36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 25
CONTENTS
Monday, November 22, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| REGULATORY BUDGET
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1120
1125
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1130
1135
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1140
1145
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
| Sitting Resumed
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Nisga'a Final Agreement
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion
|
1205
1210
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1215
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1220
1225
| Motion
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1230
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Mr. Ted White |
1250
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1255
1300
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1305
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1330
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1335
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1340
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1345
1350
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1355
| Mr. David Iftody |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE FATHER MARCEL DE LA SABLONNIÈRE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PORT OF VANCOUVER
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| FRANK FAUBERT
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1400
| NATIONAL AIDS AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| FARMERS
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GALA DES BÉNÉVOLES
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1405
| LEBANON
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| WAYNE GRETZKY
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| NISGA'A FINAL TREATY
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| THE LATE FATHER MARCEL DE LA SABLONNIÈRE
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| HIGHWAY SAFETY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1430
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1435
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1440
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PESTICIDES
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. John Herron |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1455
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ARTS AND CULTURE
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1505
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-15. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-329. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| PETITIONS
|
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Children's Rights
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
1510
| Marriage
|
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Access to Information Act
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| The Environment
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1515
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Nisga'a Final Agreement
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1535
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1600
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1605
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Randy White |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1625
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1630
1635
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1640
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1645
1650
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1655
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1700
1705
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1710
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1730
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1735
1740
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1745
| Mr. David Iftody |
1750
1755
1800
1805
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1810
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1815
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
1820
| Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1825
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 25
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 22, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
REGULATORY BUDGET
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should implement a “Regulatory Budget”, parallel to
the traditional spending budget, which would detail estimates of
the total cost of each individual regulation including the
government enforcement costs as well as the cost of compliance to
individual citizens and businesses; and include a risk/benefit
analysis of each regulation, to enable cost/benefit analysis of
regulation by parliamentarians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to
debate my private member's Motion No. 207 concerning the
introduction of a regulatory budget which would achieve a great
deal in a number of realms.
First, there has been a secular decline in the role of the
member of parliament over the past 30 years and a reduction in
the meaningful role that private members play in conducting and
legislating those things that are really important to Canadians.
This regulatory budget would go a long way toward restoring some
of the traditional authority which members of parliament had back
in the days when the estimates were debated on the floor of the
House of Commons and before the days when there was such
tremendous control and concentration of power, in particular in
the PMO and to a certain extent within the cabinet. This would
help reverse a certain amount of that. It would also
redistribute power that is currently with the bureaucracy and put
more of that power in the hands of elected representatives. That
would achieve a great good on behalf of Canadians, Canadian
parliamentary systems and democracy.
1105
There are two ways the government can change the way Canadians
do things. For instance, if a bureaucrat determines that it is
in the public interest to have a lawn sprinkler on every lawn in
Canada, there are two ways the bureaucrat can achieve that. One
way is to whisper in the ear of a cabinet minister that this is a
good thing and that the government should buy those lawn
sprinklers and distribute them to Canadians, which would entail a
tax. Of course, the government would increase taxes, buy the
lawn sprinklers and distribute them to Canadians to put on their
lawns.
The second way, which is far less transparent and more
concealed, would be for the government to introduce a regulation
which would force all Canadians to buy lawn sprinklers with their
own money and put them on their lawn.
What is the difference? The only difference is that of
transparency and accountability, because effectively the same
result is achieved with either alternative. Canadians are forced
to sacrifice some of their scarce resources in the interest of a
public good which is somehow determined by the bureaucracy.
Somehow it is determined by big government and by this nanny
government state that something is in the interests of Canadians
and the government has made a decision that this will be done.
When a bureaucrat believes it is in the public interest that a
certain end be achieved, there needs to be transparency and
accountability in parliament prior to that change being effected.
Effectively what would occur with a regulatory budget would be
that each new regulation introduced by a bureaucrat, before it
was actually implemented, would have to pass once a year through
a regulatory budget in the Chamber. We would be debating the
efficacy or importance of each regulation in the House of Commons
in the same way that we debate provisions within the budget.
A regulation is virtually the same as a tax. While we debate
tax issues in the House all the time, we rarely debate the
regulatory burden that is playing such a significant role in
Canada and to a considerable extent is reducing the efficiency
and competitiveness of Canadian business and individuals.
I will give some examples. Between 1973 and 1996 federal
government regulations grew significantly. In fact we have seen
in recent years, during the 1990s, 650 to 1,000 new regulations
introduced every year, requiring 4,000 to 5,000 pages of detailed
explanation. Furthermore, in the past 20 years there have been
over 100,000 new federal and provincial regulations passed. The
average, combining federal and provincial, has been about 4,000
new regulations per year in the past 20 years.
As the number of regulations continues to expand, so do the
costs of designing, implementing and administering these
regulations. The expenditures on federal regulations over the
past 20 years have grown in real dollar terms from $2 billion to
$2.5 billion, an increase of 26%.
What do these regulations mean to consumers?
It is very important to recognize that there are three costs with
every regulation. The first two costs, which are borne by the
government, are the implementation costs and the enforcement
costs. The third cost, the largest cost, which is borne by
consumers, is the cost of compliance. These regulations for
consumers have cost the average Canadian family about $11,000 per
year, federal and provincial regulations combined. That has been
an increase in real terms from about $10,000 20 years ago. Total
compliance costs to the private sector have increased from $58
billion in 1974 to about $84 billion in 1995-96. That increase
has a significant impact, in particular on small business.
1110
Studies suggest that escalating regulatory costs are responsible
in part for our lagging productivity growth in Canada relative to
the U.S. and other OECD countries. The 1994 small business
working committee set up by the federal government shared these
thoughts: “Too many regulations are developed and administered
with little consideration given to the impact on the
competitiveness of small business. Government must regulate
less, simplify paperwork, limit information requirements and get
out of the way so that small businesses can focus on creating
wealth and jobs”.
Unfortunately, Ottawa has abandoned its attempt to make
compliance requirements more efficient for business. In their
first term the Liberals introduced legislation aimed at allowing
companies to propose more cost effective ways of complying with
regulatory requirements. However, this legislation was redrafted
and ultimately scrapped. It is now necessary to revisit some of
these initiatives. We must find ways to encourage more
innovative market driven responses to the issue of compliance.
The U.S. is having a similar experience relative to regulations.
The cost of complying with American federal regulations has risen
to 47% of the federal budget, up from 40% in 1988. There has
been an increase in the regulatory burden, both in the U.S. and
Canada, with our other trading partners. It is important that we
also look at the examples of Japan and European countries in the
EU which are also moving to reform regulatory burden issues
within their countries. It is important to view what is being
done in other countries with respect to tax issues, social
investment issues and regulatory issues.
We are in a very competitive global environment and we cannot
afford to sit still in Canada while other countries adopt more
innovative approaches to some of these very important
competitiveness issues.
The notion of costing regulations, taking those three costs that
I mentioned earlier, the two government borne costs and the
private sector compliance cost, and combining them with the
actual benefit of those regulations would provide
parliamentarians with an ability to actually debate in the
Chamber the importance or the efficacy of individual regulations.
The benefit of a regulation could be provided through a
risk/benefit analysis, the methodology for which is very
sophisticated and exists within insurance companies and
underwriting agencies. We could use that type of methodology to
determine the actual benefits of a regulation in order to compare
the benefits to the costs of implementing that regulation.
It is very important to realize that there would be cases with a
regulatory budget where the costs of implementation and
enforcement would exceed the numeric value number of the benefit,
but we would still pass that regulation.
I will give an example, which is not a federal regulation. Some
provinces and municipalities have bicycle helmet laws. How could
we put a price on the prevention of a head injury to a child? It
would be very difficult to quantify that kind of benefit. There
would be a political will and the recognition of a social good to
passing that regulation, even though the numbers may not add up.
1115
I have been asked questions relative to environmental issues.
Some would say that it is difficult to quantify the benefits of
environmental policy. I would argue to the contrary, that any
economic policy which ignores environmental impact is bad
economic policy. We should be taking into account environmental
costs with every piece of regulation. If we fail to do so, the
economics simply will not work because we will fail to
internalize the externalities and to take into account the real
cost to individuals, both consumers and non-consumers.
All these things can be taken into account. The bottom line is
that elected members of the House would have the power to pass or
to vote against individual regulations as part of this budget.
This would lead to greater diligence in the bureaucracy in
introducing regulations, greater scrutiny both by the bureaucracy
and within the elected Chamber of these regulations, and
ultimately a more effective and efficient regulatory burden which
would provide greater benefit to Canadians and wreak less havoc
with Canadian enterprises.
Last week I received a letter from the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business. I will read some excerpts from it:
Numerous surveys of our members carried out over the years have
consistently identified government red tape as a major problem
for small and medium size businesses.
The recent survey of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business found that 60% of over 10,000 respondents identified
government regulations and paper burden as serious issues for
their businesses. Government regulations and paper burden were
ranked as the second most important issues behind the total tax
burden and just ahead of employment insurance and government debt
reduction.
When asked to identify what government priorities should improve
their productivity, 44% of respondents identified easing
burdensome government regulations. The survey also found that
one out of four respondents said that government fees and
penalties needed to be made more equitable. Both responses were
ranked in the top five actions the government should take to
improve small business productivity. They were directly behind
payroll, income taxes and paying down the federal debt.
Paper burden and regulations that are present at the federal,
provincial and municipal levels saps productivity and wastes
valuable time and money, not only for small and medium size
businesses but also for the taxpayer and for government. A past
survey carried out by the CFIB found that 40% of Ontario small
business owners spend more than six hours per week simply filling
out forms.
The cost of red tape to the Canadian economy is staggering,
costing tens of billions of dollars annually. Some provinces
have already taken steps to reduce red tape with the full support
and active involvement of the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business. In 1995 the Ontario government set up the red tape
commission which has so far removed or amended more than 1,300
regulations. More recently the Ontario government announced its
intention to set up a permanent red tape watchdog that will
subject all new regulations to a strict business impact test.
This summer the New Brunswick government announced that it was
setting up a red tape review committee to eliminate regulations
that are a barrier to economic growth and job creation.
Garth White, senior vice-president of national affairs for the
CFIB, said in his correspondence to me that the CFIB applauded
our initiative and urged the federal government to take swift
action to cut unnecessary regulations and red tape which hamper
productivity and competitiveness and kills badly needed jobs.
We have the support of the small business community in this
regard. If Canadians were aware of this initiative we would have
the support of the majority of Canadians who understand quite
clearly that a regulation is nothing more than a tax. As such we
should be debating in the Chamber the importance and
effectiveness of individual regulations. I look forward to the
comments of my hon. colleagues on this important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to
speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member concerning the
important matter of regulations.
1120
[English]
The motion actually touches on two key issues. The first issue
concerns the role of parliamentarians in assessing regulations
and making sound judgements as to their value and benefit. The
second issue is equally significant. It involves the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the existing regulatory
governance regime within the Government of Canada.
In his motion the hon. member calls for the establishment of a
regulatory budget. In essence this would involve the tabling of
detailed cost estimates identifying the total cost of each
proposed regulation. Such costs would encompass the government's
enforcement costs in addition to those incurred by individual
citizens and businesses.
The motion further calls for the submission of a cost benefit
analysis pertaining to each regulation. The intent of this
information would be to enable parliamentarians to assess the
benefits in light of a realistic understanding of the costs.
However, it is unclear what purpose the proposals would serve or
at what stage in the regulatory process such a budget would be
considered.
In a system of government based on the rule of law, the laws and
regulations created pursuant to its authority to give structure
to society have a far reaching and profound impact on the daily
lives of citizens. A well governed society must have both laws
and regulations in order to provide the essential framework
within which individuals, companies, organizations and
governments can function both fairly and efficiently.
Parliament's legislative power is exercised through passing
statutes which explicitly set out the authority to make decisions
by regulation delegated to the government. Regulations can be
made only to the extent authorized by parliament in the enabling
legislation. They represent the specifics, the details through
which the spirit of the law can be applied in practice.
In approving laws parliament also makes provisions in them for
making regulations where they are needed to carry out the
purposes of the laws and how such regulation making power should
be delegated. However, once a law is passed with delegated
authority it is the responsibility of the government of the day
to make every effort to ensure that supporting regulations are
not unduly burdensome or costly, that Canadians as individuals
and as a society are better not worse off as a result, and that
Canadians have a say in these issues.
It must be recognized that not every individual, every group or
other interest in society can be expected to agree as to the
definition of what better or worse off may mean. In seeking to
protect Canadians health, safety or the environment, regulations
may be developed that some groups or businesses may find
burdensome. Such are the trade-offs with which governments must
deal.
In the case of the motion before the House today the first issue
to which I referred a few minutes ago was that of parliamentary
review and oversight. In the motion the hon. member appears to
be seeking the establishment of a mechanism to ensure that
regulations do not deviate in practice from the intent of the
laws they were created to support.
The hon. member's motion seeks to create a new mechanism where
an effective alternative already exists. Regulations flow from
the laws passed by parliament and cannot be inconsistent with
those laws. Regulations are by definition limited by
parliamentary role that grants or denies approval for the legal
foundation upon which they rest.
What then of the issue of the cost benefit analysis called for
in the motion? Without question regulations impose costs. To
the greatest degree possible it is important that such costs be
known and minimized at the time regulations are first enacted.
However we must also keep in mind the benefits of a specific
regulation before it is actually applied.
For example, instruments such as those made under the Canada
Business Corporations Act help companies to create wealth and
jobs and to take risks by establishing the concept of limited
liability. We have bankruptcy regulations which are essential in
enabling companies, both large and small, to obtain credit on
reasonable terms and exercise the right to repossess goods. Such
instruments make it possible for a measure of order and control
to be applied to the bankruptcy process as well as to the entire
process of credit granting and business financing.
Let me use other examples. Regulating that there must be
seatbelts or adequate anchors for baby seats in motor vehicles,
regulating some emergency or safety features in our airports, or
regulating to protect the health of Canadians through careful
drug approval imposes costs which can generally be well
documented and quantified.
1125
Who would deny that these regulations also bring significant
benefits to our society and our citizens? The fact is that it is
often much easier to identify anticipated costs associated with
regulations than the benefits they may eventually provide. This
suggests that the remedy being proposed by the hon. member to
allow for a cost benefit assessment would be very difficult to
achieve or have experts agree on. The point is that the benefits
are undeniable.
The regulatory budget idea proposed by the hon. member
represents a very rigid approach which would do more harm than
good. It could result in a cap being placed on a number of new
regulations passed, thus depriving Canadians of significant
additional benefits in such areas as health, safety and
environmental protection.
This brings me to the second key issue relating to the hon.
member's motion. I am referring to the capacity of existing
federal regulatory law and procedures to serve the best interest
of Canadians. All regulations approved by the federal government
must meet the federal regulatory policy requirement calling for
consultations involving all relevant stakeholders. An example of
this consultation process would be active participation by
industry in the 1996 regulatory review. This review resulted in
almost 1,000 modifications to or revocations of regulatory
requirements.
Interestingly enough this comprehensive review of our stock of
regulations, undertaken with the active participation of
industry, still left some 2,000 regulations in the books, another
evidence of industry agreeing that regulations do bring benefits
to industry as well.
The regulatory approval process is rigorous. In developing
regulations the government considers what burdens may be created
by a proposed regulatory change as well as the corresponding
social and other potential benefits. The government also
examines the results of consultations by officials, noting who
was consulted, what views were expressed and what reasons have
been presented as to why dissenting views could not be
accommodated by the sponsoring department.
The government analyses alternative regulatory solutions to
ensure that the most effective and efficient is chosen, and it
assesses compliance and enforcement issues. All this information
is presented to the public for comment in the regulatory impact
analysis statement.
The regulatory policy also helps ensure that proposed
regulations or changes do not result in adverse impact on the
economy's capacity to generate wealth and employment. Final
decisions on regulations are made by a committee of cabinet
ministers. Cabinet as a whole is responsible to parliament and
therefore to the public for the application of regulations.
The Government of Canada is committed to a regulatory government
that demonstrates balance, fairness, transparency and
accountability. While the government does not accept the
proposition that the action proposed by the hon. member is
necessary, it does recognize the need to remain vigilant in
ensuring that our regulatory regime is the best we can make it.
We will continue to work toward this goal. We will continue to
devote our energies to ensuring that the best possible regulatory
decisions are being made in serving the interest of the people of
Canada and in conformity with the legislative authority conferred
by parliament.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak to the Motion No. 207 brought forward by the Tory
member of parliament for Kings—Hants.
Like so many other ideas of the fifth place party, when we strip
away the veneer we are left with another Red Tory irresponsible
socialist nightmare. About the only positive thing I can say
about the motion is that it is not votable, so we will not be
wasting three hours of parliament's time debating it.
However, if it had been deemed votable, I would have voted
against it and encouraged fellow MPs to do the same. I say this
not so much for what the motion attempts to accomplish but for
what it does not do.
The motion tries to introduce increased accountability into the
regulatory process. However, it deals with accountability in
terms of costs and forgets about the regulatory process itself.
In that sense the hon. member has put the cart before the horse.
Reform's approach, as outlined in our blue book policy, states
that the Reform Party supports restrictions on the number and
types of orders in council permitted by a government during its
term in office. It goes on to state that until we form
government Reform Party MPs will strive to make parliamentary
committees effective in reviewing any regulation before
implementation.
As the official opposition, my Reform Party colleagues and I
believe that by changing the regulatory process to make it more
accountable we get cost effectiveness.
1130
I will elaborate later on how this is achieved. However, I
first want to provide context and background on how the
regulatory process works or, more accurately, does not work.
Regulations, or as they are also described statutory instruments
or delegated legislation, are passed through order in council or
governor in council. As all members know, this is done under the
auspices of the minister's authority.
Let us not kid ourselves. They are drafted, vetted and the
product of bureaucratic thinkers. There is nothing wrong with
this per se. Indeed, with British parliamentary democracies
having evolved the way they have, legislative authority must be
delegated.
However, as a consequence and with little or no accountability,
unelected people are making what are effectively laws. The
authority to do this is legitimately contained in every bill that
comes before parliament. But that is not where my concern is.
Given that any government bill tabled contains the words “the
governor in council may make regulations”, the bulk of a bill's
legislative intent is not in the legislation itself but in the
regulations that follow after a bill's passage. This is where my
concern is.
To put it into perspective, think of a government bill. I see
the justice minister is in the House, so let us use the
government's flawed Firearms Registration Act as an example,
otherwise known as Bill C-68. That bill was and is an attack on
the fundamental property rights of Canadians. Yet the most
offensive part of the bill comes from the potential of governor
in council regulations that may be passed at future dates.
The enabling legislation for Bill C-68 contains a regulatory
proviso that allows the justice minister to arbitrarily declare
any class of firearm prohibited. The firearms can then be
confiscated from law-abiding owners.
As for the regulation itself, there is no debate, no vote in
parliament and no accountability. Sure there is a weak promise
to table any such regulations before the justice committee, but
that is a meaningless, token gesture. In fact, the tabling of
order in council documents before any parliamentary committee is
rarely done. It is even rarer for the government to place draft
regulations, along with the bill itself, before a parliamentary
committee for consideration.
The point here is that a government bill is a lot like an
iceberg; 10% comes in the form of the bill and the other 90%
lurks beneath the surface in the form of regulatory authority.
