if they are to
perpetuate the Nisga'a nation in future.
It must also be said that this is no disaster for the
non-Nisga'a, as I have already said, for they are still entitled
to own land within the territory.
There are some one hundred non-Nisga'a on the land.
You are indicating to me that I have a minute left, Madam
Speaker, so I will wrap up my remarks. I would have liked to
have touched on marriage breakdown, because that is a concern
introduced by the Reform Party. Perhaps there will be an
opportunity to address this again later, but I would like to
conclude by saying that we Quebecers are able to understand what
the Nisga'a journey toward self-government is all about, because
we are on the same journey. I want the Nisga'a to know we are
going to be with them on their journey toward self-government
because we in the Bloc Quebecois believe in it.
1240
I will close with a translation into Nisga'a of “the Bloc
Quebecois will walk alongside the Nisga'a on their journey”
because they are listening to us and I know it will please them.
[Editor's Note: The hon. member spoke in Nisga'a]
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would like to indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my
time with my colleague the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
I am very pleased and proud today to have the opportunity to
express my enthusiastic support and that of my party for
ratification of the Nisga'a treaty that is before us.
In 1887 the Nisga'a people travelled more than 1,000 kilometres
by canoe to Victoria to seek justice and reconciliation. They
sought to negotiate a treaty, but were turned away at the time.
The Nisga'a treaty now before us is a historic achievement. For
the Nisga'a themselves it ends 111 years of justice denied.
Today we finally ensure the Nisga'a their rightful place in the
Canadian family.
[Translation]
This treaty provides the Nisga'a with the plan to which they are
entitled.
[English]
This agreement is based on mutual respect that recognizes
mistakes and injustices of the past and that begins the important
process of healing. This treaty is an important step for the
Nisga'a, but it is also an important step for all British
Columbians and for all Canadians.
Canadians can see that in so many ways the status quo is not
working. It is certainly not working for aboriginal people. We
see it in the high levels of poverty, unemployment and ill health
suffered by aboriginal people in the Nass Valley and in other
regions of Canada as well.
Before the European settlers arrived, the Nisga'a were a
community of 30,000 people. Today they number less than 5,000,
ravaged by disease, by poverty and assaults on their way of life.
As Nisga'a Chief Joe Gosnell has said, “The remaining Nisga'a
are the survivors of the march toward progress”.
The status quo has not always worked for non-aboriginals either.
Instability and uncertainty have hindered economic opportunity
and in some instances economic investment and prevented many
communities from achieving their full potential. This treaty
recognizes that we must put this devastating period of
uncertainty and conflict behind us. It recognizes that we will
achieve peace and fulfilment through mutual understanding,
recognition and respect.
We need only look to the east coast to see what happens when
that leadership is lacking, when we fail to negotiate in good
faith with those affected, with respect and with forethought. We
see the chaos that results when the courts are forced to decide
because the government abandoned its responsibility to negotiate
in good faith.
Canadians do not want another century of conflict. We need to
settle the issues that divide us and move forward together on a
firm foundation of respect and certainty. This treaty helps us
to do exactly that.
[Translation]
The Nisga'a will now be equipped with the tools needed to
develop their community.
[English]
Aboriginal people will now have the tools that they need to
build the self-reliant communities that they desire for
themselves and their families.
Regrettably, some have used misinformation, innuendo and fear in
an effort to discredit the Nisga'a treaty in an attempt to
persuade Canadians that too much has been given away to the
Nisga'a, or that this treaty is somehow threatening to
non-aboriginal Canadians. This campaign of deception must be
countered with the truth.
1245
It is a fact that under the agreement all rights are protected
by the Canadian constitution, the criminal code and the charter
of rights and freedoms. It is a fact that under the Nisga'a
treaty, land and resource management issues are settled and
important environmental protections are assured. It is a fact
that non-native property owners maintain guaranteed rights. It
is a fact that Nisga'a traditions and culture will finally be
permitted to flourish without taking anything from anybody else.
These important accomplishments have been achieved through 20
years, two decades of consultation and negotiation in good faith.
How can these accomplishments therefore be bad for Canada? It is
surely irresponsible and intolerable that some choose to use this
debate to drive a wedge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people instead of using it as a way to heal longstanding
divisions.
The treaty is not about establishing a separate solitude for the
Nisga'a as some Reform Party members insist. It is about the
Nisga'a assuming their rightful place in Canada.
We all witnessed the wonderful festivities surrounding passage
of the Nisga'a bill in British Columbia. As the Nisga'a marched
in the streets in celebration they carried in one hand British
Columbia's flag and in the other hand Canada's flag. What an
important symbol it was of a coming together after years of
conflict and injustice.
The treaty is not about separation. It is about extending a
long overdue welcome to first nations people who have been too
long treated as second class members of the Canadian family.
Today we in the House have the opportunity to walk with history.
With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty we take a first but
important step toward reconciliation and the dream of true
equality.
Let all of us in the House rise to the call for leadership. Let
us rise to our responsibilities to offer leadership,
responsibilities that Canadians rightly expect of us as
parliamentarians. Let us come together in support of the Nisga'a
treaty and in so doing play a modest but historically significant
role in ushering in a new era of co-operation and mutual respect
among aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on August 4, 1998, I had the great honour and privilege
of witnessing the signing ceremony for the Nisga'a treaty. At
that ceremony in New Aiyansh, Chief Joseph Gosnell said:
Look around you. Look at our faces. We are the survivors. We
intend to live here forever. And, under the Treaty, we will
flourish.
I looked around at the faces of the people at that ceremony. I
looked at the elders, many of whom had tears in their eyes, tears
of joy that their long journey was finally coming to an end,
although to be sure another was beginning.
I looked at the faces of young people and children and I saw
hope, hope for a future, hope for a new beginning, hope for
decent economic conditions.
1250
Chief Gosnell spoke of that journey. As my leader indicated,
that journey started many years ago. The Nisga'a people were in
the Nass Valley when the Europeans first arrived. Their lands and
resources were stolen from them with no compensation or due
process.
They started the journey for compensation and justice many years
ago. In 1887 the chiefs journeyed in a canoe to Victoria but the
doors were closed.
Nisga'a leaders worked tirelessly over the years on behalf of
their people, even when it was illegal to do so. From 1927 to
1950 it was illegal for the Nisga'a people, or any other
aboriginal people in Canada, to hire a lawyer to pursue their
land claims.
Finally in 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada in the Calder
decision involving Frank Calder affirmed some very fundamental
rights of the Nisga'a people. The present Prime Minister, then
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, agreed in
August of that year to embark on a process of negotiation. Here
we are many years later.
I pay tribute to a number of lawyers who have worked tirelessly,
arm in arm, side by side with the Nisga'a people: Tom Berger, who
argued the original Calder decision to the highest court of the
land and others who have followed in his path like James Aldridge
who has been there for many years tirelessly defending the rights
of the Nisga'a people.
I remember as a young new member of the House sitting on the
historic constitution committee in the winter of 1980-81 and
hearing the eloquent plea of the Nisga'a leadership, people like
Chief James Gosnell, Rod Robinson and others pleading for
justice. They were not asking for any kind of special rights or
treatment but for equality and justice, for healing and
reconciliation.
I am very proud that it was the former leader of the New
Democratic Party who stood in the House on February 17, 1981, to
announce that an amendment would be accepted by the government
which would ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights of first
nations people would be as firmly entrenched in section 35 of the
constitution as all other rights. Ed Broadbent, the New
Democrats and the Liberal government of the day can be very proud
of their accomplishment.
Let us be clear. The Nisga'a treaty does not in any way involve
an amendment to the constitution because under the provisions of
section 35 the aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's first
nations are recognized and affirmed. The aboriginal rights which
have now been translated into treaty are the fundamental rights
to land claims and self-government of the Nisga'a people.
Some people including the Liberal Party in British Columbia and
the Reform Party federally say that there should be a referendum
on this issue. Not only is that deeply offensive, as the concept
of fundamental minority rights should not be subject to a
referendum, but who would vote in that referendum?
Let us not forget the federal government is paying 80% of the
cost of this treaty settlement. It is one of those rare examples
in which the federal government actually transfers funds to
British Columbia. In order for there to be a referendum there
would have to be a national vote. Frankly it is outrageous that
the people of Ontario alone would be able to outvote the people
of British Columbia on this fundamental issue.
I acknowledge and salute the personal leadership of provincial
New Democrats including former premier Mike Harcourt, former
premier Glen Clark, as well as a number of ministers of
aboriginal affairs, John Cashore, Andrew Petter, Dale Lovick and
others.
1255
The treaty has strong support in British Columbia from many
diverse communities. It was ratified by the B.C. legislature in
a free vote following the longest debate in the history of the
British Columbia legislature. There were extensive public
hearings across the province of British Columbia. The aboriginal
affairs committee of the B.C. legislature, ably chaired by a
former federal colleague, Ian Waddell, gave people an opportunity
to be heard on the issue. The treaty was ratified by 72% of
those Nisga'a who voted. Sixty-one per cent of all eligible
voters supported the treaty.
I wanted to say a word about that because the member for Skeena
attacked the ratification process. He said in a letter to the
Globe and Mail in May that almost one-half of the Nisga'a
people did not support the treaty. In addition to the fact that
is blatantly false I point out that the member for Skeena was
elected with a percentage of 42.4% of the eligible votes cast and
got 27% of all votes in his constituency. By his own criteria
three-quarters of the people who could have voted for him did not
vote for him. Reformers are steeped in hypocrisy in their
approach to this treaty, and the people of British Columbia know
it.
The Reform Party critic, the member for Skeena, has not even had
the decency to meet with the leadership of the Nisga'a people
since the treaty was signed. These are his constituents and yet
not once has he met with them since the treaty was signed. He
said that he debated Chief Joe Gosnell in 1995, but that was four
years ago. Where has the member for Skeena been since then? He
has shown total contempt for the Nisga'a people and for other
aboriginal peoples in his community.
I mentioned the strong support for the treaty from a very broad
cross-section of the British Columbia community. The business
community is seeking certainty at long last. The labour
community, IWA President Dave Haggard, sent a strong and eloquent
letter to the former minister outlining the support of working
people for the legislation, along with the British Columbia
Federation of Labour and many others. There is strong support.
Faith leaders as well strongly support the legislation and the
treaty.
I will quote from a message to the people of British Columbia by
former premier Glen Clark who said that the Nisga'a treaty was
not about politics but about people, a people who lost the land
of their ancestors without ever signing a treaty; a people who
saw their children taken away to residential schools, their
culture systematically dismantled, their families decimated by
the ravages of disease, alcohol and dysfunction; a people who are
still subject to being governed under an antiquated Indian Act; a
people who negotiated peacefully, patiently and in good faith for
many years; a people who want to be part of Canada, who have
negotiated their way back into Canada and who are prepared to
surrender over 90% of their traditional territories and their tax
exempt status to achieve that dream.
The treaty is about politics. It is about people. It is about
justice and it is about time.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the
Nisga'a final agreement. The legislation marks the end of a long
process for the Nisga'a people, one that has spanned more than
100 years since the Nisga'a representatives travelled by canoe in
1887 from the Nass River Valley to Victoria to begin this long
process.
1300
I have met with the Nisga'a people on a number of occasions and
each time they have stressed that they are not only prepared for
this process, but they are eager and anxious for it to begin. As
they say, there has been enough dialogue on this matter and they
have welcomed visits from interested parties seeking to see how
prepared they are for this new initiative.
The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern day treaty to be signed
in British Columbia and will be the 14th in Canada. It sets a
strong precedent for other treaties that may be under
negotiation. At the same time however, it is clearly stated in
the treaty that in no way does the treaty impact the negotiation
of other treaties within the province of British Columbia. On
the contrary, each first nation will negotiate on its own merit
to pursue its own goals and aspirations.
What this treaty does show is that negotiated settlements can be
reached that satisfy all parties and provide a peaceful, informed
and effective means of delineating responsibility and
accountability on behalf of the federal government, the
provincial government and the Nisga'a people. Each party had to
make some concessions. That is what negotiation is about. The
end result is a treaty that has already been ratified by the
Nisga'a nation and the provincial government in British Columbia.
The Nisga'a people accepted the treaty when they held a
referendum on November 7 and 8, 1998. The treaty had to be
ratified by a majority of all registered voters regardless of how
many actually voted. There were 1,451 people representing 61% of
the Nisga'a nation who voted to accept the terms of the final
agreement. There were 558 votes against the treaty and 11
spoiled ballots. This meant there was an acceptance rate of 72%
although there was a voter turnout of 85%. The 356 people who did
not vote meant that the treaty was approved by 61% of the Nisga'a
nation.
It is important to explain the voting process because there has
been a lot of discussion about the voting process and quite
frankly, a lot of criticism about the voting process that is
completely unwarranted. The Nisga'a constitution which was voted
on during the referendum required a 70% approval rate. It
received 73% with 1,480 votes in support of the constitution and
525 against. The end result was that the treaty and the
constitution were approved by more than 70% of the Nisga'a people
voting in the referendum.
The criteria establishing eligibility for the ratification vote
is outlined in the Nisga'a final agreement in chapter 22 on
ratification, section 6. That section states that it is anyone
who meets the criteria of the enrolment committee, is 18 years of
age or older, is ordinarily resident in Canada and is not
enrolled in any other land claim agreement. To determine who
meets the criteria of the enrolment committee, section 1 of
chapter 20 on eligibility and enrolment states that the person
must establish some Nisga'a ancestry, including adoption and
marriage.
What is important to note is that it does not mention that the
person must be ordinarily resident on reserve, a condition of the
Indian Act and one that was recently the focus of a court ruling
in Corbière. In that case the court ruled that band members
living off reserve should have the opportunity to vote in some
matters where their interests are involved. The requirement to
live on reserve prevents a number of band members from voting
even when the decisions of the chief and council may impact on
resources or assets held communally by the band members.
The ratification process for the Nisga'a final agreement
requires approval from three parties: the Nisga'a people, the
province of British Columbia and the federal government. The
province of British Columbia approved the agreement when it
ratified legislation on April 23, 1999 with Bill 51. At that
time the provincial government used closure to end debate and
push Bill 51 through the legislature.
Now legislation is before us that will ratify the treaty. I
welcome the opportunity to address this matter. The government
has indicated that closure may again be used to limit debate on
this matter. I will wait to address that issue later.
Members of the Reform Party have made it clear on a number of
occasions that they have some problems with certain provisions of
this treaty and maybe even the treaty itself. This is from a
party that prides itself on its grassroots connections, yet it
refuses to recognize that the Nisga'a people themselves voted in
a referendum to accept this treaty, 61% of whom accepted the
treaty and constitution of the Nisga'a final agreement.
1305
One of the complaints of the Reform Party about the Nisga'a
treaty is that it changes the Canadian constitution. The Nisga'a
final agreement act states:
Whereas the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada.
Whereas the Nisga'a final agreement states that the agreement
does not alter the Constitution of Canada.
Hopefully that will lay that issue to rest.
Clearly, the Nisga'a treaty does not change the Canadian
constitution. The constitution under section 35 recognizes and
affirms treaty and aboriginal rights. These rights which are set
out in the Nisga'a final agreement for the Nisga'a people
continue to be affirmed by the constitution. The treaty is not
part of the constitution; rather, it is recognized by the
constitution.
To amend the treaty, provisions within the treaty document set
out the requirements that must be met to effect such change. The
Nisga'a people and the other signatories recognize the real
possibility that changes will be made to the treaty and a process
is in place to allow this to happen. It is a process that does
not require the consent of a number of the provinces across
Canada that a constitutional amendment would entail.
The Nisga'a final agreement outlines the amendment provisions in
the chapter on general provisions, section 36, and states:
Except for any provision of this agreement that provides that an
amendment requires the consent of only the Nisga'a nation and
either Canada or British Columbia, all amendments to the
agreement require the consent of all three parties.
For the Nisga'a nation to consent to an amendment to the final
agreement, it requires the support of two-thirds of the elected
members of the Nisga'a government.
Race based government is another assertion that the Reform Party
has used to argue against this treaty. The treaty allows the
Nisga'a people to be self-governing and to establish laws in
areas where they are in the best position to do so, areas such as
protecting their cultural artifacts. At the same time, federal
and provincial laws provide minimum standards with which the
Nisga'a must comply or surpass.
Moreover, non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a land will have
representation in areas in which they are affected. Non-Nisga'a
citizens will continue to vote for their municipal, provincial
and federal representatives, as will the Nisga'a people. The
Nisga'a people also have the ability to set rules governing who
becomes a Nisga'a citizen. This does not exclude non-Nisga'a
people from possibly being included.
The Nisga'a final agreement clearly states that the charter of
rights and freedoms continues to apply to the Nisga'a people.
Interpretations differ as to how the charter applies to
aboriginal people, but the Nisga'a agree as stated in the treaty
that the charter continues to apply to them. When I met with
representatives of the Nisga'a nation they were clear that in
their minds the charter applies to the Nisga'a government. The
exact wording of the Nisga'a final agreement states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a
government in respect of all matters within its authority,
bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a
government as set out in this agreement.
The Nisga'a people will elect members of the Nisga'a government
so it will be a democratic style of government.
Another way to look at this treaty and the legislation that we
are debating today is the position the Nisga'a people would be in
without such a final agreement. Under this treaty Nisga'a land
will no longer be reserve land under the Indian Act. This allows
a much greater opportunity in terms of resource management and
economic diversification or development.
Under the Indian Act the Nisga'a people required authorization
from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
whenever they wanted to develop a resource or pursue activities
that would encourage self-reliance. All of that changes with
this treaty.
Furthermore, aboriginal rights and treaty rights are
exhaustively set out in the final agreement. We all know that
the decision in Delgamuukw supported and encouraged negotiated
settlements as opposed to continued litigation. This is exactly
what the treaty represents, a negotiated agreement settled by all
parties involved.
With conclusive aboriginal treaty rights, this will encourage
industry to develop partnerships with the Nisga'a people since
there is certainty as to who owns the resources. The forestry and
mining industries have suffered in British Columbia because of a
lack of certainty that exists regarding resource ownership in the
province. The provincial government and the first nations have
suffered the economic consequences as companies refuse to invest
funds in exploration and development activities when they are
unsure with whom they should be negotiating.
It has been estimated that as much as $1 billion and 1,500 jobs
have been lost in British Columbia because of this uncertainty
and the unwillingness of the forestry and mining sectors to
invest in such an environment.
1310
For the Nisga'a people this treaty removes that uncertainty. The
Nisga'a people should benefit from increased resource development
projects on Nisga'a land once the treaty ratification process is
complete. The Nisga'a people will be in the position to develop
their own resources through whatever avenues they wish to pursue.
At the same time, federal and provincial environmental standards
will provide guidelines on how these resources are extracted and
developed.
I would like to take a few minutes to address timber resources
on Nisga'a land. Nisga'a land was heavily logged from 1958 on
and the remaining timber is located in areas that are harder to
access. Currently there is approximately 230,000 to 250,000
cubic metres of timber being harvested annually on what will be
Nisga'a land under the final agreement. The Nisga'a have
concluded that if this cut is reduced to 115,000 cubic metres, it
could be sustained for 250 years with regeneration. At the
current rate it is not sustainable. The sustainable rate of
115,000 cubic metres is not, however, a large amount of timber by
British Columbia standards.
When I spoke with the Nisga'a people they indicated that they
will be looking at harvesting timber at the sustainable rate of
115,000 cubic metres as established in the treaty. At some point
in time however, they may wish to pursue other options such as
investing in timber resources off Nisga'a land.
At the same time, the Nisga'a final agreement explicitly states
that the Nisga'a nation, a Nisga'a village or a Nisga'a
corporation will not establish a primary timber processing
facility for 10 years after the effective date of the treaty.
This provides for a window of time for Nass Valley timber users
to develop their own agreements with the Nisga'a nation or find
other suppliers.
Another section of the Nisga'a final agreement that has
relevance in relation to the provision I just mentioned is the
ownership of water. Under the agreement, British Columbia will
establish a Nisga'a water reservation, in favour of the Nisga'a
nation, of 300,000 cubic decametres of water per year from the
Nass River and other streams wholly or partially within Nisga'a
lands. This represents 1% of the average Nass River flow and
should enable the Nisga'a people to pursue some industrial
applications where industrial water use is required. That will
further their economic development opportunities.
This treaty was negotiated on the basis of a nation to nation
concept. It also recognizes the inherent rights of aboriginal
people, in this case the Nisga'a, and the PC Party recognizes the
inherent right of aboriginal people to be self-governing. This
treaty meets those expectations and establishes certainty.
We only have to look at what is happening in the fishery on the
east coast to understand the importance of signing treaties. The
Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw and now in Marshall has
shown that aboriginal and treaty rights are important rights for
aboriginal people and all Canadians. An exercise in these rights
can influence activities of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal
people.
Right now in Nova Scotia there is a lot of controversy over the
introduction of aboriginal fishers into the fishery and how this
is going to be accomplished while maintaining the fishery for
non-aboriginal fishermen and protecting the resource. These are
complex questions and there are no easy answers. Fishers, both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal, with the help of the federal
negotiator, are in the process of finding answers to these
questions and figuring out how to proceed to implement the
supreme court ruling of September 17.
It should be noted that the help of the federal negotiator in
this case has really not been productive. What has happened is
that non-aboriginal fisheries representatives, aboriginal fishers
and chiefs and councils have met and, as a side agreement, have
actually worked out and negotiated a temporary agreement for the
time being.
The Nisga'a treaty did this same process in reverse. Instead of
asking the court to determine what rights they have over what
resources, and having to sit down after the fact to negotiate
some kind of an agreement, they negotiated their own treaty. The
federal and provincial governments sat down with the Nisga'a
people. They carefully reviewed all of the issues that are
needed to allow the Nisga'a people to become self-governing,
while at the same time settling a land claim and allocating
resources. Anyone involved in the east coast fishery can attest
to the perseverance such an effort must have entailed.
1315
Finally, I would like to bring attention to the fact that the
Nisga'a treaty is a final document that has already been accepted
by the Nisga'a people and the B.C. provincial government.
Furthermore, this treaty cannot be changed. The final agreement
has been signed by the federal government and is now the
ratifying legislation that is before us. The legislation can be
amended, but the treaty is not part of the constitution; instead
being recognized and affirmed by the constitution. Therefore it
does not require the acceptance of the provinces to do so.
Instead the three parties to the agreement have the opportunity
to amend the treaty should it be necessary to do so.
As I said at the beginning, there has been a lot of dialogue
already on this treaty. It has taken more than 100 years to
arrive at this final goal for the Nisga'a and there has obviously
been opportunity for them to evaluate and determine what they are
looking for and how this treaty recognizes those goals. As well,
the Nisga'a people have been very accommodating in terms of
explaining the treaty and answering any questions I have had on
provisions within the final agreement.
I encourage all of my colleagues to contact the Nisga'a people
should they have questions on this treaty. At the same time,
however, it concerns me that the debate on the Nisga'a treaty may
be cut off. As I said, the Nisga'a people have had 100 years to
formulate and determine what objectives they are seeking in a
treaty and now other Canadians need time as well to evaluate what
is involved. I recognize that the Nisga'a people are anxious to
begin what will be a new opportunity for them, but a reasonable
and informed debate should encourage acceptance by people who may
not completely understand what is entailed by this treaty.
Perhaps one of the more positive results of the final agreement
is that it removes the Nisga'a people from under the auspices of
the Indian Act. No longer will the Nisga'a land be reserve land
under the Indian Act and no longer will the federal government
determine how and when resources are extracted and developed on
Nisga'a land. Instead it will be the Nisga'a people themselves
who will make these decisions. They will have to live with the
consequences and surely they will make some mistakes, but so did
the federal government. The opportunity to have the freedom to
make those decisions and to become self-reliant outweigh any
downfall that may result.
The Nisga'a people have been preparing for self-government for a
long time and they have stressed to me that they welcome the new
opportunities that await them. They are anxious to begin and
this process in the Parliament of Canada represents the final
part.
I look forward to an informed, reasoned and unlimited debate on
this treaty.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is almost impossible to know where to begin after that speech.
The member made the presumptuous statement that there was no
need for a referendum in British Columbia. That issue is before
the courts, but he has decided for the courts. Obviously he
knows best.
He talks about a nation to nation concept. I wonder if he
believes that the Nisga'a nation constitutes a sovereign nation
on the same basis as the country known as Canada.
He talks about conclusive agreements and things such as that.
Let him talk to the residents of Burnt Church. All of his
soothing words will not help there.
If it is not a race based government, then what is it? Is it a
public government bill? It is not a public government bill. It
applies only to the Nisga'a and no one has a choice as to whether
they are a member. It is based on their race. I certainly
cannot stand by and listen to that.
The hon. member says that it is non-constitutional. Does he
understand the treaty to be under sections 25 and 35 and that the
government portion of the treaty forms part of the agreement?
The question I would like him to answer is this. What is his
stand on a referendum for the residents of B.C., notwithstanding
the fact that he has already made the decision for the courts of
British Columbia? The Nisga'a had a vote because the legislation
affects them. That is fair. But does it not affect all British
Columbians?
The Liberals say that the treaty is too complex to be understood
by laypersons. The average British Columbian could not possibly
understand it. Does the hon. member agree with that statement?
Would he deny everyday rank and file British Columbians a say on
a treaty which is going to affect them and be the template for
more than 50 other treaties of a similar type?
1320
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I wrote down six
questions. I might have missed one or two, so I will start with
the nation to nation concept.
It completely and utterly astounds me that Reform members of
parliament can stand in the House and continually talk about the
constitution of Canada and the charter of rights and freedoms and
fail utterly to understand how they apply to Canadian
citizenship, to Canadians and to aboriginals in the country. It
is totally amazing.
I am sure we will have an opportunity to continue this debate.
Quite frankly, I look forward to that because there are a number
aspersions that have been put forward by the Reform Party of
Canada that simply do not hold water and will continue not to
hold water. They need to be looked at and explained one at a
time.
Concerning a referendum for the people of British Columbia, the
B.C. legislature approved and ratified the treaty. It decided
there would not be a referendum for the people of British
Columbia. That is the reason there has not been a referendum in
the province. It has nothing to do with the Parliament of
Canada. I would suggest that it is improbable, impossible and
even immoral that the entire Canadian nation should vote on this
matter. This is not a matter for the people of Ontario, Quebec,
Nova Scotia or any other group to dictate.
We deal with first nations in the country on a nation to nation
basis. We may not like that. We may not approve of that. Every
individual member of the House may have individual thoughts on
that, but first nations are protected under the constitution and
we deal with first nations on a nation to nation basis. We deal
nation to nation with 630 first nations. That is why we have
this treaty.