What does my Tory friend offer as a solution to problems of
accountability and cost effectiveness? In true Liberal and Red
Tory fame, he offers to set up a bureaucracy to watch the
bureaucracy, spending money to allegedly save money. When I see
and hear that type of impaired logic, I can safely say that
Liberal or Tory, same old story.
Am I being overly unfair? Let us look at the record of the red
Tory government when it was in power. Does it differ from its
Liberal clone on the subject of regulatory accountability? During
nine tortuous years in power, did members of the fifth place
party do something to make the regulatory process more
accountable? Unfortunately, no. Like their Liberal friends
before them and in government now, the Tories did nothing. In
fact, the statutory measure that would allow for a parliamentary
committee to disallow a regulation is still not in place. The
Tories could have done it while they were in power and did not.
Of course, their Liberal counterparts are no better and somewhat
more hypocritical than the Tories. The Liberals actually pushed
for a statutory disallowance procedure while the Tories were in
power. Curiously though, now that the Liberals are in power,
they are not quite as eager to implement it. Then again, it is
not all that surprising if one thinks back to the Liberal GST
promise, but I digress.
There are numerous reasons why the Liberals will not enact a
statutory disallowance procedure. Political opportunists say one
thing in opposition and do another thing in government.
Arrogance, disrespect for democracy and the list goes on.
In any event, a great deal of what he proposes is contained in
the RIAS which accompanies the regulation. The regulatory impact
analysis statement deals with much of what the hon. member is
trying to do here with the motion before us. I encourage him to
actually pick up a copy of the Canada Gazette Part II and
read through the RIAS for any given regulation. It does offer
valuable insight into the impact of a regulation. However, I
reiterate that the key to accountability lay elsewhere, not in
the financial bottom line but in reform of the process itself.
A regulation should not just be given a parliamentary rubber
stamp once the Clerk of the Privy Council has been given a copy,
as is the case now. Instead, there should be mandatory review by
a parliamentary committee before a regulation comes into force.
As a preventive measure, this could be done by tabling draft
regulations at second reading or during committee consideration
of a bill.
If the regulation is found to be flawed, then it would be
referred to scrutiny of regulations immediately instead of after
the fact.
1135
Once there, if the regulation is still found to be flawed, a
statutory disallowance procedure could then be used to strike
down the offending regulation. My Liberal friends will say that
there is already room in the standing orders, but this procedure
is not useful because there is nothing compelling the minister to
strike down the offending regulation.
Considering that Britain, Australia and New Zealand all have
statutory disallowance procedures, the question is, why do we
not? The answer is a refusal by cabinet to act on the issue, a
refusal by the executive to relinquish absolute power over the
regulatory process.
Sadly, this comes from the profound mistrust that government MPs
have for the role of parliament and its members. And, like the
motion before us, it also demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of
the regulatory process.
In closing, if MPs on both sides want to make regulations more
accountable, hence cost effective, this is not the way to go
about it.
The House and Canadians would be better served by a regulation
making process that increases parliamentary scrutiny. Contrary to
what is being proposed here, it does not mean creating another
bureaucracy which functions outside of parliament.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in
the debate on M-207.
At the outset, I want to acknowledge the work of the member for
Kings—Hants in bringing the motion before the House and to thank
him for the work that he has done on a very important matter.
Contrary to my colleagues in the Reform Party, I do see a purpose
and a point to the debate from the point of view of
accountability and open, transparent government.
It should not be a surprise for us to hear Reform members talk
in such strong terms against the motion because what this party
is really interested in is no government. The least government
is the best government from the point of view of Reform members.
Anything that comes in the way of that is certainly a negative
from their perspective.
I certainly support the spirit of the motion before us. What
the member for Kings—Hants is trying to do is to acknowledge the
fact that today we have a government by stealth, a government
that has basically found a secretive, underhanded way of
advancing public policy without the full benefit of parliamentary
debate and public scrutiny. I certainly acknowledge the root
cause of the motion and appreciate his attempts to address that.
We support the spirit of the motion. We also support that
aspect of the motion that deals with the principle of ensuring
financial impact assessments on regulations. I support that
proposition because it does give us one way to ensure scrutiny
and accountability here in this place of elected representatives.
We do, however, have some problems with the member's suggestion
for a regulatory budget. We are concerned about that particular
aspect of the motion because we know those words have become a
flag waving idea by extreme right-wing elements in the United
States. If we cut through all the rhetoric of the Reform Party,
we will find that it supports that concept as well because it
allows it to advance the agenda of reducing government and the
whole role and responsibility of government for ensuring a
society that is more equitable and based on fairness and justice.
We know that the idea of a regulatory budget has been advanced
by some pretty extreme characters in the United States. We think
back to Pat Buchanan who, in the 1960s, was advocating such an
idea and did so in very open terms. He felt that this kind of
idea would create the optimal situation for reducing the role of
government.
His objective would in fact be zero regulations and a zero budget
situation. We are very leery of giving any credence to this kind
of idea. We will speak consistently against that approach.
1140
Coming back to what I think is the spirit of the motion before
us and the real intentions of the member for Kings—Hants is
accountability with respect to regulations. It ensures that we
are able to measure the effectiveness of regulations and hold the
government accountable for any endeavours or initiatives that
exceed its obligations under existing laws and statutes.
There are many examples where the government has advanced its
own agenda and ideas in ways that appear quite contrary to the
legislation that has been approved without it being held
accountable to parliament. We certainly think that the financial
impact assessments of regulations would allow for all of us to
have a more open public debate and better scrutiny of public
policy. Having financial impact assessments on regulations would
be an important tool for all of us.
The member for Kings—Hants mentioned that it will not always be
possible to make decisions strictly in terms of a cost benefit
analysis. There will be times, if we have all the facts before
us, where we will recognize that the costs of enforcing and
implementing regulations may far outweigh the cost to our budget
and the mechanisms required to enforce those regulations.
We, in the House, would appreciate opportunities to assess the
compliance costs of environmental regulations. We on this side
of the House would like to see a way to assess the GST compliance
costs on small business. We would like to find a way to assess
the financial impact of regulations pursued by the government
when it comes to patent medicine. We would like to fully
understand how a government can proceed with decisions made
behind closed doors without the benefit of public scrutiny. We
would like to understand how it justifies those decisions in
terms of the entire health care system and the Canadian taxpayer
as a whole.
I think specifically of the issue we have dealt with in the last
few months with respect to the Minister of Industry. In the dead
of this summer, he brought forward regulations without warning,
without any kind of heads up to the generic drug industry, about
the government's plans to make further changes to the notice of
compliance regulations which make it harder for generic drug
companies to have a foothold in the country and get their
products to market. At that time, we raised concerns about the
whole process.
I will quote from a letter I wrote to the Minister of Industry
on September 9:
Through recently announced amendments, your government has
surreptitiously introduced changes that will certainly add to the
drug costs faced by Canadians. These changes further entrench
the virtual monopoly guaranteed to the international
pharmaceutical cartel through the ill-advised Canada Patent Act
at the expense of the generic drug industry and the Canadian
health system.
I am particularly concerned about the arbitrary and undemocratic
way in which you have chosen to proceed with these latest
amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations.
I go on to call for the minister to slow down the process to
allow for all players in the field to scrutinize the proposed
regulations and to bring them to parliament to be accountable to
this body of elected representatives in terms of cost benefit
analysis, in terms of consistency with existing legislation and
in terms of consistency with the public's interest in ensuring a
more cost effective system where people have access to drugs when
they need them.
The government chose to ignore these concerns. It chose to
ignore the strong positions presented to it from the Canadian
Drug Manufacturers Association. I can cite reams and reams of
documents where that organization appealed to the government to
slow the process down, hear its input and to truly look at the
financial impact for all Canadians and our entire health care
system if this was allowed to go through.
1145
The Minister of Industry and the entire cabinet ignored those
concerns. They proceeded to ratify those regulations at the
beginning of October. It is now a done deal. That is a perfect
example of government by stealth and a government that advances
its agenda which is tied to the big pharmaceutical corporations
and other big industry interests in order to pursue its
objectives. That is precisely what needs to be addressed.
This motion provides us with a way to debate and discuss these
concerns. In part it goes a long way toward addressing a very
serious situation.
Again, I would like to congratulate and thank the member for
Kings—Hants for his motion. We support the spirit of it. We
support that part of it which deals with financial impact
assessments on regulations. We regret that we cannot support the
regulatory budget approach. However, given the sentiments in the
House for more government accountability to parliament, I believe
that this would provide the basis for future motions and
legislative work that we can pursue as members in the House of
Commons.
The Deputy Speaker: I should advise the
House that if the hon. member for Kings—Hants speaks now, he
will close the debate.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, again it
is a pleasure that I rise to debate Motion No. 207. I appreciate
the interventions by the representatives from the other parties.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister raised some
concerns relative to my motion and to the notion of a regulatory
budget. I want to clarify a couple of things. I should clarify
what this motion is not, what we are not representing with the
regulatory budget idea.
We are certainly not saying that there will be times that we
would be opposed to all regulations. In fact, there are times
that we would still support regulations although the government
borne costs of implementation and compliance and the citizenry
borne costs actually exceeded the benefits provided by the
regulation.
Earlier I used the example of bicycle helmets. In dealing with
a priceless issue in terms of the safety of children against head
injuries, it could be very difficult to quantify that. Even if we
were to assess some level of cost it could very well be the case
that the elected members of parliament would still support that
particular regulation.
There are examples where the House would support a regulation
even though the cost benefit analysis numbers did not
quantitatively support that regulation. It would provide an
increase in the role of the member of parliament in evaluating
these very important regulations in the same way that we evaluate
taxes and other public policies in this chamber, or at least we
should be.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also said that
this could result in a cap on regulations. Nowhere does the
motion mention there being a cap on regulations. We believe that
every regulation should have a sunset clause. Periodically we
should be revisiting pieces of governance or regulations to
determine their efficacy in the current context. That would make
sense. But in no way, shape or form did we ever mention a cap.
The Reform member initially described me as being a socialist.
That is the first time I have ever been described as a socialist.
I guess that is why we are a centre right party as opposed to a
far right party. I guess most Canadians are somewhere in the
centre. Certainly the recent polls indicate that more Canadians
are closer to where we are than to where the Reform Party is.
1150
In any case, I was surprised that the Reform Party would be
opposed to increasing the role of the member of parliament and
increasing the accountability of parliament. I assumed on past
utterances by the Reform Party that the Reform Party would
support greater scrutiny over initiatives by unelected people in
the bureaucracy. I guess that is no longer the case. Perhaps
hypocrisy is only half a mortal sin, so a party that looks
seriously on those kinds of things may not be as constrained as
we would have expected.
I was also surprised that the Reform Party would be so opposed
to something that has been endorsed by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business. I am frequently surprised by the Reform
Party and perhaps eventually when I become less jaded I will
become more inured to some of the inconsistencies over there.
I thank the hon. NDP member for her thoughtful intervention. It
is obvious that she considered the issue very carefully and gave
a qualified approval of the intent of the legislation. I
appreciate her intervention today, and on other days as well. She
is a very skilled, adroit and thoughtful parliamentarian. She
compared this piece of legislation to something that Pat Buchanan
was supportive of sometime ago. Be assured that my intentions
with this legislation are far different from what the far right
in the U.S. would support, particularly people like Pat Buchanan
of the U.S. Reform Party.
If the New Democrats say that I am too far right and the Reform
Party says I am a socialist, that probably makes me just right.
We like the centre right position. More and more Canadians are
becoming increasingly comfortable with where we are at. We
certainly expect that enough Canadians in the next federal
election will be so comfortable that we will be on the other side
of the House implementing this types of visionary legislation
that will improve the quality of life for Canadians and the
competitiveness of Canadian enterprise as we move bravely into
the 21st century.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask that we
suspend the sitting for six minutes.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House to
suspend the sitting until 12 o'clock?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.53 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions
among House leaders with respect to speaking times for the debate
today and I believe there would be consent for the adoption of
the following motion. I move:
That during today's sitting the member proposing a motion on an
allotted day shall not speak for more than 20 minutes, following
which a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available,
if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment
briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses
thereto, and immediately thereafter a representative of each of
the recognized parties, other than that of the member proposing
the motion, may be recognized to speak for not more than 10
minutes, following which, in each case, a period not exceeding
five minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow
members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant
to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government
should conduct a province-wide referendum in British Columbia on
the Nisga'a Final Agreement prior to the consideration of any
further stages of Bill C-9, an Act to give effect to the Nisga'a
Final Agreement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Chair that I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest.
I will confine my remarks today on the Nisga'a treaty to
process. The reason we moved this motion for debate in the House
regarding a referendum in British Columbia on the treaty has to
do with the fact that the process that has brought us to this
point with the treaty has been wrong. It has been wrong for many
years. It has led to a treaty which, right now in British
Columbia, enjoys at best questionable support. In our view it
does not pass the judgment of the people of British Columbia.
Indeed, we do not believe it would pass the judgment of the
people of Canada.
I will give the House a bit of background as to what has
happened up to this point in time. It has often been said that
the Nisga'a leaders for more than 100 years have tried to get a
treaty with Canada and with British Columbia. That is in fact
the case. There is a lot of documentation which shows that the
Nisga'a leaders have tried since before Confederation to have the
Government of Canada, and prior to that the Government of
Britain, enter into a treaty. They were steadfastly refused for
more than 100 years.
It is also true that in 1973, with the Calder decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada being a split decision, the Government of
Canada became alarmed that the Nisga'a had come close to winning
a land claim case in court. At that point the government decided
that it would enter into negotiations.
1205
British Columbia refused on the basis that in 1871 when it
joined Confederation the terms of that union, which was called
the act of union, expressly provided that the federal government
would be responsible for all existing and future obligations to
aboriginal people, except for the narrow requirement of the
province of British Columbia to set aside lands known as reserve
lands and to have those registered with the land title office and
conveyed to the federal government, which B.C. did. British
Columbia has about 1,600 such reserve lands that were registered
between 1871 and 1926 when the federal government ultimately
passed legislation which recognized that B.C. had lived up to its
full obligations under the terms of the union.
British Columbia refused to join the discussions regarding
treaties, taking the position that Canada was rightfully the body
to be negotiating with the Nisga'a and if Canada required land or
resources to complete those negotiations Canada would have to
come back to British Columbia and make arrangements to
compensate, to buy the land and the resources to be conveyed.
In 1991, however, there was a change taking place in British
Columbia. The provincial government at that point said it would
sit down as a party to the negotiations. It also indicated that
it would be prepared to put land on the table as a provincial
government on behalf of the people of British Columbia to resolve
the outstanding claims. What it also did, the first major flaw
in the process that has led us to the great problem we have
today, was that it signed a secrecy agreement with the federal
government and the Nisga'a negotiators wherein it said that it
would be party to negotiations that would take place behind
closed doors. The negotiators were all bound by the secrecy
agreement not to discuss anything outside the negotiating room.
The public of British Columbia for many years was not even aware
that these negotiations were taking place and certainly had no
idea of the ramifications of the negotiations.
In 1994-95 the Reform Party of Canada found out that these
negotiations were taking place. It held a series of public
meetings and tried to bring to the attention of the public that
this was taking place. It also tried to create some kind of a
mechanism for public input. The negotiators for the federal and
provincial governments fought the Reform Party of Canada tooth
and nail. They did not want to have anything to do with it.
In 1996 an agreement in principle was announced. It was
released publicly. At that point the provincial government
decided it would have its standing committee on aboriginal
affairs travel the province of British Columbia to consult with
the public. I attended several of those meetings and I have the
minutes of proceedings of all of those meetings. People who
showed up to voice concern or express any kind of opposition to
any of the principles or any of the facets of the agreement in
principle were routinely belittled and their character and
motives were called into question. The provincial members,
dominated by NDP MLAs, took the position that people who
questioned the wisdom of the agreement in principle were not just
wrong but were somehow lesser people; evil people, if I can use
that term.
The final agreement was released publicly last year. We note
that in the final agreement there was no substantive change from
the agreement in principle, so all the committee work that was
done by the B.C. standing committee was obviously just a big PR
exercise so the government could say it had consulted with people
when in fact it had not.
When the final agreement was released the provincial government
spent $8 million of B.C. taxpayers' money in an effort to sell
the agreement. In a highly emotional appeal it routinely
belittled again anybody who questioned the agreement, and it
routinely indicated that this was a good deal and it would not
change one word of the agreement.
1210
We then saw the ratification process take place in the
legislature of British Columbia where debate was cut off after
less than half of the agreement was debated. Even though the
provincial government had promised British Columbians a full
debate on the treaty, it guillotined the debate after less than
half the treaty was actually debated.
Then we have the federal ratification process. We will recall
that the minister of Indian affairs signed the treaty in June of
this year, before the legislation or the agreement had even been
introduced in parliament. Again we see a perverted process. We
now have the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development travelling to British Columbia because, as
one Liberal member who was in Terrace last week said: “We are
only in B.C. because of a tactic by the Reform Party to hijack
parliament. In fact we came here on the white knuckle route. I
have not been on a train yet. I have been on every other mode of
transportation. This little song and dance is costing the
taxpayers $500,000 directly by the Reform Party”. He said that
the only reason he was there was because of a tactic of the
Reform Party.
In other words, the only reason the Liberal members came to
British Columbia, and they made it very plain to the people who
were testifying before the committee, which was a stacked
committee, was because they were forced into it. They had no
real intention of listening to British Columbians.
This is further evidence of the flawed and perverted process
that has been used to date to try to ram through a treaty which
we do not think enjoys the support of the public of British
Columbia. Certainly all of the indications we have are that it
does not. This is not a minor matter. This is, as broadcaster
Rafe Mair said, a huge change in the social contract of British
Columbia.
British Columbians deserve to have the right to vote on this
treaty to decide whether the kinds of principles expressed in the
deal are principles which they can support, because they will,
for sure, be reflected in 50 or more treaties yet to be
negotiated. Because of the flawed process that has been used to
date, it is absolutely imperative that this parliament in the
debate today come to the conclusion that British Columbians have
a right to vote in a referendum, that they have a right to take
part in the ratification process, and that they have a right to
express their opinions.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena has talked of the importance
of consultation on the Nisga'a treaty. I certainly do not think
anyone disagrees with that. Some of us would argue that there
has been extensive consultation.
I would have thought as well that he would have been concerned
with consultation with the Nisga'a people, with the people he
represents as the member of parliament for Skeena.
I wonder if the hon. member for Skeena could tell the House when
it was that he last had a meeting and not a debate in front
television cameras. When was the last time the member for
Skeena, who represents the Nass Valley and the Nisga'a people,
sat down face to face to have a dialogue with the Nisga'a people
on this important treaty?
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. I do not know who he means by the Nisga'a
people because I talk to the Nisga'a people all the time. I meet
the Nisga'a people face to face. The last time I had a face to
face meeting with a Nisga'a individual was about a week ago. I
met with Frank Barton and talked with him extensively about his
concerns over the Nisga'a treaty. There have been many more like
Mr. Barton with whom I have met face to face.
I remind the hon. member that not only do I have the
responsibility and the privilege of representing the Nisga'a
people, I also have the honour and privilege of representing the
Gitksan and Gitanyow people, people who say they have never been
consulted by the federal government, they have never been
consulted by the provincial government, and they have never heard
from this member over here or his party.