Anyone wanting to look at the Burnt Church issue will find that
it is directly the result of the lack of dealing with the
aboriginal issue in the country, the lack of a modern treaty, the
result of going back to something that was established in 1760
and the result of those laws being forced upon Canadians in 1999
by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Reform Party wants to think that we only accept supreme
court decisions when we like them. A person going to court runs
the risk of losing his or her case.
We allowed the Supreme Court of Canada to decide an issue
concerning Burnt Church and the Donald Marshall decision in Nova
Scotia that should have been negotiated between the Mi'kmaq
chiefs and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I.
and Newfoundland. It should never have been in the courts.
In Delgamuukw the supreme court clearly stated that it is not
the place to settle every issue and difference in the country,
that we should be negotiating in good faith to settle
differences.
This treaty is protected by the constitution, but it does not
affect or change the constitution. That is how it applies. The
hon. member should read it over and understand how it is affected
by the constitution.
The treaty is complex. Not for one moment has the Progressive
Conservative Party said that it is not complex. However, let us
be very clear when we state that we approve of full and open
debate in the Parliament of Canada and that we do not approve of
closure on this bill or any other bill. We support clear,
informed and open debate, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the people of Selkirk—Interlake I would
also like to say that this issue is so major for every Canadian
that I do not agree with deciding it in undue haste.
If debate is limited, how can Canadians understand what is going
on with this issue which involves the Nisga'a people? I believe
it does have broader implications for the rest of the country.
1325
I support negotiating treaties with aboriginal first nations
people. In my riding there are lands being purchased to add to
reserves, which is not causing any problem other than minor
questions over some tax issues.
In the case of the Nisga'a treaty, it seems like the Nisga'a
people have had their say, which is good, but I do not understand
why the other aboriginal people who live in the vicinity of the
Nass Valley have not had their say. I do not understand why we
are rushing through this debate and why Canadians are being asked
to sit quietly in the dark while the Liberal government, which
was not elected on this issue, purports to be able to speak for
all Canadians.
Treaties, in essence, can only be entered into on a nation to
nation basis. In view of that, it is incumbent that we have a
full debate here and that the Canadian people fully understand
the issue.
Does the hon. member not agree that a full understanding by all
Canadians and a full agreement by all Canadians would ensure a
peaceful future, not only for the people of the Nass Valley but
for their neighbours and in fact all Canadians across the
country?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I agree that all Canadians
need to fully understand this treaty and its implications. I
support informed, full, clear, open and continued debate on this
issue. I stated earlier that the Progressive Conservative Party
of Canada does not in any way, shape or form support closure on
this matter.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had several other
questions. One of them I had a bit of difficulty following, but
it certainly was a bit of a contradiction. He stated that he
supported dealing with first nations on a nation to nation basis,
and I think the hon. member has a full understanding of how the
constitution of Canada applies to first nations and the fact that
we do deal with the 630 first nations in Canada on a nation to
nation basis.
However, he also thought that the Nisga'a referendum should have
had some dialogue or something in the process to allow for
comments. Perhaps he was talking about overlapping land claims
or other first nations who live in northern B.C. If we accept
the theory that we deal with first nations in Canada on a nation
to nation basis, then we cannot say that other first nations
should have some say in the treaty that we formulate and go
forward with for the Nisga'a. We cannot have it both ways. It
can only be one way or the other.
The important thing to understand is that the charter of rights
and freedoms will still prevail. The constitution of Canada will
still prevail. The Nisga'a government will be a municipal style
of government with some provincial rights and some federal
rights. At the end of the day we will give the Nisga'a people an
opportunity to move forward, to go into the second millennium and
have their rightful place as equal partners in the Canadian
federation.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very proud to be here to show my support for the proposed
legislation to ratify the Nisga'a final agreement. I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Malpeque.
One of the most impressive characteristics of the Nisga'a treaty
is the balance it achieves. The Nisga'a people have
demonstrated, over more than 20 years of peaceful negotiations,
that they approach issues from a balanced perspective.
They have sought to resolve their disputes through discussion,
mutual understanding and give and take. This same approach is
reflected throughout the treaty.
1330
Today I would like to speak about one area of the Nisga'a treaty
where it was particularly important to achieve such a balance and
where the parties were successful in doing so. The treaty not
only protects the rights of the Nisga'a people, but it also
respects the rights of those who are not Nisga'a citizens who
will live on or within Nisga'a land.
As Canadians, we are very fortunate because our country is the
best place in the world in which to live. In great part that is
because of the importance we place on democratic values and our
willingness to celebrate and respect each other's differences.
Respecting the rights of the Nisga'a, as well as the rights of
those who are not Nisga'a but who will live on or within Nisga'a
land, was one of the key objectives sought by the government in
negotiating the treaty. The Nisga'a have been living in the Nass
Valley and looking after their own affairs for a very long time
and we tend to forget that.
Through the treaty, we are agreeing on practical arrangements
that provide the Nisga'a with an appropriate form of
self-government within the context of our Canadian federation.
The Nisga'a government is for the Nisga'a people. It is
designed in a manner so that they will have the opportunity to
protect their culture, their language and their property. As
such, it is different from other local governments.
Where other local governments are elected by all residents in
their area of jurisdiction, under the Nisga'a treaty only Nisga'a
citizens may vote to elect Nisga'a government members. There is a
very good reason for this. Using a residency criteria to
determine Nisga'a electors could erode the protection the treaty
is designed to provide. If at some future time residents who are
not Nisga'a citizens become the majority, they could effectively
control the Nisga'a government and make decisions regarding the
allocation or disposition of treaty entitlements. As far as I am
concerned, that would defeat the purpose.
Allowing for such a possibility would be incongruent with the
spirit and intent of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
which recognizes and protects the existing aboriginal and treaty
rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. Only the Nisga'a
themselves should have the right to determine Nisga'a government.
At the same time, we all live in a democratic country. The
individual rights of Canadian citizens are also protected by the
Constitution Act, 1982, including the charter of rights and
freedoms. While the Nisga'a treaty provides an opportunity for
the Nisga'a to protect their culture, language and property, this
is balanced with protection for the rights of those who are not
Nisga'a but live on Nisga'a lands.
First and foremost, the rights of all residents on Nisga'a land
will be protected by the charter of rights and freedoms which
will apply to the Nisga'a government as it does to the other
governments in Canada. Residents of Nisga'a lands who are not
Nisga'a citizens will not be deprived of their right to vote.
They will continue to be eligible to vote in federal, provincial
and regional district elections. They will also have the right
to vote for and become members of elected public institutions
which affect all residents of Nisga'a lands, such as the school
boards and health boards.
The final agreement also provides other specific rights to
residents of Nisga'a lands who are not Nisga'a citizens. For
example, they have a right to be given notice and provided with
relevant information when the Nisga'a government intends to make
a decision which might significantly and directly affect them.
They also have a right to a reasonable period of time to prepare
their views for presentation to the government who must then give
full and fair consideration to those views.
Let me repeat that those living within the boundaries of Nisga'a
lands who are not Nisga'a citizens have the right to a full and
fair consideration of their views. That is not all.
All persons living on Nisga'a lands will have the same procedures
available to them for appeal or review of administrative
decisions of Nisga'a public institutions. These protections are
far stronger than those now provided under the Indian Act.
1335
It also deserves to be noted that not all Nisga'a law-making
authorities will apply to those who are not Nisga'a citizens but
who live on Nisga'a land. For instance, while Nisga'a law-making
powers over traffic control will apply to all residents of
Nisga'a land, Nisga'a law-making authority in the areas of social
services and adoption will only apply to Nisga'a citizens. This
only makes sense.
More important, even though those who will reside on or within
Nisga'a land but who are not Nisga'a citizens may receive certain
benefits of services from the Nisga'a government. The treaty
does not allow the Nisga'a government to tax them. Contrary to
statements made by those who oppose the treaty but do not seem to
know too much about it, the Nisga'a government will only have a
treaty right to tax Nisga'a citizens and only on Nisga'a land.
Every aspect of the final agreement has been examined in great
details to ensure that the rights of those who are not Nisga'a
citizens are protected.
Another example can be found in the chapter on administration of
justice which provides for the establishment of a Nisga'a court.
A Nisga'a court can only operate if it is similar to a provincial
court and approved by British Columbia in accordance with the
treaty. The Nisga'a treaty specifically states that the Nisga'a
court cannot impose on a person who is not a Nisga'a citizen a
sanction or penalty that is different in nature from those
generally imposed by provincial or superior courts in Canada
without that person's consent.
During the negotiation of the Nisga'a treaty, federal and
provincial negotiators briefed and consulted extensively with the
residents of the Nass Valley and others who have interests within
the area proposed to be Nisga'a land. Their views were taken
into account in concluding the final agreement. None of these
private properties will become Nisga'a land. Canada's policy is
that private lands are not on the table during treaty
negotiation.
Indeed, the final agreement requires that the Nisga'a
government, on the effective date of the treaty, grant
replacement interest to all those who have property interests in
areas of Nisga'a land before the treaty came into effect. Not
only will these interests be replaced but they are protected from
expropriation by the Nisga'a in perpetuity under the agreement.
Members will see that great care was taken during the
negotiation of the Nisga'a final agreement to ensure that the
rights of all residents on Nisga'a land continue to be protected
in the future.
Besides the Nisga'a track record, over more than 100 years
stands in testimony that the Nisga'a deal with their non-Nisga'a
neighbours in a fair and respectful manner. This high regard is
reflected in the recent words of Chief Joseph Gosnell.
Nisga'a citizenship and the ability to participate in Nisga'a
government is not restricted to persons who meet the eligibility
criteria. Nisga'a government has the authority to grant
citizenship to people, extending to them the rights and
responsibilities of all Nisga'a citizens. The Nisga'a insisted
on this power in recognition that there will be residents who are
in every meaningful way full members of the community and should
be included in the democratic functions of the Nisga'a
government.
In order for the Nisga'a to prosper and attract economic
development, their laws and decisions must be open and
transparent and their administrative policies on review and
appeal procedures clear and fair to all. The Nisga'a final
agreement provides a sound basis for the Nisga'a to complete
those objectives.
1340
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her fine speech. We all
know of her deep interest and personal involvement in the issue.
The Nisga'a deal, the Indian Act, Delgamuukw and the Marshall
decision are all part of an ethos that the rest of the House
agrees with but that we in this party do not, for many reasons.
Does it not seem odd to her that the money and the resources
from the Nisga'a deal will go to the collective rather than to
the individual? We have seen that half the budget, $3.5 billion,
has gone to over 600 bands in the country. There has been
widespread mismanagement by many of these bands, but not all, and
the people on the bottom are being excluded.
On the Pacheedaht reserve in my riding, the chief is being
excluded from knowing what is happening on the reserve in terms
of some very important decisions. When he asked the department
to intervene on his and his people's behalf, the department said
that it could not because the leadership would not let it. The
people on the bottom are being excluded because they do not have
the power.
Does the hon. member not think that in order to achieve economic
emancipation one requires political independence? Does not the
Nisga'a deal, along with the Marshall, Delgamuukw and all of the
other decisions in the envelope, represent the balkanization of
Canada? How does she square the Nisga'a deal with being a
template for decisions dealing with aboriginal treaties and
demands by aboriginal people across the country? How are we
going to pay for it? How are we going to ensure that together
we will be able to move forward with an economic future that will
provide certainty, power and a brighter future for both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, we have to
understand that to this day aboriginal people have not been given
a fair opportunity to exercise their rights within Canada.
Unfortunately we have to make agreements and treaties in the
modern day scenario to ensure that the aboriginal people who have
rights within the constitution have some mechanism other than
what we have today to exercise those rights properly.
As the Progressive Conservative member mentioned, treaties like
the treaty in Nova Scotia have not worked to this day. For 200
years we have been trying a system that does not work. I am sure
we can all agree on that. We have to provide a mechanism so
these Canadians can get the opportunity to govern themselves
because they have not yet had the opportunity to do so.
I am quite disappointed in some of the comments I heard from
opposition members this morning. They do not feel these people
can take care of their own affairs under this new treaty. I know
from my own area that they have been doing their own governing
for many years and they have a system that they want to implement
for their people.
As I said earlier, the systems that we have had to date have not
worked. We have to provide new treaties so these people can
become participants in Canada and have the same benefits other
people in Canada are entitled to.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to correct one comment made by the hon.
member. The Reform Party has never held that aboriginal people
are not able to care for themselves. It is in fact just the
opposite. We would like to see aboriginal people across the
country be able to maintain themselves and be responsible for
themselves on the same basis as all other Canadians.
1345
The land claim agreement contains within it the right to
self-government under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
According to the supreme court this cannot be changed.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please put his
question. I have given him lots of latitude. I said that his
question had to be very short and he has gone for over 60
seconds. We are out of time. Would he put his question very
quickly.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Could the member explain how this is
not amending the constitution through the back door?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, this agreement
is within Canadian laws so I cannot see how the member can ask
that question.
He made another comment about it not being right. I am not sure
how he put it. I cannot repeat his words. However, in the
agreement these people have decided that they want to pay taxes
like everyone else in the whole country. I do not know how he
can be against that.
A group of people has decided to become taxpaying citizens of
the country over a phased in period. I do not know what more
they can do to prove to others that they want to be part of
Canada.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all
members of this place are aware, fisheries is important to many
of Canada's aboriginal people in coastal communities. As it does
in many other areas, the Nisga'a final agreement reconciles and
balances the rights of the Nisga'a people with the interest of
all Canadians. There is a major section in the document on
fisheries. Most important, the Nisga'a final agreement protects
the rich fisheries resources of the Nass Valley. Without
conservation all of us would suffer.
In my former capacity as parliamentary secretary to the minister
of fisheries I had the opportunity to discuss a number of times
with members of the Nisga'a community the importance of fisheries
and how the Nisga'a final agreement would in fact operate. I
asked many questions on all areas and they were very forthcoming
and direct in answering them.
This is an agreement to share the fisheries resources and
provide a certain future to everyone who relies on the fishery.
It also recognized, and very importantly so, a co-operative role
for the Nisga'a in fisheries management while retaining the
overall authority of the minister to regulate all Nass fisheries.
I would like to explain some of the history that has led to the
agreement on the fisheries provisions. The Nisga'a people have
traditionally relied on the Nass River salmon fishery along with
the other marine resources of the Nass area. They continue to
harvest salmon as well as other fish species such as halibut,
shellfish and crabs. Those who have visited the Nass Valley know
how important fisheries are to the Nisga'a people and the Nisga'a
community. Fish is a staple of their diet and is featured at
every feast and ceremony.
Since 1992 the Nisga'a have also taken on an increasing role in
fisheries science. Through the prize winning Nisga'a fisheries
program, developed in consultation with Department of Fisheries
and Oceans scientists and funded through the aboriginal fisheries
strategies, the Nisga'a have been contributing to fisheries
management activities for Nass River salmon stocks. A joint
technical committee of Nisga'a and department of fisheries staff
co-ordinates the Nisga'a fisheries program.
An example of these activities is the fishwheel program which
tracks the number of sockeye salmon returning to spawn. Since
1994 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans began using these
estimates to manage Nass sockeye. Before then it was quite
common for many more sockeye to escape than were needed on the
spawning beds. The Nisga'a effort has helped the department to
manage commercial harvests to catch as many fish as possible
while still meeting its conservation targets.
1350
From 1977 to 1992 over 800,000 sockeye salmon that could have
been safely harvested swam past the fishing fleet and on to the
spawning beds. Those fish are there for the future. This
practice will benefit all those who make a living the from Nass
sockeye fishery, including commercial fishermen. Other Nisga'a
programs also provide valuable information to help manage and
conserve salmon.
In 1995 the Nisga'a were awarded the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans management prize for these efforts. This is what we mean
when we talk of fishery stewardship. It is a very good place to
begin an enduring relationship such as the one the treaty
establishes.
I will talk for a moment about conservation. I said that the
Nisga'a final agreement places conservation first. Let me
explain how. The final agreement plainly states that the Nisga'a
right to fish is subject to conservation. For salmon, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can set minimum escapement
levels necessary for the health of salmon stocks below which the
Nisga'a may not fish.
Both Canada and the Nisga'a wanted to continue the good work of
the Nisga'a fisheries program. In this treaty Canada has agreed
to contribute $10.3 million to the Nisga'a $3.1 million to create
a trust to promote the conservation and protection of Nass area
fish species. The careful monitoring of returning salmon runs
required by the Nisga'a final agreement will provide the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans with the information he needs to act to
protect that fisheries resource, if action should be required.
Conservation remains the first priority. The salmon allocations
contained in the final agreement are based on a percentage of the
return to Canada, subject to a conservation limit and capped at
higher run sizes. These salmon allocations are based on a modest
increase over the current harvest levels by the Nisga'a. For
example, the allocation for the most valuable species, sockeye
salmon, will be 10.5% of the return to Canada, capped at 63,000
fish. There is no uncertainty here. It will be 10.5% and that
is it.
The final agreement precisely sets out the Nisga'a share of the
Nass River salmon fishery, regardless of changes in the
population of Nisga'a, long term changes in the abundance of
salmon or other factors. Everyone will know the rules. There
will be room for all users of the resource. It is extremely
important that everyone knows the rules and that they are laid
down.
A separate harvest agreement which is not part of the treaty
provides for commercial allocations of pink and sockeye. When
there are commercial fisheries for these species the Nisga'a will
have a share. The share for sockeye salmon is 13%. The Nisga'a
share will have the same priority as commercial and recreational
fishers; no more and no less.
An important feature of the certainty we all seek is the
accounting system set out in the final agreement. It ensures
that the Nisga'a catch is consistent with their share and that
the Nisga'a do not harvest from other people's shares.
The fisheries is one of the most important economic
opportunities the final agreement provides to Nisga'a people. The
salmon harvested under the harvest agreement can be sold in
accordance with laws which regulate the sale of fish and with the
terms and conditions set out by the minister in the Nisga'a
annual fishing plan.
Fish harvested under the Nisga'a treaty entitlements may only be
sold when commercial fishermen can also sell those Nass salmon
species. I should also mention the Nisga'a have indicated that
proceeds from a portion of their commercial harvest will be used
to support their fisheries stewardship activities.
The treaty and the harvest agreement result in some reallocation
over and above the current Nisga'a harvest. To ensure that the
fishery continues to be viable for other fishers, the additional
Nisga'a harvest will be offset by a voluntary licence retirement
program.
1355
This means that individual catches of salmon fishermen on
British Columbia's north coast will not go down as a result of
the treaty. As I have said, we have protected the interest of
all Canadians through the treaty.
To be clear, let me state again that the Nisga'a final agreement
confirms the minister's continued authority for the management of
fisheries and fish habitat. The Nisga'a have an advisory role as
members of the joint fisheries management committee. This will
provide recommendations to the minister to help facilitate
co-operative planning and management of Nisga'a fisheries. There
is nothing that limits the minister's ability to seek and
consider the advice of others in the use of this resource.
Nisga'a fisheries will be regulated by the fisheries act, the
regulations, and the annual Nisga'a plan approved by the
minister. The fishing plan will include the timing, the method
and the location of the harvests. The fishing plan must be
integrated as necessary with conservation plans and the fishing
plans for other users.
Compliance with the Nisga'a annual fishing plan will be
enforceable under the fisheries act and under Nisga'a law.
Federal and provincial enforcement personnel can enforce Nisga'a
law.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we all agree that the current treaty process has not
worked. We also agree that the rights of aboriginal people have
been excluded.
I have a question for the member. Is the Nisga'a treaty not
just an extension of our segregationist Indian act of today?
Would not a better way of improving the health and welfare of
aboriginal people, with which every member of the House would
agree, be by not empowering the group selectively but by
empowering the individual?
Only by empowering individuals and giving them the tools to
stand on their own two feet will they have a chance of
contributing to their families and their communities. This will
enable them to get back the pride and self-respect that are
essential for them to move forward with the rest of us to a
brighter future.
Should we not be ensuring that aboriginal people have the same
municipal powers as everybody else, the same rights under the
laws as everybody else, and the same individual rights as every
Canadian? Should we not be ensuring that aboriginal people will
be able to share in that like everybody else?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I think members can see
the putdown and the background of where the Reform Party is
coming from on this issue through that question.
The member talked about aboriginal people moving forward with
the rest of us. This is an agreement that talks about moving
forward together. I was talking about the fisheries management
agreement as an area where we work together in co-operation with
the Nisga'a nation so that we as a whole country move forward. We
are not in that situation as we have seen by going to the supreme
court on the Marshall decision.
This is an agreement worked out with the Nisga'a people so that
we can all make better use of the resources and share in the
resources of the country. Canada as a whole should be better off
as a result.
The Speaker: There are still approximately three minutes
remaining. I want to return to this debate after question
period. If the member is here he will have three minutes for
questions and comments.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HISTORICA
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I thank and congratulate Mr. Charles Bronfman and Mr. Red Wilson,
co-founders of Historica, and their supporters.
They have just launched Historica, a new foundation that will
bring more Canadian history into our classrooms. It will act as
an umbrella organization for other established Canadian heritage
groups and will use television, film and the Internet to help
educate people on Canada's history.
The foundation will establish a website where we will be able to
access a Canadian encyclopedia. It will include chat rooms so
Canadians from coast to coast to coast can talk on line in
both English and French. It will also provide a directory of
Canadian Internet addresses so students can find direct links to other
Canadian history sites.
When polls show that young people are not sure who Pierre
Trudeau is and only half can name Sir John A. Macdonald as our
first prime minister, I applaud this initiative to promote the
study of Canadian history.
It says on the website “celebrating our past, sharing our
future”. What could be more important?
* * *
1400
SASKATOON—ROSETOWN—BIGGAR BYELECTION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to offer a hospitable welcome to a man who has just
arrived in Saskatchewan by parachute.
Dennis Greunding, well known to his neighbours in the Ottawa
suburb of Orleans, is visiting Saskatoon where he has generously
allowed the NDP to put his name forward in the federal byelection
for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Mr. Greunding has rented a lovely home in Saskatoon's posh
Silverwood Heights suburb. Unfortunately, he has yet to learn
that the home he is renting is not even in the riding where he is
actually a candidate. Oh well, at least he is in the right
province.
I also want to express my heartfelt sorrow to Mr. Greunding who
will return to his Ottawa mansion in defeat after the November 15
election. Fortunately this will be the second electoral flame
out for the Ottawa based opportunist who ran as a tourist and
lost to myself in Saskatoon—Humboldt just two years ago.
* * *
EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of the House EB Awareness Week
which is being recognized from October 25 to November 1, 1999. EB
refers to epidermolysis bullosa, a rare genetic skin condition
that affects children regardless of race or gender.
The rarity of the disease combined with the lack of research and
information has left many of the young sufferers feeling isolated
and disillusioned.
Today I seek to raise the public's awareness of this devastating
disease by applauding the efforts of DEBRA Canada. The
Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association of Canada
is a charitable organization founded by a group of EB sufferers,
their families and friends.
DEBRA Canada and its president Francesca Molinaro have been
tireless in their campaign to raise awareness and further
research into this rare disorder.
I encourage everyone to support DEBRA Canada in its goal to
raise awareness of EB and provide support to all the children who
suffer from this terrible disease.
* * *
TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you believe it? On the threshold of the 21st century there are
families in Peterborough county without telephone service.
I was given the following directions to one of these homes:
“Follow County Roads 8 and 40 to where the telephone lines stop,
then follow the poles to our place”. These homes have telephone
poles. They have neighbours with telephones but they are unable
to get service.
This is unconscionable in rural Canada today, in the most
connected nation in the world. The federal government has put
all our schools on the Internet, but kids in these families
cannot access it at home. They cannot even phone their friends.
I urge the government to intercede with Bell Canada and the CRTC
to see to it that these Peterborough families get telephone
service soon.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Small Business Week.
SMBs are the driving force behind our economy and, in
Brome Missisquoi, they can be found in farming, tourism and the
services sector. They create large number of jobs and are a new
way of developing modern economies.
In Sutton, Magog, Knowlton, Farnham and Bedford, our young,
small business entrepreneurs are imaginative, hard working, and
involved in what they do for a living and in their community.
The Government of Canada is proud of all this country's young
entrepreneurs. You are helping to build a better world.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among
Canadian women and the statistics are not encouraging. Breast
cancer has been increasing by 1.5% every year since 1981. One in
nine Canadian women will be afflicted by this disease. But there
are encouraging signs.
Many people in this House participated in the CIBC Run for the
Cure that raised millions of dollars for breast cancer research.
Also support groups are developing for families and the patients
affected by breast cancer. We also have new surgical techniques
that are less disfiguring and new treatments that we hope can
prevent breast cancer in the future.
That is not good enough. We have to find a cure. We encourage
the government to increase its commitment to develop more
research into breast cancer.
I also encourage women to seek out their doctors to do screening
for breast cancer. Women who have breast cancer should make sure
their daughters are checked also.
Let us use October not just as a month to look at breast cancer
in its entirety, but let us look at October as a start to
eradicate it.
* * *
1405
CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
little more than a year ago, the House along with the other place
established the Canada-China Legislative Association to build a
special relationship between the people's congress in China and
our parliament.
This week we are joined in Ottawa by the chairman of the Chinese
section of the legislative association, Mr. Jiang Xinxiong; the
vice-president, Mr. Zheng Yi; and two members of the association,
Mr. Tao Xiping and Mr. Wang Shuming.
We have just finished two days of very fruitful meetings. We
have had frank and full debate on a wide range of issues from
Taiwan to illegal immigrants. We are building upon the very firm
foundation that has been established between our two countries.
* * *
GREAT LAKES BASIN
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
31 concerned citizens from Quebec, Ontario and United States are
in Ottawa today to meet with parliamentarians to raise issues
about the Great Lakes basin.
Some 321 million pounds of toxins were released by legal permit
in 1996 into the Great Lakes. Research and monitoring budgets
have been substantially reduced and regulations weakened.
These concerned citizens are calling on parliamentarians to
protect human health and restore the ecological integrity of the
Great Lakes basin.
This is a call to action we ignore at our peril.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just recently,
we learned that national parks, which come under the authority
of the federal government, are in terrible shape. Parks Canada
is standing by and watching the sad spectacle of many species of
wildlife disappearing into oblivion.
The problem is generalized, and not limited to one or two parks.
This is a real crisis. One expert is not hesitating to blame
Parks Canada for the disaster.
And yet, the government has tabled a bill to create marine
conservation areas, for which Parks Canada would have
responsibility.
How can the government think about adding to the
responsibilities of an agency that has obviously shown itself
unable to handle its existing mandate properly?