1215
I would point out that there are many parties to this debate. I
would ask the member not to focus on four or five Nisga'a leaders
as being the only example that he can raise in the House.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I know where the NDP member is coming from. I think we
will probably hear today a lot of rhetorical advances coming from
the other parties. I want to get something out on the table in
the House through my hon. colleague. It is about the role of
opposition parties in the House of Commons.
There are four opposition parties in the House of Commons. When
there are obvious concerns, not just by British Columbians but by
Canadians about the implementation of such a template agreement,
why is it that it is only the Reform Party which is not only
standing up in the House of Commons in opposition but also in a
critique of the bill on the agreement?
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, the best answer I can give
my colleague is to refer him to a book that was written by Thomas
Sowell, an American author who wrote a book called The Vision
of the Anointed. What we have here is a very similar
proposition. We have a vision that is expressed through
government policy that is adopted by all the other opposition
parties in the House. It is a failed vision. It has been a
demonstrated failure for over 130 years. My goodness, look at
the results that it has represented for aboriginal people on
reserves. Look at the dire circumstances that many of these
people live in.
These people are so enraptured with this vision that they
insulate themselves from the reality of the policy decisions that
they make. They refuse to accept the fact that the failure and
the abject poverty that many aboriginal people live in is as a
direct result of these policies. They continue down the same
path without being able to question or even engage in an honest,
intellectual debate about what the government ought to do and
ought not to do in terms of rectifying the situation and trying
to improve things.
That in my view is the failure of the opposition and the
government for that matter in this entire debate.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the motion before the House today calls for a referendum
of the people of British Columbia. In view of the fact that
something like 80% of the cost of this treaty is in fact coming
from federal taxpayers from across Canada, if the hon. member is
serious about a referendum why is it that he is calling for a
referendum just of the people of British Columbia? Why is he not
calling for a referendum of the people right across Canada? Of
course that would be outrageous because in that case—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: The Reform Party is applauding. It
wants the people of Ontario to be able to tell the people of
British Columbia what is best for them. Shame on the Reform
Party.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see
the member pirouetting around and changing positions in a
heartbeat. On the one hand, he says the people of British
Columbia should not be the only ones to have a referendum and
then he says they should.
In answer to that question, it is the change to the social
contract, the self-government provisions in this treaty, not the
cost of it that people should be focused on. That is the real
essence of the debate here today. It is the self-government
provisions.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion before the
House which calls for the federal government to conduct a
province-wide referendum in British Columbia on the Nisga'a final
agreement.
On October 26 in the House, I fully expressed my own views on
the Nisga'a treaty itself. The focus of today's motion, however,
is not so much on the treaty as on the democratic right of the
people of British Columbia to register their opinion on this
treaty; their support for it or their opposition to it through a
province-wide referendum. The point at issue, in other words, is
the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.
1220
The other members of the official opposition today will put
forward the main reasons for a referendum. In our judgment,
those include economic and financial reasons because this
agreement and future agreements modelled on it will have a major
financial impact on British Columbians and on other Canadians.
There are, of course, social reasons why this should be
subjected to a referendum because this treaty and others modelled
after it will have a profound effect, as the member said, on the
social and community relations between aboriginals and
non-aboriginals throughout the entire province.
There are also constitutional reasons for having a referendum on
this issue because the agreement establishes a new order of
aboriginal government with jurisdiction over many areas of
activity which were formerly the exclusive prerogative of the
federal and provincial governments.
I do not want to spend my time on these reasons, important as
they are. What I would like to do is to recognize that all the
parties in the House, with the exception of the official
opposition, have chosen to co-operate with the government in the
unseemly task of pushing this treaty through the House with a
minimum amount of discussion and a minimum amount of consultation
with the people of British Columbia.
Nevertheless, I would like to make some arguments as to why
members of the respective parties in the House, regardless of
their position on Nisga'a itself, should consider supporting the
motion before the House.
The motion tests the commitment of various members and parties
to uphold democracy, the democratic rights of British Columbians
to affirm or withhold their support for a major piece of
legislation with economic, social and constitutional
ramifications for the entire province.
How members vote on the motion will tell voters a great deal
about the commitment of those members and their parties to
democracy, the democratic rights of the people themselves to
decide certain major issues rather than have solutions forced
upon them.
To be specific, I first appeal to the Bloc members. The Bloc
Quebecois members never tire of telling the House about the
democratic rights of the people of Quebec to decide their own
future on constitutional matters. Surely, if they are that
committed to democracy and the use of referendums to settle
issues democratically, they cannot turn around and deny that same
right to the people of British Columbia with respect to a quasi
constitutional issue of great importance to them.
I would appeal to members of the New Democratic Party. The New
Democratic Party professes to have a special commitment to
democracy. It is embodied in the name of the party. In the old
days when it was still the CCF, it purported to be the party for
the little person, the party that wanted to give ordinary people
a voice and a say in the great decisions affecting their lives.
The old CCF supported such measures as greater use of
referendums, citizens initiatives and recall, not unlike those
that are currently in the platform of the Reform Party.
I would appeal to New Democratic Party members, for the purpose
of this motion at least, to return to their democratic roots and
regardless of their position on the Nisga'a treaty itself, to
give ordinary rank and file British Columbians a chance to
express themselves on this matter through a referendum.
I would appeal to the federal Conservative members in this way:
It was a Conservative federal government which brought in the
Federal Referendum Act of 1992. Section 3 of that act reads:
Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public
interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of
electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada,
the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the
opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the
electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the
proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.
Whereas the B.C. referendum legislation requires an actual
constitutional amendment to trigger a province-wide referendum,
the federal legislation, enacted by a Conservative government, is
much more inclusive, permitting a referendum “on any question
relating to the Constitution of Canada”.
While some members may dispute the official opposition's claim
that the whole Nisga'a agreement is a de facto constitutional
amendment, no one, regardless of their position on this issue,
can deny that it certainly raises questions relating to the
Constitution of Canada.
For example, the preamble of the treaty makes reference to
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
1225
The first provision in chapter 2 of the treaty defining the
“nature of the agreement” says that the agreement is “a treaty
and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The Nisga'a agreement is
described within itself as being by definition a constitutional
document.
Section 8 of chapter 2 makes specific reference to the
Constitution of Canada itself. Section 9 refers to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution.
Section 23 of chapter 2 elaborates on Nisga'a rights as provided
for in section 35 of the constitution.
Since the Nisga'a final agreement obviously raises questions
relating to the Constitution of Canada and the Conservative
Referendum Act of 1992 specifically provided for the use of
referendums to obtain expressions of public opinion on such
matters, I would therefore appeal to Conservative members to
uphold the principles and the spirit of their own referendum act
and support the motion before the House.
It is evident to the official opposition that a majority of the
members of the Liberal government have simply written off the
opinions and interests of British Columbians. The government is
at odds with the people of British Columbia on everything from
the handling of illegal immigrants, to the collapse of the west
coast fishery, to aboriginal issues in general, to the Nisga'a
treaty in particular.
We, therefore, do not expect a majority of the government
members to have any respect for the democratic rights of the
people of British Columbia to express themselves on this issue,
even though the provincial Liberal Party in B.C. under Gordon
Campbell has explicitly called for a referendum on the Nisga'a
treaty in that province.
The motion before the House, however, does provide a specific
opportunity for the last remaining Liberal MPs from British
Columbia to declare where they stand when the democratic rights
of the people of that province conflict with the position and
party line of the federal Liberal government.
The people of B.C. expect that when there is a conflict between
the Liberal Party line and the position of the electors of B.C.
that the position of the electors should prevail.
A majority of the people of British Columbia would therefore
expect the following members to support the motion and will be
watching with keen interest tomorrow night to see if, in fact,
they do. I refer to: the member for Victoria, the member for
Richmond, the member for Vancouver South—Burnaby, the member for
Vancouver Centre, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the member
for Vancouver Quadra, and the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
The eyes of B.C. are upon these members. Will it be the Liberal
Party line or the democratic rights of British Columbians? The
vote on the motion will tell the story.
I appeal to all members, regardless of their position on the
Nisga'a treaty, who profess to value the democratic rights of the
people of British Columbia to decide for themselves whether the
Nisga'a agreement is in the interests of aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people in that province to support the motion
before the House.
I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words “British
Columbia on” the words “the ratification of”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion is
receivable.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that
he supports a referendum on this Nisga'a treaty. He has also
spoken on a number of other occasions about the use of a
referenda in a variety of contexts. He said, for example, that
on the fundamental issue of freedom of choice on abortion that he
supports, personally, a constitutional amendment, as I understand
it, to make abortions in Canada illegal, but that he would be
prepared to have that issue put to the people of Canada in a
referendum.
I assume that is the position of other Reform Party members.
1230
I wonder if the leader of the Reform Party could indicate where
he draws the line on the use of referenda. Many of us are
concerned that if we subject the rights of minorities to a
majority referendum, this could lead to a very dangerous abuse of
the rights of minorities. I wonder if the Leader of the Official
Opposition could indicate where he would draw the line. Is he
prepared to use referenda with respect to the most fundamental
and basic rights of minorities in the charter of rights? Would
he have used referenda with respect to Japanese Canadians during
and after World War II? Would he have subjected their rights to
a referendum? Would he have subjected the equality rights of
gays and lesbians to a referendum?
Just where does the Leader of the Official Opposition draw the
line in the use of a referendum with respect to the most basic
and fundamental rights of Canadians?
Mr. Preston Manning: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I am glad he has paid attention to our
demands for referendums. I wish he would pay attention to
everything we say on this subject because we have answered this
question at least a hundred times before.
We believe in the use of a referendum to allow people to express
their opinions. We also believe in legal definitions of rights
and constitutional provisions for bills of rights which provide
some constraint on the other side so that rights cannot be simply
trampled by majorities at their whim. We support the use of the
courts to uphold those rights.
We are talking about a balance. This country hardly ever resorts
to referenda. This is a country which professes to have great
respect for majority opinion and it hardly ever goes to the
public on any issue. Even to make changes in the Constitution of
Canada itself as profound as the ones in Meech Lake and the
Charlottetown accord took enormous public pressure.
This country is hardly overdosing on referendums. We have had a
national referendum on conscription, a national referendum on
prohibition and a national referendum on the Charlottetown
accord. Canada has had three referendums in 135 years. The
country is not overdosing on referendums. There ought to be more
occasions where the public gets a chance to have its say. The
Nisga'a treaty particularly in its all pervasive effects on
British Columbia is one of those instances.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my comment is for the Leader of the Opposition. I do not
think he answered the question put to him by the member for
Burnaby—Douglas.
The member made an argument about why there should be more
referendums and why it could be argued we have not overdosed on
referendums, to use the member's phrase. However, he did not
answer the question as to how he sees the role of referendums
when it comes to things which arguably have to do with minority
rights.
I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could address that as
he did not in his answer to the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
Mr. Preston Manning: Madam Speaker, I believe I did
answer the question at the beginning of my remarks. The Reform
Party believes in constitutionally entrenched rights. We include
and believe in the use of the courts to uphold those rights. We
also believe in the opportunity for people to vote on
constitutional amendments. There should be a balance used
between the referendum mechanism and constitutionally entrenched
rights and use the courts to enforce them. That is how we
achieve the balance.
It is our view that this country is going to have to achieve
that balance or it is going to get increasing disrespect for the
charter of rights and freedoms and the legal mechanisms used to
enforce it.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time
with the member for Vancouver Quadra.
I am pleased to respond to the motion by the member for Skeena.
The member has asked that the government ignore years of
consultation, negotiation and goodwill and extend the uncertainty
even longer by sending the Nisga'a final agreement to a procedure
heavy referendum in British Columbia.
1235
There is no requirement for a provincial referendum. The three
parties to the Nisga'a negotiations agreed on how they would
ratify the final agreement early on in the process. Honourable
governments follow through on commitments negotiated in good
faith. To change the rules now would be wrong.
The Nisga'a treaty has been many long years in the making.
During this time every issue has been examined in great detail by
the experts in the relevant fields. Third party advice has been
sought and considered. Provisions have been carefully and
painstakingly crafted to achieve the most clarity possible.
Negotiations of the Nisga'a final agreement have included one of
the most extensive consultation and public information exercises
ever conducted in the context of treaty negotiations in Canada.
With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty, we will resolve
this outstanding matter which dates back to the time of Queen
Victoria, a solution that is fair, equitable and in accordance
with the laws of Canada. True equality recognizes that not all
individuals start in the same place.
The reality is that aboriginal peoples' prior presence has given
them unique rights as the original inhabitants of this country.
The government believes that the aboriginal people of Canada have
an inherent right to govern themselves which can be implemented
through practical and workable agreements. The existing rights
of aboriginal people recognized under section 35 of the
constitution have been affirmed again and again by the courts.
I want to re-emphasize to members of the opposition that this is
not a constitutional amendment. This is a reaffirmation of
rights that have existed since historical times. We are
recognizing them in a modern context under the treaty we are
talking about. The Nisga'a final agreement recognizes this fact
and embodies practical solutions specific to the Nisga'a people.
This agreement identifies a Nisga'a land base, resources and a
system of government that reflects their cultures and their
values.
As my hon. colleagues are aware, the treaty contains reasonable
self-government powers that will enable the Nisga'a to manage
their internal affairs. They will be able to make their own laws
on things like Nisga'a citizenship; language and culture; the
administration of their land and other assets; marriage; child
and family social and health services; child custody and
adoption; and education. It is critical to understand that even
where the Nisga'a can make laws, those laws must still operate
concurrently with federal and provincial laws.
Nisga'a laws can be challenged—and this is a test of our
democracy—under the charter like laws passed by other
governments in Canada. That is because the treaty right to
self-government is a right to govern in accordance with Canada's
charter values.
Our constitution is sensitive to the fact that this country is
made up of people with different backgrounds and cultures. It
also guarantees that all individuals will be treated equally
under the law. It is this guarantee of equality within society,
this diversity within unity which make us distinctly Canadian. I
understand that the opposition wants to change the values of
Canadians and go more to an American model. Obviously, that is
not the wish of Canadians and the governments of Canada.
It is precisely because the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated within
the constitution that the rights of those people who are not
Nisga'a citizens but who live on or within Nisga'a lands are
secure. For example, even though those who reside on or within
Nisga'a lands 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. I
repeat that it does not allow the Nisga'a government to tax them.
Neither does the treaty prevent anyone from accessing their
interests on Nisga'a lands.
In addition to these assurances, those who are not Nisga'a
citizens but who will live on or within Nisga'a lands will have
extra measures to safeguard their interests and opportunities to
participate in Nisga'a society.
1240
For example, they will be able to stand for election or vote for
elected Nisga'a public institutions such as education and health
boards. They will also have special rights to consultation and
appeal. These are guaranteed rights which will give them a strong
voice in the community they inhabit.
For those who may not believe me, I am pleased to refer to the
testimony last week of Mr. Bill Young. He owns a sizeable piece
of property surrounded by Nisga'a lands. Mr. Young stated that
he of course started with some questions and he is very satisfied
with the answers. He believes that he will enjoy ongoing peace
with his Nisga'a neighbours.
Members of the Reform Party talk about listening to grassroots
people. It is funny how they listen only to the people who
oppose the government. As has been said elsewhere, we listen to
all sides. That is why there were amendments to the agreement in
principle. That is what governments are all about, making
decisions and being accountable.
The Nisga'a treaty, achieved after years of complex
negotiations, has enabled us to achieve a just and balanced
settlement that respects the needs of the Nisga'a people and all
Canadians.
Like all Canadians, the Nisga'a people want to be contributors
to their communities and their country. This fair and reasonable
settlement will finally provide a much better chance for them to
do so.
The benefits generated by this treaty are not limited to the
Nisga'a nation. This agreement will yield significant long term
dividends to other British Columbians as well. I can give some
examples.
The treaty will finally lay to rest the divisive debates
surrounding what we mean by aboriginal rights and how they should
apply to the Nisga'a people. It will enable all residents in the
region to coexist in harmony fully cognizant of each other's
rights and responsibilities. Perhaps most beneficial is that
ratification of this treaty will give the business community
confidence to invest in the northern corner of the province.
There are numerous other advantages to area residents resulting
from this treaty. Chief among them is that there will be
millions of dollars in settlement payments invested in the Nass
region. Much of the new treaty money is likely to be spent in
communities immediately surrounding the land claim area.
Another benefit is that the Nisga'a people will pay taxes in the
same manner as other Canadian citizens and will contribute to the
cost of running their government. It is estimated that 15 years
from now, when transition periods are complete, the Nisga'a
contributions from tax and own-source revenues will amount to
one-quarter of all government transfers. These arrangements are
unprecedented in Canada.
The Nisga'a treaty will be good for the Nisga'a people, the
people of British Columbia and all Canadians. Yet there is an
even more persuasive argument for supporting the treaty. At the
most fundamental level, the treaty signifies our willingness as a
society to reconcile historical and cultural differences. It
provides an avenue for positive change.
The Nisga'a treaty will enable us not only to honour the past
but to move in partnership into the future. This was our
government's promise in “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”. We promised to address historic grievances and to
develop mechanisms for healing, reconciliation and renewal that
would make a measurable difference in the lives of first peoples.
We pledged to resolve longstanding land claims, to improve
governance and to address capacity building and accountability
issues to prepare aboriginal communities to assume more control
over their own affairs.
We committed to defining a new partnership in shaping a common
vision that would carry us all forward into the next millennium.
The Nisga'a treaty symbolizes this new partnership. It stands as
a practical and workable arrangement which supports the core
principles espoused in “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”. Mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation;
that is what Canada is all about.
I urge all members of the House to move forward with this treaty
as soon as possible so we can get on with this new arrangement
and partnership with the Nisga'a people in the Nass Valley.
1245
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment and a question. In his statement the
minister said that we could not have a referendum because it
would constitute changing the rules after a long process.
In the Quebec case this is precisely what the government is
arguing, to change the rules in the middle of the game. I wonder
how the minister squares his position that it is not proper to
change the rules here to give people a greater say, yet it is
possible to change the rules in the other case. That is my
comment.
My question is on the agreement. Even the process described by
the minister is essentially an agreement among governments. It
has been negotiated between the Nisga'a government, the
provincial government and the federal government. People from
rank and file Nisga'a to other aboriginals in B.C. and to rank
and file other British Columbians have not been involved in this
process.
If this treaty is so good, if this agreement produced at the top
by governments talking to each other is so good and has so many
benefits for all these people who were not involved in the
negotiations, if this is so good that it will carry their
judgment, why is the minister afraid of putting it before the
British Columbian people in a referendum?
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and
appropriate question as it relates to the difference between this
party and the party opposite. I did not run as a member of
parliament, and I do not think any of the members on this side
did, to take the easy way out whenever there is an issue that
needs to be dealt with. Whenever there is a difficult issue of
accountability and responsibility, they may as well just put a
little computer where the Leader of the Opposition is and have a
referendum every time we have a policy decision to make.
My point of view, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition is
listening, is that I take my responsibility very seriously. The
public at large voted for all members to come into the House of
Commons in a democratic fashion, obviously, with the abilities
and the rights to do the work that is necessary to make the
country work for the betterment of everyone.
When I stand here I represent the people of Kenora—Rainy River.
I am not afraid to stand up in front of people in Kenora—Rainy
River and tell them that I support the Nisga'a agreement and that
I will be supporting it when it comes to the House for a vote.
That is the way our democratic process works.
If the member wants to change it he can continue to espouse
that, and that is why he is at 9% in the national polls. People
do not accept his argument. Maybe he should get off that.