Parks Canada must first halt the disappearance of threatened
species in existing national parks before the government can
think—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the environment minister may be proud of his green thumb
but it is his iron fist that Canadians are worried about.
After his ridiculous statements about the special tax on sport
utility vehicles, the minister is now worried about emissions
from cows and pigs. That is right. Just when we thought the
junk science on global warming could not get any more weird, it
just has. Now the ranchers and farmers who raise our tasty
four-legged friends are the new environmental villains.
This brings a completely new dimension to the Liberal gas tax
proposal. Will the minister introduce an anti-flatulence tax, a
dollar for every animal that passes wind?
If the minister is concerned about the global warming myth, I
have some advice. Tell his Liberal caucus not to exhale.
* * *
MAURICE RICHARD
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
night in Montreal a special event took place.
[Translation]
Yesterday evening, we paid tribute to a hero of Ahuntsic, of
Montreal, and of the entire hockey world, Maurice Richard.
Maurice Richard is an example of tenacity, of hard work, and of
hockey professionalism. He is also a hero for people such as my
brother and all the young people of his generation, but it
transcends generations.
In short, he is a model on the ice and off it as well.
[English]
I say thank you to Maurice Richard for being a role model for
all young people in the country, and for also assuring that our
national sport, hockey, continues to be honoured in the same way
and to be reflective of the type of team and sport spirit we want
in the country.
[Translation]
Congratulations, Maurice, and thanks.
* * *
[English]
DIWALI
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill the south Asian
community is celebrating Diwali, the festival of lights.
Diwali signifies victory of light over darkness, victory of
knowledge over ignorance, victory of goodness over evil and
victory of life over death.
It is a celebration of eternal light.
1410
Diwali is a national festival celebrated by a large segment of
the south Asian community around the world.
Today I would like to thank the Prime Minister, ministers and
MPs who have already confirmed their presence at this evening's
celebration of this great event by the members of the
Indo-Canadian community in room 237-C between 4.30 p.m. and
6 p.m.
* * *
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the NHL and the players will not do anything to keep pro
hockey in Canada. If they are not prepared to co-operate, then
the federal taxpayer should not either.
For the government to even consider for one minute spending one
more dime of tax revenues to bail out the NHL would be a
monumental travesty of justice when thousands of farmers are
going bankrupt in the worst farm crisis since the depression. If
the government helps millionaire hockey players and owners out of
a currency imbalance but will not help farmers out of an
international subsidy war, then something is terribly wrong in
our country.
To put additional tax dollars into pro sports before food,
health, education, housing or yes, even some tax relief, would
push Canadian priorities so far out of balance that voters would
never forgive the Liberals' stupidity.
The government's own polls say tax aid for pro hockey is the
lowest spending priority for Canadians. Some 94% in my own
riding survey opposed subsidizing the NHL more than the millions
we already provide to it. One fellow said it best: “Farm aid,
yes; hockey aid, no”.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few days
ago, I received in my riding office a copy of the resolutions of
the cities of Delson, Saint-Constant and Châteauguay addressed to
the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject of the
transportation of nuclear waste from Russia and the United
States via the St. Lawrence seaway.
In my riding, some 100,000 people live along the St. Lawrence in
the municipalities of Delson, Sainte-Catherine, Saint-Constant,
Kahnawake, Châteauguay, Mercier and Léry and are very concerned
about the possibility of environmental accidents.
In addition, these cities draw their drinking water near or from
the St. Lawrence.
This government, which is spending millions on consultations
with the public in certain areas would be well advised to put an
end to its silence—at no cost to itself—acknowledge receipt of
these resolutions and put a stop to this project that represents
a danger to the people living on the shores of the St. Lawrence.
* * *
[English]
IRVING OIL
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, recently
New Brunswick's Irving Oil set a higher standard for all fuel
manufacturers in Canada by introducing a new brand of low sulphur
gasoline for Canadian consumers.
As a New Brunswick MP and the environment critic for the PC
Party, I am proud that New Brunswick's own Irving Oil is the
first to meet Environment Canada's new target levels of 150 parts
per million three years ahead of schedule.
This healthy investment also indicates that Irving Oil will
likely meet its commitment to Environment Canada's next target
level of sulphur reduction to 30 parts per million well ahead of
the scheduled deadline in 2005.
Elderly people and individuals suffering from heart or lung
disease are particularly sensitive to air pollution. This clean
air initiative will go a long way in the battle to help all
Canadians breathe a little easier.
Congratulations to Irving Oil for its foresight and conviction.
Canadians are grateful for its commitment to the environment and
human health.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the
eighth year in a row, Canadians are celebrating Women's History
Month in October.
October was chosen to commemorate the historical importance of
the Persons Case. On October 18, 1929, following a long
political and legal fight by a group of five women, the British
privy council made a decision declaring that the term “persons”
in section 24 of the British North America Act also included
members of the female sex and that therefore women were eligible
for Senate appointment.
In this Year of La Francophonie, the theme of Women's History
Month is “Yesterday and Today: Francophone women in Canada”.
Nearly 7 million people live in French in Canada, and more than
half of them are women. I am proud that the federal government
is paying special homage to francophone women throughout the
country for their exceptional contribution to the evolution of
Canadian society.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said he was not
personally involved in the security arrangements for the APEC
conference. Now there is concrete evidence before the RCMP
complaints inquiry quoting RCMP Superintendent Wayne May as
saying “The Prime Minister of our country is directly
involved”. Yesterday the Prime Minister's human shield, the
Deputy Prime Minister, was completely unable to answer this
contradiction.
Why is the Prime Minister's story in direct contradiction to
evidence presented to the RCMP complaints inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry has been going on for more than a year.
There have been thousands of pages of documents and a lot of
witnesses. The inquiry is ongoing. Let the inquiry do its job.
It is as simple as that.
There cannot be two inquiries, one in the House of Commons and
the one that is now taking place. I have confidence that Mr.
Justice Hughes will look at all the facts and report to the
public.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the inquiry is doing its job and one of the things it
turned up was this evidence from RCMP Superintendent Wayne May,
who said, and I will quote again, “The Prime Minister of our
country is directly involved”. Superintendent May had no reason
to make up that statement.
Is the Prime Minister saying that Superintendent May is the one
who is lying?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. May was a witness. If they want to call him back it
is for them to decide.
I know exactly what I said yesterday, and I repeat, let the
commission do its work. I repeat, and the evidence is there,
that I never gave any instructions and never discussed anything
on security with anybody with the RCMP.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister cannot explain why he
chose to put the protection of the image of a foreign dictator
ahead of the rights of Canadian students, so we are not asking
that question.
We are asking a simpler question, to explain the contradiction
between the Prime Minister's story and evidence that has been
presented to this inquiry. We are not getting any answers there
either, so perhaps a change of venue would help.
The Prime Minister says that he has all of this faith in the
RCMP complaints inquiry. If he is so sure of his story, will he
repeat it under oath in front of that inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when a member of parliament, when a minister and when a
prime minister is in the House of Commons talking to the people
of Canada, all the electorate of Canada, it is as good as having
the Bible here.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am repeating the Prime Minister to himself: “I am telling you I
never talked about security with anybody of the RCMP”. These
are very choice words of a very experienced lawyer, but
unfortunately the facts do not bear out that statement.
Why will the Prime Minister not turn up in Vancouver, testify
under oath and be subjected to proper cross-examination?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they have heard a lot of witnesses. I repeat what I
said, and it was sustained by all the people who were involved
and who have testified. We have given 10,000 pages of
documentation. Everybody who was requested to testify has
testified.
I repeat in front of the nation and in front of God, if you
want, because my name is Chrétien and I have no problem with
that, that I never discussed security with anybody with the RCMP.
1420
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we seem to gain a sense of how the Prime Minister sees himself.
The Prime Minister said “Let the commission do its job”. The
key question for this commission is where the influence came for
the RCMP to undertake the actions which they did. I believe that
they came from the Prime Minister. Why will he not appear in
front of the commission so that the commission can do its job?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said, and I repeat, the RCMP had a job to do and they
did the job. Now they are explaining whether or not they made a
mistake.
I wanted and everybody in Canada wanted to make sure that every
leader who came to Canada was secure in Canada. It was the
responsibility of the RCMP. I let them do their job and they did
it.
If somebody has committed some mistake the commission will
report to the Canadian public.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
casting serious doubts on the government's intentions as far as
the rule of ownership is concerned, the Minister of Transport is
deliberately creating confusion. The shareholders of Air Canada
will need to reach a decision before long and they must have all
of the information in hand with which to make that decision an
informed one.
Does the Minister of Transport commit to clarifying his point of
view as far as the rules of ownership are concerned before the
all-shareholder meeting scheduled for next November 8?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be speaking on that subject before the committee
an hour from now.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
hope we will learn something during the committee meeting, later
on.
Last year, when the bank mergers were being debated, the
government used excessive concentration as justification for the
10% rule on bank ownership, citing public interest. In the case
of the airlines, the eventual outcome would be a monopoly. So
the danger of concentration is quite real.
Should this same government not apply the same logic once again,
and restrict ownership to the same 10% level, in the name of the
public interest?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already said, I will be addressing this issue in
committee this afternoon.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although Onex's plan to acquire Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
is contrary to existing legislation, its president, Gerald
Schwartz, is not hesitating to invest much time and money
promoting it throughout Canada.
Can the Minister of Transport assure us that the hope of
acceptance for his proposal on which Onex's president is relying
is not the direct result of personal guarantees received from
certain members of the government since the beginning of this
affair?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been no discussions with members of the government on
this topic.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of Transport not admit that, every time he
talks about his intention to amend the ownership rules, he is
siding with Onex, as the president of Air Canada pointed out in
the The Globe and Mail this morning?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is very important is that shareholders of Air
Canada and Canadian International be allowed to make a choice
about the companies' future. Then we will look at the proposal
to determine whether it is in the public interest.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said that the APEC inquiry can recall May. Maybe
he would explain why federal government lawyers were opposing the
application to recall May.
Unlike his officials, the Prime Minister cannot find the right
venue to clear the air on his APEC involvement. The Prime
Minister was in Vancouver last week, not to testify before the
inquiry, but to attend a Liberal fundraiser.
He talked yesterday about APEC security matters, not in front of
Judge Hughes, but in front of reporters.
Why is the Prime Minister not willing to do like his officials
and volunteer to testify before the APEC inquiry?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the commissioner is a very experienced person who has
looked at all the needs. He has requested that some people
testify and they have testified. We have given him all the
information he has asked for. I let him do his job. He is there
and the lawyers of all the parties are there. Let them do their
job and they will report to the Canadian public.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since
the APEC conference two years ago Indonesians have managed to
throw out two dictators, yet Canadians are still waiting for
answers.
Did the Prime Minister ever discuss with his own staff the
presence of protesters at APEC? If so, does that not make him
responsible when his staff discuss the matter with police?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a witness by the name of Mr. Bartleman asked me about
Indonesia. I invite the lady to read the testimony. She will
find that there were perhaps some words that were not completely
parliamentary. Read it and you will get your information, and
stop making innuendoes based on nothing in Indonesia.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to please address the
Chair.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week
I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs about merchant navy
compensation. The minister, along with his other colleagues,
took great pleasure in trivializing this issue by refusing to
give the veterans a straight answer. Will the minister inform
the House today when they can expect a just compensation package?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are presently reviewing the matter
concerning our veterans, our merchant navy veterans and the
entire benefit structure for our veterans. The hon. member is
just jealous that her party did not do it when it was in power.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals have been in power for 38 years since 1945 and they did
absolutely nothing until March of this year. When we were only
in power for 16 years we put those merchant navy men under the
civilian war veterans allowance act.
This is a serious situation. I ask the minister once again if
he will inform the House of when the merchant mariners can expect
a compensation package of $20,000. Will he do that immediately,
before November 11?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when this question came up when the hon.
member's party was in power the leader said no at that time and
the leader is still saying no: no to being a member of the
House, no to joining the united alternative, no to running in the
byelection. Joe Who has become Joe No.
* * *
1430
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a
treaty is nothing less than sovereignty association. The
intergovernmental affairs minister tried to deny this in the
spring, but now the cat is out of the bag.
In an interview yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois said that the
treaty could provide an example for the future relationship of
the citizens of a sovereign Quebec with the rest of Canada.
Why does the government not admit that this is sovereignty
association, nothing less? Why is it countenancing it here in
parliament?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, something we could never do is banalize what would
be the breakup of Canada.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, apparently
the minister did not understand the question. I will ask it
again.
In the spring he said that the Nisga'a treaty was not
sovereignty association. Yesterday the Bloc said it finds it a
very interesting treaty and it intends to use it as a model for
its sovereignty association project.
I again ask the intergovernmental affairs minister why the
government is prepared to accept it in the Nisga'a treaty when it
rightly denies it in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there will be no Nisga'a land in the United Nations.
The Nisga'a will not be an independent state in the United
Nations. Quebec will also not be an independent state in the
United Nations.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in recent
years, the government has intervened, in particular by awarding
of the best international routes to its friends at Canadian
International Airlines. Today the minister is apparently
preparing to change the rules of ownership, again to the
advantage of Canadian International Airlines.
Has the government not shown, on two separate occasions, through
its treatment of Canadian International Airlines, that it is
prepared to do everything to save that company and that, as far
as it is concerned, the die is cast?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will show in committee this afternoon that our policy
favours the Canadian people, not a company, but the people of
Canada, the travellers of Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what message
is the Minister of Transport sending the shareholders of Air
Canada when he says he is prepared to change the law to
accommodate Onex and Canadian International Airlines? Is the
message not to the effect that it is more important to be a
friend of the government in doing business with it than to
comply with the law?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important that the shareholders of Air
Canada and Canadian International Airlines decide on the future
of these companies.
Following a decision, if we receive a proposal, we will look at
it in the public interest.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should know
that in 16 areas the power of the Nisga'a government will be
paramount to that of the provincial and federal governments.
In the Marshall decision, the court arrived at its decision
based on misinterpretation of a key government witness. The
Nisga'a treaty is much more complex than the Mi'kmaq treaty. It
has more than 50 unresolved issues yet the government is prepared
to sign off on it. The government is handing the courts a blank
cheque.
After all the chaos created by the Marshall decision, why is the
government rushing through a treaty in which so many specifics
remain unresolved?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to relate to the
member and to the House what this party has been saying for the
last number of months.
The first myth is that the charter does not apply to the Nisga'a
government. That is wrong.
The second myth is that the rights of Nisga'a women are
unprotected. That is wrong as well.
The third myth is that the treaty provides for taxation without
representation. That again is wrong.
If we are going to have a debate in the House, these members
have to start from the premise of reading the treaty itself line
for line.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister proved once again that this is question
period not answer period.
The Mi'kmaq treaty placed restrictions on the Mi'kmaq right to
trade. The supreme court twisted that to allow for a race-based
priority fishery. The Nisga'a treaty allows for a race-based
priority right to fish on the west coast.
The Marshall decision has created havoc on the east coast. With
50 unresolved issues, the Nisga'a treaty will create havoc on the
west coast.
1435
Why is the government perpetuating the chaos of a flawed court
decision by proposing flawed legislation?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me go back to
the myths of the Reform Party. One of the myths that the Reform
Party is trying to perpetuate is that the treaty does not
recognize federal and provincial laws. That is wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the CINAR affair, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
accusing the Bloc Quebecois of making unfounded allegations and
is carefully avoiding to answer any of our questions.
How can the minister explain that she continues to clam up
whenever we ask questions, on the pretext that an investigation
is being carried out, while her department officials are giving
private briefing sessions to certain journalists acknowledging
that there are problems at Telefilm Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the reference is to briefings for journalists, these
are certainly not secret briefings.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I repeat, department employees admit the existence of
questionable practices at Telefilm Canada, while the minister is
refusing to give any answers here to questions from the
opposition.
Since Laurier Lapierre, chairman of the board of Telefilm
Canada, appears to be implicated in this, does the minister not
feel that she ought to ask Mr. LaPierre to step aside
temporarily, in the name of ethics, until the matter has been
clarified?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for about a week now, I think, the hon. member opposite
has been making allegations against CINAR and the members of
Telefilm Canada. I believe that he ought to follow the lead of
his leader in Quebec City, who said that these questions
required reflection and that the RCMP needed to be left alone to
do what has to be done.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
natives have now resumed logging on provincial crown land based
on the Marshall decision.
Would the minister of Indian affairs please clarify for the
House whether, in his opinion, the Marshall decision gives
aboriginals the right to log on crown land, yes or no?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of
negotiating with the provincial governments and the first nations
people. Because of the Marshall decision, we will define during
the negotiations exactly what those aboriginal rights are.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
hardly constituted an answer to my question.
Section 92(a) of the Canadian constitution clearly gives
provincial ownership and rights to manage natural resources. In
the minister's opinion, which takes precedence: the
constitutional right of the provinces, or a 239 year old numbered
treaty that was struck before Canada even existed?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if he would read
the constitution he would know that provincial governments and
federal governments both have a fiduciary responsibility to first
nations people.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we listen
to the Minister of Industry, it is clear that the Canadian
government will not be coming to the assistance of professional
sports clubs. But yesterday the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport opened the door to indirect assistance.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. How does the
minister explain the remarks of the Secretary of State for
Amateur Sport, who continues to say that the government will
provide indirect assistance for professional sports clubs? Whom
are we to believe, the Minister of Industry or the Secretary of
State for Amateur Sport?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
National Hockey League teams are facing a problem. It is a
problem on which we have spent a great deal of time. We have
held talks with other levels of government. I know that all
members are concerned about this problem, but we do not yet have
a solution.
* * *
[English]
IRELAND
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the past months a frustrating stalemate has stalled the
peace process in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it threatens to
destroy it and the peace process there is at a critical stage
right now.
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what
actions the Government of Canada has taken to help ensure that
the peace process will ultimately be successful?
1440
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the most important initiative was the visit that the
Prime Minister took to Northern Ireland this last summer, where
he lent his presence and the broad support of Canada behind the
process. At the same time, he announced a $1 million
contribution to the International Fund for Ireland which is
designed to help reconciliation in that country.
In addition, we have General de Chastelain working on the
decommissioning environment. We have Professor Shearing working
on the Patten Commission and Professor Hoyt working on the
inquiry into bloody Sunday. These are three very distinguished
Canadians who are actively involved in trying to bring together
the two sides in that process.
In this case, Canada is very much showing that we deeply desire
peace in Northern Ireland.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for months the government has said that
it would rely on the private sector for a solution to Canada's
airline industry problem. Now we understand that the transport
minister will decide on what is an acceptable deal.
Will the minister tell Canadians exactly what government
policies and current laws he will change to accommodate either of
the two offers before him?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have always said that it was up to the private
sector to decide on business arrangements that were acceptable to
them. Once a proposition is decided on by the shareholders of
Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, it will have to be submitted to
the government for approval to see whether or not it meets the
conditions that I have outlined a number of times.
I hope the hon. member can wait, but in a few minutes I will be
giving more information to her and will certainly entertain
questions in a more detailed fashion.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians watch question period more than
they watch a committee meeting. I would like to know if the
minister, who has had both the Onex proposal and the Air Canada
proposal before him for a week and has had a chance to look at
them, knows whether these deals meet his requirements.
Is the minister prepared to support or reject either one of the
two offers that have been placed before him?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be right that more Canadians
watch question period than committees. I think I should announce
the fact that the committee proceedings will be carried live, in
both languages, at 3.30 p.m. eastern time.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, responding
to the member for Halifax last week, the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food referred to changes in crop insurance safety nets,
NISA, AIDA and undoubtedly other four letter acronyms. What he
failed to inform the House was whether or not this new-found
federal flexibility would actually result in any new money,
particularly for hard-pressed, cash-strapped prairie farmers. The
farmers want a straightforward answer.
Could the minister tell the House whether there will be any new
money for any of these programs?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the debate in the House yesterday I
informed the House that we are continually looking for other
ways, new ways and continuing ways to support Canadian farmers.
The government has shown that it has done that in the past and
will continue to support the farmers in every way we possibly can
as resources become available in the future.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister needs a new acronym to justify the expenditure may I
suggest the Canadian advancement for Saskatchewan husbandry,
otherwise known as the cash program.
The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be meeting with
cabinet ministers later this week. Farmers on the verge of
desperation want to know whether the government is going to
extend a helping hand. With a projected federal surplus, farmers
know the way is there. What they do not know is if the will is
there.
Once again I ask the minister if there is any willingness on his
part to assist in this endeavour?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have clearly shown our willingness and
we have shown the way. We put in place a program, not even a
year ago, that is putting over $900 million, along with $600
million from the provincial government, into the hands of
farmers.
If we look at the election platform of the hon. member's party,
in 1997 it said that the additional money that it would put
forward to the ministry of agriculture and to the agricultural
industry in Canada was $11 million. That is a long way from $900
million.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister responsible for homelessness secretly hired 18 new
staff members in May at a cost of over $1 million. Neither the
minister nor her million dollar staff have produced anything to
help the homeless.
A million dollars could have provided shelter for 30,000 homeless
Canadians. Is it more important to the minister to spend $1
million on staff or to help provide shelter for 30,000 Canadians?
1445
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I inform the House that the minister responsible for the
co-ordination of homelessness has hired one staff person. All
other staff members were sent to me on loan because they were
experts in this field.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, if it is on loan it is still costing $1 million. The
minister's staff includes three correspondence assistants even
though she already had six as the Minister of Labour and six
program assistants even though she has no programs to administer.
Will the minister put her million dollar staff to work producing
a homeless strategy, or will she let thousands of Canadians
freeze on the streets again this winter?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hired one staff person. All the other staff was given
to me on loan.
The staff members that were given to me on loan have all the
reports that were written on homelessness. They have also have
all the recommendations I have received this summer from
communities and are putting those recommendations in place.
I assure the House that they have taken their work very
seriously. We are concerned about what is happening with the
homelessness situation and we will work on it.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada.
Money laundering, corruption and other criminal activities pose
a serious threat to the stability of the emerging democracy in
the Soviet Union and contribute to organized criminal activities
in Canada.
In light of the recent G-8 meeting in Russia, would the minister
explain to the House what steps the government is taking to
control the activities of multinational criminal organizations?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue. Let me reassure the House that the government
is committed to the fight against transnational organized crime
both at home and abroad.
For example, in June 1997 the government amended the criminal
code to ensure that we could investigate and prosecute those
involved in organized criminal activities. Earlier this year the
government reformed the extradition act to expedite the
extradition of alleged criminals from this country. In addition,
my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will reintroduce in coming
weeks Bill C-81 to combat money laundering.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are only a week away from the sixth conference on the
Kyoto agreement, and Canadians still do not know how the
government plans to meet the UN imposed emission targets. The
only thing Canadians have heard from the government on global
warming is that it does not like sport utility vehicles or
flatulent livestock.
Does the minister plan to break the promise made by the Prime
Minister that there will be no new taxes to meet his Kyoto
targets?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the official opposition has missed the
bus. The Bloc asked the question yesterday and I answered this
very point.
The fact is that we now have in place committees of 450 people
from the private sector, the provincial governments and the
federal government who are working together to work out a
strategy. The position taken by the Canadian government is
virtually identical to that announced yesterday by Chancellor
Schroeder of Germany. We are on track to achieve our Kyoto
targets.
* * *
[Translation]
HOMELESSNESS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Labour admitted that the federal government had made
cuts and that this had contributed to increased poverty.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Since this is the
first time that a minister in this government has admitted that
federal government cuts have hurt the most disadvantaged and the
homeless, can she tell us what she intends to do about the
situation?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during my travels this summer, I heard that cuts at the federal
and provincial levels had had an impact on poverty and the
situation of the homeless in Canada.
This government asked me to play a co-ordinating role. I spent
the summer visiting communities across Canada, because we want
to do something about the homeless. We will do so in
partnership with committees, municipalities and the provinces.
* * *
1450
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government
says that it is concerned about poverty, but its actions say
otherwise.
Alain Boudreau, a young seasonal worker, is getting $50 a week
in employment insurance benefits because the method of
calculation takes only his last 26 weeks of work into account.
If the calculation were based on a year, Alain would receive
$272 in benefits. This makes a world of difference for a young
person starting out.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he think that $50 a
week is enough to live on?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to
remember that EI is not an industry or a business. It is an
income support program for those who qualify. Those who are
eligible apply for it and receive benefits based upon the
earnings they have been taking home from the jobs they have had.
If the member would like to bring the particular details of this
case to my attention, I will investigate it with him.
* * *
[Translation]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on March 25,
the minister responsible for the homeless promised to put a
strategy in favour of these poor Canadians in place within 30
days. It is now 215 days since the promise was made.
Could she tell us where the strategy and the money are?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for 31 years I have worked in the fight against poverty.
When I went to Toronto, I promised to meet mayor Mel Lastman
within 30 days, certainly not to come up with a long term
solution for the homeless in that time frame.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Some 30% of Canadians
live in rural communities yet only 14.3% of general physicians
practise there. Fewer than 3% of all specialists operate in
rural communities.
What immediate action will the minister take to correct the
tragic situation for health care in rural Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is working actively to assist provinces in meeting
their responsibilities to make services accessible to Canadians
no matter where they live, including the one-third of Canadians
who live in rural and remote parts of the country.
For example, we have appointed for the first time an executive
director of rural health to work with me in developing health
policies that will respond to this real challenge.
Just this past weekend we funded a very successful national
conference on strategies for rural health and rural research. We
put aside money in the budget for rural health strategies. We
are committed to getting the job done.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we still have not heard from the minister on the
government's position on the UN imposed emission targets.
All we have heard is that the minister will either throw
Canadians out of their cars with a gas tax or out of their jobs
with a carbon tax.
Will the minister end the mystery today and table the
government's proposal to meet the Kyoto emission targets?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member said, the agreement
in Kyoto was arrived at by 160 countries. It was not imposed by
the United Nations.
Further to what he said with respect the issue of taxation, all
members of the government have made perfectly clear that we do
not believe a broad based carbon tax would be an appropriate way
to go.
There are however many other other measures, including
incentives whereby we can work together to achieve the Kyoto
targets. These targets are very important for us to achieve.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week the
newspapers carried an Agriculture and Agri-food Canada
advertisement looking for a geneticist to plan, set up and
direct a transgenic products program.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Are we to take
this job advertisement for someone to plan, set up and direct a
program for genetically modified food products as confirmation
that such a program does not exist within his department at the
present time?
1455
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the centres of excellence and the
considerable amount of research staff that we have in Agriculture
Canada are always working to find new ways of technology,
advancing science and improving science which has been the
standby and safeguard for the advancement of the agriculture and
agri-food industry in Canada.
We have those kinds of scientists and we do that kind of work.