There is another issue. The member continues to say to the
people of British Columbia that the reason we need a referendum
is that there is a constitutional change. In fact that is wrong,
wrong, wrong. He continues to say it. I understand the reason
Reformers stick to process. I would if I were them because so
far in this debate I have not been able to get out of the Leader
of the Opposition what he would do if he were the Government of
Canada as it relates to aboriginal people's rights in section 35.
I have been waiting now for weeks to ask that leader to give me
some assurance that he will tell us before the debate is over, if
his party were ever to form the government, what it would do
relating to aboriginal rights and the kinds of agreements we need
to sign for reconciliation of our historic differences.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
we are talking about voting machines it is on the government side
of the House where members are told what to do. They may as well
stay home, frankly, and phone in their votes.
The crux of the debate today is whether or not people believe
this treaty will work to the benefit of everyone involved, not
just the Nisga'a but everybody.
Let us just look for a moment at the Nisga'a and whether it
would work for the benefit of them. If we look at a band with a
treaty, the Stony Plain band or the Samson Cree band, the Samson
Cree has annual income of close to $100 million. Yet 85% of the
natives on that reserve live in poverty and are on welfare. The
Squamish band in my riding has $31 million in annual income. If
we compare the standard of living off reserve with on reserve
there is no comparison.
Can the minister name a single reserve in Canada governed by a
treaty where the standard of living is as high as it is off
reserve?
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, that is the exact
point we have been trying to make. The abilities of “Gathering
Strength” to change the relationship between the Government of
Canada and treaty relationships are in order to get out from
under the Indian Act. That is what the Nisga'a agreement does.
1250
The hon. member keeps using examples of first nations that are
under the Indian Act. That is the point. The Nisga'a people
will be outside the Indian Act. They will have property rights.
They will be under the charter. All those things are not allowed
by the Indian Act.
I just want to give the House one small point because it is very
important to the whole debate. The whole debate so far has
revolved around process. I hope that leader will somewhere down
the line tell us what is his aboriginal policy.
He spoke the other day for two whole hours and danced around
like he was doing a pirouette over and over again. He told us
about one aboriginal woman, whom he seemed to have met some time
in his travels, in two speeches in the House. It is time for him
to tell us what his party really believes in.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I approached the Nisga'a treaty I wanted to satisfy myself
on one point in particular. Was it a good treaty in terms of the
people it was dealing with? I went to the facts and I am
astonished by the results I obtained.
This is a very remote area of British Columbia, with a very tiny
population: the aboriginal and the even smaller non-aboriginal
population. In a period of three years leading up to the treaty
296 public meetings and colloquia were held in that area. If one
considers the problems of distance and communications, it is an
astonishing record. I do not think city seats could do better.
I also found that it is not simply companies doing business. It
is not simply government agencies that impinge on this, but
ordinary people. There is a little group called the Nass Valley
Residents Association, representing predominantly non-aboriginal
people. There were 13 successive meetings with this group. It
raised the issues of effect on isolated fee simple titles,
continued replacement tenures, access to water, and access to
forestry and firewood supplies. These sorts of issues go to
grassroots concerns, grassroots democracy.
That is why there were 13 meetings in a row. The people would
come back and say they wanted answers. They would get the
answers. At the end of the day there were no countervailing
claims in the concrete in relation to the Nisga'a treaty. That
is a very important fact when we talk of democracy.
On the issue of the referendum the minister has quite properly
commented on changing the rules of the game at the end of the
day, but I would raise more importantly the constitutional
principle that we operate within a constitutional system of
government which includes the courts.
The House has had a stern rebuke. One can read the judgment
carefully on the rehearing of Marshall and find that it refers to
intemperate and ill-informed comments by members of the House in
relation to judicial decisions.
How can it seriously be suggested that the federal government
should hold a selective referendum in a province that is itself
before the courts? With the Attorney General of British
Columbia and Attorney General of Canada, a decision by the
Supreme Court of British Columbia in the first instance still
moot and under appeal, how can we possibly, with proper respect
for the courts and proper respect for a constituent province,
intervene and hold a selective federal referendum? It would be
more consistent if the Leader of the Opposition had responded to
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas and said “Yes, I will hold
a nationwide referendum. That is what I am proposing”. However
he did not do it. The inconsistencies frankly do little credit
to the study of constitutional law and show a complete disrespect
for the courts with a pending process.
Let me get back into the issue of participatory democracy. I
issued four very well documented newsletters to my constituents
since the treaty was published. Each contains a 2,000 word
summary of legal issues and constitutional issues, and I have
asked for responses. Over a period of six, nine and twelve
months I have had 3,000 or 4,000 responses of various sorts.
People are coming in, phoning me and writing thoughtful letters.
As a result I was in touch with the minister, the predecessor of
the present minister, to say here are some concerns. Let us take
them.
Is this a template? The point we made was no. Every treaty
rests on its own particular society which has its own particular
social and political facts.
1255
What is right and proper for a remote thinly populated area of
the province may not work in the city where there are
countervailing interests that will be presented. The template
concept must be rejected. Good sociological jurisprudence is
when each treaty is considered and negotiated on its own facts.
That was in spite of the opposition. It would be some
considerable time before the Premier of British Columbia accepted
that Nisga'a was not a template but a special treaty negotiated
on its own facts.
The second issue is of the so-called constitutionalizing of the
treaty. There is a possibility of confusion here. I discussed
this point with the then federal Minister of Justice in 1983. He
was not the man who drafted the charter of rights but he was the
successor. I raised the issue of the effect of applying section
35(1) to future treaties, not the known quantity of already
existing treaties. I raised the issue that these were
constitutionalized treaties and not in my view constitutional
amendments.
Can we clarify and make this assurance clear? In the Nisga'a
treaty it is made very clear that the treaty is subject to the
constitution and the charter of rights. I went to the
predecessor of the present minister and said that there were
still concerns and could we not put it in the federal enacting
legislation.
If we look at the federal enacting legislation it is clear. It
establishes the supremacy of the constitution and the charter of
rights. Do not be afraid of changes to sections 91 and 92. Do
not be afraid of a third level of government. Do not be afraid.
Due process of law applies. The principles of equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws are there. They are in
the charter and the courts can apply them. There is no reason
for this fear which is based on misconception and lack of study.
It is all there in the Nisga'a treaty.
The issue arises that it is not a template. It is still the
first treaty. It is an historic event for people who negotiated
in good faith and in good spirit, which shows it is in the
absence of countervailing claims re the concrete. The spirit of
good neighbourliness of the sort the supreme court and the world
court have spoken of is basic to the common law.
What of future treaties? It is clear, and I have had
discussions on this with members of the B.C. Liberal Party, which
has the same name but is legally separate and distinct from the
government. I have spoken to some of the critics who have
appeared and attacked the Nisga'a treaty on the basis of a lack
of information of the changes being made in the federal enacting
legislation which are now there.
It is clear that for future treaties we will re-emphasize they
are individual treaties to be negotiated on their own facts. It
is also clear that all future treaties must be made expressly and
in terms subject to the constitution and the charter of rights.
I believe we may need better fact finding facilities in relation
to these treaties. I speak of the federal court with all
respect, but I have difficulty in reconciling two judgments at
two different levels of the federal court in a cognate but
distinct case on the basis of the economic evidence in this area.
There needs to be better lawyermanship by lawyers, the federal
justice and other parties presenting the case. The supreme court
made this clear at the Marshall rehearing.
There also needs to be perhaps more use of the provincial
supreme courts. They are closest to the people. The federal
court, and I am not speaking of the Supreme Court of Canada, is a
body that often has few local roots or little access to local
facts.
Those elements are there. I also think we should take up the
suggestion made by members of the Vancouver city council when the
treaty process approaches the city of Vancouver and involve
elected municipal representatives in the negotiating process.
They have a lot of knowledge and a lot of practical wisdom. They
can help us in this path to what is an historic process for B.C.
All the rest of Canada has treaties. We have to begin in B.C.
It is a learning process and it is a difficult process, but what
is the choice? We want to live in peace in British Columbia. We
want a society in which people feel safe to invest. We want a
society in which people can act in good faith in relation to each
other.
1300
We have made clear to the minister that in negotiating treaties
we expect good faith and good neighbourliness. If we do not find
it, that treaty should put to the bottom of the pile. That is a
good principle of operation. The choice is 19 long summers of
discontent in British Columbia or a process in which everybody is
actively engaged, and that I think is the real choice.
I welcome the fact that the predecessor of the minister of
Indian affairs made these changes to the federal enacting
legislation which I think settle any remaining constitutional
doubts. I have no doubt the new minister accepts in full spirit
the engagements made by his predecessor. We will build on what
we have learned in the process to date.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know of
the member's great concern for democracy and I know he looks at
these issues in great depth. Is he not aware of how this is
setting the stage for something that will be much greater than
just the Nisga'a treaty itself?
I wonder how he goes back home, as I know he does, and meets his
constituents when a recent poll done in his riding showed that
91.45% of his constituents said that there should be a referendum
on this treaty. I wonder how he answers them when he says that
the government of the day in Ottawa says that there should not be
and that he really does not have to listen to them.
I once had a member do that to me in my riding in 1991. He said
that he knew what we people thought but that Ottawa knew better,
that his party knew better. I wonder if this member does not
have a few concerns that some of the members of his constituency
might not say the same thing when 91.45% of them said that we
should have a referendum on this issue.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would wonder whether
the hon. member and his poll takers are not smoking pot when they
come up with these figures. I am in constant touch with my
constituents. I receive hundreds of letters every week and we
answer them.
I will tell the member one thing that will restore his faith in
democracy. We have only had two mean minded letters that had a
John Wayne conception of the aboriginal people and wanted to
chase them across the frontier with muskets. The people in my
constituency are thoughtful, well educated, reasonable people.
They are honest, decent people and they respond to facts.
In response to the Nisga'a treaty, when we explain the facts
they come back and they accept the facts. They accept that there
will be a large degree of public involvement, even larger than
before in Nisga'a with their 296 public meetings. The matters
will get to the city. We will have a stronger process for review
of countervailing interests where there is a contest between
aboriginal and non-aboriginal rights. We should have a third
party process and compulsory arbitration if needed.
Those are the things my constituents work for concretely. They
do not talk off the tops of their heads. They do not read Zane
Grey or obscure novels from the 19th century. They are moving
into the 21st century. We want a peaceful society in British
Columbia. We want to get through those 50 treaties on the basis
of general equity and general public consensus.
We have the process going and it is working. That is what my
constituents are saying to me. They are not prophets of gloom
and doom. They are not afraid of the future.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
ask the hon. member a question about the referendum principle.
There is a principle at stake that we continue to ignore and that
we simply do not address, and that is somehow judging the rights
of a minority by having a referendum of the majority. How do we
protect minority rights in that context?
1305
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I gave a more narrowly
technical legal answer to that in my opening remarks. The facts
are before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. There is a
challenge based on the issue that a referendum is not being held
within British Columbia and it is based on the B.C. provincial
constitution. My statement on that was that it was before the
courts. The deference that we owe to a court as a co-ordinate
institution of government does not allow us to hold a selective
referendum in B.C. while that process is there.
I did pick up, though, the comments of the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas who quite rightly raised the issue with the
Leader of the Opposition about going for a nation-wide
referendum, and the Leader of the Opposition retreated.
On the large issue, I have been arguing for 20 years for basic
changes in the constitutional system. If we want to go the Swiss
way, Switzerland is a different society from ours—what was
said—the country that built cuckoo clocks but what else. If we
want an analogy there, let us do it, but let us do it as part of
a comprehensive constitutional reform and not just pluck it out
because it happens to suit us for a passing moment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, of which I am a member, has just come back from
touring British Columbia.
I will begin by saying that, when this decision was taken in
committee—and it had been taken in the House earlier by the
government House leader—I immediately accused the Liberals of
doing the tango with the Reform Party. There are tangos that can
be very graceful, with the two partners following each other's
moves perfectly, and there are tangos that can be more
difficult; it is, after all, a fairly complicated step. On
this trip, the Reform-Liberal tango was a forced affair.
The two partners found themselves forced to dance with one other
and more than once stepped on each other's toes. It was, I
think, a painful exercise.
We know what happened. Simply put, the Reform Party invited the
Liberals to come along on this tour in British Columbia, and the
Liberals had no choice but to agree. Otherwise the Minister of
Finance would not have been able to put on his big economic show
in London, Ontario.
The first tango was quite a challenge for both partners. There
is another one in the works, which will be a far more graceful
event, because the two partners are accustomed to each other. I
will read part of the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government
should conduct a province wide referendum in British
Columbia...prior to [—]
I must admit that Quebec is beginning to know something about
referendums decided on by Ottawa. This is paternalism taken to
the extreme. How can the federal government tell British
Columbia that it is going to hold a referendum in this province?
The leader of the official opposition raises a good point in
commenting that the Liberal government is in the process of
cooking up all sorts of things relating to a future referendum
in Quebec. We heard it last week, and we heard it again today.
There is even talk of a motion or bill being introduced before
the end of the week. I believe Quebec is capable of deciding
its future for itself. Quebec does not need Ottawa to tell it
how to proceed.
We are told that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is in
the process of looking at the possibility of having the
percentage be 60% rather than 50%. What next? It may say “Here
is the question to be imposed on Quebecers” and so on.
The Reform Party and the Liberals make a lovely couple dancing
to the tune of paternalism taken to the extreme. This country
needs to accept the existence of people who are different. I
will get back to that later.
As for the question of a constitutional amendment, opponents of
the agreement, particular the ones on the Reform side, are
saying that this is a constitutional amendment, that it will
create another level of government and that consequently, since
it will shape the future of British Columbia, a referendum must
be held in order to ask all of the people of British Columbia to
learn about the issue, take a position, and vote on it.
The problem, in my opinion, is that this is not a constitutional
amendment, any more than it was one when the people of the Yukon
accepted their land claims and self-government—and this was
debated here. There was no referendum, either in Canada or in
the Yukon, to find out if there was agreement on that.
1310
Certainly, the aboriginal nations affected hold referendums.
The Nisga'a held a referendum, but not the Yukon nations or the
James Bay Cree. There was never a call in Quebec to vote or
hold a referendum on the future of Quebec in relation to the
treaty with the people of James Bay. I am speaking of before
1982, when we did not have the new Constitution. The James Bay
treaty dates from 1975. For us, therefore, this is not a
constitutional amendment.
Another thing has been raised by our opponents. They claim there
was not enough consultation.
I have here a few notes on the consultations held. In my
opinion, the best consultations do not involve just statistics
and reports of what went on. When one is a member of a touring
delegation—I had to go, myself—there are many ways of listening to
people. A person can just listen to the witnesses or take the
opportunity, as well, at mealtime or after hearings, to go and
speak with them.
I was not at all impressed by the Reform Party mobilizations in
the five cities in British Columbia. A handful of people wanted
to prevent witnesses from speaking and parliamentarians from
deliberating.
I saw a few in Prince George, very few in Smithers. In
Vancouver, there were a few more, because they made an effort.
There were some 200 demonstrators outside.
These people came in to disrupt the work of the committee for
almost one hour on the last day, on the Friday. Unfortunately,
this was not a popular initiative among the general public.
If these hearings had been televised in British Columbia, the
Reform Party would have sunk to an all-time low. This is not the
way to proceed. The way to proceed is to bring in witnesses—
these people had the opportunity to send witnesses to the
aboriginal affairs committee—and to let them testify. One does
not gather people in a room to try to continually interrupt
others, which is what went on all week.
I was not impressed, either by the size of the protest or the
way these people tried to defend they views which, in my
opinion, are undemocratic.
Let me now take a look at the consultation process.
I have some figures here. Since 1991, federal and provincial
negotiators have held 250 public consultation and information
sessions in northwestern British Columbia. This is quite
impressive. The forestry sector held close to 30 meetings, while
the fisheries sector committee held 25. The Nass Valley
Residence Association also organized meetings.
About 30 public
information meetings, including open houses, fairs,
presentations to school boards and chambers of commerce, were
held throughout the region. The Kitimat-Skeena regional advisory
committee, the Nass Valley Residents Association and the Treaty
Negotiations Advisory Committee expressed their views to
negotiators.
Over 50 consultation meetings took place during the negotiations
on the Nisga'a final agreement.
Also, the provincial legislature's standing committee on
aboriginal affairs held hearings in a number of British Columbia
communities. In addition, our own committee held a week of
public hearings there. I would remind the House that again this
week another thirty or forty people will appear either in person
or via videoconferencing.
Furthermore, as I have already said, the British Columbia
legislature debated for some 120 hours. This is the longest
debate that has ever been held in the history of the Legislative
Assembly of British Columbia. So we do not want to hear it said
that they are calling for a referendum because they want to
consult people. I did consult the people, in the various
restaurants and other places we visited in British Columbia,
both in the north and in the south of the province.
Those people seemed fairly satisfied, and we have proof of that.
As a former union member myself, I can tell the House that, on
the last day, representatives of Treasury Board and of unions
came to the table to tell us that they had consulted their
membership. When unions use the word consult, that means a lot:
consultations at the local, regional and provincial levels,
usually. CLC President Ken Georgetti told us “We debated the
issue, and there was far from unanimity. A number of points did
not get past our membership very smoothly, but there has been
consultation and there is union agreement on this”.
1315
What struck me even more, however, was that many representatives
of the economic community and the Vancouver chamber of commerce
came to tell us that they had no problem with that, because it
would finally resolve the whole issue of uncertainty.
In a few minutes, I will talk to you of the problem of
uncertainty, because it is another tactic our adversaries use to
say things will be terrible, that it will be the end of the
world for British Columbia. I even heard it being likened to
Bosnia and Chechnya a few minutes ago.
I do not agree with that. I had given as an example the WTO
negotiations, which are to begin this month, and our disputes
with our major economic trading partner, the United States. It
is usual to have disputes with people, but they are resolved
through negotiation.
So, making statements that it will be like the cases of Bosnia
and Chechnya is like saying the Americans will drop an atomic
bomb on Canada if they are not satisfied with the WTO agreement.
I do not think the discussions should be viewed this way. It
is not through litigation or confrontation but rather through
negotiation and consultation that this is achieved. And that is
what has been done, in my view.
Our opponents keep telling us—and I heard them again this
morning—the importance of equality, the great importance of
equality. For them, it is pretty simple: everyone should be
equal.
I said that at second reading and I repeat it. Quebecers will
not agree to being equal to other Canadians. I have showed a
schema to a number of witnesses and they agreed. In fact, they
said that was the way it is, and I think we have come to an
agreement.
How can I go about taking apart the whole argument of equality
and uncertainty? I would first like to explain something to the
Reformers. We have to start with the question “Do they
recognize for the aboriginal peoples?”
Do they recognize that there are aboriginal peoples and nations?
We in Quebec have already introduced a motion in the National
Assembly to recognize the 11 first nations. But once the first
nations are not recognized, because this is what the Reformers
are calling for, once the distinct character of Quebec is not
recognized, because according to the Reform Party, Prince Edward
Island has the same power in Canada as Quebec and Ontario do,
then we have many reservations.
Obviously, there is not agreement on complete equality, and once
that is the case, the same thing happens that is happening with
the Reformers: there is an attempt to frighten people, to tell
them that some people have specific rights, but that they do
not. We are all too familiar with this scenario.
I for one agree with recognizing aboriginal peoples, just as I
would agree that Quebecers represent a distinct nation.
Unfortunately, there are not many people in the House who are
prepared to allow Quebec that recognition; not even among the
Quebec members.
What happens if someone like myself or my party recognizes
aboriginal peoples? Automatically, not everyone is equal. They
have specific rights. We are seeing quite a few such rights
being imposed. The courts themselves are imposing them.
The other day, when we debated the motion on Atlantic fisheries
in relation to the Marshall ruling, I listed all the cases that
we are losing one after the other. Calder, Sparrow, Delgamuukw
are all supreme court rulings that support aboriginals and thus
give them specific rights. Today, we as legislators have the
opportunity to grant specific rights, and we will do so if we
adopt the treaty that is now before us.
If we give specific rights to aboriginals and recognize them as
peoples and nations, then we must agree with them on some kind
of partnership agreement, and the Nisga'a treaty is a perfect
example of such an agreement. It sets out powers and determines
which are Canada's and which will be the Nisga'as'.
1320
We must put this in an agreement if we want to reconcile
everybody's interests and ensure that we will not get all
tangled up in laws that contradict one another.
Jurisdictions over areas such as culture or language are often
delegated. In this case, we will even have a Nisga'a government
and a constitution that will include provisions on citizenship.
There is no doubt that the agreement goes very far. But I remind
all those who are listening to us that other agreements have
also gone quite far. Negotiations on self-government and Yukon
land claims went very, very far. The agreement obviously goes
beyond a private citizen joining with the Canadian nation,
because this person already has every power.
Here we agree to give these people partial powers and to see how
it can all be reconciled.
By negotiating a partnership between two nations, between
Canadians and the Nisga'a, certainty has been created. The
final argument of our opponents has been done away with, that
being that supposedly terrible uncertainty will result.
The treaty contains everything relating to natural resources,
forestry and fishing. Everything. According to the witnesses I
heard, including the biologists, there is no problem because a
percentage is given for fisheries. In a given area, the Nisga'a
may have 26% of the take, but that 26% is not a set figure. If
the fishery resources decrease, it will be 26% of the take at
that time. The figure for the next year could be different. It
could be more, or it could be less, but it is always 26%.
It seems to me that we have found the way to negotiate between
one nation and another, saying “This is the way we will go about
things together”.
It is important for me to give this explanation, because I have
heard all kinds of things said. In my opinion, overall the
witnesses were in favour of the agreement. Some came to tell us
that they were not, and why not, but I feel that their opposing
arguments did not take them far.
As far as this being a constitutional amendment is concerned, I
say it is not. As for saying that equality must come first,
come what may, I do not agree with that as a Quebecer and I know
the Nisga'a do not agree either. As far as creating uncertainty
is concerned, I do not agree because the treaty defines with
certainty all areas of jurisdiction it has been agreed to hand
over to the aboriginal people.
We will not change opinion on the Nisga'a. We have told them we
will walk with them. The translation into Nisga'a of “We will
walk with the Nisga'a” is:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Nisga'a]
[Translation]
We have not changed our viewpoint. We have heard the opinions
of certain nations, such as the Gitanyow or the Gitksan. It was
in fact the Bloc that offered to mediate to see whether
agreement was possible. We are currently looking at various
formulae with the Nisga'a as well, but we support the entire
matter and the action.
As I was saying at the start of my speech, the Reform motion is
outrageously paternalistic. We cannot agree with it.
They cannot say to the Nisga'a, 61% of whom accepted the
agreement “Now that that's all done, we will water it down in a
massive referendum.”
People have raised the issue of the majority imposing it on the
minority, but there is also the fact that the work was well
done. When they talk about nation to nation, there are
representatives in parliament. There are representatives in
this parliament and there are representatives of the people in
the British Columbia legislature. I think these people have
done a good job.
We must also bear in mind that 50 more agreements are yet to be
negotiated, and it is not true to say the Nisga'a agreement will
create a precedent. There may well be passages other nations
will pick up, but my experience as critic for aboriginal affairs
tells me that there are about as many agreements on
self-government as there are nations, because each nation has its
point of view.
1325
Many people condemned the whole issue of taxation, because the
Nisga'a will waive the tax exemption to which they are entitled.
They will start paying taxes in 8 or 12 years.
Many nations told us “We would not have accepted that”. Some
might say this is a terrible precedent but, in my opinion, that
precedent is no worse than what the Yukon nations or the Cree
have negotiated. If we must hold a referendum each time a
self-government agreement is concluded with a nation, the process
will never end.
For these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the Reform
Party motion, and I tell my Nisga'a friends who are listening,
including Joe Gosnell, Harry Nice and Eric Grandison that we
will certainly see each other again this week to try to see how
we can work out the final details. They can rest assured that
the Bloc Quebecois and myself will vote against the Reform
Party's motion.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the comments made by
the Bloc member, much to my absolute disbelief.
I would like to tell the House the exact truth of what happened.
I was at that meeting in Victoria with the committee listening to
the witnesses.
The member stated that the Reform Party was blocking,
preventing, or stopping the witnesses from speaking. The truth be
known that every single witness on that list when I was there got
their entire allotted time and more time.
He left us with the notion that he heard words spoken, such as
Bosnia and Chechnya. He put that in the context that the Reform
Party was this or that. What he is not telling the House is that
it was aboriginal people from the Nass Valley who used those
words. These were the words of aboriginal witnesses from the
Nass Valley who testified before the committee, their words and
nobody else's. The House should take note of that. That is the
absolute gospel truth.
He also used the words “a paternalistic motion”. Imagine that,
a paternalistic motion. Can anyone imagine that a vote is
paternalistic?
I would like to leave the House with one last thought. The sole
purpose in this House of the member who just spoke is to divide
this country in two, to create division. That is exactly what
the Nisga'a agreement is going to do and that is probably why the
Bloc is supporting it. It wants to create division and to divide
the country in two. The hon. member has no other reason for
sitting in this House. That is why he is here. His party has
stated that on the record. It is no wonder the Bloc is supporting
the agreement, because it is going to create division.
The unfortunate part is that what has happened with the
aboriginal people in Canada over the last 30 to 50 years has not
worked. They deserve to have a solution that does work.
An hon. member: What about the Indian Act?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, it does away with the Indian Act and
it creates the Indian Act II and will create only more wishes.
The member stated that the Reform Party was stopping or
preventing the witnesses. Would the hon. member stand in the
House and name one witness that was on the government invited
witness list that did not get an opportunity to speak? I do not
think he can.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really does not
get it. Yes, some witnesses were prevented from testifying and
yes we were forced to adjourn on several occasions. It just so
happens that those who forced us to interrupt our discussions
were all wearing a Reform Party button, or a T-shirt or big hat
with the word “Reform” on it. These are the people who prevented
us from holding discussions.
Of course the witnesses were given back the time originally
allotted to them, but we were forced to adjourn on a number of
occasions for several minutes. On the Friday, when we were in
Victoria, we were forced to adjourn for almost an hour, and it
was not Bloc Quebecois people who were in the room to boo the
witnesses and members of parliament present.
1330
As for paternalism, that is what it is. If Ottawa decides how a
province is to behave, or how the Nisga'a are to behave, that is
paternalism. It is just as I said earlier. The government
wants to adopt a paternalistic approach with aboriginal peoples,
as well as in British Columbia. I said that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs wants to do the same in Quebec. It is
the same thing, and the same word applies.
As for the expression “nation to nation” and for our wanting to
break up Canada, we have been saying for months and for years
that we want a partnership agreement, like the one the Nisga'a
will sign with the Parliament of Canada and have already signed
with British Columbia. We want the same approach.
It is only natural that we would be in favour of the approach
taken by the Nisga'a in their quest for autonomy. I say to all
first nations in Canada and in Quebec that, should they need the
support of the Bloc Quebecois in moving toward autonomy, they
can always count on us.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take what my Reform colleague has said one
step further.
The hon. member from the Bloc said clearly that Quebec does not
believe in the equality of all Canadians. The Bloc is here to
promote separation. The government said that there was a process
whereby everybody was actively involved. It now becomes obvious
that was not the case. Everyone was not actively involved.
Here we have the Bloc members making it absolutely clear that
they support this because it will lead to the separation of
groups, and the government is also supporting this.
The Globe and Mail put it very well when it said that the
government's aboriginal policies would lead to separation, both
political and economic. That is why the Bloc supports this. Now
the government goes along with it.
The government said very clearly that the minister consulted all
sides. It has in fact created the sides. It is responsible for
dividing up our society into all of these various groups because
of the improper process, because it does not allow the moving
toward equality. I think that is the problem. That is probably
why the Bloc is doing this.
The government said that the courts are criticizing members of
parliament for speaking up and criticizing some court decisions.
Many Canadians are concerned that the courts are dictating
legislation. Do the courts have the right to tell members of
parliament how they shall speak on an issue like this? I would
the member to answer that. I would also ask him if he agrees
with the Minister of Justice who says “We have one law for all
but it is flexible in its application”?
The government makes a big point about treating everybody
equally, but the Minister of Justice says “We have one law for
all but it is flexible in its application”. Does the member
agree with the government when it makes those statements?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to the
Reformers, the more I come to the conclusion that the problem I
pointed out earlier boils down to this: they do not recognize
the aboriginal peoples, and they do not recognize Quebecers as a
people. They do not recognize that they themselves are part of
the Canadian people.
I do not recognize Canadians in the Reform Party. That is not
what I saw in British Columbia. Those who booed us and
prevented us from speaking were sporting Reform Party T-shirts,
hats and buttons. Ordinary people in the street agreed.
As for flexibility, I am in agreement with that.
Once it is acknowledged that there are aboriginal peoples, that
there is a Quebec people, that devolution of responsibilities is
going to be accepted, flexibility is needed. This does not mean
getting around the Criminal Code. This is not what it means.
It means that they may have ways of administering justice that
differ from ours, the sentencing circles for one. This shows
that the aboriginal nations are different. I find that this
agreement acknowledges this.
I say to my Reform colleague that I hope he will always manage
to understand the importance for Canadians and for Quebecers of
recognizing the aboriginal nations.
1335
As long as this is blocked, we will run into the problems we
had, people who come to boo us, people who understand nothing
more than the fact that everyone must be equal and alike, no one
must be one iota different from anyone else. This is not the
way I see things, and unluckily for the Minister of Justice, who
has said “far more flexibility is needed”, I share her opinion.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I, along with the hon. member, were in British Columbia
last week at the Nisga'a hearings. Last Tuesday, we were in
Smithers and listened to presentations by the Gitanyow Band who
expressed extreme concern over their land being put into the
Nisga'a agreement. The Bloc members at that time seemed to
listen with great concern and indicated that they would be
prepared to support an amendment to the treaty which would take
the questioned land out of the Nisga'a treaty until such time as
it was settled.
Obviously they would like the native people to see them as
native friendly people so the aboriginal people in Quebec will
not be concerned when the next referendum question comes up.
Did the hon. member say that simply to seem friendly to the
Gitanyow while he was there or will the Bloc stand by that and
support at least an amendment to this treaty?
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely
right. The Bloc Quebecois are the ones who told the Gitanyow,
and even the Gitksan who have joined with the Gitanyow in some
proposals. And that will occur this week.
That did not stop me the day after from picking up the phone the
next day to call the Nisga'a and asking “How could we
accommodate everybody?” It is important to accommodate
everybody.
Certainly the Reform Party is trying to find all areas of
tension and to focus on them to prevent this bill from passing.
We can see what they are doing.
But our way is a constructive one and, if necessary, we will sit
down with the Gitanyow, the Gitksan and the Nisga'a, and we will
eventually come up with a proposal that will be agreeable to
everyone, with the additional information that the Nisga'a will
have to provide to us on this issue. It is true that witnesses
see things from their own perspective, but so do those who will
benefit from this bill.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot be criticized for having a
constructive approach on this issue and for ensuring that
everyone's interests are taken into account. I must, however,
condemn those who purposely draw attention to existing tensions,
in an attempt to prevent the bill from being passed. The Bloc
Quebecois prefers to have a constructive approach rather than a
destructive one.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the member neglected
to answer the question I posed with regard to a statement the
government made with respect to the courts being able to tell
members of parliament how to speak on this issue. Does he agree
with the government's position that the courts should be able to
dictate to us how to speak on these aboriginal affairs?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. In
fact, I say so every year when the Indian affairs minister comes
before the standing committee. I ask him “Are you not tired of
letting the courts tell you how to proceed?” It seems to me this
government should display greater courage and settle fundamental
issues, before the courts force it to change its policies.
I agree with the hon. member that the Liberal government should
show much more initiative, to avoid having Canadian courts, and
particularly the supreme court, tell us how to proceed.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have another brief question, Mr.
Speaker. It really puzzles me that the Bloc members would oppose
a referendum on this issue. They are very strong on a referendum
deciding the separation of Quebec. Why do they oppose a
referendum of the people of British Columbia with regard to this
issue?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue of
referendums, it is obvious that the Reform Party will tell us
“Since you want a referendum in Quebec, why do you not want one
for British Columbia?”
I would ask the hon. member to take a look at the wording of his
own motion, which basically asks the federal government to
impose a referendum on British Columbia. As Quebecers, we do not
want anything imposed on us.
1340
We do not want to have the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
impose a referendum, impose a percentage to make it a success
and impose a question. We believe in the self-determination of
peoples, and if Quebecers qualify as a people, they are entitled
to hold their own referendum, without Ottawa's intrusion.
That is Bloc Quebecois position.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just touch on
that referendum question. What is the difference? British
Columbians would not have it imposed, they are asking for it.
I point out to the hon. member that I did a scientific poll in
my riding on constituents' attitudes with regards to the Nisga'a
treaty. Not only did we ask straightforward questions, but also
did a lot of other polling at the same time.
One of the things this poll did was identify voter trends within
the riding. Of the people who voted NDP provincially in the last
election, the NDP government being the one that put this treaty
on the table, 70% of those people wanted a referendum on the
Nisga'a treaty. A referendum is not being imposed on B.C. B.C.
is asking for it.
Will the member join with us in supporting the rights of British
Columbians and their demand to have a referendum on this?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to instruct the
members from British Columbia. They know their corner of the
country best.
However, I can tell them their provincial colleague, Bill
Vander Zalm, of the Reform Party, is not quite on the right track
in saying we should buy the Indians “Let us give them $100,000,
get rid of the reserves and that will be the end of that”. I
think that is a poor approach, and I would say to Mr. Vander Zalm
that, if he wants to be elected, if he wants to be a Reformer,
this is the right way to go about it, as he does not recognize
the aboriginal peoples.
Buying people, telling them that we will assimilate them and
saying “Let us pay out $100,000, and that will be the end of the
aboriginal nations”, is not the approach to take. That means
they know very little about them. That means they know very
little about Quebec too.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to advise you that I will be dividing my time
today with my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
My colleague, the hon. member for the Yukon, who attended the
hearings on this matter, unfortunately is not able to participate
in the debate today. She has played a very important and
critical role on behalf of New Democrats on this very important
issue.
I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic
Party to strongly oppose the motion which the Reform Party has
brought before the House of Commons. I regard this as a
desperate, last minute attempt by the Reform Party to subvert the
Nisga'a treaty.
One of the hon. members from the Reform Party has talked about a
scientific poll that he did in his constituency on the Nisga'a
treaty. The Nisga'a leadership made it very clear on November 4
when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development that there are two treaties
being debated in British Columbia today.
According to Chief Joe Gosnell, one of the treaties was actually
negotiated in a process lasting several years. This is the
treaty referred to by the government and by the other opposition
parties other than the Reform Party.
The second treaty, which is now the subject of debate, was what
they called the make-believe treaty. This is the treaty
described by the Reform Party, by the British Columbia Liberal
Party, by a variety of editorialists and by other individuals. If
Reform Party members are polling their constituents about a
make-believe treaty, a treaty that does not exist, a treaty that
has been invented to try to scare British Columbians, it is no
wonder they would vote against that treaty.
When the truth comes out, when British Columbians are informed
of the actual content of this treaty, as I had the opportunity to
do at a public forum in my constituency very recently, they will
support the contents of this treaty.
1345
It is no wonder particularly in some of the rural communities of
British Columbia that there are British Columbians who are not
getting the facts, when we look at where they might get those
facts from. There are Reform Party members of parliament who are
engaged in a campaign of systematic distortion of the contents of
the treaty. What do they say about the treaty? They say it is
like apartheid. It is one of the most offensive and appalling
distortions of history when the Reform Party talks about this
treaty as in any way being akin to apartheid.
I worked for many years, as did a number of members of the
House, fighting against apartheid. Indeed Your Honour was in the
forefront of that struggle and will recall our visit to South
Africa to celebrate the triumph of democracy in South Africa.
Those who understand history will know that if anything,
apartheid in fact was at least partly based not on this kind of
nation to nation treaty, but on the reserve system in the Indian
Act which this treaty would finally rid us of. To talk about
apartheid in the context of the Nisga'a treaty is totally
dishonest.
We know as well that the media coverage in many of the rural and
smaller communities on the Nisga'a treaty has been distorted. It
is no wonder when David Black who publishes over 60 community
newspapers serving some of those smaller communities gives orders
to his editorial writers that they are not allowed to write
editorials in support of the Nisga'a treaty. David Black the
publisher is forcing his newspapers to tell one story. It is no
wonder that kind of distortion takes place.
The Reform Party says that it believes in consultation. Yet the
member for Skeena himself has not met in six years with the
leadership of the Nisga'a people. He represents that community.
He has represented that community since 1993. I defy any member
of the Reform Party to stand in the House today and tell me one
occasion since 1993 when the member for Skeena has met with the
leadership of the Nisga'a people whom he represents. Reform
members are phonies when they talk about consultation. The only
consultation they believe in is talking to themselves.
There has been extensive consultation with the people of British
Columbia on this treaty. Before the 1996 provincial election, an
agreement in principle was signed. That agreement in principle
was signed and a 13 point mandate for provincial negotiators was
presented. Where was the provincial Liberal Party then? Where
was the federal Reform Party then? Were they calling for a
referendum? No. There was not one word calling for a referendum.
Not only was the Reform Party silent on any suggestion of a
referendum but Mike de Jong, spokesperson for the B.C. Liberal
Party, the kissing cousins of the Reform Party on this treaty,
said:
I think it would be unfair at this point to inject the referendum
card into the ratification process involving the Nisga'a treaty.
Those negotiations have been ongoing.... To say at literally the
eleventh hour that it will now become a component of that
ratification process would be, I think, unfair.
Unfair indeed it would be. We in the New Democratic Party say
that there has been extensive debate and consultation on this
issue, including the longest debate in the history of the B.C.
legislature, 116 hours. No bill in the B.C. legislature has ever
been debated longer than the Nisga'a bill. There were extensive
community hearings. There was the aboriginal affairs committee.
There were 116 hours of debate in the B.C. legislature.
The time has come for parliament to respond not just to the
historical rights of the Nisga'a people, but to respond to what I
believe the majority of British Columbians who were informed of
the contents of the treaty actually want.
They want fairness and certainty.
1350
It was a Reform Party member of parliament who said,
“Uncertainty directly related to the Nisga'a treaty is hurting
the economy of northwestern British Columbia”. That was said by
a Reform Party member of parliament, yet Reform members want a
referendum that would drag this out.