When the work is finished and in the process we check it based on
safety and the best science available today. That is how the
decisions on the results of that work are based.
* * *
EQUALITY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
throne speech stated that our diversity was a source of strength
and creativity.
The government overlooked an experienced and qualified black
judge in Her Honour Judge Corrine Sparks during a recent
appointment in Nova Scotia. The government has fanned the flames
of racism with its inept handling of the Nova Scotia fisheries
dispute. The government has failed miserably to promote visible
minorities within the federal public service.
What is the government doing to address racial inequities both
in its own policies and racism within the ranks of hiring of the
public service?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the hon. member says, our government has indeed
taken steps to make the public service even more inclusive. As
soon as we were apprised of the problems, my predecessor set up
an external advisory board headed by Mr. Perinbam to advise the
government on how to achieve an even more inclusive public
service.
I do not think that our government has anything to learn from
the New Democratic Party on this score.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, on March 24,
the Minister responsible for the homeless stated in the House
that it was her responsibility to ensure that all Canada's
children have a safe bed to sleep in.
Unfortunately, the minister has not kept that promise. Why is
she condemning homeless children to yet another winter out on
the street?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to assure all the poor children throughout Canada
that there is someone here who speaks for them. I can assure
them that I will continue daily to work to ensure that children
have a warm bed to sleep in every night.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a decade ago the government made a commitment to establish more
national parks.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain how this
commitment made a decade ago will be fulfilled?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. In
particular I was pleased to participate with the hon. member for
Nunavut in a celebration in Pond Inlet where the Government of
Canada formally signed an agreement with the Inuit of the eastern
Arctic to establish three new national parks.
Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik national parks could not
have happened without the help of the hon. member and the Inuit
people. We thank her and the Inuit people for a very progressive
pro-management agreement in three new national parks.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
minister leaves later today to lead a delegation of foreign
ministers to meet with the military dictatorship in Pakistan.
Could he indicate to the House the position he will take on
behalf of the Commonwealth? If the military junta does not
provide for a timetable for a return to democracy, could he
indicate to the House what the position of the Commonwealth and
the position of Canada will be?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I should
also say that I appreciate having his company on the trip. I
know it will be a great asset. It is very important that members
of parliament be involved in these matters.
I will answer the question simply.
I want to point that this mission was authorized by the
Commonwealth to take the message that under the Harare
declaration we do not accept military overthrows of
democratically elected governments. We would like to see the
regime there establish a clear set of timetables to develop how
it will restore democracy and equally so protect the rights of
people who have been arrested during that period of time.
* * *
1500
DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Glen Galbraith, a convicted sex offender, became the 49th
unlawfully at large prisoner from Sumas Community Correctional
Centre since January 1998. This long time drug addict and career
criminal sexually attacked two teenaged girls from Victoria,
British Columbia.
Did he tunnel out? No. Did he scale a fence? No. He packed
his fishing rod and his golf bag and he jumped in his own car and
took off.
My question is for the solicitor general. Since his last stint
was nine years, why has this government failed to prepare this
sex offender for release?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this offender was granted day parole by
the National Parole Board. When it was discovered that he did not
return, a Canada-wide warrant was issued for his arrest. I can
assure my hon. colleague that the RCMP is working with all police
forces across the country to apprehend this individual as soon as
possible.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw hon. members' attention to the
presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Madam Esperanza
Aguirre, Speaker of the Senate of the Kingdom of Spain, and her
delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jiang
Xinxiong, leader of a delegation from the National People's
Congress of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1505
The Speaker: Order, please. Before we resume debate we will pay
tribute to one of our former members, Mr. Ian Wahn, who
passed away. The spokesperson for the Liberal Party will be the
member for St. Paul's.
* * *
THE LATE HON. IAN WAHN
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to pay tribute to a former member for the riding of St.
Paul's, Ian Wahn.
He was born in Herbert, Saskatchewan, schooled in Swift Current
and obtained his Bachelor of Law degree at the University of
Saskatchewan. After that he obtained a Rhodes scholarship to
Oxford University in England and then his M.A. there in
jurisprudence. He was called to the bar from Osgoode Hall Law
School in Toronto in 1943. By that time World War II had broken
out and Mr. Wahn served with the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada in
both the Netherlands and Germany. He earned the rank of captain
by the end of the war.
In 1942 he married Pearl Lychak who died in 1988. They had two
children, Ian and Gordon.
Mr. Wahn was first elected to the House of Commons in 1962
having defeated Progressive Conservative Roland Michener who then
was Speaker of the House. He was re-elected in 1963, 1965 and
1968. While in the Commons he served on many committees,
including banking and finance, justice and legal affairs,
industry and energy, privileges and elections. After he was
re-elected in 1968, he served as chairman of the national defence
and external affairs committees.
As a member he sponsored bills to reform the laws relating to
immigration, divorce and birth control. He authored the Wahn
report from the committee on Canadian-American relations on
Canadian control of the economy and culture.
In 1972 Mr. Wahn lost his seat to Ronald Atkey who had won the
seat for the Conservatives under Robert Stanfield. He returned
to his law practice afterward working with the firm of Borden and
Elliot and in 1961 helped form the firm of Wahn, Mayer, Smith,
Creber, Lyons, Torrance & Stephenson, now known as Smith Lyons.
This morning I asked the member for Davenport who had served in
his constituency association in 1964 about his remembrances. He
felt that Mr. Wahn served a valued role as a parliamentarian. He
called him a small l liberal of the first order with a true
understanding of democracy. He said that Mr. Wahn had a skill
for organizing community meetings and citizen fora and for
explaining and obtaining feedback on some of the most complex
issues that affected the country. He had regular meetings from
November until June each year with invited colleagues from
Ottawa.
He was viewed as a first rate bridge between Ottawa and Toronto.
He had a highly developed social conscience which resulted in
effective representation on behalf of his constituents on issues
such as pensions, disability and services for immigrants.
It was in the services for new immigrants that he made a huge
impact. The Deputy Prime Minister reminded me that a large number
of the constituents in St. Paul's in those days were of Chinese
origin. Mr. Wahn would say that some of his constituents thought
he was Chinese but when they found out that he was not Chinese
they voted for him anyway. I think he had earned his stripes in
the way of immigration services and by being an excellent
constituency representative.
As we now strive for antidotes to the cynicism and apathy about
government, politics and politicians, we must endeavour to look
to the example of the true constituency MPs like Ian Wahn. Every
day he demonstrated a true respect for the role of the citizen in
a working democracy.
As the member for St. Paul's, the success of Ian Wahn in the
area of citizen engagement and social justice provides a daily
inspiration to me.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
in the House today to pay tribute to the late Ian Wahn. While I
did not have the pleasure of meeting Mr. Wahn, it is my
understanding that he was a dedicated parliamentarian for 10
years, from 1962 to 1972.
1510
While in the House of Commons he served on several committees,
including banking and finance, justice and legal affairs,
industry and energy, and privileges and elections. Additionally,
he served as chairman of the national defence and the external
affairs committees.
He was an accomplished lawyer both prior to and after his
parliamentary career. His professional success flowed naturally
from his academic achievements. He was a Rhodes scholar, having
received both his B.A. and M.A. from Oxford University. He later
returned to Canada and finished law school at Osgoode Hall in
Toronto. He was a patriot and veteran who served with the
Queen's Own Rifles of Canada during the second world war. He
earned the rank of captain by the end of that war.
It is with great respect that I pay tribute to the memory of Ian
Wahn. I extend my condolences to the family and friends of a
true gentleman, scholar and patriot.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
just over one month ago, on September 14, 1999, Ian Grant Wahn
died at the age of 83.
A native of Saskatchewan and a lawyer by profession, Mr. Wahn
served in Holland and Germany during World War II. From 1962 to
1972, he made his career in federal politics. He was elected
four times to represent the Toronto riding of St. Paul's as a
Liberal, defeating Progressive Conservative Roland Michener, who
would go on to become Governor General of Canada.
During his political career, Mr. Wahn's interests included
finance, justice and industry.
During his last term of office, he chaired the Standing
Committee on National Defence and External Affairs.
In a tribute to his father, one of his two sons spoke of his
charisma, his kindness and his consideration for others. His
greatest desire was to help correct what he felt to be wrong.
It was therefore not surprising that he introduced bills that
reflected his social vision with respect to abortion, divorce,
birth control, and immigration.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I pay tribute to a politician
who, for ten years, devoted his energies to the service of his
fellow citizens. His children, his grandchildren and his
friends can be proud of him.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I would also like to pay
tribute to Mr. Ian Wahn and to offer condolences to his family at
this sad time.
We pay tribute to Mr. Wahn because although none of us had the
opportunity to know him, we note that he had a very distinguished
career serving this House of Commons and serving his country in
both peace and war. He also had a distinguished academic and
legal career.
We gather all these things up and give thanks for the life and
work of a distinguished Canadian citizen.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, I join
with my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to pay
tribute to the late Ian Wahn.
He has quite properly been described as a gentleman politician
and a Canadian patriot. A Rhodes scholar, he answered his
country's call and served in Holland and Germany with the Queen's
Own Rifles of Canada during the second world war.
After the war he worked as a lawyer. He worked on such projects
as the trans-Canada pipeline. But his sense of public service
drew him to public office where he accomplished exemplary work in
the field of immigration. While he sat on the opposite side of
the House from our members, he won the respect of both sides with
his outstanding character, kindness and diligence.
Canada is a better place because of his lifetime of service. We
join all members in extending our condolences to the Wahn family.
They can be very proud of their father and their grandfather.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS IN CHAMBER
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
A question was asked today regarding a serious problem with a
New Brunswick UI recipient. The member for London North Centre
stated in the House in defence of his government “The people of
Ontario are paying your bills”, meaning New Brunswick. He is the
chair of the national Liberal caucus. I believe a discriminatory
comment like this means he should resign from that position
because he does not represent the national all Canadian—
1515
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order. We are getting into debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an
Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the
second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the Nisga'a treaty, which is arguably, in my
opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, one of the
most important bills the House will ever deal with, certainly the
most important bill that I will likely deal with as a
parliamentarian in my time in office and in my time in Ottawa.
I have spoken to the Nisga'a treaty in previous debates in the
House at length. I have talked about many different aspects of
it. I could go on today to talk about such issues as the costs
of the treaty. The government originally tried to persuade us
that the cost of the treaty would be $200 million. It now admits
that it will be $500 million. However, an independent study
indicates that in fact it is probably more like $1.3 billion and
counting.
I could talk about such issues as resource allocation and
forestry concerns in British Columbia. People in the forest
industry have reviewed this agreement and they say, contrary to
what the government says, that this agreement does not provide
certainty, does not provide a level of comfort for the forest
industry and in fact creates greater uncertainty than existed
before.
I could talk about fisheries issues, such as the creation of a
new Nisga'a only commercial right to fish, which will be
exclusive. We have said to the government in the past that we
have no objection to increasing Nisga'a participation in the
fishery, but do it the right way, do it by buying existing boats
and licences and conveying those so that everybody is
participating on a level playing field, rather than creating a
Nisga'a only right, based on blood lines, which will give the
Nisga'a exclusive access to a resource which other Canadians will
be denied.
The government continues to refuse to listen. It will not
listen to advice from the official opposition. It will not
listen to British Columbians. It does not care what British
Columbians think. In an interview two days ago the minister said
that this is not an issue about British Columbia, it is an issue
that goes beyond British Columbia. We do agree with him on that,
but the immediate impact is going to be felt in that province,
which happens to be my province.
The minister said that he frankly does not care what British
Columbians think, he is going to ensure that this treaty passes
anyway. That is the height of arrogance. How does this
government expect to win public support for this kind of
initiative when the minister of the crown who is responsible for
the treaty displays that kind of attitude?
I could talk about other issues, such as the fact that the
agreement grants the Nisga'a central government legislative
supremacy in at least 14 areas that go beyond the reach of this
parliament or the provincial legislatures. Consider that for a
minute. It goes beyond the reach of this parliament. That means
that for all times Nisga'a laws will prevail over federal or
provincial laws in the event of a conflict.
Our friends in the Bloc Quebecois have certainly picked up on
this. In an interview yesterday the member who is the aboriginal
affairs critic for the Bloc Quebecois said they are supporting
the treaty largely because they see very interesting similarities
between the Nisga'a treaty and what they see as their vision of
sovereignty association for Quebec with the rest of Canada.
The government will rightly deny the Bloc and the PQ that kind
of relationship, that kind of accommodation, but it will provide
it to the Nisga'a people in northern B.C.
1520
If the government truly believes it is a good idea, is it
prepared to offer the same accommodation to Lucien Bouchard as it
has offered to the Nisga'a people and the Nisga'a government in
northern B.C.? Is the government prepared to offer that exact
same accommodation?
I suggest there is no way that the government would offer that
same accommodation. If it is good enough for B.C., why is it not
good enough for Quebec? I will tell the House that the
government will never go down that road when it comes to Lucien
Bouchard and the sovereignists in Quebec, but it certainly is
going down that road in British Columbia. The implications are
enormous.
I could go on to talk at length about that. I could talk about
the unconstitutional nature of the treaty. There are two
separate legal challenges in British Columbia right now, with
more coming. At the heart of this agreement is the
constitutionality of it. The federal government, by agreeing to
convey and cede legislative authority in 14 areas, is doing
something that it has no constitutional right to do.
I would refer members of the House to a Supreme Court of Canada
decision which was rendered in 1950 in the Lord Elgin Hotel case
in which the supreme court said that the constitution of Canada
does not belong to parliament, it does not belong to the
provincial legislatures, it belongs to the people of this country
and the parliament of Canada has no right to cede legislative
authority in any area.
Sections 91 and 92 of our constitution exhaustively set out
legislative jurisdiction and authority in this country between
the federal government and the provinces. The Liberal government
is trying to use extra constitutional means to get around that to
provide supreme legislative authority to the Nisga'a central
government in at least 14 areas.
We say that is a mistake. It flies in the face of what the
Supreme Court of Canada said in 1950 in the Lord Elgin Hotel
case. It flies in the face of what Canadians said in 1992 when
they said no to the Charlottetown accord.
The government does not really care about what Canadians think
and what Canadians say. That is obvious. Ever since the
Charlottetown accord was defeated the government has been
constructing backdoor ways of doing all the things in the
Charlottetown accord that Canadians said no to. That is what
this Liberal government is about. As a Canadian I am very
offended that the government would act in that manner. I know
that people in British Columbia are extremely offended.
I can tell members that in the debate on the Charlottetown
accord in my province of British Columbia, leading up to the vote
on the referendum, the major consideration for many British
Columbians in deciding whether to accept or reject the
Charlottetown accord was the aboriginal self-government
provisions that were contained in that accord. If that clause
was not contained in the Charlottetown accord it is very likely
that support for the entire concept would have been much higher,
certainly in British Columbia and maybe in many other areas of
Canada.
The government is intent on constructing, brick by brick, the
Charlottetown accord in the face of Canadians who said no to it.
I do not understand how the government could be so arrogant as to
do that, but that is what it is about.
I want to talk about how this is going to affect individual
people. I heard the minister of Indian affairs say two or three
times that the Nisga'a treaty is a way of bringing the Nisga'a
people into Canada. I have to ask myself the question: Where
were they before the treaty? Were they outside Canada? I do not
think so.
On Friday evening I happened to have an opportunity to have
coffee at the Vancouver airport with a lady by the name of Mazie
Baker, who is a member of the Squamish band. She had the same
questions for me. She heard the minister of Indian affairs
saying that this was a way of bringing the Nisga'a people into
Canada. She asked: “Does that mean I am not a Canadian? Does
it mean that until the Squamish band signs a treaty with the
federal government I am not a Canadian?” She was always under
the impression that she was a Canadian and she wanted me to ask
the minister on her behalf whether she was.
I do not understand how the minister could make a statement like
that without thinking about how it would impact and how it would
get people like Mazie Baker thinking. Mazie also asked me, as
many other native women have in British Columbia, why the
government is prepared to concentrate power in the hands of the
Nisga'a central government or any government to the extent that
it has.
1525
This is a problem that does not exist with native people alone.
We have the problem nationally. We always have to implement
checks and balances whenever we have governments to ensure that
power is not too closely held. As a matter of fact, that is one
of the main planks of the Reform Party's policy. We think that
power is too concentrated in Ottawa. We have some constructive
ideas about how to decentralize and spread that power base out
over a wider area, rather than having it concentrated in the
PMO's office like it is right now.
Grassroots people ask us why the federal government is prepared
to ignore our rights as individuals in favour of collective
rights only. They have no problem with the concept of collective
rights, but they want their individual rights to be recognized.
They ask what they will get out of the treaty process as an
individual, whether they will be able to own a piece of land and
make personal decisions about what to do with that land with
their family.
They want to know if they will get some kind of cash benefit
that will be real and meaningful which they can use as a means of
getting a head start and maybe starting a small business. They
say that they will not get that. What they will get is a
government above them which will have a tremendous amount of
power and control over resources, land, cash and so on. They are
not happy with that prospect.
We talked to native women from across Canada, but particularly
in British Columbia. I met in the spring with Marilyn Buffalo,
who is the head of the Native Women's Association of Canada.
Marilyn expresses the view very well that aboriginal women in
Canada, particularly those who live on reserve, do not enjoy very
much in the way of rights. They certainly do not have the same
rights as non-aboriginal women living off reserve.
In the event of a marriage breakdown, a non-aboriginal woman has
the protection of the law for access to the marital home and a
guarantee that she is half owner of family assets, including the
marital home. On reserve, because there are no private property
rights, there is no opportunity to ensure that those rights are
guaranteed for aboriginal women.
In the event of a marital breakdown, most often it is the woman
and children who are out on the street. The Nisga'a treaty,
which is supposed to address the problems existing today in
Canada, does nothing to address that. I argue that it will make
it infinitely more difficult in the future for the federal
government to correct the situation, if it ever chooses to do so,
because of the legislative authority that will be granted under
this agreement for all time.
I hear from native people all the time concerning their rights
and the lack of accountability which they encounter. Many times
we get calls, letters and faxes from grassroots native people
living on reserve asking for our help. We have received serious
questions and in some cases serious allegations about the misuse
of band funds, the misuse of assets and about nepotism.
When they write a letter to the minister of Indian affairs he
writes back telling them it is a matter for the band to resolve.
The government takes a hands off approach, but at the same time
that same ministry is directing huge blocks of funding into that
same band leadership with very little in the way of strings
attached or accountability. Most often the grassroots people who
we hear from have difficulty getting the money together to make a
phone call because they are so broke. They do not have resources
and they are not getting access to the resources on reserve.
They are not getting the accountability they are looking for.
I cannot understand why the government time after time ignores
the pleas and cries for help from those people. In having coffee
Friday evening with two members of the Squamish Band, Mazie Baker
and Wendy Lundberg, I could sense their level of frustration when
they asked “Why is it that when we write to the minister it
falls on deaf ears? Why is it that we cannot be heard?”
1530
They came to Ottawa in the spring when Bill C-49 was debated to
testify before the Senate committee on aboriginal peoples. They
tried to encourage the Senate to make amendments to that
legislation which would protect their rights. They made a very
cogent presentation to the Senate and to the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Both committees ignored them. Their rights were not protected.
The amendments they proposed were not accepted. They travelled
all the way here and went back empty handed.
They are still crying out for help. They want their individual
rights respected and protected but they are not getting it. They
have told me they have looked at the Nisga'a agreement. They see
it as a further entrenching of the status quo, making it
infinitely more difficult to ever see their individual rights and
the individual rights of other people respected.
Increasingly we see grassroots Nisga'a people writing letters to
the editor and expressing their views. When the ratification
vote took place it was a mere two months after the deal was
publicly unveiled. Until that time it was secret deal. Neither
the grassroots Nisga'a people nor the rest of the non-aboriginal
people in British Columbia had any real idea of what the deal
contained.
They had a period of only eight or nine weeks after the deal was
unveiled to consider an agreement that was 220 to 230 pages long,
with 400-odd pages of appendices, before they were required to
vote on it in a referendum.
I remind the House that the vote showed that just over 60% of
the Nisga'a people supported the deal. It is very important for
members of the House to be reminded that many Nisga'a people had
trouble with the agreement for one reason or another and did not
support it.
It is beyond me why the government wants to think of the Nisga'a
people, or any aboriginal band for that matter, as some kind of
homogeneous group that thinks the same way, wants the same things
and agrees on the same set of principles, conditions and so on.
Nothing could be further from the truth. They are every bit as
much individual as we are.
That leads me to the main point I want to make. The government
and previous governments have encouraged aboriginal people over a
long period of time to see themselves as separate and apart from
the rest of Canada, to the extent that aboriginal people,
particularly aboriginal leaders, look at the principle of
equality as some kind of a threat or negative thing.
This is unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
True equality is not only the best way to preserve harmony in
society. It is the very best way that we know of to guarantee
democratic rights to individuals, to provide individuals with
economic opportunity, and to ensure that native people are
treated in a manner that allows them to get on with their own
lives and to make personal decisions about what they want to do
instead of being herded on to reserves and told that if they want
to be identified as a Nisga'a, as a Tsimshian or a Tsuu T'ina
they have to live on reserves with no property rights and in
abysmal conditions. That is the only way they can maintain their
identity.
We say that equality is about equality in law and allows plenty
of room to respect and celebrate cultural differences. I do not
think there is a person in this place who does not respond to the
fact that we as Canadians have a very rich heritage.
The unique languages, customs and traditional dress of aboriginal
people are part of our Canadian culture. We see it expressed in
many different ways, but celebrating one's cultural diversity
should not lead to segregation in law, which is what the federal
government's position has been for a very long time.
1535
As my leader pointed out this morning in his speech, in 1968-69
the federal Liberal Party under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau
seemed about to break from that kind of thinking. It seemed to
be on the verge of a new way of proceeding forward but lost its
courage. In losing its courage it has broken faith with
grassroots aboriginal people. Many of the very serious and
abysmal conditions we see on reserves today could have been
avoided had the Liberal Party not done that. We urge its members
to reconsider following through on 19th century thinking.
As my leader said this morning, we should think outside the box
and look for another alternative that puts individual rights over
collective rights and puts the opportunities that may be accorded
by the federal government in the hands of individuals, not in the
hands of collectivities.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
having listened to the member for Skeena I find it incredible
that so much misinformation continues to come forward from that
member and other members of the Reform Party. There are many
contradictions in the arguments they put forward in debate.
Just a few moments ago we heard the member for Skeena state that
he and the Reform Party believe that aboriginal people such as
the Nisga'a people should get on with their own lives and that
they should be treated with respect, dignity and equality.
If the member, his leader and other members of the Reform Party
really believe that, why would they deny the Nisga'a people the
treaty when they finally sat at the table as equals with respect,
dignity, due process and open public process to negotiate the
treaty?
It seems to me that the Reform Party is absolutely hypocritical
in its approach to this question. On the one hand the Reform
Party claims to be upholding the rights and equality of
aboriginal people, but on the other hand it is prepared to
sabotage the agreement. I would like the member to comment on
that.
It was quite astounding this morning to listen to the leader of
the Reform Party say that he wanted to show another way for
treaties in the future. He wanted the Nisga'a people to adopt
what in effect was the market ideology. That is what he was
calling on the Nisga'a people to do.
If the member believes in the individuality and rights of
aboriginal people, surely he must admit and acknowledge that they
have their own position, history, experience and arguments to
determine their own future. Why would the Reform Party say that
it is its way or no way, that it is the market ideology or
otherwise the Reform Party will trash them? I would like the
member to comment on that.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I reject the suggestion
that the Reform Party, myself personally or anyone connected with
the party is intent on trashing anyone. That type of
mischaracterization is not at all helpful to the debate.
As soon as one objects to a policy direction of the government
when it comes to aboriginals or immigration, it seems the conduct
of its members is to come after one's personality, character,
motives and morals. They question those because they do not want
to debate the substance of the issue.
I would like to correct the record for the hon. member who has
spoken about public forums. There were no public forums in
advance of the treaty being unveiled, none whatsoever. I happen
to live in the area for which the treaty was negotiated.
We begged the negotiators to bring this process out into the
open. They said no. They had signed a document that secretized
this process and they said they would stick to that. They would
not make it public.
1540
In terms of market ideology I know the hon. member, being a
member of the NDP, is firmly committed to socialist doctrinaire,
but surely she must recognize that this doctrinaire has failed
everywhere it has been tried in the world.
How many times do we have to see failure before we get to the
point where we say maybe it does not work? Why would the
Government of Canada be encouraging an economic system that is an
obvious failure everywhere it has been tried and be foisting it
upon the Nisga'a people?
I suggest the hon. member should consider very carefully that
what is in the long term best interest of the Nisga'a people is
something that works. Surely after 132 years of policies and
treaties that do not work members of the House should be
interested in something that does.
I would make one further point. If treaties were so good for
aboriginal people, one should be able to make the argument that
those parts of Canada covered under treaty and all the aboriginal
people there should be better off than in British Columbia where
they are not covered by treaties.
For the hon. member's benefit, if she has not visited reserves
in other parts of Canada, they are not better off. I would argue
that in many cases they are worse off where they have treaties.
She should not tell us that treaties are the answer. They
certainly have not been the answer for 132 years.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I sense
that the member for Skeena cares deeply about these issues, but
I wonder whether his information is accurate.
[English]
A few minutes ago the member told us about aboriginal women and
how they did not have equal rights. I would like to remind him,
or perhaps even inform him because I am not at all sure he has
read the treaty, that the rights of aboriginal women are fully
protected under Canada's legal framework through the treaty.
We are talking about subsection 35(4) of the Constitution Act,
1982, which guarantees treaty rights equally to men and women.
Let us also not forget that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms applies to all decisions of the Nisga'a government. All
decisions have to be accepted in an indirect way through the
charter of rights and freedoms.
I would also like to remind him that political rights are
provided equally to men and women under the Nisga'a final
agreement and the Nisga'a constitution.
Finally, and this is also an important part, federal and
provincial human rights legislation will apply to the Nisga'a
government and to the Nisga'a people.
We talked about marital breakdown. Unfortunately it happens all
too often. In the case of Nisga'a men and women the British
Columbia family relations act will determine the division of all
matrimonial property, and not Nisga'a law. We see once again
that Nisga'a women, just as Nisga'a men, are protected by the
constitution of Canada, by provincial laws and by Canadians laws.
I would like the member to reply.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
her questions. I believe by the tone of her comments that she is
truly interested in this subject as well. I thank her for that.
I would like to respond to her questions.