Let us say hypothetically that the referendum were to result in
a no vote. What then? Would we go back to the drawing table and
start the negotiations again? Why would the Nisga'a people
negotiate in those circumstances? Why would any aboriginal first
nation negotiate in those circumstances? They would say that
they would go to the courts. We have seen what happens when we
leave it to the Supreme Court of Canada. We saw the chaos which
resulted in the east coast fishery. Let us negotiate in good
faith as this Nisga'a treaty has done.
My final point is with respect to the notion of a referendum on
minority rights. In my view it is profoundly unacceptable and
dangerous to suggest that the rights of minorities should be
subject to a referendum of a majority. In a democracy we respect
minority rights. We elect democratic provincial MLAs and federal
members of parliament to reflect the views of their constituents
and at the end of the day to respect the rights of minorities,
and those should not be subject to the whim of a majority in a
referendum vote.
The Reform Party quite clearly does not believe in equality for
aboriginal people. That is very clear. We know it does not
believe in equality. This motion is all about a last minute,
desperate attempt by the Reform Party which is trying desperately
to salvage some vestige of credibility as it slips away more and
more. We saw it slipping away in the byelection in Saskatoon. It
was losing support there. Reformers are desperately grasping for
power, trying to press the buttons, but the people of British
Columbia will say no to that kind of agenda. They are saying no
now and they will say no in the next election when that member
from the Fraser Valley will be history.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was an interesting speech, I am sure.
The member talked about respecting minority rights in this
House. I remind him of some of the less honourable aspects of
how this House respected minority rights. How about the Japanese
during the second world war? How about the Chinese once the
railroads were built? How about Indians being separated out from
Canadian society and being put into the Indian Act? Where does he
think those things arose from? Out of the clear blue sky? They
came out of this House.
I wonder if the member thinks Canadian people would have
supported them at the time or had they been put to a referendum,
might they have had more wisdom than parliamentarians. I suggest
they have more wisdom on the Nisga'a treaty. They also rejected
the Charlottetown accord which separated people in this country
one from another.
I am thankful for the grassroots Canadians who oppose the
special interest politics this House stands for so often,
particularly through the NDP party.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the
member for Prince Albert has given those examples because that is
precisely the danger of the approach of the Reform Party today.
What if there had been a referendum on the internment of Japanese
Canadians in World War II and afterward? The fact of the matter
is that was popular at the time and it was precisely because of
those populist whims that the government was prepared to move. If
there had been a Reform Party back then, its members would have
been standing up saying they wanted a referendum on the issue and
they would have trampled the rights of Japanese Canadians.
When we look at the Chinese head tax and the appalling treatment
of Chinese Canadians, if there had been a Reform Party back then,
its members would have been up there on their hind legs braying
“We want a referendum and to hell with minority rights”. That
is the position of the Reform Party. It does not give a damn
about minority rights. It never has and it does not now for the
Nisga'a.
1355
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to be part of this vigorous, very historical and
important debate.
I would like to ask the member to comment on what I think is the
central question concerning the referendum. The Reform Party has
argued that we, Canada and British Columbia, ought to have a
referendum because there is a constitutional amendment. The
member for Burnaby, I believe, was a member of parliament
throughout 1980 to 1983 when we were amending the constitution
and bringing in the charter. He is very familiar with sections 25
and 35(1). If I recall, he played a role in the standing
committee that was drafting some of those provisions.
I think it is particularly important not only because he is a
lawyer and has participated in the House on those kinds of
discussions, but because he is a member of parliament from
British Columbia and represents the people that the other party
purports to.
Does he in his view believe at all that there is a
constitutional change here in recognition of the Nisga'a treaty?
If there is one, would that not necessitate a Canadian
referendum?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the
parliamentary secretary, the fact is that this does not in any
way involve an amendment to the constitution of Canada.
Under section 35 of the constitution of Canada, the existing
aboriginal treaty rights of first nations in Canada are
recognized and affirmed. This treaty is very much within the
spirit of section 35. There is no amendment to the constitution
of Canada. In fact, it is consistent with the constitution and
does not require an amendment under the British Columbia
legislation.
The Speaker: That would take up the time for
questions and comments. We will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE LATE FATHER MARCEL DE LA SABLONNIÈRE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Father
Marcel de la Sablonnière, or Father Sablon to those who knew him
well, died on Saturday at the age of 81.
Born in 1918, Father Sablon was appointed in 1952 to the
position of director of the Centre de loisirs
Immaculée-Conception, in Montreal, a function he performed wisely
and capably for more than 40 years.
He saw the potential of sports and recreation to provide a goal
for certain troubled youth and to keep others from dropping out
of the running. His many achievements included founding the
Auberge du P'tit Bonheur in 1962.
Those working directly or indirectly with children will never
forget Father de la Sablonnière. At a time when our young
people too often tell us they have no leaders, Father Sablon
filled this void for many of them, and they will be forever
grateful.
Thank you, Father, for your generous efforts to improve the
lives of our young Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
PORT OF VANCOUVER
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
deal ending an eight day work stoppage that paralysed the port of
Vancouver was ratified on Friday but the main bone of contention
remains unresolved.
While shippers and their customers tally up their losses, the
Canadian economy is out $800 million. In the age of just in time
inventory control, valuable international contracts were lost and
our reputation as a reliable shipper is in tatters.
Even though it is over, it must not be forgotten. Work
disruptions at Canada's busiest port cannot continue to hold
third parties hostage. Just as sure as Christmas comes in
December, it will happen again.
The Deputy Prime Minister said “We do intend to make sure that
this does not happen every year”. News flash to the deputy PM:
Reformers have been offering a solution to this for six years.
Where has he been? Rather than resorting to threats or
heavy-handed back to work legislation, Canadians are demanding
that a permanent solution be put in place now.
* * *
FRANK FAUBERT
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge
River to pay tribute to a man whose sense of public duty might be
seen as a model for members of the House.
Frank Faubert died on June 20 of this year. He was born in
Scarborough, Ontario. He was proud of his community and served
his people with integrity for over 30 years in public life. He
held offices as an alderman, controller, a member of the
provincial legislature, Scarborough councillor and finally as
Scarborough's last mayor.
He was fondly known as Mr. Scarborough.
1400
Frank's last political fight was against Scarborough joining the
megacity. However, in 1997, after the city was amalgamated, he
joined the city council and was elected to that council.
Frank fought hard for the things he believed in: environmental
issues, economic development, the arts community, ethnocultural
relations. He was proud of his business card, which was printed
in English and Chinese. He is honoured in his community, not
only for what he accomplished, but for the person he was: a
husband to Marilyn and a proud father of five children, a
friendly and approachable neighbour, a wise and knowledgeable
politician, a good and decent man.
* * *
NATIONAL AIDS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the house that November 22-29 marks the
ninth annual National AIDS Awareness Week.
The theme of this year's campaign is the myth surrounding HIV
and AIDS. By increasing our awareness and reducing our fears,
Canadians can fight this disease. Funds will be raised through
red ribbon campaigns and other activities to support this vital
work.
HIV/AIDS remains a significant national and international issue
as the epidemic continues to grow. Young people are increasingly
affected.
During National AIDS awareness week, I ask all Canadians to
consider how HIV and AIDS affect their lives and the lives of
those around them. Please wear the red ribbon to raise awareness
of this issue and join me in paying tribute to the hundreds of
community organizations and volunteers across the country who
make National AIDS Awareness Week a reality.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last weekend, before an assembly of approximately 60 Canadian
Rangers representing all Nunavik and Lower North Shore patrols,
chief of defence staff General Maurice Baril presented a
Canadian forces unit commendation to the 2nd Canadian Rangers
Patrol Group.
The commendation was in recognition of the unit's humanitarian
actions during the avalanche that hit the village of
Kangiqsualujjuaq on January 1, 1999.
A Canadian forces unit commendation is normally awarded to any
Canadian forces formation, unit or sub-unit that has gone above
and beyond the call of duty.
Many lives were saved through the efforts of unit members, who
bravely ignored their personal safety in this potentially
dangerous emergency situation.
They successfully dug out women, men and children buried under a
building that had literally collapsed under the weight of the
snow.
Words are not enough to express our deep appreciation for the
actions of these brave and determined individuals. What they
did is an example to all.
* * *
[English]
FARMERS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent study has found that suicides are a much more
common cause of death on farms than accidents.
This year it is worse than ever. Stress help lines in the
prairies are reporting increased caseloads. These calls include
people who are considering suicide themselves or are concerned
that their partner might end their life.
The root cause of increased work for mental health professionals
has been directly attributed to the ongoing farm income crisis.
What has the government done to correct this tragedy? I think
Janice Archdekin, a Saskatchewan farmer, summed it up best when
she said “They do not care that people are dying”.
Last year the minister promised that farmers would receive a
bankable plan by Christmas. He broke his promise. He failed to
deliver. Last week at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's annual
meeting the agriculture minister again promised farmers that they
would receive their AIDA money by Christmas 1999.
Farmers are not taking the minister's promises seriously
any more. I challenge him to add some credibility to his words
and pledge to resign if he breaks his promise like he did one
year ago.
* * *
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I acknowledge and pay tribute to some of
Canada's outstanding graduate students participating in the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's research
showcase in 200 West Block.
Each student in the gallery today represents one of the 20
research networks funded under the major collaborative research
initiatives of SSHRC. The students are presenting their own
research, as well as research produced by the team to which they
belong. Their presentations cover topics such as food security
in the Arctic and the social and economic dimension of an aging
population, to name but two.
The students would be delighted to meet and talk about their
lives and work and discuss their hopes and dreams for the future.
I urge all members to visit the SSHRC research showcase in 200
West Block to support and encourage these young Canadians in
their research challenges.
* * *
[Translation]
GALA DES BÉNÉVOLES
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, in Lac-Mégantic, some forty volunteers from Granit were
honoured at the 12th Gala des bénévoles. Over 400 people
responded to the call of the organizing committee.
1405
The gala provided the opportunity to present awards to six great
volunteers: Clémence Roy-Campeau, Suzanne Martin, Carole Dodier,
Marcel Couture and Yves Gilbert. In addition, Aurèle Dulac was
named volunteer of the year.
I join with the organizers of the gala in recognizing the
exceptional contribution of all these volunteers to their
community. Their work and their involvement speak of remarkable
dignity and deep devotion to community solidarity.
My congratulations to the volunteers recognized and my thanks to
the organizers of and the participants in this important
celebration. Well done, Yvan Plamondon. Well done, Aurèle
Dulac.
* * *
LEBANON
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the 56th anniversary of the
proclamation of the independence of Lebanon, as the chair of the
Lebanon-Canada parliamentary friendship group, I would like to
express my solidarity with Lebanon, a friend of Canada.
Specifically, I would like to mention that Lebanon deserves all
our support in its economic, social and institutional
reconstruction efforts.
It also deserves our support in its efforts to reclaim its unity
and complete freedom over all of its territory, through, among
other things, the implementation of UN resolution 425 calling
for the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces
from south Lebanon.
Our best wishes go especially to the large Lebanese Canadian
community that has enriched Canadian society with its dynamism
and its joie de vivre.
* * *
[English]
WAYNE GRETZKY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
“He shoots, he scores!” There are not many statements more
Canadian than that. In more than a century of hockey played in
every corner of Canada, no one has shot and scored more than
Wayne Gretzky.
Today the great one will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of
Fame, but he has already worked his way into the hearts of anyone
anywhere who loves the game of hockey, not only because of his
unmatchable skill and prowess on the ice, but also because of his
integrity, his humility and his generosity as a son, a friend, a
husband and a dad.
Wayne and the Oilers—what a team that was. The Kings, the
Blues and the Rangers came later, but how we cherish those
championship years in Edmonton.
I was privileged to meet Wayne, Janet and their kids on October
1 in Edmonton at Wayne Gretzky Day. He is a real, honest to
goodness hero. The Hockey Hall of Fame as of today is Wayne's
world. No one will ever forget number 99.
* * *
NISGA'A FINAL TREATY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in a three year run-up to signature of the Nisga'a treaty no
fewer than 296 meetings and public consultations were held in the
Nisga'a region with chambers of commerce, business people and
governmental authorities. But no fewer than 13 meetings were
held with a small, predominantly non-aboriginal regional
committee representing Nass Valley residents. They addressed a
wide range of their concerns: watershed protection, access to
water, legal status of isolated fee simple titles and replacement
tenures, forestry, mining, fisheries and wildlife.
The process of consultation on the Nisga'a treaty was
astonishingly extensive given the remoteness of the region and
its sparse population of 6,000 people. This is genuine
grassroots participatory democracy in action and it is reflected
in the final treaty.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
November 20 was National Child Day and the 10th anniversary of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. November 24 is
also the 10th anniversary of the unanimous all-party resolution
put forward by the then leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, to
eliminate child poverty.
Here we are 10 years later and what progress is there? Just a
few days ago we received a letter from three federal ministers
telling us that the Government of Canada has taken a consistent
approach in its efforts to improve opportunities for children and
families. Who are they kidding?
Just last week 34 NGOs cited Canada for systematically violating
seven articles of the UN convention. Child poverty has increased
50% since 1989. There has been an unrelenting attack on Canada's
poor through EI cuts, the elimination of social housing, broken
promises on national child care and denial of the child tax
benefit to families on welfare. That is the real record of the
Liberals and it has been consistent for sure.
Is it not ironic that the letter we received did not mention one
word about the 1989 resolution?
* * *
1410
[Translation]
THE LATE FATHER MARCEL DE LA SABLONNIÈRE
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were saddened
to learn of the death of Father Marcel de la Sablonnière. “Père
Sablon”, as he was called informally by everyone who knew him,
died on Saturday, at the age of 81.
Père Sablon got involved in amateur sport early on and worked
hard to make it accessible to disadvantaged children. Through
the determination with which he promoted sport and its virtues
for young people, Père Sablon encouraged young people to strive
for excellence.
During his fundraising campaigns, he would often say “Let us
give them a passion and make sure they have a good start”. Many
owe it to him to have had a good start in life.
For nearly five decades, with generosity and dedication, Père
Sablon worked as the director of Montreal's Centre de loisirs
Immaculée-Conception. A pioneer in outdoor recreational
activities, he helped build centres such as the Auberge du P'tit
Bonheur, Camp Jeune-Air and many others.
People will always remember Père Sablon's charisma, ability to
bring people together and great foresight.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9,
an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, has now
been debated in the House of Commons for close to 14 hours. This
is not a myth but a reality.
Last week, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
conducted five days of consultative hearings in British
Columbia. That too is the reality.
Another reality is that the Government of Canada recognized the
existing rights of aboriginal peoples in the 1982 Constitution
Act, following a Canada-wide consultation.
The Nisga'a treaty, which is to be part of the existing Canadian
legal framework, confirms the rights that were recognized in
1982. Also, it is clearly stated in the final agreement that the
treaty complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
The reality is that this legislation is the result of many years
of discussions and negotiations with numerous stakeholders.
The reality is that we must assume our responsibilities and move
forward.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, community dollars and staff resources in local
employment centres are being shifted to higher populated areas as
a result of the new funding formula adopted by HRDC. As a
result, communities such as Antigonish and Guysborough in Nova
Scotia will be negatively affected.
These new formulas will reduce funding to the very programs that
assist individuals, youth, employers and communities in rural
Canada. Rural residents will be left with no option but to use
electronic communication to access services currently delivered
at the local offices. This will result in further delays and
complications. The loss of revenues will be felt very severely
by the poorest of the poor. Mildly put, this is Robin Hood in
reverse.
Clearly the government did not consider the ramifications of its
decision and the negative impact it would have on hundreds of
rural citizens struggling just to get by. Reallocating
government services and resources from rural areas to more
populated areas threatens the survival of many communities.
I ask the Liberal government to reconsider its position with
regard to its restructuring plans. This is a huge concern to
many rural citizens and ignoring the seriousness of this problem
will prove that the government cares little and consults less.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
accident prevention and highway safety are of daily concern for
all levels of government. Despite the efforts deployed by all
governments, far too many people are still falling victim to
traffic accidents.
There has, however, been some good news, such as that announced
this past Friday by the Minister of Transport in conjunction
with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators
concerning a decrease in road fatalities. They are at their
lowest level in 43 years.
These results are encouraging, and Transport Canada will
continue to work with the provinces in order to make Canada's
roads the safest in the world. This is am ambitious objective,
but it is attainable.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
judges gave conditional sentences—that is, no time in jail—for
the following recent cases: sexual assault, assault, forcible
confinement and threatening bodily harm net a one year
conditional sentence.
A wife stabber received two years for attempted murder. The
attack took place in a courtroom during divorce proceedings. The
sentence shocked people at women's shelters.
A 24 year old was handed a 21 month conditional sentence for
marijuana and cocaine trafficking. He lied at the trial and had
three prior convictions.
A pedophile received six months.
A 51 year old farmer was convicted of three counts of sexual
assault, two of sexual exploitation and one of sexual
interference. The offences occurred over four years.
We have the Liberal government to thank for conditional
sentencing and Liberal appointed judges for issuing the
sentences. So much for justice.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a agreement is an affront to the notion of
equality. It inflicts race based discrimination on the Nisga'a.
It excludes the Gitksan and Gitanyow bands and rejects their
claims to the same resources.
The Nisga'a people have had an opportunity to vote on a deal
which affects the entirety of British Columbia but all other
aboriginals and non-aboriginals have not.
Why will the government not put the Nisga'a deal to a
province-wide referendum in British Columbia?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we intend to put this deal to more than one vote in the
House of Commons and the other place, a vote by elected
representatives of the population of British Columbia and in fact
all of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's idea of democratic government makes a
mockery of the very concept.
It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the
House. It stacks committees and committee hearings. It
disregards results of democratic elections like the Senate
elections in Alberta. It denies free votes to its own members in
the House and it denies votes to other Canadians through
referendums like in the Nisga'a case. How can such a government
possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in
government when it behaves in that way?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are the government because Canadians through our
democratic process decided to elect more Liberal members than any
other party.
Furthermore, the hon. member wants to do something essentially
undemocratic. He wants to do something which he was not asked by
Canadians to do, and that is to be the government.
At the same time we listened to the opposition. It wanted to
have, as did Liberal members, hearings in British Columbia. It
wanted to help choose the witnesses. We readily agreed to that.
We are having debates in the House. We will vote on the results
of those debates, so we are democratic in spite of the efforts of
the opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is that kind of reasoning which led the people of
British Columbia to reject the majority of Liberal candidates in
the last federal election.
Section 3 of the federal Referendum Act allows for “any
question relating to the Constitution of Canada” to be put to
the people.
The Nisga'a agreement, particularly in part 2, refers repeatedly
to the constitution of Canada, in particular constitution
sections 25 and 35. The referendum law is on the books. This
issue pertains to it. The mechanism is there. Why will the
government not simply use that law?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is our position that this agreement does not change
the constitution of Canada. Therefore the hon. member's efforts
to say that the Referendum Act applies are simply mistaken, to
put the best possible colour on the depth of his error.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Nisga'a treaty is not only dividing Canadians. It is
dividing Liberals as well.
B.C. Liberal leaders are opposing this deal. Gordon Campbell
called it “an unacceptable slight to all Canadians”, while his
predecessor, Gordon Gibson, urged MPs to “say no to a separate
government structure for Indians”.
The Liberal government here is determined to ram through the
Nisga'a deal without letting British Columbians have their say.
Why will not the Indian affairs minister just admit that he is
afraid of holding a referendum?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to read a little
referendum that just took place last week in the riding of the
member for Skeena.