On the issue of women's rights it is true the agreement says
that provincial jurisdiction or provincial laws will apply. The
hon. member has to understand that before there can be a division
of marital assets there has to be a property right attached to
them. Right now on reserves in Canada it is the band council
that decides who will live in which house because those houses
are not individually owned by anybody. They are owned by the
band.
There is a potential for the creation of some kind of private
property right in the Nisga'a agreement but there is no
commitment to it. Without that commitment we cannot guarantee
those matrimonial rights to Nisga'a women.
The member talked about charter rights. Yes, it does say that
in the agreement, but that is something the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development in my view is using to mislead
or misrepresent the agreement. The preamble to the Nisga'a
agreement states that the charter of rights and freedoms will
apply. That is true. We certainly concede that. It is there in
black and white, but we must also understand that section 35 of
our constitution recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights. Those
are collective rights.
1545
Section 25 of our constitution requires the courts to take into
consideration those rights in the event of a conflict between the
charter rights of individual Nisga'a people and the collective
rights of the Nisga'a as a people. It is not only that the
courts must take that into consideration, but they must give a
higher priority to the collective right over the individual
right.
I urge the member to get out her constitution and read section
25 and section 35. It is very easy to come to the conclusion
that our charter rights are put in peril by the section 25
requirement of the courts to say that section 35 will trump
individual rights. I urge her to take a look at this because it
is very important. If we do not do that, then in five, ten,
fifteen years from now we will see that the fallout from that
will be some court cases that are going to be seen to be patently
ridiculous by most Canadians. Nisga'a individuals will be losing
challenges at the supreme court when their charter rights are
violated. They will not be on the same level playing field as
all other Canadians. That is really unfortunate.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to speak to the House today in support of Bill
C-9, the bill introduced by the government to implement the final
Nisga'a agreement.
The Nisga'a people live in the Nass valley in northwestern
British Columbia and have lived there for hundreds if not
thousands of years. When the European settlers reached their
land, they found a well-organized and self-governing society.
That society met its own needs by harvesting the abundant
resources of the land on which it lived and by trading with its
neighbours. It boasted a rich culture and traditions.
When British Columbia became a province and joined Canada in
1871, aboriginal people made up the majority of its population,
yet they had no recognized rights in the political decision
making process.
Passage of the Indian Act resulted in the introduction of a
band-based administrative regime being imposed upon the first
nations, which were henceforth required to submit to close
supervision by federal representatives. Potlatches were also
outlawed by the government, despite being a tradition at the
core of the political and social system of the first nations.
As well, children were separated from their families and sent
far away to Church residential schools.
Despite these dramatic changes, the Nisga'a and other first
nations of British Columbia have survived as a culture and as a
people.
They cherished their traditional values and their identity and
held on to their profound belief that they still held the rights
of ownership over their traditional lands.
As early as 1880, the leaders of the first nations demanded
treaties that would establish a fair relationship between their
people and governments. The Nisga'a were at the forefront among
the first nations of British Columbia in exerting pressure on
the governments to negotiate treaties. I would remind the
members of this House that the Nisga'a have always used
diplomacy and peaceful means to achieve this end, even though
governments continued to reject their requests.
In 1927, parliament amended the Indian Act to make it illegal
for Indians to spend or collect money in order to advance their
claims.
Thus, native people were denied a right enjoyed by all other
Canadians.
When these provisions of the Indian Act were repealed in 1951,
the first nations began again to organize themselves in order to
pursue their claims for recognition and the ability to negotiate
treaties.
In 1968, the Nisga'a, under the leadership of the chief at the
time, Frank Calder, initiated proceedings in the courts that led
in 1973 to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. In this
decision, which was extremely important, the court found that
the Nisga'a could have had ancestral titles at the time before
settlement. However, the justices were divided equally on the
matter of the continued existence of these titles.
1550
Further to this decision, the federal government adopted a
policy on global land claims, and in 1976 began negotiating a
treaty with the Nisga'a.
In 1982, when the Canadian constitution was patriated, the
rights of the native peoples of Canada were finally recognized.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognized and
confirmed the existing ancestral rights and the treaty rights of
the native peoples of Canada.
However, section 35 does not contain a definition of the rights
included in “existing ancestral rights” that remain to be
determined through negotiation or recourse to the courts.
The purpose of these treaties is to reconcile the historic
rights of native peoples with a contemporary context,
recognizing that they were living here and governing themselves
before the arrival of the Europeans.
Yes, Canada's native peoples have unique rights, which are
protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. These
unique rights have to do with their earlier occupation of this
land.
Those who claim that the Nisga'a treaty establishes a government
that creates inequality should take a closer look at what it has
really accomplished. This treaty spells out clearly the rights
the Nisga'a will have in the future.
It was pointed out that Canada's first nations were among the
most disadvantaged groups in our society. In all areas,
especially literacy, employment, health and development,
conditions in their communities were far below Canadian
standards. It is inexcusable that a group of persons should be
at such a disadvantage in a country like Canada.
The Nisga'a treaty will help ensure that the Nisga'a truly have
access to the benefits and privileges to which they are entitled
as Canadians, while retaining their identity as aboriginals.
This is what the Nisga'a treaty accomplishes. This treaty
recognizes that the history of the Nisga'a precedes the
establishment of Canadian sovereignty and it does so in a manner
fully consistent with the equality provisions of the charter.
It confirms the unique rights of the Nisga'a, while respecting
the rulings of the highest courts of the land. In so doing, it
establishes a fair balance between these rights and the
interests of other Canadians and makes these rights an integral
part of Canada's constitutional and legal framework.
In my view, Canada is not a country where native peoples must
stop being native peoples in order to be Canadians. By means of
this treaty, we will show that it is possible to be Canadian,
while continuing to live in the Nisga'a culture. That is my
vision of Canada.
This treaty establishes the rights of the Nisga'a in a number of
areas, particularly those having to do with land and resources.
It also sets out a practical set of legislative rights to which
the three parties to the negotiations, the federal and
provincial governments and the Nisga'a, have agreed.
The Nisga'a government will be subject to the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code of Canada will
continue to apply on Nisga'a territory, as will federal and
provincial legislation.
The legislative jurisdictions set out in the treaty are designed
to enable the Nisga'a to protect their culture, their language
and their property.
Equal rights for women, for example, will be protected by both
the Charter and the treaty itself, regardless of what the hon.
member has just said in his speech. Provincial divorce
legislation will also continue to apply.
The Nisga'a Final Agreement protects the rights of the Nisga'a
while recognizing the rights of the non-Nisga'a. The legislative
powers of the Nisga'a will be restricted by the provisions of
the final agreement, which will also guarantee that special
mechanisms are in place to protect the rights of the non-Nisga'a
living on Nisga'a land.
Criticism that this treaty gives the Nisga'a the power to take
away the rights of other Canadian citizens is simply absurd.
For example, the final agreement calls for the Nisga'a to be
entitled to a water reserve.
This water supply represents only 1% of the average flow of the
Nass River. In order to use this water, the Nisga'a must apply
for a permit from the British Columbia government as any person
must. Anyone can apply to use the other 99% of the flow.
1555
As regards fisheries, the Nisga'a's treaty guarantees the
sharing of this resource between the Nisga'a and Canadians. In
fact, under the provisions on fisheries in the Nisga'a treaty,
the Nisga'a's right to fish is itself subject to preservation
measures.
If, for example, conservation measures required a moratorium on
fishing, the Nisga'a would not fish, even for domestic purposes,
because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the final say
on managing fisheries in the Nass region. The Fisheries Act will
continue to apply to both the Nisga'a and other fishers. In
each of its provisions, the Nisga'a treaty protects the rights
and interests of all those who work and live in the Nass region
or visit it.
The government knows very well that ratification of the Nisga'a
treaty is the step that must be taken in order to look to the
future rather than remain prisoners of the past.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on her speech.
As all members are aware, we are joining with the government
majority in supporting the Nisga'a treaty, because we believe
that it is only fair to do so. We certainly believe that the
treaty is fair. It will offer the protection of a number of
important pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Code, to
which my colleague referred.
The treaty interests me because I have already had an
opportunity to discuss it when I was a member of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have very
fond memories. Unfortunately, I must inform the member that I
will no longer be serving on this committee. I can see her
disappointment already.
My question for her is this: The Nisga'a treaty recognizes the
right to a form of citizenship for Nisga'a residents. I myself
introduced an amendment to the Citizenship Act in the previous
parliament asking that citizenship in Quebec be recognized. As
members know, there is such a thing as Quebec citizenship. We
wanted this amendment so that we could present explanatory
material about it during swearing-in ceremonies.
Setting aside her somewhat indecent haste, I ask my colleague
whether she would agree to support such an amendment, since the
Nisga'a are being allowed a form of citizenship. I think it
would be only right to recognize citizenship in Quebec as well.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Madam Speaker, the only response I can give
to the hon. member is that when we were both on the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration, we disagreed on various issues.
Today, what I am here for is to answer questions on the bill
before the House, and that is the only answer I can give.
I believe that the hon. member's question is not relevant to the
debate we are having in this House today, but I will be pleased
to meet with him in private to discuss citizenship and
immigration issues.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her
intervention and her analysis of the treaty.
There is one thing that concerns me. This is the first modern
day land agreement where self-government rights are actually
contained within the land claim agreement.
As a result of this, section 35, as it has been interpreted by
the supreme court, means that the rights contained in the land
claim agreement can never be unilaterally reclaimed in the future
by the government that gave these rights.
1600
From these rights flows the ability to create legislation. Up
until this point, legislation has been the prerogative of the
federal and provincial governments only.
How can the hon. member square this with the government's claim
that there is no constitutional amendment through the back door
when through this means the constitution will be irreversibly
affected without the consent of the province, according to the
amending formula?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my
understanding of this clause is not the same as that of the hon.
member who has just spoken. He tells us the federal government
will not have the possibility of reclaiming the lands it has
just confirmed as belonging to the Nisga'a.
Once a treaty is finished, it seems to me it is good for life.
In other words, it is an agreement between the Nisga'a of
British Columbia and the Canadian government. I do not see what
pretext the Canadian government could use to go back on its
word, to go back on its signature and withdraw terms of a treaty
it had agreed to sign with the Nisga'a people. In my opinion,
there is no question of the government going back on its
decision.
Once legislation has been enacted, that is that; it must be
respected. I cannot see any reason whatsoever for reference to
the constitution. This treaty will be given effect by this
House without any recourse to the Constitution of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I believe the member
has missed the point.
The federal government already has an agreement with the
provinces and with Canadians in the constitution that there is an
amending formula. Now it has made an agreement to a different
amending formula without referring to the constitutional means of
doing this.
The government cannot have it both ways and still square its
actions. Canadians have a right to expect that the constitution
will only be amended according to the amending formula agreed
upon.
We now see in this treaty that there is a means of amending the
constitution without the proper amending formula. In my mind,
this is amending the constitution through the back door, not
through the regular means that the provinces and the Canadian
government have agreed to use.
I would like the member to comment on this. This is a
bastardized way of dealing with the constitution that is
inappropriate.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Madam Speaker, the fact that I do not
agree with the hon. member does not mean that I do not understand
the hon. member's question. I understood it clearly enough, but
I disagree with the conclusion that he draws from it.
What I have said is that this is not a constitutional issue. The
fact that I did not see it as being a constitutional issue does
not mean that I have misunderstood.
The agreement that will be signed in the House and passed as
legislation in the House does not necessitate directly or
indirectly an amendment to the constitution of Canada. I can
only repeat that so many times.
Perhaps the hon. member has made his own interpretation of the
law, but that is his interpretation. It is not my interpretation
nor the interpretation of my party or the government.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will
share my time with the member for Vancouver East.
The NDP supports the treaty. The major problem that we see is
that as a treaty it will not be honoured. We just had the
example before us in the supreme court where the Marshall
decision came down over a treaty from 1760 because that treaty
was not honoured.
The Northern Flood Agreement was a treaty that was not honoured
and it forced native people into dire poverty when there was
great wealth made off an appropriation of their land and
resources.
1605
We see treaties as a devolution of power which is bringing power
down to the grassroots level and putting it in the hands of the
people who are directly affected by decisions being made. This
will help the Nisga'a people because that is what they need. They
need power, they need their land and they need their resources to
be able to get on with their lives and make decisions on how they
will carry on.
What we are going to see as soon as the treaty is ratified is
the whole implementation process. As I said, my biggest fear is
that the implementation will force the Nisga'a people back into
negotiation and that they will, in fact, have to take that to the
court in order to have their treaty implemented as was desired.
That is the biggest fear I have and I hope that does not happen.
I believe that as Canadians we should be honouring treaties; that
Canadians do not see themselves as conquerors; that in effect we
have to make compensation for what was taken away.
The Indian people of this land had a race-based decision made in
favour of them. That legislation was the Indian Act. It took
away their language, their land, their culture and even their
children. What we did was kick them out of their home and
through negotiations we basically said that maybe they could come
back into the basement. We said that we would make a little room
but that they should not expect too much. I think that is a real
shame on our part.
I honestly believe Canadians want to make reparation and
compensation for the wrongs that were done, wrongs that can never
be changed. We cannot give them back their children or their
land, but the least we can do is give them back some of what they
held.
On an international level, what Canada is doing is not all that
wild or crazy as some members of parliament would have us think.
There is the Nordic autonomous regions which are self-governing
areas within Denmark and Finland. They are based on the
historical and ancestral rights of a different culture within a
country. They have their own parliament and some have their own
flags, their own stamp and their own government. They are in
charge of making laws that will determine the destiny of their
people, but they do not have power over foreign affairs, defence,
or the monetary system. Their federal or state government will
pay for any decisions that they implement. The Governments of
Greenland, the Faro Islands or Aland must therefore come up with
money that they need to implement the laws that they have
instituted.
One of the group of islands, known as Aland, their citizenship
is determined by birth, by language and by culture, and they have
to be able to speak the language of the people. If someone wants
to become a citizen he or she has to stay on Aland for at least
five years and be able to speak the language adequately.
Interestingly enough, a person can lose his or her citizenship
there if he or she leaves for a period of five years.
Throughout the world there is a wide variety of approaches to
accommodating different cultures and different groups within a
larger body.
On a national level, when it comes to treaties and the
recognition of different cultures, different language and
different histories within Canada, we have recently seen the
creation of Nunavut.
The Yukon recently signed an umbrella final agreement which
began the implementation and the final claims agreements of the
14 first nations, with 8 of them having been completed and signed
off self-governing agreements at this point. They are
governments with land, with laws and with the ability to decide
how they will educate their children and how they will carry on
as a group and have community rights. This was fought quite
bitterly in the Yukon. It was through my whole generation that
the claims were negotiated to get to a point where we could make
real change for the first nations people.
Since these claims have been signed, the sky has not fallen in,
the world has not gone to pieces and the first nations people and
non-first nations people get along better than ever. The ability
for a people to set their own ways and determine their lives has
made a big difference for everybody in the Yukon.
1610
Coming closer to the Nisga'a treaty, it actually fits in very
well with the document by the former minister of Indian affairs
entitled Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action
Plan, which was to say that we would negotiate rather than
litigate. Again and again we are seeing that every time first
nations people go to court it costs them and their people. That
is money being diverted away from education and health and into
the courts, a place where nobody wants to go.
With the very clear decisions of the supreme court, it has
become more and more important to negotiate, rather than letting
the courts make very black and white decisions over people's
lives, decisions where repercussions, such as we have seen on the
east coast over the Marshall decision, can be avoided. The
really harmful reactions and violence by desperate people could
have been avoided if our government had been willing to negotiate
before it got to a crisis point. Unfortunately, it is certainly
not over on the east coast.
The Marshall decision should give us a warning that it is
critical to respect treaties that were based on friendship and
peace. They were not based on anyone being conquered. They were
based on the philosophy that we would share the land. Obviously
the pilgrims and settlers who came to North America were not
going back.
The treaty states that the Nisga'a people can make laws but only
for the Nisga'a people. They can only tax Nisga'a people. Their
laws will not apply to anyone who is not a Nisga'a, nor can they
tax anyone who is not a Nisga'a person. There are laws such as
travelling on highways that will apply to non-Nisga'a residents.
This only makes sense.
We will be dealing on a nation to nation basis with the Nisga'a
people. They will not be lesser than. By getting rid of the
Indian Act, they will no longer be people who are considered
unworthy to even make their own wills, to have marriage
ceremonies and to make even the most basic decisions over their
lives that so many of us take for granted but which have been
denied to them. Historically, they were not even seen fit to
vote in the country.
The really good element of the treaty is getting rid of the
Indian Act and empowering the Nisga'a people to get on with their
lives and to live their lives in dignity.
I look forward to the legislation coming before the committee
and to having a very close look at every detail of it before it
is ratified.
The New Democratic Party wholeheartedly supports the vision of
the Nisga'a people, of the provincial government and of the
federal government that would negotiate the treaty in order to
free these people to live their lives.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture; the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Fisheries.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am honoured to speak in the House today on what is truly a very
historic occasion, the first day of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.
I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, for her very
thoughtful comments, particularly as they relate to the
international situation concerning aboriginal land and what has
taken place in other jurisdictions. She has shown us, in a very
thoughtful way, that what is happening here in Canada is very
much in context with what is taking place in other parts of the
world.
As a person from British Columbia, I must say that the work,
endurance and patience of the Nisga'a leadership and the Nisga'a
people has really been outstanding. They have been negotiating
the treaty for more than 20 years. For more than 100 years, they
have been moving through a process, sometimes with huge conflict
and huge oppression, to get to get to this point today. The
leadership that has been shown and the support that has come from
the grassroots of the Nisga'a people is something that really
makes this a historic occasion.
1615
I want to begin my remarks by quoting Nisga'a Tribal Council
president Joseph Gosnell. Yesterday as he arrived in Ottawa he
called on the Reform Party leader to ensure that the members of
the Reform Party caucus stopped making incorrect allegations
about the Nisga'a treaty which is currently before parliament. I
thought it was very significant that the tribal council president
was making this statement:
That is part of our democratic tradition. He continued:
I wanted to read that into the record because I had hoped that
on the opening day of debate of this historic treaty that it
would be an honourable debate, that it would be a debate where
yes, there would be criticisms and there would be issues, but it
would be a debate based on facts and real information.
Instead, the leader of the Reform Party, the Leader of the
Opposition, chose not to listen to the wise words of the Nisga'a
Tribal Council president. What he and the hon. member for Skeena,
the Reform Party spokesperson on aboriginal issues, chose to do
less than an hour ago was to continue their campaign of
misinformation and allegations of grossly inaccurate information.
They chose to continue a campaign of fearmongering and
divisiveness within the community.
I want to say shame on the members of the Reform Party for doing
that. Shame on them for not sticking to the facts and having an
honourable debate in the House. What they chose to do today is
really a contempt of this process and of parliament. I wish it
had not happened that way, but that is the way it seems to be
going.
It is one thing to debate and have an intelligent criticism, but
it is something quite different to deliberately manufacture and
peddle misinformation and completely false allegations about this
treaty.
I would like to go over a couple of things that were said this
morning by the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said that it
was their sole interest to establish a new and better
relationship with the aboriginal community, among the aboriginal
community. Then he went on to say that it is not in the long
range interests of the Nisga'a people to have this treaty. This
was repeated by the hon. member for Skeena.
Then the Leader of the Opposition characterized the treaty as
being a perpetuation of a 19th century approach. I would say
that it is the Indian Act that is the case and the experience of
a separate law for separate people.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe I heard the hon. member in her intervention
refer to me and say that I was deliberately misrepresenting or
deliberately misleading. I refer you to Beauchesne's where it
clearly says that hon. members cannot use that kind of language
in the House of Commons. I would ask that you ask the hon.
member to withdraw and apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If indeed the hon.
member for Vancouver East has said such a word, I would ask her
to withdraw it.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said
such a word. If I did, I certainly did not intend to use
unparliamentary language, but I do believe that inaccurate
information is being presented in the House and that is a matter
on the record. I certainly did not intend to use unparliamentary
language and I will withdraw any language that I used that is
unparliamentary.
I would like to go through some of the arguments that were used
this morning by the Reform Party. One of them was that this is a
perpetuation of a 19th century approach.
I want to state very clearly that I think what we have seen in
the past through the Indian Act would represent that.
1620
If nothing else, this treaty represents a genuine attempt by all
of the parties involved, the Nisga'a people, the provincial
government and the federal government, to produce a modern day
treaty within the constitution of Canada, within the laws of
Canada, to provide self-determination and a sense of pride and
future for the Nisga'a people. For the leader of the Reform Party
to suggest otherwise, I believe, is a misrepresentation.
We also heard from the Reform Party this morning that this
treaty will now become the template, the one size fits all for
all future treaties, including the 50 in British Columbia and
however many there are in Canada. This is completely wrong. This
has not been stated anywhere.
This treaty went through a very good process. I hope it is
reproduced and used as a model for other treaties. The treaty
itself is something that stands on its own merit. It is not
written in this treaty or in any other policy or legislation that
it will be replicated. I want to put that to rest.
We also heard that the Nisga'a treaty will somehow mirror what
has been a very tragic situation with the fishing industry on the
east coast, that we will see a parallel with the Nisga'a treaty.
Again the Reform Party is dead wrong in the line it is peddling
on that. The Reform Party is misleading people and presenting
information that is simply not the case. In actual fact, this
treaty clearly outlines that if other groups are prevented from
fishing for whatever reason, then that will also apply. It is
clearly very erroneous information.
We also heard from the member for Skeena that this treaty is
going to cost a huge amount of money. I think he mentioned the
figure of $1.2 billion. I may have that slightly wrong but it
was of that magnitude. Again I want to say that this information
is inaccurate and simply not correct.
The treaty provides for a total of $253 million in a one time
payment over 15 years from the federal government to the Nisga'a
people. There are also contributions from the B.C. government in
terms of a land value of $108.6 million and $37.5 million in
forgone forestry revenues. Again, the arguments are false.
We also heard that this has been a secretive deal and a closed
door process. This treaty had many public hearings and fora.
More than 40 hearings alone were held by the parliamentary
committee in British Columbia. Anyone who wanted to be heard
could state their case and opinions on this treaty. Again, it is
misinformation.
At the end of the day we do have a choice here. We have a
choice to negotiate treaties in good faith in our modern day
world and recognize aboriginal people as full citizens, or we can
continue with chaos and litigation in the courts. I think most
members of the House have made the correct decision. It is
unfortunate that the Reform Party has chosen not to do the
honourable thing.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention and her ongoing
intelligent and clear thinking on this matter and her study of
the issue. She is representing an alternative view in British
Columbia from the one that we have heard repeatedly from the
Reform Party on this bill and a number of other bills relating to
aboriginal and first nations people.
As a woman from British Columbia and a member of parliament, she
is addressing issues generally from her constituents but more
broadly for people from British Columbia as well. I say this to
her because the Reform Party keeps alluding to the fact that it
is concerned about women, that it speaks for women's issues and
wants to protect women's rights. I would like to quote from some
sections of the treaty with respect to women's rights and ask her
if she agrees with the provisions of the charter and the treaty
or the Reform Party.
1625
The preamble of the bill states:
Whereas the Nisga'a Final Agreement states that the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government in
respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the
free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government as set out in
the Agreement;
Section 28 of the charter provides that notwithstanding anything
in the charter, the rights and freedoms referred to are
guaranteed equally to male and female persons. Likewise in
section 35 of the constitution there is a provision on aboriginal
treaty rights. Section 35(4) in contemplating concerns over the
protection of aboriginal women's rights states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal
and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed
equally to male and female persons.
Does the member believe these provisions to protect women, or
does she believe the Reform Party which seems to be trying to
scare aboriginal women and women in general in British Columbia?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
across the way for his thoughtful comments. Obviously he has done
quite a lot of research on some of the questions that have been
raised by members of the Reform Party. Again they are are
speaking very loudly and on numerous occasions are somehow
suggesting that the rights of Nisga'a women will be diminished
under the treaty. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I agree entirely with the member's comments in terms of the
Canadian constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms, and
the treaty itself which clearly lays out an enhanced citizenship
for Nisga'a men and women. This is really what the treaty is
about. It is the heart and soul of the treaty to recognize full
citizenship and full equality. If we cannot get that straight,
then I think Reform members need to go back to their researchers
or wherever they get their information and check their facts.
When I first heard them put out this line that the Nisga'a
treaty was somehow denigrating the rights of women, I was really
shocked. I wondered whether this could be the case. I checked
to find out if that was correct and of course it was completely
false.
We need to be very clear on the record that the rights of
aboriginal women within the Nisga'a treaty are fully protected.
The treaty itself enhances the sense of citizenship and
participation for all Nisga'a people.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member said that she feels the debate should deal in facts.
She mentioned the oppression the Nisga'a had been under. I would
like her to put some factual evidence before the House to
document the oppression the Nisga'a have suffered under the
provincial NDP governments, the federal Liberal governments and
the federal PC governments that have governed this country and
that province for a number of years.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, we are at this point
today because of what has historically happened to aboriginal
people. This agreement is so historic because it is moving away
from a paternal colonizing administration and legislation that
did oppress aboriginal people in this country. The treaty will
move us beyond that and move the Nisga'a people forward to the
future.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with another government MP. It
is a pleasure to join the debate. I pick up with interest and
pleasure the remarks of the very thoughtful hon. member for
Vancouver East.
It is a fact that the Nisga'a treaty is not and never was a
template.
Government MPs spent six months telling the Premier of British
Columbia that it was not a template, that it rested on its own
particular historical facts. They are very warming facts. The
Nisga'a paddled their own canoe a long distance to Victoria. They
waited 100 years and negotiated for 20 years in goodwill and good
spirit, with great patience and great dignity.
1630
I think we have to pay tribute to the Nisga'a negotiators and
Joe Gosnell, who emerges as one of the outstanding figures of our
contemporary public life, but also the government negotiators.
They are not the same in the case of every treaty. I met the
government negotiators in this particular case and I was
impressed by their dedication, their hard work and their open
mindedness.
The Nisga'a treaty is a special case. It deserves in my view
and it deserved in the past quicker treatment than we have given
it. I think for more than a year after the signature is too long
a delay considering the time that has been spent already in the
past on this matter.
What are the features that are so distinctive in this treaty?
One is the element of negotiation—and I have spoken on that and
will have more occasion to come back to that—in good faith and
in the spirit of goodwill. The phrase was borrowed from
international law. The World Court used it. The Supreme Court
of Canada picked it up in a recent judgment, but it is the
essence of the continuing process involving 50-odd treaties still
to come in British Columbia. We expect the parties, government
and the Indian people, to negotiate in good faith. The Nisga'a
did it.
We also expect adequate public hearings, which is a matter that
relates to the time, the opportunity and the place. The member
for Vancouver East has detailed far better than I could the
extensive character of the hearings, having regard to the
remoteness of the area involved. It is not a city where one can
take a taxi from one end to another in a matter of a few minutes.
A remarkable job was done by the House committee on aboriginal
affairs and others.
I would also stress the fact of absence of countervailing
interests properly proved and adduced before the relevant
authorities who negotiated and the House committee. That is a
crucial issue in it.
I would stress again the point which is in the treaty itself.
The Nisga'a people here showed admirable self-restraint. They
accepted and put in the text that it is subject to the Canadian
constitution and to the charter of rights.
If anybody had any doubt on this particular point and to make
assurance doubly sure, the government caucus from B.C., the
senators and the MPs sought assurances from the then minister for
aboriginal affairs and her parliamentary secretary that we would
put this beyond any question by even the most unreasonable of
people. That is why there is an express mention in the enacting
legislation by the federal parliament. Incidentally similar
guarantees were incorporated in Bill C-49, the Native Land
Administration Act, as a result of the representations by B.C.
MPs and senators which were gracefully accepted by the minister.
I would like to pay tribute to the former minister concerned and
her parliamentary secretary who is still with us for listening
and paying attention to these representations.
The constitutional issue has been raised. It is not in my view
relevant as an element of criticism of the Nisga'a treaty
because, as I have explained, the matter has amply been taken
care of, but references were made to sections 25 and 35 of the
charter of rights.
I am reminded of Chief Justice Bryan who was a medieval judge.
When people asked him about a law he said “You do not have to
tell me what it says. I wrote the law. I know what it is
about”. It is a fact that has been noted that Senator Perrault
and I, when the original draft of the charter appeared, suggested
that this matter should be included.
However it should be noted that sections 25 and 35 create no new
rights. They are what is called saving clauses. They save
rights that already exist, whether customary or under existing
treaties. No more, no less. There is a Latin phrase for it, ex
abundanti cautela, but it simply means one says what already
exists. One leaves it to subsequent events in a pragmatic,
common law way to define the actual content and extent of those
rights in concrete cases.
1635
There has been reference to subsection 35(3) and the issue of
back door amendment. It was an amendment made to the charter a
year after its enactment. I was out of the country at the time,
but when I returned I remember discussing it with the new justice
minister who succeeded the present Prime Minister. I said
“There are treaties that are unknown quantities. Is there any
problem here?” We agreed as a matter of interpretation that it
would be a most unreasonable interpretation to say that we could
change the constitution in this way. It would be an absurd
interpretation but we at least adverted to it.
It is in response to these sort of fears, unreasonable as they
may be, that the B.C. caucus spent some three or four months
discussing with the previous minister of Indian affairs and the
parliamentary secretary the inclusion of the provisions that the
treaty, notwithstanding that it already says it in terms, because
of the federal enacting legislation is legally subject to the
constitution and to the charter of rights.
It is there. It is part of the travaux préparatoires which
courts must take into account in interpreting the treaty. It has
been said in this parliamentary debate, not merely by myself but
I think by all members on the government side who preceded me,
members of the New Democratic Party and members of other parties,
that the parliamentary intent is that it is subject to the
constitution and the charter of rights. The words are clear but
that it is also parliamentary intent.
Let me come back to the larger issues that are involved. It is a
historic process for B.C. It is the first B.C. treaty. How
fortunate that the people involved in it, the Nisga'a people,
were reasonable people, and that they negotiated in good faith. I
expect similar behaviour or similar conduct from those involved
in the subsequent treaties. It was a model of negotiation.
Another aspect is that it is not simply a negotiation in good
faith. It is also the concept of good neighbourliness. It is a
phrase that the English court of appeal threw out in 1935, that
one must act in relation to one's own rights as one would expect
them to be applied if one were a neighbour. The World Court has
picked up the concept of good neighbourliness. It is also by the
way part of the French civil law, but it returns again I think in
the context of the Nisga'a treaty.
There is an appreciation here that there is no such thing as
absolute rights which are conceived in a vacuum. All rights
exist in a social context. It is a recognition that there may
need to be the balancing of rights with other rights. I think it
is the core of the Nisga'a negotiation process.
We are into concepts of comparative equity when good citizens,
good neighbours work together and try to work things out by
negotiation if there are differences. If there are differences
they cannot surmount then the effect of the application of the
constitution and the charter is that the constitutional
principles and due process of law including judicial review are
there.
I anticipate that treaties such as this one will be before the
courts over a long period of time. I do not mean by this
antagonistic litigation. I mean where parties seek the advice
and interpretation of the courts when we have what is at the core
of the English concept of equity, a continuing process of working
together by the parties, trying to interpret general principles
in terms of accommodation of interests of a larger community
which, in Canada, includes the so-called two founding nations
that are really relatively recent arrivals, the original nations
and others.
It is in this spirit that I welcome the debate as it has emerged
and I welcome the assurances we have had from many people
intervening in the debate that they regard this as an optimistic
sign. There is no reason for fear. This is a process of full
community engagement that we are entered upon.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member who just spoke referenced several issues that deal
with the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms.
The Constitution Act, 1982 states very clearly in subsection
52(1):
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any
law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
1640
It is my understanding that the constitution of Canada applies
to the Nisga'a treaty and that the charter of rights and freedoms
applies to the Nisga'a treaty. That can be argued in several
different directions and the Reform Party has done that in
several instances.
I would like the hon. member's opinion on whether or not the
charter of rights and freedoms applies and whether or not the
constitution of Canada applies.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I am happy to give
categorical assurance that the member is correct. The
constitution and the charter apply and to the extent of any
inconsistency would override action to the contrary.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, with respect to the question just put to my hon.
colleague from Vancouver Quadra I would like to quote from a
article published in today's edition of the National Post
by a gentleman known to the member for Vancouver Quadra, Mel
Smith, former principal constitutional adviser to the Government
of British Columbia for over 15 years. He referred to the deal
and wrote in part:
This represents a significant diminishment of the legislative
powers given to senior governments by the Canadian Constitution,
to a new kind of government unknown to the Constitution.
To be specific, the Nisga'a agreement would make Nisga'a laws
constitutionally paramount on at least 17 province-like subject
matters. This would include Nisga'a laws on: education...higher
education...the delivery of health services, child and family
services; business, trades and professions...land use; land
registration; laws related to Nisga'a fish, aquatic plants and
wildlife entitlements. The list goes on.
Couple this diminishment and divestment of legislative powers
with the fact that these aboriginal government rights cannot be
retrieved in the future, and...the treaty makers have stepped
beyond the bounds of the Constitution. They have, in these
respects, given away forever the constitutional right of the B.C.
Legislature to make laws applicable throughout the province. This
they simply do not have the right to do.
How would the member for Vancouver Quadra respond to the
thoughtful argument brought forward by Mr. Smith, former
principal constitutional adviser to the Government of British
Columbia?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I know Mr. Smith very well and respect his
quality as a constitutional adviser to two premiers of British
Columbia.
The facts are that the Nisga'a treaty involves a delegation of
power, but it cannot override the constitutional division of
power, section 91 and section 92, and the two levels of
government they have created. It does not create a third level
of government. The Nisga'a never asked for this, but it does not
in any case so create.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me as
member of parliament for Western Arctic to rise in the House to
participate in the important debate on the proposed bill to
ratify the Nisga'a final agreement.
We have before us for ratification an historic reconciliation
between Canada and the Nisga'a people, a people whose culture,
language, lands and way of life predate the creation of Canada
itself. Indeed, the existence of the Nisga'a people and their
rich cultures stretches back tens of thousands of years to the
very beginning of human memory.
We must also acknowledge that since the first tentative
intrusions by European colonists 150 years ago the Nisga'a have
patiently asserted their right to have their collective existence
recognized and respected. This agreement recognizes the modest
yet fundamental rights necessary to secure their existence as a
people: rights to land, self-government and an economic base.
1645
Like so many other first nations, the Nisga'a have sought
partnership and accommodation within the Canadian federation. It
has been a long and often difficult road. The agreement
symbolizes Canada's acceptance of the Nisga'a as an integral part
of Canada and of the Nisga'a willingness to join Canada as
partners.
For more than 100 years, the Nisga'a people have patiently and
peacefully advocated their rights. While doing so, they have
fought in wars on behalf of the country. They have waited for
the right to vote. They have waited to have recognized their
right to speak their own language and to freely practise their
spiritual traditions. They have had to struggle for the right to
control the education of their children. Finally, the moment has
arrived for the Parliament of Canada to recognize, to accept and
to welcome their existence as a people and partners in the
federation by ratifying the agreement.
In other words, what the agreement represents is a recognition
of the fundamental human right of the Nisga'a people to survive
as a people and to continue to reflect their unique place in the
human family. This is a right protected by international human
rights instruments. As the nations of the world have collectively
matured, we must now recognize that colonization is the
fundamental violation of a people's right to exist. Today we
understand that the collective rights to land and to
self-government are an integral part of the right of first
nations to express their collective identity and existence as a
people within the constitutional framework of Canada.
These are rights that people around the world are entitled to.
Each people has a right to a measure of self-government and a
right to economic and social development.
In the struggle for recognition of the rights of aboriginal
peoples, the Nisga'a have a unique and special place in the
history of Canada. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Nisga'a
people for their courage, their persistence and their leadership
in the struggle for aboriginal rights in the country. It is an
important part of Canada's political development.
It is the Nisga'a people who approached the first colonial
government in British Columbia in 1887 to seek recognition of
their traditional land title and to suggest the negotiation of a
treaty. It was the Nisga'a who petitioned the privy council in
England in 1913 for a settlement of their basic rights. It was
the Nisga'a who persevered through some shameful years in
Canada's history when first nations were legally barred from even
pursuing justice in the courts. It was the Nisga'a who seized
the first opportunity to resume the quest for legal justice. When
these discriminatory laws were finally repealed, it was the
Nisga'a who devoted time, resources and their heart and soul to
bring the Calder case finally to the Supreme Court of Canada in
1969.
I was a young girl when I was first struck by the power and the
conviction of the Nisga'a people. It was a turning point in my
mind that aboriginal people are not a powerless, homeless,
lawless and without leadership people. I felt that power, in the
words of Frank Calder, a great Nisga'a leader and great Canadian
leader.
Because of the Nisga'a and the Calder case, the Canadian legal
system finally recognized that the aboriginal people have
aboriginal title, that is, traditional collective rights to land.
It was in response to the Calder case that the federal
government established a modern land claims policy to create a
process to finally seek some accommodation with the first nations
of this land.
There have been many successful agreements reached under federal
land claims and self-government policy. This agreement addresses
both issues in a fair and balanced way. Modern agreements such as
this one allow first nations to participate meaningfully in the
political, economic and social development of the country. These
agreements allow first nations to live in Canada, not as a
conquered peoples, but as true partners in Confederation.
It is finally the turn of the Nisga'a to benefit from these
policies and to have recognized certain basic and fundamental
rights.
I must also mention that the agreement achieves the very
important objective of providing a clear and precise legal
framework for the exercise of Nisga'a rights. It does so in a
way that complements and respects federal and provincial
jurisdiction, while allowing some space for local self-government
by the Nisga'a people in matters that directly affect them.
The lands of the Nisga'a will no longer be reserved under the
Indian Act. The Nisga'a final agreement provides for fee simple
ownership and integration of Nisga'a tenure into the provincial
land registry system.
1650
In the area of natural resources, the Nisga'a final agreement
provides Nisga'a citizens with the right to harvest fish and
other resources subject to conservation interests and legislation
enacted to protect public health and safety.
The Nisga'a may make laws relating to environmental assessment
and protection. Federal and provincial laws prevail to the
extent of conflict. To avoid duplication, the agreement provides
for the negotiation of a harmonization agreement. In the
meantime, federal and provincial assessment processes will
continue.
The Nisga'a government will have authority to make laws in areas
affecting Nisga'a government, citizenship, language and culture.
The Nisga'a government will be required to consult all residents
within Nisga'a lands who are not Nisga'a citizens about the
decisions that significantly or directly affect them.
As an example of what we have achieved, the agreement explicitly
provides that it is a full and final settlement of Nisga'a
aboriginal title and other rights protected under section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982. What clearer demonstration of legal
certainty and final settlement could one ask for?
As can be seen from these few examples, the Nisga'a final
agreement provides a careful balancing of rights and powers. This
has been achieved as a result of a thorough and detailed process
of negotiation that began in 1976 when the federal government
first accepted the Nisga'a claim for negotiation. Each and every
aspect of the Nisga'a final agreement has been carefully
considered and discussed by representatives of the Nisga'a, the
province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.
My colleagues, the former Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the current Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, have each carefully considered the
agreement and have recommended its ratification by parliament. As
parliamentarians and as Canadians, we can all take pride in the
agreement and support its ratification without hesitation.
The Nisga'a have placed their faith in the Government of Canada
to respect the agreement and to open a new chapter of our history
together. We must respond by ratifying the agreement and getting
on with the business of faithfully implementing it in partnership
with the Nisga'a people.
The agreement lays a pragmatic and solid foundation for the
future. It contains the essential ingredients for a new
relationship that the government committed itself to in
“Gathering Strength”, our response to the report of the royal
commission on aboriginal peoples.
The Nisga'a final agreement is the latest in a series of
important settlements with first nations across the country.
While the situation of each first nation is unique, each
successful agreement such as this one encourages first nations
and governments all across the country to talk to and accommodate
each other as we build the country together.
I urge all parliamentarians to support the ratification of the
Nisga'a final agreement, to recognize the strength in diversity
and to welcome the collective existence of the Nisga'a people
within Canada. I extend my congratulations to the Nisga'a people
and my best wishes for the future.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the Reform
Party is continually charged with misrepresentation of the facts.
I ask the member to look at chapter 16 on taxation at page 217 of
the agreement if the member has it in front of her. Maybe she
does not have it in front of her or is not familiar with it, but
certainly we in the Reform Party are familiar with it. Chapter
16 at page 217, paragraph 3, states:
From time to time Canada and British Columbia, together or
separately, may negotiate with the Nisga'a Nation, and attempt to
reach agreement on:
a. the extent, if any, to which Canada or British Columbia will
provide to Nisga'a Lisims Government or a Nisga'a Village
Government direct taxation authority over persons other than
Nisga'a citizens, on Nisga'a Lands;
That is taxation without representation any way it is sliced.
The words are in the agreement. They are not the Reform Party's
interpretation. I just read it for the hon. member.
1655
Does she agree with that concept of taxation without
representation, or would she agree with us that the agreement
should be amended so that condition or that clause is removed?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I do not
believe that the agreement should be amended. The member
opposite should get a life. We could nitpick about the agreement
and various aspects of the agreement. He should read the list of
facts and myths. A number of things have been alleged. Anyone
can read it. It involves taxation as well.
I think the hon. member, quite honestly, is not as well intended
as I would like him to be. If the hon. member took some time to
spend with the Nisga'a people, they could put a very convincing
case to him as they have to me as an aboriginal person.
Over the years I have learned from the Nisga'a people. Many
people across the country have learned from the Nisga'a people,
except for the member that represents them.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I resent the hon. member
suggesting that taxation without representation is nitpicking. I
suggest that the hon. member read her history with respect to the
American war of independence. That is how the people who were in
the colonies known as the Americas broke away from Great Britain.
It was over that very issue. I can say that it is a fundamental
principle of democracy to not have taxation without
representation. The hon. member is not very well-schooled if she
believes that is nitpicking.
Does she believe that the principle of taxation without
representation incorporated into the agreement is the right way
to go or not? Could she just answer the question?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, what I am not
well-schooled in are the so-called principles and learnings of
the Reform Party. I do not come from the school of Mel Smith who
draws the template for all Reform's agenda on the aboriginal
people. I am glad to say that I do not have that background and
I never will.
I am happy to say there were numerous consultations. I am glad
the government supports the Nisga'a agreement. If the member of
parliament had some sense of reality, he would as well.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the minister and member from
the Northwest Territories, but unfortunately not in this debate
because she has been asked two direct questions and has refused
to answer them.
The question is very simple. Does she agree with the principle
in chapter 16 of the agreement which provides for taxation
without representation? Does she think that is a principle which
ought to be incorporated into laws that govern Canadian citizens?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, the Nisga'a
people have been afforded certain responsibilities and
authorities. Otherwise, what would be the point? Why have an
agreement if there will be no difference and it will be the
status quo?
The federal and provincial taxation authorities are not affected
by the Nisga'a authority and there are no other Nisga'a
government taxation authorities in the final agreement. Even the
municipalities and the school boards have the authority to levy
taxes. Are we saying that we will diminish the document, the
Nisga'a agreement, to that of a school board or a municipality?
That is his opinion and one he is entitled to, but I, frankly, do
not believe in that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in what no doubt
will be perhaps a contentious but, I am hoping, a very useful and
positive debate at the end of the day.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure for me each time I rise to speak in the House.
Unfortunately, my French is not perfect.
[English]
Bill C-9 is an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final
agreement. My Nova Scotian colleague from the South Shore has
spoken very eloquently about our party's position regarding the
legislation.
1700
I welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues
concerning this very historic Nisga'a agreement. I congratulate
the last speaker, the hon. member from Yellowknife, who gave a
very impassioned and informative debate. I know that she feels
integrally connected to this debate and to the people through her
own heritage and I have a great deal of respect for her work on
this bill and for her work in this place.
The Nisga'a people have roamed over the land of North America
since the mists of antiquity. The Nisga'a final agreement was
ratified only this year, but the history of these people goes
back for generations and centuries. The Nisga'a people approved
this agreement, as did the provincial government of British
Columbia, when Bill 51 completed the legislative process in April
of this year.
That is not to say that this was a process that went smoothly.
There was a great deal of acrimony and the debate itself was
eventually brought to closure by the British Columbia government.
The NDP Government of British Columbia received a great deal of
criticism over its handling of the debate. Let us hope for the
sake of democracy that that type of attitude is not mirrored by
the current government in Ottawa.
The end of the debate on the treaty occurred in a very cursory
way some would argue. We are hoping that will not be necessary
here and we look forward to a detailed, informed and open debate
in the House on Bill C-9.
The Nisga'a treaty, as I mentioned and as previous speakers have
alluded to, is a very historic document that will be debated, and
it is certainly our responsibility as parliamentarians to give an
open minded approach to all the views of all the people we
represent in the House. It is also our responsibility to deal
with reality and not myth when it comes to a treaty of such
significance. Nor should we ever in the House try to pit groups
of people against one another in a debate of such importance and
of such far-reaching implications.
We have seen quite recently with the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the Queen v Marshall case the implications of
treaties that are signed. In that instance we now realize that a
treaty that was signed over 230 years ago has modern application
and modern impact on the people of this country in 1999.
Therefore, it is not a great leap of faith to say that the
Nisga'a agreement that will be signed, ratified and passed
through this House will certainly have the potential to affect
future generations of Canadians and certainly the Nisga'a people.
There are 5,500 Nisga'a people, with approximately 2,400 of them
living in the upper Nass Valley region of British Columbia.
Under the treaty they will have title to 1,930 square kilometres
of land and will receive $190 million as a cash settlement to be
paid over a number of years. Those are the very basic cursory
points of the treaty. It is a very complicated treaty that
touches on a number of elements of everyday life and human
existence, but the settlement itself is a step toward
independence and self-sufficiency on the part of aboriginal
people in this country.
The Nisga'a final agreement will be the first modern day treaty
in British Columbia, but this is certainly not the first time the
Nisga'a people have been involved in groundbreaking activities.
This fact was alluded to as well by the previous speaker.
It was a 1969 decision in the Queen and Calder v the Attorney
General of British Columbia case, and subsequently in 1973 a
ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada in that case, which
opened the door to the negotiated land claims settlement for the
Nisga'a. It was Frank Calder, a Nisga'a aboriginal, who
initiated the court action on the basis that aboriginal title in
the Nass Valley had never been extinguished. The supreme court,
while not ruling that aboriginal title to the land actually
existed, said that aboriginal people who had owned the land prior
to European settlement and that had provided them with the basis
on which to argue for land claim agreements did in fact exist.
The federal government at that time realized the implications of
the ruling and initiated a comprehensive land claim policy with
the intent of negotiating land claim agreements where aboriginal
people claimed they had traditionally lived.
Sadly, this is often the case that we see again today in this
country.
It is sad that very rarely negotiations between the federal
government and our first nations people result in a peaceful and
equitable agreement. More often, and I am not saying this in a
partisan way, governments in this country tend to litigate rather
than negotiate.
1705
Again I hearken back to previous comments and reference the
Queen v Marshall, where now the country, in particular in this
instance the east coast of Canada, has been thrown into a huge
chasm of confusion and misunderstanding as to what rights have
actually been granted by the Supreme Court of Canada. I
certainly recognize that that is a debate for another time
between this place and the Supreme Court of Canada as to who
should be making laws in such an important area that has such
broad implications and such broad effect throughout the land.
The Nisga'a final agreement will be a modern day treaty in
British Columbia and will represent the 14th in Canada's history.
Other modern day agreements include the James Bay and Northern
Quebec agreement, the Northeastern Quebec agreement, the
Inuvialuit final agreement, the Gwich'in agreement, the Nunavut
land claims agreement, the Sahtu Dene and Métis agreement and the
seven Yukon first nations final agreements.
I would like to reference two other pieces of legislation that
have been debated recently concerning aboriginal people in Canada
which share some similarities to the piece of legislation before
the House today. They are Bill C-39, which was an act to amend
the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, and Bill C-57,
which was an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the
Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.
These acts were instrumental in the creation of Canada's newest
territory, Nunavut. With respect to the application to today's
debate, I would suggest there is a groundbreaking and very
innovative approach being taken to the modern application of the
Canadian justice system in this new territory. Again, although
time does not permit us to get into the greatest of detail in
this regard, it is a very forward looking and inclusive system of
justice that blends two of these cultures into a very workable
and modern approach to justice in this country. It brings about
some of the concepts of restorative justice, which is a system
that in many ways is borrowed from our aboriginal people, which
is very inclusive and community oriented, the concentration being
on including the victim and the community and having a face to
face, in some instances confrontational, approach between the
perpetrator of a crime and those who suffered.
We have always taken a very traditional approach to justice in
this country, borrowed from the British model, that puts the
state in the place of the victim, often very much to the
detriment of the victim, making it a very sterile and sometimes
non-inclusive approach to the healing that needs to take place.
Aboriginal people have taken a much more hands on and inclusive
approach that I believe is the spirit of this new justice system
that will be in place in Nunavut and, to a large degree, brought
about by the effect of the Nisga'a agreement.
The Nunavut land claims agreement was not a self-government
agreement at all. Instead, it established a public government
system that is similar to that which is in place in Nunavut
today. That agreement also established a judicial system whereby
the Inuit people in Nunavut could install a system that would
better address the objectives of the Inuit people themselves.
There is a more inclusive blend of aboriginal or Inuit justice
with our modern day justice system which also includes and
recognizes that all Canadians must be bound by the same laws of
the land.
I think it is very encouraging and exciting from a justice
perspective to look at the way we are able to blend these two
cultures and make them work in a more effective way which in fact
enhances all Canadians. In particular, I know that those
involved in justice throughout the land will be watching very
closely to see the modern application of this justice system in
Nunavut.
The same can be said with respect to the establishment of this
treaty, since the Nisga'a will have the opportunity to set up the
Nisga'a court system.
They may very much desire to watch closely the system that is
just getting under way in Nunavut. The Nisga'a nation itself
will no doubt benefit from that experience.
1710
The provisions of this treaty will allow the Nisga'a government
to appoint the judges of the Nisga'a court. The treaty will also
provide for the means of supervision of judges of the Nisga'a
court by the judicial council of the province of British Columbia
or by similar means. We are seeing a very proactive and
inclusive approach which will allow our current justice system to
blend with this new system of justice.
Furthermore, the Nisga'a people will be provided with their own
policing services. The police board of the Nisga'a government
will assume this responsibility. In all of these cases, however,
provincial and federal laws will continue to apply. The Nisga'a
rules must comply and must work hand in hand with our existing
federal laws.
I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that this will
be some form of an abrogation from the law. It is simply a
melding of a new system of justice that will hopefully enhance
our current system. I would suspect that in the future other
provinces may very well borrow some of the concepts that may come
about as a result of the implementation of this new justice
system.
Labour relations and industrial relations will not be governed
by Nisga'a law. Instead, they will remain under the jurisdiction
of provincial and federal legislation and apply evenly across the
country.
I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore who
alluded to the fact that there are many merits to this
legislation. That is not to say that there is not room for
improvement. As with all legislation that is brought through the
process and brought to this House, there will be ample
opportunity, even by virtue of the process that we are embarking
on today by having this type of open debate, to bring forward
ideas.
One would hope that the government would be open minded enough
to be prepared to change the legislation through ideas that might
emerge on the floor of the House of Commons, but I suspect more
appropriately at the committee where members of the opposition
will sit down with the government in the normal course of affairs
to discuss this treaty in further detail. I know that all
members of the opposition and the government are looking forward
to embarking on that process.
The Nisga'a people will no longer operate under what have often
been described as the onerous and even regressive rules of the
Indian Act. Instead, the Nisga'a final agreement will set out in
detail how the Nisga'a nation will continue to operate and the
authority and accountability that the Nisga'a Lisims government
will entail. This is something that the Nisga'a people have been
working toward for over 100 years.
The earlier legislation that the Conservative Party supported
regarding first nations land management outlined exactly why it
is important for first nations to move out from under the Indian
Act itself, particularly in regard to areas covered under
resource management.
Under the Indian Act first nations must request authorization
from the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to develop resources on a reserve. With the Nisga'a
final agreement and the earlier First Nations Land Management Act
this will no longer be the case and will no longer be necessary
under the legislation. The Nisga'a people will be able to
determine how, when and where they will use their resources. Not
only will the Nisga'a people profit from this increased autonomy,
I would suggest so too will the province of British Columbia.
Forestry and mining companies that have often been very
reluctant to invest in resource activities in recent years,
particularly after the Delgamuukw decision which ruled on
aboriginal title, will now view doing business in this particular
part of British Columbia in a different light.
With the uncertainty that existed, which continues to exist,
concerning who owns land and resources in much of the province of
British Columbia, the resource industry has been very slow to
invest in exploration and development, costing as much as $1
billion in lost revenue because of this atmosphere of
uncertainty. Stability and economic confidence will hopefully be
one of the main results in this sector of resource management
coming from this particular bill.
1715
As well, the Nisga'a people will have a greater opportunity in
the area of resource development, but this is only a small part
of what the final agreement entails. We all know that autonomy
and the ability to be the masters of their own destiny is very
much the wish of not only the Nisga'a people, but Canadians from
coast to coast to coast.