There was a race for mayor and, as I understand it, the mayor
was very much in favour of the Nisga'a deal. There were 3,500
votes cast and Mr. Jack Talstra got 2,056 of them, and he is big
supporter of the agreement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they had a referendum in Smithers too and it did not go exactly
the way the minister would like.
When the Indian affairs minister introduced the Nisga'a treaty
bill in the House he said that he would invoke closure if he just
did not happen to like the way the debate was going. Now that is
democracy in action. He also said that he would not use a
referendum because it is just too complicated for the people of
B.C.
Let me ask the minister what part of the bill is a little too
complicated for the folks in B.C. to understand. What would that
be?
1420
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make it very
clear that the government's position is that we take our
responsibility very seriously in the House. That is why we were
elected, to make choices and decisions for Canadians. We will
not take the easy way out by going to referendum every time we
have to make a policy for the people of Canada.
Let me say something else to the hon. member. This particular
party represents less than 9% of Canadians in the polling just
done in the last few weeks. Why is it that we somehow have to
accept what it would like Canadians to do and what it would like
us to do when the other 91% of Canadians say the government's—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an
interview last week, the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development said that the government was getting
ready to impose its own rules on Quebec in the event of a
referendum. Persistent rumours to this effect are appearing in
the newspapers.
Since this is my first opportunity to question the government
about this, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the
government intends to intervene and dictate the rules of the
next referendum to Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously there is absolutely no question of the
government doing any such thing.
On October 21, the Premier of Quebec said as follows “When the
supreme court has ruled on a question of law, we have no choice
but to follow”.
The supreme court has ruled that Quebecers have the right never
to see their membership in Canada questioned, unless they
clearly renounce it. The Government of Canada has always
respected this right.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
his answer, the minister is suggesting that he will intervene,
while saying that he will not. He is suggesting that the
National Assembly is not capable of enforcing the rules of
democracy on its own.
Does he realize that, ultimately, what he wants to do is once
again impose the will of nine provinces and the federal
government on the National Assembly of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the National Assembly has the right to put
whatever question it wishes to Quebecers.
The House of Commons has the responsibility to determine under
what clear circumstances it would take the very serious step of
negotiating the end of its constitutional responsibilities
toward a quarter of the Canadian population by allowing the
break-up of Canada.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government seems to want to set the rules of Quebec's
referendum process and bases its claims on the requirements of
the rules of democracy and on the need for a clear question.
What gives the minister the right to think that the federal
government is more credible than Quebec when it comes to
formulating a question? Is he basing it on the clarity of the
question in the Charlottetown referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Charlottetown referendum question referred to a
signed accord. The accord was complex, and this is one reason
Canadians did not approve it—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —but it was a signed agreement.
The question in 1995 referred to an accord between Quebec and
Canada that had not been signed. A single question contained
two issues: one on independence and one on remarriage with
Canada. That is not a clear question, in the opinion of the
vast majority of Quebecers.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
vast majority of Quebecers are represented by three parties in
the Quebec National Assembly.
Before he imposes a referendum question, is the minister aware
that all the parties represented in the National Assembly oppose
intervention by the federal government on this issue?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are obviously not talking about imposing a question
in a provincial referendum. The Government of Canada and the
House of Commons cannot impose a question in a referendum held
by a provincial government.
1425
There are, however, two things. First, the 1995 question was a
PQ one. The Liberal Party in the National Assembly did not
approve it, and the leader at the time said that the question
was misleading. Second, the Government of Canada will never be
induced into negotiating the break-up of Canada, the end of
Canada for Quebecers, with a misleading question.
* * *
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
elimination of child poverty by the year 2000 was to be Canada's
noble millennium project. Instead, the government opted for a
grab bag of mini projects.
As a result, 1.4 million children are living in poverty today.
Why did the government hijack Canada's millennium project?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question, I would like to remind the House that on Saturday we
celebrated National Child Day. It was an important opportunity
for us to meet with families, with children and with youth to
talk about the issues facing our children and the strategies that
we must implement to ensure they have a great future.
I would also like to remind the House that it was a member of
our caucus, the member for Ottawa Centre, who introduced a
private member's bill for National Child Day. I would like to
thank him for this opportunity.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is still avoiding the topic of child poverty altogether,
just as the government has been avoiding the plight of poor
children.
That is why we have 1.4 million children living in poverty
today. That is the legacy of a Prime Minister who balanced the
books but forgot poor kids. Is the government satisfied with
that legacy?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not at all. In fact, Canadians are
telling us that they want a vision on how we can increase our
support for Canada's children.
In the Speech from the Throne we said we would do it in a number
of ways: through tax strategies, through balancing our
relationship with the provinces, by increasing the income and the
services we provide to our children, by increasing parental
benefits, by looking at our laws and by making sure when we are
dealing with separation and divorce that children's issues come
first.
As an employer the federal government understands the
relationship between the workplace and family and we are making
sure we have family friendly workplaces.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
The war against poverty, begun barely ten years ago, has been
such a total failure that the mayors of major Canadian cities
describe it as a national disaster.
Anti-poverty programs are so confusing that no one can make any
sense of them any more. Is the minister giving thought to a
single program in collaboration with her provincial
counterparts, a single program to assist the disadvantaged,
which might be called a guaranteed minimum income?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of working with the
provinces in support of our children, it is absolutely clear that
it will take a whole country to ensure that we have a bright
future for Canada's children.
We have begun that discussion in that debate. We have the
national child agenda. We are building the national children's
benefit. We are on track to do in the next millennium what we
have been able to do for Canadian seniors.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): There has been talk for six
years now of new programs to inject funds, yet the number of
poor children has risen from one million to one and one-half
million. Food banks are feeding 750,000 persons.
Is this not enough to get the Minister of Finance or the other
ministers to act within the framework of the social union?
Nobody understands the social union. The only way it could be
made understandable would be to make it into a weapon in the
fight against poverty.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is
that indeed it will take all of us to focus on the issues facing
Canada's children and to build a platform of structures that will
help them into the 21st century. He is absolutely right.
In terms of particulars and in terms of taking action, let me
tell the hon. member that as a result of the national child
benefit, for example, by July 2000 families earning $20,000 with
two children will get more than $3,700 per year in assistance.
They can use that money for issues and needs of their children.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of
minutes ago the Indian affairs minister referred to an election
in Terrace. I would like to give him some late breaking news.
1430
On November 20, 1999 a private citizens' referendum on the
Nisga'a treaty was held in Smithers, B.C. Residents from
Hazelton, Moricetown, Telkwa, Houston, Burns Lake and Smithers
all voted in that referendum.
The early indications would suggest that more people voted in
the referendum than voted in the municipal elections. And, guess
what? Ninety-three per cent of the people who voted said no to
the Nisga'a treaty.
Why is the minister consistently ignoring the expressed wishes
of British Columbians?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the
Leader of the Opposition and this member want to talk process. Up
to now, we still do not know what the Reform Party's position is
on aboriginal rights, aboriginal treaties and things of that
nature. I have asked for this for a number of weeks now as we
have had this debate.
There are some people in the country who believe that if the
Reform Party were ever fortunate enough to lead the country that
it would take section 35 out of the constitution.
I want this leader and this member to tell the House and
Canadians what their party will do if they change the
constitution as it relates to aboriginal affairs.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what part of
equality does this minister not understand?
In the face of the referendums that have taken place, private
citizens' referendums in British Columbia, not only in Smithers,
but in Ladner, Vancouver, and Prince George, all of the surveys
that have been done, why is he prepared to ignore the expressed
wishes of British Columbians and ram this Nisga'a treaty through
the House of Commons without giving the people of British
Columbia a chance to vote on it in a referendum?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as it is difficult
to explain to members across the way, let me try one more time.
This particular piece of legislation was debated in 34
communities in British Columbia. The legislature in Victoria had
the longest debate in its history on the Nisga'a treaty.
We are now in the process of debating it in the House, but what
do these members want to do? They want to have a vote in B.C. in
order to get out of telling us what their policy would be on
aboriginal government, on treaties and on the relationship with
other Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Friday, just as her parliamentary secretary was telling the
House that, in the case of the audiovisual production affair,
the RCMP must be allowed to do its job without any interference,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage was saying outside the House
that a major administrative investigation had been launched into
Telefilm Canada and production tax credits, as the Bloc
Quebecois has been demanding since the beginning of this affair.
What finally convinced the minister that we were right and
persuaded her to launch this administrative investigation into
the government departments and agencies concerned?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this investigation was launched the same day I read
about the allegations in the newspapers.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in front of the cameras on Friday, the minister admitted
candidly, and she has just admitted here today, that this
administrative investigation has been under way for some time
now.
This shows that the minister was concealing the truth when
she answered our questions in the House.
In the interests of clarification, will the minister tell us in
plain English when she called for this investigation, and how
long it has been under way?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just answered the question. What I said about
allegations is that the member made many allegations of criminal
fraud in the House.
He has repeated these allegations on at least 10 or 15
occasions. What I told him with respect to his allegations was
that, if he had any information, he should pass it on to the
RCMP. This is still the case.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a ministerial briefing note to the B.C. minister of
agriculture on the impact of the Nisga'a treaty points out that
“there is likely to be significant disruptions to individual
ranchers within close proximity to first nation communities”.
In the South Okanagan there are over 1,000 farms with crown
tenures within 10 kilometres of existing native reserves.
The Nisga'a treaty affects all British Columbians. When will
the government give all British Columbians a vote by holding a
province-wide referendum on the Nisga'a treaty?
1435
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is that not interesting?
This particular issue that the member talked about is only 1,000
kilometres away from where the Nass Valley is. Is it not amazing
that these people are going to start fearmongering?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we will do. The first thing
the Reform Party needs to do is to go back to the riding, take
the Nisga'a treaty itself to an open house and say “Here is the
Nisga'a treaty. Let us read paragraph by paragraph and then
we'll start having discussions on what the treaty really says”
versus this myth treaty that it has been promoting in British
Columbia.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing. That is also
what we did during the Charlottetown accord which turned it from
70% acceptance to 70% rejection. Maybe that is why they are
afraid of this referendum.
Both the minister and the deputy prime minister have stated that
British Columbians have a vote through their members of
parliament. I would like to point out to them that a total of 10
B.C. MPs support the Nisga'a treaty and 24 B.C. Reform MPs,
backed by constituent input from townhall meetings, polls and
scientifically conducted polls, oppose it.
Given that the majority of B.C. MPs are voting against the
treaty, will the government accept that as a rejection of the
treaty as it is currently written, or will it hold a referendum
to confirm—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of Indian affairs.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just got back
from visiting British Columbia on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
One of the things I noticed was that the Reformers tried their
hardest. I have never seen them work so hard. In a huge
metropolitan city like Vancouver, they managed to get a whole 200
people out to say that they were opposed to the Nisga'a deal.
When I was in the labour movement, I could do that with one phone
call and I would get 500 people out. These people cannot get
more than 200 people out in a big city like that. I think that
means that the people in British Columbia and Vancouver support
the Nisga'a deal.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, Michel Vastel, from Quebec City's daily Le Soleil,
reported some disturbing facts regarding the National Parole
Board. Justice Jean-Guy Boilard confirmed that he had
satisfactory evidence of totally unacceptable interference.
Does the solicitor general not think that there is something
wrong with how the parole board operates, with its whole
collection of political appointments and the government's
involvement, and that a serious inquiry is in order to shed
light on this issue?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these allegations appeared in a newspaper
this morning. I have asked the chair of the National Parole
Board to look into the matter and provide me with more
information.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it is contrary to the
ethics code for the Minister for International Trade to be in
regular contact, through his Ottawa and riding offices, with a
parole board commissioner, a Ms. Thériault, as seems to be
confirmed by cellular phone statements obtained by Montreal
police officers?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, these
allegations appeared in the newspaper and I have asked the chair
of the National Parole Board to look into this situation and to
provide me with more information on the allegations.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Charlottetown accord stated that the constitution should be
amended to recognize that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have
the inherent right of self-government within Canada.
For the information of the government, the accord was defeated
in a Canada-wide referendum, including the majority of aboriginal
people who voted. The Nisga'a treaty attempts to do by stealth
what a majority of Canadians have already rejected.
Why is the government doing this? Why will it not give British
Columbians a vote?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member refers to the referendum on
Charlottetown. That referendum under the Referendum Act was
basically a consultation. If there were a similar referendum
held on the Nisga'a matter, it would also be simply a
consultation with the responsibility on the government with
parliament to take ultimate decisions.
If my hon. friend is really asking for something that is not
going to bring about the results he wants. His colleague already
said that there are a lot of informal referenda. Why does he
want to have the expense of another one?
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
consultation? Would that not be a change for this government,
particularly if it involved an x on a ballot?
When political elites like these dreamed up aboriginal
self-government in the Charlottetown accord, it was defeated by a
majority of Canadians, including a majority of grassroots
aboriginals.
1440
The government of the day received a clear message from
Canadians. What has changed since then? Why will the government
not conduct a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty in B.C.?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like
to find out something from the Reform Party members. When they
held their townhall meetings, did they ask the people if they
understood that the charter applies to the Nisga'a people? I
understand they did not. They have been telling the people that
it does not.
Did they tell them that the rights of Nisga'a women are
unprotected? I understand that is what they have been telling
them.
Did they tell them that the treaty provides for taxation without
representation? I understand they have been when in fact that is
not the case.
They keep telling people in British Columbia that the Nisga'a
treaty is part of the Indian Act. In fact, it is not. If they
are not going to tell British Columbians what is really in the
treaty, what is the point of having this debate?
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Valérie
Hould-Marchand has just been cut from the national synchronized
swim team for standing up for her rights.
Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport finally intend to
call for an investigation into this, as I suggested in
September, in order to finally get to the bottom of the problems
raised by Synchro Canada and determine whether they are really
so serious and insurmountable as to justify her exclusion from
the next Olympics?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government of Canada has shown
its willingness to address this very serious matter right from
the start. That is why I initiated a process of mediation right
at the beginning, to be followed by arbitration.
I have spoken with Valérie myself, and she said she did not want
imposed arbitration. I am in the process of thinking over the
possibility of an investigation, but the decision has not been
made, and will not be made until such time as I have spoken to
both parties.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the students of Quebec are still waiting to find out
whether they will be able to take advantage of the millennium
scholarships in the new year.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Can she explain her position in this matter to us, and tell us
whether the students of Quebec will finally be able to take
advantage of the millennium scholarships in January 2000?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib): Mr. Speaker, our position has not changed: students need
to be in a better financial position. And even the students
agree.
To quote the President of the Fédération étudiante universitaire
du Québec, “Mr. Legault's responsibility is to help the students
who are struggling with heavy debt loads, not to promote failure
by hiding behind theoretical debates”.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week, in rejecting a call for a
province-wide referendum on the Nisga'a agreement, the minister
of Indian affairs said that British Columbians have a vote in the
House.
Does that mean that if the majority of members of parliament
from B.C. vote against Bill C-9, the minister will take those
results as an indication of lack of support for the agreement and
withdraw the bill?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful if
the member was not so silly.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I ask you to please not use
inflammatory terms.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad it is very clear to the people
of British Columbia what the Minister of aboriginal affairs
thinks of them.
We also have the Deputy Prime Minister in the House today saying
that a vote in the House would be given to the representatives of
the people of British Columbia.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister respect those votes from the
representatives of the people of British Columbia in indicating
to the government that maybe they should withdraw this bill and
try again?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that the votes would be by the representatives of
the people in British Columbia and all of Canada. Why does the
hon. member want division in the country, a division between
people of European origin and people of first nations origin,
between the people of British Columbia and people in other parts
of the country?
1445
Hon. members of the Reform Party should be ashamed of themselves
for using the House of Commons to sow division rather than unity.
Let us work together for unity for a change.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister has had ample time to review the
Klein proposal which is clearly incompatible with the intent of
the Canada Health Act. In fact, it appears that the health
minister was given a heads up almost four weeks ago by the
Alberta government.
The minister also knows, because he has said so himself, that
the best way to ward off the threat of private for profit health
care is to ensure that we have the highest quality public health
care system. There is clearly a need for that kind of decisive
action and urgent attention.
My question again for the minister is what will he do to ward
off the destructive Alberta initiative and when will he do it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the hon. member shares my conviction that Canadians
support, want and are best served by a system of public health
care in this country.
As I said last week, it is the conviction of this government and
this minister that we should have a strong public health care
system which will guide us in reviewing the Alberta proposal.
Let me also say that this is not to suggest that the status quo
is acceptable because it is not. We all know that there are
problems in the health care system that have to be resolved. We
will examine the proposal against the principles of the public
system.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister pretend to be the defender of
medicare when it is his government that is the architect of its
destruction? This is the government that drastically cut
transfer payments. This is the government that signed a deal
with the Alberta government in 1996 to open up the doors for
private health care delivery.
If the minister is really serious, he would act today by
terminating that arrangement with Alberta. He would promise,
with the help of his colleague the Minister of Finance, to
increase transfer payments. He would take tough decisive action
today. Will he do that, yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member knows, just a few months ago in this very House we
tabled a budget which increased the transfers to the provinces
over the coming five years. It is the single largest investment
the government has ever made, signalling the priority that we put
on health and health care. In the case of Alberta, that will
mean very significant sums this year and for the next four years.
We also said on that occasion that as our balance sheet improves,
we will do more and we intend to.
Funding is part of it, but also making sure that we have quality
care and access to quality care is the priority.
* * *
PESTICIDES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
pesticides act is essentially 30 years old.
During committee the multi-stakeholder group advising the
minister indicated that draft legislation has been essentially
ready for three years. In fact, the executive director of the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Dr. Franklin stated “A new
bill has been drafted. I believe the bill has been ready since
1997. The minister is actively considering the appropriate time
for tabling of the amendments”.
My question is quite simple. Are we going to update a 30 year
act today, tomorrow or ever?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there may have been draft legislation five years ago, but the
advisory committee that is made up of environmentalists, people
from the industry and consumers was only created by this minister
last year.
I asked that advisory committee to look at proposed legislation
to make sure that we got it right. We have to respect
environmental concerns. We have to keep in mind the point of
view of farmers who are competing with Americans who may have
access to materials which they do not. We have to keep mind the
point of view of the industry that is manufacturing products to
bring to the market. All of these—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
year the environment commissioner indicated that Canada and the
Slovak Republic are the only two industrialized countries that do
not measure domestic pesticide consumption. In fact, in Canada
there is no requirement to produce documentation to describe the
potential hazards of pesticides to the environment or human
health.
Once the minister determines the appropriate time for tabling
legislation, if he ever does, will this new legislation require
workplace documentation under the workers safety program, WHMIS,
as health, labour and environmental groups are advocating?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member can be assured that after we have concluded our
discussions with all the people involved, including
environmentalists and others, we will table legislation that will
have as its first purpose to protect public health and to balance
the interests that are involved.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE COMMUNITIES
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification and for the Francophonie.
Quite recently, Senator Jean-Maurice Simard tabled a report on
the development of francophone communities as a basic
responsibility of the Government of Canada. In economic
matters, Mr. Simard cites the department of the secretary of
state as a model of exemplary leadership. Could he explain how
he achieved such results?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the formula
is brilliant in its simplicity.
First, we met with community representatives and got dialogue
started. Second, we jointly identified their economic
development needs and, third, we gave them the tools, mechanisms
and programs that would enable them to take control of their
future. It is as simple as that.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had
the pleasure for the last year and a half to travel the country,
visit many reserves, see third world conditions of squalor, and
to help people with their difficulties. During that time I got to
know a great number of aboriginal people.