The province of British Columbia is subject to aboriginal land
claims. This will be the first agreement to combine a land
claims agreement and self-government agreements under one
umbrella, one that also includes taxation. There has been much
debate, as there was moments ago, over the issue of taxation.
Under this agreement the Nisga'a people will begin to pay taxes
over a phased in period of eight to twelve years. In the long
term this should allow the Nisga'a nation to become increasingly
self-reliant and less dependent on the federal government for
funding and service provision. This is certainly a concept that
all Canadians would embrace.
We know as well in the maritime provinces that a feeling of
dependency, a feeling of being less empowered and less entitled
to the future profits and profitability of this country is very
intimidating and stifling. I am not drawing a direct parallel
between those who live in the maritimes and those on first
nations. But I can say that this feeling of uniformly sharing in
the country's wealth is something we should all be very quick to
encourage. I am hopeful that this agreement is a step in that
direction.
I want to reference very briefly the consultation. We are
embarking on an exercise in consultation simply by debating this,
but I am led to believe that there were over 500 separate
consultations before coming to the final draft and agreement
which was inked by the Nisga'a people and the Government of
British Columbia. Some would argue that that is a large number
of consultations. However, an agreement that has such far
reaching and important ramifications is one that requires a great
deal of consultation. One only has to quickly reference the
agreement itself to realize that it is a very involved and
detailed agreement that speaks to many of the intricacies of the
relations that will exist between the Government of Canada, the
people of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people.
The Nisga'a final agreement is without a doubt a historic
document that details aboriginal rights for the Nisga'a people.
It is a comprehensive and extensive outline of the rights and
responsibilities that the three parties will be subject to once
the agreement has been ratified, which is the road we are on at
the present stage.
The treaty is recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the
Canadian constitution, but it does not become part of the
constitution. There is need for clarity here as well. This does
not exclude the Nisga'a people from the application of the
constitution. This does not empower them with special rights
outside of the constitution. This is simply an agreement that
will be bound and subject to the application of the Canadian
constitution and charter of rights.
I specifically reference sections 1, 15, 24 and 25 which speak
to the general application of rights and freedoms in this
country. The charter speaks of rights and freedoms not being
construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal
treaty, or rights, or freedoms which pertain to aboriginal people
across the country. This is not a derivation or a step away from
the law of the land that applies to people throughout the
country. The Constitution Act, 1982 will be in full force and
effect and in the final analysis will be something that will work
very much together with this agreement.
The treaty is recognized and affirmed by section 35 of our
constitution. A process for amending the agreement is outlined
in the treaty and requires the consent of the Nisga'a nation and
the federal or provincial governments, depending on the
amendment. This is an important clause. As with all agreements,
we know that an evolution will occur.
1720
Oftentimes circumstances will arise, court cases will appear on
the horizon and they may exist now. It is fair to say that these
court cases could have a devastating or perhaps a very positive
effect on future agreements. However there is a section in the
agreement which speaks to the amending formula.
For the Nisga'a nation to approve an amendment, two-thirds of
the elected representatives of the Nisga'a government will have
to accept the amendment. As I said earlier, the legislation
represents what is, it is hoped, an open agreement at the end of
the day when it comes to friendly amendments, but time will tell.
The final chapter in the long process of this agreement is
before us. It is a process that began in 1887 when the Nisga'a
people first travelled to Victoria to present their proposal for
self-government.
The 1997 court ruling in the Delgamuukw case emphasized the need
for negotiated settlements with aboriginal people. In Delgamuukw
the court suggested that continued litigation was not the
appropriate or most effective means of reaching an agreement.
The Nisga'a final agreement demonstrates that negotiated
agreements can be reached and that negotiators deserve credit for
their perseverance in continuing that long process. As a result
we have an agreement that is workable and which is before the
House today. It should be seen as a signal, a positive sign for
Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that we should continue
on this path of co-operation in building this beautiful country
our ancestors have left to us.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party on his very eloquent remarks in support of the
Nisga'a treaty.
I underline the point that he made with respect to the
Delgamuukw decision. Of course when we hear representatives of
the Reform Party saying to scrap this treaty and go back to the
beginning, that effectively ignores the mandate we have been
given as parliamentarians by the highest court of the land in
Delgamuukw to honour and respect the rights of Canada's first
nations.
Would the hon. member care to comment on the suggestions that
have been made, particularly by the member for Skeena, the member
who has not met with leaders of the Nisga'a by the way since
1995, long before the treaty was signed. He has refused to meet
with the leadership of the Nisga'a for the last three or four
years. It is unbelievable when he represents that community. He
has said that the treaty provides for taxation without
representation. He said it entrenches inequality for aboriginal
women and that it provides for a race based government.
The fact is that the treaty itself states that the Nisga'a
Lisims government may make laws in respect of direct taxation of
Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a land, full stop, and that there can
only be taxation of non-Nisga'a citizens if the provincial or
federal governments delegate that authority to the Nisga'a
people.
I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that gross
misrepresentation by the Reform Party and also on the Reform
Party's suggestion that in some way this entrenches inequality
for aboriginal women.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. He has a history of a long and distinguished
career in this place. He comes from the province of British
Columbia, so obviously he has more insights than most on this
issue.
With respect to the commentary and the statement about taxation
without representation, I think many will find it somewhat
offensive. When they get into the nuts and bolts of the
agreement they realize that there is a provision for
representation. The taxation scheme that is set up is a fair
one. Although there is certainly a nuance here with respect to
how the taxation may differ from our current system, I would say
that confrontation without consultation or information, which is
at the base of some of the comments that we have heard in this
Chamber, is equally offensive.
The last thing we need or that anyone should desire is to bring
in any element of racism about this particular agreement. We
should be concentrating on the facts, not perpetrating mistruths
or exaggerating effects that this agreement will have. Let us
talk in reality. Let us deal with the facts that will move this
agreement forward in a positive way.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first of all
the hon. member said that public consultation meetings were held.
I do not ever recall seeing him in the northern part of British
Columbia. I am not aware that he has ever made a trip there.
1725
For his own information there were no public information
meetings ever held to solicit any input from the public until the
agreement was already announced. Then the provincial government
had a dog and pony show that went around the province supposedly
to get input from ordinary British Columbians. Subsequent to
that, not one word of the agreement changed, not one word.
That public consultation was hollow. It is the kind of
consultation we expect from the provincial NDP government. It is
the kind of consultation we expect from the federal Liberal
Party. It is interesting to see that these parties are all on the
same page when it comes to public consultation. It is just a
matter of putting on a show for people and saying that they have
consulted but they are not interested in legitimate public input
on these issues.
My question for the hon. member goes to the issue of taxation
without representation. The member is a lawyer. The member knows
that agreements mean what they say they mean.
On page 217, in chapter 16 of this agreement under taxation it
is stated:
3. From time to time Canada and British Columbia, together or
separately, may negotiate with the Nisga'a nation, and attempt to
reach agreement on:
a. the extent, if any, to which Canada or British Columbia will
provide to Nisga'a Lisims Government or a Nisga'a Village
Government direct taxation authority over persons other than
Nisga'a citizens, on Nisga'a lands;
That is absolutely a contemplation of providing the taxation
authority to a Nisga'a government over non-Nisga'a residents
living in the Nass Valley. That is taxation without
representation as the member knows full well that the non-Nisga'a
residents living in the Nass Valley will not be able to run for
office. They will not be able even to vote for the
representative they want.
I ask the hon. member to respond to that. Does he not agree that
these words mean what they say they mean?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying
that I very much enjoyed my recent trip to Castlegar just over a
month ago. I had a wonderful visit in Victoria. I really
enjoyed the time I spent in Prince George as a student planting
trees in the beautiful province of British Columbia. I take
exception to the member's suggestion that I am not familiar with
area.
With respect to the specific question of representation and
taxation, we do know that this process and the 500 consultations
I referred to in my remarks represent time that was spent after
an initial agreement had been put in place. Time was then taken
to consult, to negotiate and in some instances renegotiate parts
of the agreement. The agreement itself in the section to which
the hon. member has referred is not fixed. It speaks of the
ability for future consultation or reworking.
As for there being no representation, certainly the agreement
addresses that by allowing there to be direct voting for school
boards, for any kind of boards that are going to be set up within
this particular region. That is a direct ability for persons to
vote for whom they want to represent them.
I am not sure what the member is speaking of when he says that
there will be no ability. No, a person cannot vote for the band
chief. But a person is going to have input into those boards
that will be regulating everyone living within that territorial
area of British Columbia.
It is not correct to say that this is taxation without
representation. The representation is there. The clauses of the
agreement speak to future changes that might come about. This is
a very workable agreement. It is pliable. It is open. It is
something I am surprised the hon. member is not supporting.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my fellow member, the Progressive
Conservative Party's House leader, for his excellent speech.
I would like to ask him whether he shares my opinion that it is
essential that all members in this House support the Nisga'a
treaty, essential, therefore, that the example set by Quebec in
the early 1980s be followed. Quebec's National Assembly—and I
know all members will remember this fact—recognized native
rights at the start of the 1980s.
When we listen to the debate and consider the speeches by the
Reform Party, with its usual narrow-mindedness, and then the
open-mindedness of the Progressive Conservative Party, is this
not proof—and the member could confirm this—that no agreement
is possible and that no united alternative could be contemplated
on this basis?
1730
Mr. Peter McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec.
Unfortunately, I am unable to answer his question in French.
[English]
I would be very quick to recognize that the province of Quebec
has an exemplary record in many instances in dealing with
aboriginal people. It has been a leader in many areas when it
comes to issues of negotiation. It has a different law in many
ways with respect to the application of the civil law. Perhaps
in some ways it is more well versed in this type of negotiation
under the civil law as it applies.
I embrace the idea that solidarity is what is perhaps most
needed when it comes to an issue such as this one. A very
important signal will be sent to aboriginal people in Canada in
the spirit of this particular agreement. The last thing we want
to see is more contentious and divisive debates. The last thing
we want to see is a decision coming out of the supreme court
which basically forces the government in many instances to
negotiate with a gun to its head.
We know that the record of the federal government in taking
cases involving aboriginal people to the Supreme Court of Canada
or the federal court is an absolutely abysmal one. I suggest the
hon. member is on the right track when he clearly states that
negotiation in good faith is what is most needed and desired.
That is certainly the spirit of this agreement. It is why
members of the Progressive Conservative Party are supporting it.
We are looking forward to getting it to the committee where we
can perhaps bring about some necessary changes and move the
matter forward for the benefit of all.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak today to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a
final agreement. I am fairly sure the final agreement will
become known as the phantom legislation that changed the nation.
I say that because we will not get a look at the real treaty
which makes all the difference.
It might be of interest to know that the agreement, the
accompanying appendices and taxation agreement are 50 millimetres
thick in either English or French, while the ways and means
motion before the House is in both official languages and is only
1 millimetre thick. That means that parliament was able to study
roughly one-100th of the total material referred to.
The treaty which the bill implements is the first of its kind.
It is meant to be a template for the remaining 50-plus treaties
to be negotiated in British Columbia. It would create and
constitutionalize features of government, taxation,
representation, fisheries and resource management that are unique
in that they are based on race.
This is not public government. It is a private government which
is not based on residency but on citizenship in the Nisga'a
nation. Other people cannot obtain Nisga'a citizenship no matter
how long they reside on their lands. They will always be guests
with none of the rights that accrue to citizens.
Just for interest sake, I would like to refer to a statement
made to the special rapporteur and presented to the United
Nations working group on indigenous populations: “It is the
first time in our life that we are standing on lands that the
white man has a right over and we as indigenous people are merely
guests. I am therefore very grateful to the people of
Switzerland for allowing us to be here”. That appears to be the
type of thinking we are up against.
1735
People other than the Nisga'a cannot obtain Nisga'a citizenship.
It is not open to anyone except by hereditary means. They will
not have any part in the election of the legislative body that
sets the level of taxation levied or the amount of fees for
services that are to be set. They will be at the mercy of a
system that, no matter how well meaning the participants are,
will deny their democratic rights and will do it for all time.
If the legislation creating Nisga'a government were outside the
constitutionally entrenched land claim as it should have been,
the treaty would be more acceptable. Furthermore, if it did not
form part of a final agreement, it would be possible to test
drive the proposed government model. One would not buy a car
without driving it first to see if it fit one's needs, runs well
and has a guarantee that would cover the cost of repairs if it
fails to live up to the sales pitch.
In spite of these concerns this new governance model is not open
to amendment in the House. Time allocation will likely be used
to limit debate. There is no way to make changes that may be
found to be necessary for a government which is founded on the
failed practices of the 19th century.
In the legislation before us today we are told that it will help
build the economy. This is stated not as a fact but as an
article of faith without the slightest evidence to support it.
The sad history of Indian affairs on which the agreement is based
does not give me, and it should not give it to any member of the
House, any reason for confidence.
Every member of the House knows, unless in complete denial, that
conditions on Indian reserves which constitute a society apart
from the mainstream are abysmal. The commonly accepted
indicators point to complete failure. Time and time again
statistics show that all social indicators on Indian reserves are
much worse than for the general population. Infant mortality
rates are higher than for the general population. Drug abuse is
rampant. Diabetes is a scourge. Rates of incarceration,
unemployment, inadequate housing and lack of economic activity
all bear witness to the failure of the system that has been in
place since the 1800s.
To digress for a moment, I draw the attention of the House to
the interim report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs
and Northern Development on aboriginal economic development. In
its report the committee calls on the government to invest in
social housing in Indian communities and in northern communities
inhabited largely by Inuit.
I want the House to see and understand the contradiction in
terms evident in such a statement. Social housing is neither a
driving factor nor an indicator of economic development. If it
is anything at all it is an admission there is no economy to
stimulate or to build on. That the Liberal government thinks
that social housing is an indicator of an economy rather than an
indicator of abject failure shows that it has no idea what
success is or how to achieve it. Therefore we must take its
predictions of growth in the Nisga'a economy with a grain of
salt, and I should suggest with much more than that.
In the agreement a collectivist approach rather than a private
enterprise approach is entrenched. Therefore all indicators of
failure will be entrenched.
The treaty is being presented as a fait accompli by the
government in partnership with the Government of British
Columbia. We know the Liberals are supremely confident that they
and the B.C. New Democrats have it right and that the public has
no need to look into what they have created. Historically this
has been the modus operandi of the Liberals when faced with the
big questions facing Canada.
Thirty years ago Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced his
white paper on Indian affairs which accurately defined the
difficulties facing Indians because of the walls created by
discriminatory legislation like the Indian Act. He proposed
solutions to the problem that were visionary in their day and
were breathtaking in their scope. His minister of Indian affairs
at the time was in complete agreement with the prime minister.
That Indian affairs minister is our current Prime Minister.
We need to ask what caused the failure of this grand vision for
aboriginal people. What led to such a complete rout of the
government of the day and the utter rejection of its vision,
which continues to this day and which it rejects?
1740
I believe it was caused by the Liberals' propensity to create
grand doctrines all the while talking only to themselves. It is
this predilection to shut the public out of the process and then
spring some grand design for the public good on an unsuspecting
public that caused it to fail. In thirty years nothing has
changed. The Liberal government still has not learned anything
about democracy and the need for wide consultation.
If the agreement is so good it should stand up to public
scrutiny by B.C. residents in the same way it was put to members
of the Nisga'a band. They should not be denied a voice in the
affairs that concern them so directly. I suggest members of the
House support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the
Opposition in which he calls on the government to withdraw the
bill and refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
I turn to a clause in the bill that to some extent sheds some
light on the mindset of the government when we address these
issues. The preamble to Bill C-9 states:
Whereas Canadian courts have stated that this reconciliation is
best achieved through negotiation and agreement, rather than
through litigation or conflict;
Then it goes on with a number of other whereas clauses. This
clause serves no purpose in the legislation other than to tell
the world that the Liberal administration had to be spanked by
the supreme court and sent to its room. We would surely agree
with that sentiment on this side of the House. However, it is
our contention that the Liberal government is regrettably the
senior level of government in Canada at this time and ought to
behave in an adult fashion and not go to its room so easily.
Let us look at the taxation agreement as an example of what I
mean. In section 37 under land claims agreements it states:
If within 15 years of the effective date, Canada or British
Columbia enacts legislation giving effect to another land claims
agreement applicable in northwest British Columbia that provides
that all of the lands that were set apart as Indian reserves of
an Indian band whose members were represented by a party to the
agreement cease to be reserves, and provides in the land claims
agreement that is referred to in that land claims agreement:
Canada and British Columbia, on request of the Nisga'a Nation,
will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement with the Nisga'a
Nation to provide appropriate adjustments to the tax powers of
Nisga'a Lisims Government, and to the tax exemptions available to
the Nisga'a Nation and Nisga'a Villages, taking into account the
particular circumstances of the other land claims agreement.
The rather lengthy legal text I read means just one thing. There
is none of the vaunted finality in the agreement in respect of
taxes at least. If any other band negotiates a better agreement,
and that is inevitable, the federal and provincial governments
must come to the negotiating table at the request of the Nisga'a
government to add to the powers and exemptions that were not
included in this agreement.
For the reasons I have stated I will be opposing the legislation
and I call on other hon. members to vote in favour of the
amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Skeena, a colleague of the hon. member,
indicated on a number of occasions that he believed the Nisga'a
treaty in some way entrenched inequality of aboriginal women.
In view of the provisions of subsection 35(4) of the
Constitution Act, 1982 that guarantee all section 35 rights, that
is the aboriginal treaty rights in the constitution including
Nisga'a rights under the treaty, equally to male and female
persons, how could the member possibly argue that it is in any
way unequal?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Burnaby—Douglas for the opportunity to speak to this issue.
There is already inequality on Indian reserves. Otherwise Indian
women would not be speaking out about the need to look after
their equality.
During debate on the last piece of legislation that went through
the House, Bill C-49, the government and all other parties
insisted that women were being equally treated.
1745
It is our understanding that women's rights will not be looked
after carefully in the agreement. This is not the way in which
rights should be handled. When the agreement says that it
respects the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government,
what is it really trying to say? It is not just a straight
statement of fact. There is a qualifier in the ways and means
motion which I think a good lawyer will find a way around.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the agreement and
property rights.
Nowhere in the agreement does it give Nisga'a people individual
property rights. It is one of the fundamental aspects if a
marriage breaks up, or there is desertion or anything like that.
Without property rights being entrenched in the agreement, would
that not put a severe handicap on the spouse who has been
deserted?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has
stated the case very well. Most of our rights have sprung from
the ability to own, deal with, dispose of, or invest in private
property and not property held in a collective. That is a good
point. How will the collective deal with the individual rights
when two individuals go to court to try to work out some form of
an agreement where their property will be assigned to one spouse
or the other?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it
states very clearly in the Nisga'a final agreement that the
rights of Nisga'a men and women are equal and protected under the
law. It states that very clearly. Let us put aside the
assertion that somehow there is inequality between men and women
in the agreement.
The other assertion that needs to be set aside is that this is
not a democratic process or is not democratic enough, or it could
be more democratic. The Nisga'a government went before its own
people and 61% of the voters in Nisga'a lands voted in support of
the agreement. Looking at the total number of people in the
Nisga'a lands, 75% voted for the agreement. The Reform Party
itself agreed to change the way that party works. Some 25% of
Reform Party members voted for that and it was good enough. I
would like a comment from the member.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Speaker, where we see a real
lack of democracy on the issue is that it is an agreement that
affects all people in British Columbia. The people of British
Columbia were denied a voice in the implementation of the treaty.
They heard about it secondhand. I said that in my speech. Other
members have said it and they will say it time and time again.
The people of British Columbia were denied a voice in the
democratic process. Their rights were overlooked.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, should there be settlement with the Nisga'a and other
aboriginal people? Absolutely.
There are undeniable historical grievances and they have to be
settled and settled fairly. The question is in what manner
should they be settled? A number of steps need to be taken.
There needs to be a deadline for claims to be submitted. This
is necessary for two reasons. We cannot reach settlement if new
claims are continually popping up. Also, we cannot reach fair
and final settlements if the aboriginal communities themselves
have overlapping claims.
The Nisga'a represent only one of more than 50 aboriginal groups
in British Columbia and a third of those are not currently
involved in negotiations.
There is absolutely no way to reach realistic settlements when we
do not even know what some of the groups might be willing to
settle for.
1750
With the Nisga'a treaty not yet complete, the Gitanyow band are
now claiming that much of the Nisga'a treaty land is their
traditional land and they are preparing a court battle over the
title. Guess who is going to pick up the legal bill for both
sides?
The total potential settlement package has to be affordable. It
is no good coming up with a package if the total cumulative
effect of that package and all the others to follow absolutely
destroys or bankrupts an economy of an entire province. It has
to take into consideration the cost of financial settlements, the
cost of land settlements and the future cost of lost revenues
primarily through lost natural resource revenues. Here we have
the first of what I believe is a huge deception on the impact of
the proposed treaty.
Provincial promotional material designed to sell the treaty to
the public implied the cost was $312 million. That was extremely
inaccurate and I believe deliberately misleading. That figure is
only the actual cash component of the direct financial
compensation to be paid. It did not include such considerations
as the value of the land to be transferred or lost provincial
forestry revenue.
The provincial government attempted to pacify British Columbians
by claiming that most of the costs would be borne by Canadian
taxpayers, not B.C. taxpayers. Last time I heard B.C. was still
in confederation and we are Canadian taxpayers, and it is damned
expensive at that.
The public must be consulted on the process and on any potential
settlement. Settlements cannot be made piecemeal. Before one
treaty is signed the public should know the bottom line and that
means the total cost and impact of all settlements. There has
been very little consultation with the public at large and
virtually no indication that what has been heard has impacted on
the outcome.
An agreement in principle was reached in 1996. From that time
until now, despite a considerable amount of concern raised by the
public, not one single word of the agreement has changed as a
result of the public meetings that were held.
As I mentioned earlier the Nisga'a are one of over 50 aboriginal
groups in B.C. The proposed settlement will be the floor and not
the ceiling for all future settlements.
Given the cost of the Nisga'a treaty, I want to look at two
components of the treaty: the financial costs and control of
B.C.'s forest resources.
An actual financial analysis of the treaty has now been
completed and it places the cost at approximately $1.3 billion.
The total Nisga'a population represents 3.74% of B.C.'s
aboriginal population. Of those, only one-third live on Nisga'a
land and receive any kind of benefit from this treaty.
This treaty becomes a template for all future settlements. The
final cost of all settlements would exceed $35 billion. If we
think that is far fetched, then we should ask ourselves what
aboriginal group is going to settle for less than the provincial
and federal governments are willingly giving to the Nisga'a?
Under forestry, using the same proportional arguments as the
financial concerns, this treaty would ultimately give an
aboriginal population representing less than 5% of the B.C.
population harvesting rights for almost 20% of the provincial
annual allowable cut.
We simply cannot afford either one of these situations.
Treaties when signed have to lead to equality and finality. The
settlement must be available to individual aboriginal people. To
do otherwise extends an already existing feudal type system that
will ultimately fail, just as it is failing now.
At this time the federal government alone spends $9,000 for
every aboriginal man, woman and child on a reserve in this
country. Despite this, many aboriginal people on those reserves
live in a state of abject poverty. The reason is that much of
the money is used up by the bureaucracy and what is left is
passed on to certain band leaders. In some cases not so much as
one single dollar makes its way to those truly in need. Under
this agreement individual rights and access to benefits are still
non-existent.
Under the Nisga'a agreement a central government will own all of
the land and control all of the money and resources provided for
by this agreement. For an individual to voice criticism is to
risk exclusion from the benefits of those government owned and
controlled holdings. It is a top down mechanism and it is
fatally flawed. It totally ignores the principles of public
scrutiny and equality of citizens. The Nisga'a agreement empowers
government instead of people and that is a certain formula for
failure.
1755
Many people will remember studying the old English feudal system
of medieval times where the lord owned all the land and
everything that grew on it. The peasants were allowed to live on
the land, to put up their dwellings and to raise crops, all of
which belonged to the lord. They had no ownership or rights of
any kind other than what he allowed. It was a very oppressive,
undemocratic system full of flaws and resentment that came to a
deserving end centuries ago. So why is this House considering
going into the 21st century proposing the same kind of system for
Canada's aboriginal people?
We have already seen examples of this. The Stoney band situated
west of Calgary has a total of 3,300 people living on three
different reserves. Many of those people live in absolute
squalor, some in the basements of condemned homes. This is
despite the fact that the Stoney band has an annual income of $50
million. That money goes first to the three band leaders who
collectively draw half a million dollars in salary plus unlimited
expense accounts while many of their people live in despair. Is
this a system that is going to solve aboriginal problems? I do
not think so.
Some might argue that these leaders are elected and can be
thrown out of office if they do not do a good job. Well, I am an
elected member of parliament. If someone does not like what I
do, they can speak out against me. They can stand for election
and try to beat me in the next election. If they do, fine. If
they do not, life goes on. But what if I owned the house of that
person who complained and tried to beat me out? What if I owned
their bank account? What if I controlled all of their principal
activities on the land? They could still run against me and if
they win, that is fine. But if they lose, they have a problem.
That is the inherent problem with the current reserve system.
Much of the government funds that the band leaders receive and
will continue to receive even under this agreement are based on
the reserve population. It is in the interest of the band
leaders to keep the reserve population up and discourage band
members from leaving.
Non-Nisga'a people living on land handed over to them will not
have a vote on decisions affecting them. They say they will have
a vote on the school board. They will not have a vote on
anything that deals with their taxation. They will not have any
property rights. They will not be able to vote for the Nisga'a
government itself. They will not be allowed to run for
government office. Never mind the school board. I have heard
the flippant answers that come from the other side. They will
not be allowed to run for government. They will not be allowed
to vote for local government, the kind of government that deals
with their taxation on any property that they happen to reside
upon. But they will be subject to those taxes the government
decides to impose on them and that is taxation without
representation.
Promotional material in support of the Nisga'a agreement states
that the Nisga'a will be subject to all provincial and federal
taxes. That is not true. While the Nisga'a agreement does
terminate some special treatment for members after eight to
twelve years, it also leaves in place many exemptions such as
property tax, taxes on capital and many others. Nisga'a
corporations are tax exempt, as is their forestry. The Nisga'a
along with all other status aboriginals however, will continue to
get such benefits as free post-secondary education and be user
fee exempt on various medical services. These benefits are race
based and the ultimate goal of settlement must be the full
equality of all Canadians.
I have more, Madam Speaker. I am not even going to get to my
fifth point because of the little time left. It is unfortunate,
when we are trying to get as many speakers on as possible, that
this government has already said that it is going to cut off this
debate.
And using the word debate is a sham. This is not a debate. The
government does not intend to change one piece of legislation,
not one clause, no matter what evidence comes forward. It is
going to put something through, an agreement that with its
appendix is thicker than the Ottawa phone book.
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I apologize for interrupting my hon. colleague but he is
making such important points I think it would be important for at
least one member of the cabinet to be in this place to hear such
an important debate on Nisga'a.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, I conclude by pointing out
that we are debating a piece of legislation that has incredible
impact on British Columbia, a document that is thicker than the
Ottawa phone book, and yet the government will not even consider
a single change to it. If this government wants to make even a
pretence of being democratic, it will agree to hold hearings in
British Columbia, listen to the concerns of British Columbians
and make sure the final agreement is fair to all.
1800
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Madam
Speaker, I heard a lot today, especially from the other side,
about consultations in the province.
I want everybody to know that we got in touch with Victoria in
regard to these so-called consultations. Not one piece of
advertising went out to the people. As a matter of fact I took
it upon myself to put out advertisement. Until that point in
time nobody even knew this was going on. This is how open and
democratic the NDP is in the province of British Columbia. It is,
as the hon. member said, almost like this government.
In regard to these consultations and polls that were taken in
and around the province of British Columbia, did the hon. member
have any direct input into them?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, it is important for us to
understand that we are here to represent people.
I had a two hour live televised debate with a provincial
minister from the NDP government. During that debate I offered
to pay for a scientific poll of his riding if he would agree to a
vote according to the results. He refused, but I did the poll
anyway.
In his riding and in the neighbouring riding of another NDP
member, the poll turned out that the majority of people opposed
it. What is more interesting is that we did a breakdown inside
the poll, as polls often do, and identified which of the people
who were contacted were NDP supporters. Seventy per cent of the
people who identified themselves as supporters of the provincial
NDP said that they wanted a referendum and a voice on this. That
government did not listen and we now have this government not
listening.
I have documents from the previous federal minister of Indian
affairs and the provincial minister of Indian affairs. They have
both told the people that they hoped they would recognize their
tenure, but that if they did not they hoped they would be offered
compensation. That is a typical example of what is happening to
British Columbians on this issue. It is also happening to
ranchers.
We got another briefing note by the Department of Agriculture
and Agri-Food for the minister stating that 1,000 farms in the
Okanagan alone would be affected by the Nisga'a agreement, yet
these governments are all prepared to walk through it. I do not
know if it is because of guilt from the past, but they refuse to
listen to reason. The irony is that not only is the agreement
bad for non-aboriginals in British Columbia, it is not even good
for the Nisga'a.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I
have listened to the Reform's debate and, quite frankly, it seems
that we come around to this point every time where the Reform
wants to take this wrecking ball approach to public policy
debate. If nothing is working, we tear it all down to the base
common denominator and then somehow build some constructive
process on top of that after there is nothing there to start
with.
There has been a fair amount of talk about the Supreme Court of
Canada. We have gone to the supreme court far too many times in
dealing with first nations in the country. Every time we have
gone to the supreme court we end up with a decision that binds us
by law to abide by and to live with.
When the member looks at the Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Simon,
Gladstone, Smokehouse and all of the supreme court decisions of
the last decade and some from the decade before, would he advise
us to continue to go to the supreme court? I have heard the
comments about what is happening on the east coast of Canada.
Or, are we not far better off to sit down in a public policy
debate with first nations, the federal government and the
provincial governments and establish some type of a treaty
process, that may not be perfect for everybody but is perfect for
the majority, and come to some concrete examples and terms of a
decision that all Canadian can live by?
Does the hon. member not think that this is a much better
process than allowing the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate
Canadian laws to Canadians?
1805
Mr. Jim Gouk: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to
have public debate and public claims on this, yet the public has
not been included. If all of the public were included we would
have a much better agreement.
It is interesting that he mentions the Delgamuukw case. I keep
forgetting whether it is his party or the NDP party, they are so
intermingled these days. When the Delgamuukw case began in
British Columbia, it was won by the provincial government.
However, by the time the decision came down in came the NDP
provincial government which encouraged the people to appeal. It
then fired all the lawyers who had won the case and conceded a
number of points they had won. The court finally had to hire
back those lawyers as friends of the court in order to have
somebody speak on behalf of British Columbians.
Yes, Delgamuukw is a big problem, but one of the governments
that was an author to the damn report is the reason for it.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I stand today on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
speak to Bill C-9, an act to put into effect the Nisga'a final
agreement. This is a very significant issue today and it is very
important that members of parliament be able to represent their
constituents.
What we are seeing today and what we will see throughout the
debate is an attempt by the federal Liberal government to not
allow the debate to go forward. It will use every means possible
at its disposal, including closure on debate, and every tactic it
can to not have a full hearing on the Nisga'a final agreement.
The people of British Columbia have not been able to express
their views on the Nisga'a final agreement.
It is very important, particularly for the members of our party,
but certainly all members from British Columbia, to speak on the
issue and to reflect what their constituents have been telling
them because the deal is very significant. It is probably one of
the most significant agreements for the aboriginal people in
Canada for quite some time.
The deal will hand over to 5,500 Nisga'a ownership over an area
of land that is one-half the size of the area that I come from,
the Okanagan Valley. The Okanagan Valley is home to over 200,000
people as compared to 5,500. Along with ownership of the land,
these 5,500 individuals will get the rights to resources such as
timber, water and minerals, and a major say over the wildlife
resource management.
The Nisga'a will also get cash payments. According to an
independent analysis done by R.M. Richardson and Associates, the
total cost of the deal will be a minimum of $1.3 billion or
$260,000 per Nisga'a. The agreement is dramatic because the
federal government intends to make Nisga'a the blueprint for over
50 other agreements that will come down the road.
It is no wonder that the people of British Columbia are
concerned. Let me point out that to date I alone, as the member
of parliament for Okanagan—Coquihalla, have received literally
thousands of names on petitions from people who are concerned
about the agreement. They want questions answered. That is why
it is important to have a full hearing of this debate, even
though the Liberal government is going to throw up every
roadblock it can to prevent that from happening.
In the grassroots plebiscites in the province of B.C., over 90%
of British Columbians opposed the deal. It is also worthwhile
pointing out that only 60% of the Nisga'a people agree with the
Nisga'a final agreement.
The whole idea of agreements like this is to help solve the
lingering social and economic problems facing aboriginal people
in the country. If the agreement was going to solve those
lingering social problems that have been faced by aboriginal
people in the country, I and my colleagues would stand today in
full agreement of the deal. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The agreement leaves more uncertainty than the Nisga'a had
before.
1810
When all is said and done, there is no doubt in my mind that
this bill will pass. It will be a matter of history that the
Reform Party of Canada stood alone, stood separate from all of
the other political parties in the House of Commons, the
Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the red Tories at the
end of the hall, and the other NDP at the end of the way here.
The fact is that at the end of the day, after the votes are
counted and this deal has passed, the social and economic
problems faced by the Nisga'a will not have changed one iota. In
fact this agreement will guarantee that the Nisga'a people will
see another hundred years of poverty in their communities.
This agreement does not give the Nisga'a people the tools they
need for a modern economy in the 21st century. It does not do
that. That is unfortunate. That is why the members from British
Columbia and the members from the Reform Party of Canada are
standing here today. Although we are standing alone as a
political party, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with the
Nisga'a people and every aboriginal group across the country.
We want to see settlements that are final, that give the people
the tools so that they can democratically elect their governments
in the 21st century. We want to make sure that they have the
tools to participate in the economy. These are very real
problems.
One really important issue is the lack of property rights on
reserves. It has been one of the major stumbling blocks for
aboriginal peoples. It plays a leading role in any economy.
Without the right to private property it is almost impossible to
raise capital to start or expand a business. Aboriginal people
cannot benefit from the hard work of past generations because
they are unable to inherit property. Under the Nisga'a final
agreement all land will be collectively owned by the Nisga'a
government. It will have the right to determine what land, if
any, will be sold privately.
By concentrating power into the hands of the Nisga'a government,
the Nisga'a people do not gain individual rights and equality
with other Canadians. Since much of the spending power of the
Nisga'a government will be handed to them by Ottawa, they fail to
become fiscally accountable. The Nisga'a will not acquire the
opportunity and responsibility to make their own future and to
pass the fruits of their labour on to their children.
Before the House considers this agreement or any other
agreement, we should have a full debate on the issue of property
rights for aboriginal people. Property rights should be the
cornerstone of any 21st century agreement with aboriginal people.
Without them we are condemning the aboriginals in Canada to
repeat the 19th century and all that entails.
Let us not forget which party has been in government for most of
those 100 years. It has been the Liberal Party of Canada and the
red Tories at the other end of the hall who have insisted on
agreements such as this which have made the aboriginal people
suffer in abject poverty.
As a solution I would like to suggest three points which at
minimum the Nisga'a agreement should ensure. There should be
adequate protection of Nisga'a land occupants with guaranteed
tenure and ownership rights to compare with non-aboriginal
Canadians. There should be special measures to ensure that
people have the same rights regarding the division of marital
assets whether or not they live on Nisga'a land. There should be
the guaranteed right on individual property ownership on Nisga'a
land.
Federal and provincial legislation should apply on Indian lands
to protect people living on that land. We hear a lot from the
people on the other side of the House that everybody who lives on
that land will be covered by the same federal and provincial
agreements or laws that are in place.
I would like to refer to a situation in my riding of
Okanagan—Coquihalla. Members may recall that I introduced a
private member's bill regarding the situation at the Driftwood
Mobile Home Park. The 51 families who resided at Driftwood
Mobile Home Park were evicted. They were told they had to leave
their homes.
1815
Why was that? It was because their septic system failed. After
they had paid rental for years and years to have their mobile
homes on that property their septic system failed. Why did it
fail? We found out that because it was on reserve land proper
inspections were not done. The landlord and tenant act did not
apply to these people because they lived on reserve land. It was
a huge injustice.
Did we see the Liberal government standing up to support those
51 low income families at that time? No, it did not. Nor did
members of the NDP or the red Tories at the other end support
those 51 low income families who lost their homes. Some of them
only received 50 cents on the dollar for their investment. They
are low income people. They are without homes. They are living
in my riding. There are four other mobile home parks in jeopardy
of the same fate. Why? It is because the Liberal government
depends on agreements which are set up to fail.
This will not solve the problem. I wish the House would
reconsider this whole area. At the end of the day I can
guarantee that I will be standing shoulder to shoulder in support
of the Nisga'a people for their future and their economic
development when all these other people are long gone.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have one question and a point that I would like to raise. The
hon. member says that private property rights are not protected
in the Nisga'a agreement when in reality if he has read the
agreement he must be aware that private property rights are
protected in the agreement.
Private landowners, non-Nisga'a landowners who live in the Nass
Valley, are not under the Nisga'a agreement. They still have
full title to their property. It even goes so far as to give
them ownership of the roadbeds leading to that property.
Therefore private property rights are definitely protected.
I find it a bit incongruous that government members are not
standing to debate and defend the Nisga'a agreement. They have
left it up to opposition parties in the House that may or many
not agree with each other. Surely the Government of Canada,
which represents the people of Canada, should be doing the job of
defending the treaty that I am on my feet doing right now. It is
a good treaty and I would like to hear more from government
members. I would like to hear from the hon. member on that.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Unfortunately the member is not from the province of British
Columbia which really makes his argument moot.
The people of British Columbia want to see an agreement that
makes sense, an agreement that does not protect the property
rights of Nisga'a people. We are talking about the Nisga'a
people and their property rights. They do not have property
rights in this agreement. This is what needs to be protected.
They need to be protected in this agreement.
If we do not have the tools, which the agreement does not have,
to give Nisga'a people those property rights in the 21st century,
what are we giving them? We are giving them more of what they
are used to now, more of what they have had for the last 200
years, and that is abject poverty. They will not be able to
participate actively in the economy of the country and in the
economy of British Columbia.
As I have said in my comments, they do not have the right to own
that property. They do not have the right to hand it down to
their heirs. They do not have the right to participate through a
business.
The hon. member says he would like government members to stand
and defend the Nisga'a agreement. Probably the reason they are
not is it is indefensible.
The agreement is a bad agreement. It does not make sense for
the Nisga'a people. I just hope at the end of the day when the
deal is signed, because undoubtedly it will be, that the hon.
member will be willing to go to British Columbia and explain it
five years from now when the impact of the agreement on the
Nisga'a people is truly felt. I hope the member is still around
to explain that he stood in support of the agreement.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
would ask the member to comment further on the issue of property
rights. We have heard all day from Reform Party members that
this treaty somehow does not allow property rights for Nisga'a
people.
1820
Would the member not agree, if he has read the treaty, that the
treaty transfers ownership of the land back to the Nisga'a people
as a people but that the treaty allows various ways for people to
privately own the land they live on? It specifically says that
individuals cannot get less in terms of property rights than they
already have. They can only get more. I ask the member to
confirm that is exactly what the treaty says.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, the agreement does not
confer individual property rights on the Nisga'a people.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am particularly interested seeing as how the last
speaker is my neighbouring colleague in the Okanagan. I go into
the south part and he goes into a major part of it.
I have a copy of a briefing note from the provincial ministry of
agriculture to the minister of agriculture, Corky Evans, who is
now running for the leadership of the NDP government out there.
It states clearly that the Nisga'a treaty sets up a precedent
that will affect every rancher in the province of British
Columbia who lives within 10 kilometres of a reserve. In the
Okanagan alone that could affect 1,000 ranchers.
I would like to hear my colleague who represents a good part of
that area and those 1,000 ranchers comment on that.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, because I come from an area
that has a ranching industry and an orchard industry natural
resources are very important to our area. Because the agreement
is set up the way it is, it has a direct impact on ranchers,
orchardists and the natural resource sector.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the Reform Party has always believed that treaties with our
native people should be concluded as quickly as possible, so I
really wish that I could stand before the House and offer my
support for the bill. Unfortunately the bill is full of concerns
that have deep ramifications for not only my home province of
British Columbia but for the whole country.
The conditions under which many aboriginal people in my riding
and many other regions of Canada live are absolutely appalling. I
have seen homes without water and proper heating. I have spoken
with people who are desperately poor having been unemployed
virtually forever and who are hanging on through subsistence
welfare cheques. I have seen the emotions of people as they
begged for someone to help them. I have witnessed their sense of
hopelessness and helplessness. I have been an eyewitness to the
less than enthusiastic police investigations into filed
complaints of wrongdoing that occurred on reserves.
It takes real courage for our native people to step forward in
these circumstances. After the witness reports, the pictures and
the paperwork it is truly wrong and upsetting to have the whole
thing swept under the carpet.
I have observed firsthand the lack of personal initiative that
many aboriginal people have for individual advancement, that
personal drive which gives all of us a reason to roll out of bed
in the morning and strive to do our best during the upcoming day.
Why do many aboriginals feel this way? The answer is simple.
Either their own peers, the Indian act or a combination of both
strive to hold them back.
Over the past 10 years approximately $60 billion have been
poured into the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. If money alone could solve these problems, I would
have thought they would have been solved years ago.
The problem is not money. There has been plenty of money poured
into DIAND. Simply put, the resources have never reached those
at the grassroots level that need it most. The reality is there
has been a litany of broken promises from both the government and
many of the native leaders. Bureaucratic red tape and corruption
have made it nearly impossible for the individual grassroots
aboriginal person to get ahead.
During the summer of 1998 I attended a meeting of grassroots
aboriginal people in Airdrie, Alberta, initiated by the Reform
Party. Following the meeting and after hearing from many
aboriginal people I hosted a meeting on aboriginal accountability
in my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. I expected 25 people.
That was the number of invitations that went out. Over 50 people
crowded into a room representing 15 different bands from all
across Vancouver Island.
Time and time again grassroots aboriginals in attendance
expressed serious concerns over their respective band councils
and leadership. Of all the people in attendance the only ones
who did not see that there was an accountability problem were
those few who worked for the band councils or the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Person after person stood up to talk indicating that they had
the same concerns within their band that other speakers had
expressed. They also added they thought that they had been the
only ones with this problem until they came to the meeting.
They were grateful that others were willing to step forward and
publicly discuss the issues. The primary concern was
accountability among their own leadership. That is not new. I
will refer to some quotes from that meeting:
It's sad to see your own people doing this to you.
If white people had done this to us we'd be up in arms.
This has really opened my eyes. I thought it was just us.
Reformers are the only people who'll listen.
1825
I am leery of the agreement and the lack of firm details of
accountability within the band. I am also very concerned about
the welfare of women and children under the agreement. Contrary
to words spoken on the other side, the rights of Nisga'a women
have not been included in the document.
Women's rights deserve to be fully addressed. I have had the
opportunity to talk with many grassroots aboriginal people at
friendship centres and native women's associations. We have
discussed a great many matters ranging from land settlements and
equality to health care and family matters.
I speak from the heart on this issue. I have witnessed
firsthand the terrible price women and children have paid through
the native patriarchal system. Women and children typically have
had very few rights bestowed upon them by the elite of the band
councils. If the Liberal government is so concerned with the
family, why does it not put its words into action for it is time
to walk the talk?
One of my next concerns is the matter of personal property
rights. Under the current agreement the Nisga'a council, village
or corporation will be the owners of the land and therefore the
resources.
I believe strongly that to take full responsibility for one's
actions has both rewards and consequences. Consequences tend to
mean very little if there is no personal risk and no cost to the
individual personally. The reward is based on the same principal
that to risk something to succeed there will be personal gain.
Simply put, what one owns one cares for.
I believe this is not only a problem within our aboriginal
community as a whole but a symptom of our society at large. To
be truly effective I strongly urge the government to implement
individual property rights for all Nisga'a people.
There are several positive aspects of the agreement. One of
them is to move the Nisga'a people out from under the oppressive
Indian Act. I hope and pray that the Nisga'a people will not be
moving from one oppressive regime to another. I have to ask
myself a question. If this agreement was to apply directly to
me, would I be satisfied to live under it? My simple answer is
no. I would not want to be placed under the terms of the
agreement. Nor do I believe that all Nisga'a people truly want
to be placed under it.
Although a majority of the Nisga'a people did pass the agreement
the final result was certainly not overwhelming. A total of 61%
approved the agreement, 39% were against it, and 15% of the
eligible voters declined to vote.
Perhaps the greatest concern to me is that the agreement sets
the framework for all treaty settlements in Canada. There are
many agreements yet to be negotiated. However to use the
agreement as the cornerstone, I am afraid, sets the country on a
long road to the courts and confrontation. I hope that is not
what my colleagues on the other side are looking for. They only
need to look at the west coast and review the Musqueam land
battles. They only need to look to the east coast and try to
make sense of the fisheries fiasco the government has created.
All Canadians are deserving of a far better agreement. It is my
belief that the agreement will not bring the Nisga'a people into
Canada but will create a mini-state within the nation, a nation
within a nation, a nation that in 14 different areas has the
right to supersede the laws of the Canadian constitution and the
province of British Columbia.
I have three native children who are part of my family. I love
each one of them very much, just as I love my other five children
who are non-native. We have made it work in our family. We love
and comfort each other. I want them to grow up in a country
where—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I have to
interrupt at this point. The hon. member will have approximately
two and half minutes when the bill is brought back to the House.
* * *
[Translation]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of motion that
Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by
protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read
the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant
to order adopted Friday, October 22, 1999, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at
third reading of Bill C-6.
Call in the members.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 200
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Duceppe
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Wayne – 49
|
PAIRED
Members
Assad
| Canuel
| Collenette
| Crête
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Ianno
| Lalonde
| Marceau
|
Mifflin
| Mitchell
| Normand
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food for being in the House this evening.
On October 18 I had the opportunity and the pleasure to rise in
the House to question the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
about an issue that is very close and dear not only to my heart,
but to the constituents of Brandon—Souris as well as to
agricultural constituents all across this fair country of ours.
As the House has been told many times, the minister of
agriculture and his department have put forward this wonderful
program called AIDA that is going to solve all of the problems of
western Canada and western Canadian producers.
I had the opportunity to rise on October 18 to ask the minister
of agriculture why it was that only $90 million had been
distributed to the four provinces for which the federal
government administers the AIDA program.
1905
For those who do not know, and perhaps the parliamentary
secretary does not know, there are four provinces that have the
AIDA program administered for them by the federal government, and
those provinces are Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova
Scotia.
With the commodity crisis that we are now suffering throughout
western Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are without question
the hardest hit because they have a dependency on grains and
oilseeds more so than other provinces and other commodities that
are being grown and produced throughout Canada.
The $90 million is very important because as of October 18 that
was the amount of money that was distributed to those four
provinces. However, the minister of agriculture, in response to
my question, suggested that in the four provinces where the
federal government delivers the program well over $200 million
had been delivered, as identified in Hansard. That, in
fact, was not true and I would like the parliamentary secretary
to explain to me how a $90 million distribution of funds could be
mistaken for a $200 million distribution of funds.
The reason I brought this up was because not only was the money
not being distributed, the applicants for the AIDA program were
being denied. In those four provinces, 8,000 applicants had been
approved for the AIDA program and some 10,000 applicants had been
denied.
Supplementary to that question, I asked the minister if in fact
he thought that the 10,000 applicants who had been denied did not
require any assistance with the farm crisis. Needless to say, it
was question period, not answer period, and the minister decided
to go off on some different tangent and he never did answer the
question.
Maybe the parliamentary secretary would like to answer tonight.
Did those 10,000 applicants who have been denied apply simply on
a whim? Did they apply because they thought there was going to
be $900 million distributed, which we have seen is not happening?
Did they apply because they did not need the assistance? Or,
did they apply and get refused because the program itself is
flawed?
The program is definitely flawed, as we have found out. There
are no negative margins covered in the program right now.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to explain why,
when the program was designed and developed not to include
negative margins in the process.
I should tell you, Madam Speaker, that the process of
application is very—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member at this point as his time has expired.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I know the
hon. member has been very persistent in his questioning on this
topic. It is a very important topic for his province and for all
farming communities across Canada.
The government understands the root cause of the financial
problems facing some farmers. The causes are worldwide low
prices for some commodities and recent adverse weather here in
Canada.
The low prices have been aggravated by the use of trade
distorting support by some of our trading partners. The Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-food is working very hard on the
international front to demonstrate that this continued action
will undermine efforts toward agricultural trade reform.
The figures I have are figures for Canada. They are not figures
for the four provinces alone. As of October 21, 1999 claims
totalling $220 million have been paid out. This represents an
average payment of $14,034 per farmer. Currently the AIDA
administration is processing approximately 1,200 applications per
week. Farmers continue to have access to the NISA program and
the government continues to put money in producers' NISA
accounts, with more than $126 million already contributed this
year. More than 135,000 farmers have some $2.7 billion in
accounts. That is a substantial reserve to draw on.
We have taken appropriate measures to deal quickly with the
results of adverse weather and the low prices for some
commodities and we are laying the groundwork to ensure that our
trading partners enter the WTO negotiations with a commitment to
meaningful changes. Along with our work with provincial
governments to strengthen our long term safety net system, we are
providing Canadian farmers with the short and long term support
they need.
1910
FISHERIES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Madam
Speaker, in the House on October 14 I asked a question of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The question was quite clear.
However, the lack of an answer I received was also very clear.
The rejection of the 30 day moratorium on fishing in the
Atlantic region shows clearly that the minister is continuing to
ignore the seriousness of the situation. The government has
shown the people most directly concerned that it has absolutely
no leadership. Through its clumsy handling of the situation the
government has struck fear into the hearts of fishers in the
towns and villages throughout Atlantic Canada. My question was
very clear. What has the government done and what does it intend
to do to restore a feeling of security and peace of mind to
people in native and non-native communities?
The lack of the government's seriousness in regard to this very
serious question shows how it does not understand the seriousness
of the problem. The minister totally ignored the question and he
tried to laugh at it. However, the answer was clear, the
government had done nothing and was planning to doing nothing in
our communities.
There has been no initiative to talk to people in our
communities. That is clear. If we talk to people in our
communities they tell us that there is a need for action and
resources to bring our communities together. We cannot let the
situation worsen, like the government has been doing with its
lack of leadership.
[Translation]
The commercial fishermen of Fundy, Richibucto,
Richibouctou-Village, Sainte-Anne, Saint-Thomas, Cap-Pelé and Port
Elgin are wondering whether they still have a future in fishing.
Communities need to see leadership from this government,
something that does not exist, at present.
[English]
We need to see leadership now, not a year from now. Both native
and non-native communities need a strong government that will
look after their welfare. This will only be accomplished by
enforcing conservation measures and by putting in place rules and
regulations that will ensure that the lobster, scallops and
shrimp are there. If we do not take measures to conserve our
natural resources, the victory which the natives achieved by the
supreme court ruling will no longer be a victory because in 10
years there will be no resources.
There are serious fishermen who are worried. I spoke with
fishermen yesterday. They are asking if they will be able to
fish next spring. Will they be able to go out and fish? What
will be the rules and regulations?
We should also talk about the lack of DFO officials on our
waters; not only during this crisis, but before it. I went out
on the wharfs this fall to talk to the fishermen while they were
preparing to fish. At that point I heard a lot of complaints
that there were not enough DFO officials on the water to protect
the species. Now, with this additional crisis, we know that DFO
manpower cannot handle it and will be further burdened if there
is no leadership from the minister in Ottawa.
I hope that in the next couple of months this situation will be
resolved, because there are more—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the
hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank you for
the opportunity to describe the measures we are taking to plan
for the implementation of the Marshall decision in a manner that
is sensitive to the very real concerns of fishers and fisher
communities in the Atlantic provinces.
1915
I will deviate from my text for a moment. I would like to say
to the hon. member that we are taking the issue seriously. Mr.
Mackenzie is in Atlantic Canada working on the issue at the
moment. Mr. Mackenzie comes to us as the chief federal
representative. He was born and bred in Nova Scotia. He was the
chief federal land claims negotiator on the Labrador Inuit
Association claims and he did work on the major fisheries
component. We have also had the nickel concerns in the Voisey's
Bay issue and we have come to an AIP. I am confident Mr.
Mackenzie will assist in resolving this matter.
Mr. Mackenzie's immediate task is to work out arrangements for
short term fisheries management. The first task is well under
way. He has been holding discussions with aboriginal and
commercial groups throughout the maritimes. Mr. Mackenzie is
concentrating for the time being on the lobster fishery. The hon.
member pointed to the other species. That is correct. There are
other species to be concerned about in those areas where
commercial openings are imminent, but arrangements will be
necessary across the board.
By the end of April 2000, and I think this is the most important
point, we will have a plan in place for—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
allocated has expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
passed. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.)