Those same people from British Columbia are calling me today and
asking why they cannot as aboriginals in British Columbia have a
say on the Nisga'a agreement. I do not know what to tell them.
Maybe the minister could help me. Should it be (a) Liberals are
dictators and do not believe in referendums, (b) that they are
just ordinary natives and they do not count, or (c) both of the
above?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any first
nation leadership, first nations community, or first nation
person who has written the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development saying that they do not believe in the
aspirations of the Nisga'a people through the treaty.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
the tenth anniversary of the House of Commons resolution to
eliminate child poverty, the Liberal government continues to
rack up surpluses on the backs of pregnant women, depriving them
of important temporary income when they have children.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister realize that, if she really wishes to help
children and combat child poverty, she must act quickly? What
is she waiting for to announce that income replacement benefits
for pregnant women will be increased from 55% to 70%?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at her press conference on November 18, the
member for Québec said that she wanted a balanced approach to
the issue of poverty. That is exactly the approach we are
taking to help low-income families.
I thank the member for her support.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, you will
know that New Democrats are concerned that our medicare system is
under attack, both domestically in view of cutbacks and what is
happening in Alberta, but also internationally in terms of what
may happen at the WTO.
Will the Minister of Health stand in his place today and tell us
that he is making it perfectly clear to the Minister for
International Trade that under no conditions should health care
be on the table at the WTO, that there will be no conditions
under which health services will be regarded as a commodity that
will be permitted to be entered into Canada from anywhere?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Health has
made it absolutely clear and I also made it absolutely clear last
week when I presented our government position for the Seattle
round of negotiations. I will repeat it again since the member
insists. We will not be negotiating our right to legislate or
regulate our health care system. It is a good system and we will
keep it.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general continues to dodge the issue
of CSIS security breaches. He tells Canadians it is a serious
matter, to be patient and wait for a SIRC report.
That is cold comfort when we know that the tensions between CSIS,
SIRC and the RCMP are causing enormous delays.
1455
Director Elcock's stall tactics and the most recent CSIS fiasco
kept the report from SIRC's watchful eye for three weeks. The
infamous telephone booth security breach was not reported to
parliament for three years.
When will the solicitor general show some semblance of
leadership over his department and get rid of the director or at
least suspend him?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee said it best. She said that Canadians should
feel confident with CSIS.
What I will do is ask that my hon. colleague let CSIS do its
job. Let the process that is in place work.
* * *
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
As Canada enters the third millennium, our national culture will
be increasingly exposed to the forces of globalization. What
action is the minister taking to preserve and to protect Canadian
culture?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to first underscore that the approach we are
taking has been embraced both by the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade. We are leading the world in seeking a
new cultural instrument to ensure that culture is not captured in
the aegis of the WTO.
The reason Canada has taken this position and the reason we have
worked very hard to bring together like-minded countries from
around the world is precisely because we are a country that
believes that respect for cultural diversity is part of our
constitutional heritage.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago the minister for aboriginal affairs
said that he had not heard from any aboriginal leaders who object
to the Nisga'a agreement.
At the aboriginal committee hearings recently, Chief Darlene
Vegh, chief of the Gitanyow, testified at the committee. She said
these words: “The Nisga'a final agreement is a supreme
violation of the Gitanyow and Gitksan laws. The Nisga'a final
agreement will force us to defend our land. We believe the
Nisga'a final agreement is an invasion of our birthright to our
homeland”.
What is the minister's response to this aboriginal leader in
B.C. when she says, “We believe the Nisga'a final agreement is
an invasion of our birthright to our homeland”?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand, the
Gitanyow have said in those hearings and in other places that
they support the Nisga'a agreement but their concern is the
overlap and we are working on achieving that certainty right now.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the most
effective ways to improve the plight of the poor is to build
social housing units, because such a measure has a direct impact
on poor families and significantly contributes to their quality
of life.
How can the government claim to want to fight poverty,
considering that, since it took—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Drummond.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: How can the government claim to want to
fight poverty, considering that, since it took office in 1993,
it has not invested one penny in the construction of new social
housing units in Quebec? Is this acceptable behaviour on the
part of a government that claims to care about poverty?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues
to invest close to $2 billion a year in social housing.
For example, through mortgage insurance, we help build 475,000
units every year. We also invested $300 million in RRAP,
which is specifically designed to help rehabilitate
housing units, so as to allow the poor to have a roof over their
heads.
Moreover, since we took office, we have built 13,000 affordable
housing units under the public and private sector partnership
program.
* * *
1500
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
are now just two days away from the 10th anniversary of the
unanimous resolution of the House of Commons to eliminate child
poverty and still we have heard no answers from the government,
not even today.
Canadians are very, very concerned about this issue. I would
like to ask the Minister of Finance what he intends to do now,
not what has happened in the past, to face up to the horrible
reality that as a result of his financial policies child poverty
has increased by 50%. What does he intend to do to correct the
situation and to deal with child poverty in this country?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can do is implore the hon. member
to read and reread the Speech from the Throne in which we set out
very clearly a plan of action in support of Canadian children.
There will be issues that come from the tax system. We will be
doubling parental benefits. We will work with the provinces to
build a platform of income and service supports for children in
low income families. We will be looking at our laws, as I said
earlier, to make sure that children's issues come first in cases
of separation and divorce.
Finally, as an employer, I say again that the federal government
will be looking at its workplaces and will make sure that
families are respected and reflected in our workplaces here.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general, who has
constantly reminded the House that his department has an arm's
length relationship with the RCMP.
Can he advise us why a recent phone inquiry from my office to
the RCMP communications branch was responded to by his political
office staff?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague wanted an answer he
could have informed me of the situation before question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Edip Safder
Gaydali, Minister of State of the Republic of Turkey Responsible
for the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
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.
* * *
1505
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Access to
Information Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have my colleague
from Yorkton—Melville second this bill.
The bill proposes to amend the Access to Information Act.
Basically it would make the books and all the procedures and
operations of the Canadian Wheat Board available to people who
want to process the information two years after the crop year
ends.
People from across western Canada have been crying for this for
years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today. The first is from the area of
Strathmore, Alberta. The petitioners call upon the government to
do something about the Young Offenders Act. There is a list of
things which they are asking the government to do. They feel
that the government has failed to do anything in the last six
years and they want a response.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a petition containing several hundred names of people from
throughout my riding which can be added to the hundreds of
thousands of names we already have calling upon this parliament
to do something about the decision made in British Columbia
regarding child pornography. The petitioners request that the
government invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter of
rights and freedoms to put an end to this silliness.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a 36 page petition which calls the attention of the House to
the following: that one in every five children lives in poverty;
that on November 24, 1989 the House of Commons passed a
resolution on this issue; that since 1989 the number of poor
children has increased by 60%; and that the year 2000 budget be
used to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of
children.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to table today from the people I represent
in Saanich—Gulf Islands and, more importantly, from throughout
British Columbia. This petition adds to the 10,000 signatures
that have already been tabled on this subject. I also note that
in an Angus Reid poll 60% of Canadians called on the government
to change our Immigration Act so as to allow refugees who are not
genuine to be sent home immediately, without delay.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to change the
immigration laws so that people who are obvious abusers of the
system can be sent home without delay.
We have about 11,000 signatures on this subject and I would ask
the government to take note of these people, along with all of
the other people of Canada who are calling for this change.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition I am honoured to present on behalf of the
constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands concerns an issue that
arose last spring.
The petitioners request that parliament refrain from enacting
legislation which would remove references to God or to the
supremacy of God from the Canadian constitution or the charter of
rights.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand in the House today on behalf of a number of
constituents from Edmonton who have asked me to read three
petitions. Two of the petitions deal with children who are
victims of separation and divorce.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to consider the
psychological, social and economic needs of the children. They
state that both parents ought to have ongoing access to the
children in addition to their responsibilities for the welfare of
the children.
1510
MARRIAGE
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents from Edmonton which states that the majority of
Canadians understand the concept of marriage as being only the
voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a
single, that is unmarried, female, and that it is the duty of
parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has been known and
understood in Canada, be preserved and protected. Therefore,
they ask that the House of Commons and all members pass
legislation to that effect.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions to present today.
The first one bears several hundred signatures of residents from
Saskatoon—Humboldt who call upon parliament to enact legislation
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.
ABORTION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition I have, also signed by residents of
Saskatoon—Humboldt, calls upon parliament to bring in
legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Referendum
Act, 1992 which would require a binding national referendum to be
held at the time of the next election to ask voters whether they
are in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary
abortions.
Mr. Speaker, it may interest you to know that I have a private
member's bill which essentially would have the same result.
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition signed by thousands and thousands of people,
possibly tens of thousands, which calls upon the government not
to support a proposal made by the heritage minister to place a
3.5% levy on video distribution. They point out that this would
cost consumers $65 million a year, that the tax would be in
addition to the 7% GST, that it would add between 72% and 200% to
the amount of tax the federal government collects on the rental
of a single video, and that it would increase the cost of renting
a video by between 20 cents and 50 cents.
Considering the number of signatures on the petition, I think
the government should take this very seriously.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from people of the Peterborough area
who are still concerned about the situation in Iraq. They point
out that the people of Iraq have suffered untold hardship and
trauma in the wake of the gulf war and again during the mass
bombings. They point out that sanctions, far from helping to
destroy the repressive government of Saddam Hussein, have
actually strengthened it and destroyed any useful opposition.
The petitioners call upon parliament to strongly appeal to the
United Nations, the U.S. and Britain to reject any further
military action against Iraq and call for a serious attempt at
peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours; that in order to
build a stable and sustainable society in Iraq, excluding an
embargo on military materials, all other sanctions be lifted; and
that Canada take a lead in the reconstruction of Iraq by
providing food, medicine and other supplies for children.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House 254 pages of
signatures from people from the three prairie provinces. What
the petitioners are asking for is related to my private member's
bill which I introduced today, which is that the federal Access
to Information Act should pertain to the Canadian Wheat Board.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition signed by residents of the Grand Bend, Lucan and
Dorchester areas. The petition states that the use of the
additive MMT in Canadian gasoline presents an environmental
problem which affects every man, woman and child in Canada.
The petitioners call upon parliament to set, by the end of this
calendar year, national clean fuel standards for gasoline with
zero MMT and low sulphur content.
TAXATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, as well as
others. It notes that the Constitution Act, 1982 guarantees
freedom of conscience and religion in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. The petition notes that contributing to the
Canadian military through payment of income taxes is regarded by
the petitioners as an infringement of the freedom of conscience
or religion of those citizens who conscientiously object to
participating in any way in the military and associated
activities. Therefore, they call upon parliament to establish
peace tax legislation by passing into law the conscientious
objection act which recognizes the right of conscientious
objectors to not pay for the military, but to apply that portion
of their taxes that was to be used for military purposes toward
peaceful, non-military objectives.
* * *
1515
[Translation]
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 Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 52(2) to seek leave to
propose an emergency debate on Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's
recently declared intentions to challenge the principles of
medicare and the delivery of health care under the Canada Health
Act.
On Tuesday, November 16, Premier Ralph Klein went on the
airwaves and announced his intentions to pursue contracting out
to private for profit forces of in patient hospital services.
Although Alberta has a record of privatization in many areas,
this announcement on November 16 constituted a fundamental shift,
a profound change, a radical departure from Canada's public
health system and the principles of the Canada Health Act.
[Translation]
The action announced last week by Premier Klein is a threat to
the fundamental public nature of Canada's health system.
It is the responsibility of the federal government under the
Canada Health Act to address this threat and to ensure that the
letter and spirit of the law are maintained.
[English]
In presenting my case today for an emergency debate I will state
three points. The first has to do with the urgency surrounding
this issue. I would simply suggest that the sentiments of
Canadians and the comments by the architects of the Canada Health
Act suggest to us that there may be a fundamental violation of
the Canada Health Act. We need parliament to take prompt action.
Second, Canadians are counting on parliament to speak to this
fundamental issue of national identity, a fundamental defining
feature of our Canadian identity. Canadians are looking to us to
address this very serious issue.
My third point has to do with the fact that in the views of
many, Alberta's position actually may be incompatible with the
Canada Health Act.
There is a real need to act immediately, especially given the
fact that we have chapter 11 of NAFTA and the upcoming
negotiations at Seattle around the WTO. At any time any part of
our health care system in any part of the country is opened up
for involvement by a private sector force, particularly an
American private sector force, our entire Canadian system is
opened up to that possibility. It is a very dangerous precedent
setting move which must be addressed on a timely basis.
Members of parliament need the opportunity to speak out on
behalf of their constituents and Canadians everywhere in the face
of this threat to the principles of medicare. This is an area
around which the government has administrative responsibility. I
am talking about an act which was passed in the House in 1984 and
clearly outlined the principles of medicare, of universality, of
accessibility, of comprehensiveness, of portability and of
non-profit administration.
It is also related to the fact that the government may be
responsible for some of the threats to medicare and the fact that
Alberta moved in the first place. I refer simply to the accord
signed by the government in 1996 with Alberta that opened up the
door to private health care. I also refer to the very
significant reduction in transfer payments by the government to
all provincial health care systems.
I think we have a number of important points to make. I think
nothing short of an emergency debate is in order today.
The Speaker: I note the hon. member sent the letter
to me earlier today in both official languages. I also note that
this was her first request for an emergency debate.
That is why I left her a little more room than I usually do in
making her case, but in my opinion it does not meet the criteria
for an emergency debate at this time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
was a few months ago that we had a debate in the House on another
opposition motion from the Reform Party. Reformers were jumping
up and down in the House and demanding that the House of Commons
approve a resolution to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to get
a constitutional ruling on the Nisga'a treaty. Here we are today
with another opposition day motion from the Reform Party. They
are jumping up and down today on what? Now they want a
referendum.
One thing has become very clear in this debate, that the Reform
Party wants anything but negotiation and resolution. It will
look at anything rather than sit down, negotiate and look for
workable solutions such as has happened with the Nisga'a treaty.
That has been its agenda.
We need to be very clear that today's debate on the motion from
the Reform Party has nothing to do with any principle around this
issue. It has to do with a Reform Party agenda to create
division. It wants to seize on this issue because it sees it as
a political gold mine to create fear, uncertainty, bias and
anti-aboriginal sentiment.
Surprise, surprise. It is now lined up with the B.C. Reform
Party, the B.C. Liberal Party, and is on its little campaign with
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Vander Zalm. What a great alliance. Let us
make no mistake that it is really a campaign of political
opportunism to systematically, consciously and deliberately
conduct a campaign of misinformation, fear and opposition to
entitlement of aboriginal rights.
If there were any doubt of that we just had to listen to
question period today to hear the questions from Reform members,
including those by the leader of the party who said that the
Nisga'a treaty was an affront to equality. The Reform leader is
dead wrong. He knows it. Everybody knows that this treaty is
actually about equality. It is about social justice. It is
about restoring rights to aboriginal people.
The motion before us today has nothing to do with democracy. The
referendum just happens to be the flavour of the day that the
Reform Party wants to use. It has nothing to do with democracy.
It is clearly a desperate attempt to derail a 20 year treaty
process that has been negotiated in good faith by the Nisga'a
people, the representatives of the federal government and the
provincial government. It has now resulted in an historic
agreement that is just, that is fair, and that is a perfect fit
with our constitution.
That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of business
leaders. That is the opinion of labour leaders. That is the
opinion of thousands of people and hundreds and hundreds of
groups in British Columbia that have come to the same conclusion.
I attended the aboriginal affairs parliamentary committee
meeting last Friday in Vancouver. I had the honour to hear some
of the witnesses who came before the committee. I heard Mr. Ken
Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; Mr. Jim
Sinclair, president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour;
Angie Schira from the British Columbia Federation of Labour; and
Mr. John Shields, former president of the British Columbia
government employees' union.
1525
They laid out for us was how they as a labour movement had been
very involved in talking to their members, the hundreds of
thousands of members of the labour movement in British Columbia.
They toured the province to get out information, to get feedback
and participated in the advisory committee that existed.
We also heard from some very well known and high profile
business leaders in our province, including the head of B.C.
Hydro, a former Social Credit cabinet minister. We heard from
the chair of Vancouver Board of Trade and from the chair of
Canadian National Railway.
Their message was very simple and very clear. They too had
observed and participated in the process. They wanted to see
this treaty ratified by the House because they understood that it
brought about a certainty, an equality and a real partnership in
the relationship between aboriginal people, between the Nisga'a
people and non-aboriginal people which includes the business
community.
They told that committee very strongly in no uncertain terms
that they wanted to see this treaty go through because they
believed that negotiation and resolution was far preferable to
conflict, litigation, and year after year of court battles,
lawyers, uncertainty and economic chaos. That came from the
business community.
I thought it was a very good hearing, but I have to say that I
was also ashamed to be at that hearing. A bunch of people came
in, apparently with their leader, Mr. Vander Zalm. He sat there
very smugly with a grin on his face as his members hurled out
obscenities and all kinds of insults. They were just a bunch of
yahoos. Their sole agenda was to disrupt a democratic process
and to create fear and uncertainty. Their agenda was the same as
the Reform Party's agenda.
It is important for us to know exactly Mr. Vander Zalm's
position. He is saying publicly that the treaty will perpetuate
the old reservation system of isolated collectives and feudal
overtones. Mr. Vander Zalm, like the B.C. Reform Party, like the
federal Reform Party, is dead wrong. He knows that he is
pedalling information that is a distortion of what is actually
going on.
Even today in the Globe and Mail the chief negotiator for
the federal government has made it clear that the Nisga'a final
agreement brings to an end the application of the Indian Act to
the Nisga'a and to their lands. The Nisga'a will own Nisga'a
lands just as other Canadians hold title to their lands. Through
the final agreement all the individual Nisga'a homeowners will
receive private property rights to their residential lots. We
can clearly see that Mr. Vander Zalm's assertion is dead wrong.
I also note that we heard from Reformers that they wanted a
referendum. It is important to note that when B.C. as a province
joined the Nisga'a treaty negotiations the government of the day
agreed that the province would ratify the treaty in the
legislature. There was never any mention of a referendum being
raised.
By the way, who was the government in 1990? Surprise, surprise,
It was Mr. Vander Zalm's government. It was the Social Credit
government that agreed and set the ground rules for the treaty
negotiation process.
We have heard that only through a referendum will there be
consultation. It has become very clear that a referendum is
being used as a smoke screen and a ploy to derail the treaty.
If we want to look at democratic process, if we want to look at
consultation, we only have to see what happened in British
Columbia and note that this legislation has had the longest
debate of any legislation in the history of the province at 116
hours. There were 450 meetings with advisory groups and the
public. There were 31 public hearings in 27 communities. There
were 20,000 calls to a 1-800 information line and more than
250,000 visits to the provincial aboriginal affairs ministry
website.
Anyone who has taken the time to objectively look at what this
process has unfolded and to look at the information that has been
provided to the public will be very clear that it has been
transparent, democratic and open. There has been real debate on
the issue.
1530
Instead what we see today is a motion from the Reform Party that
is simply frivolous. It is more than frivolous; it is
destructive in its intention to sabotage what has been a very
good model for a process for coming to a treaty. Not that this
treaty will become the template for all other treaties, but the
process of negotiation and resolution is something we should
abide by.
I want to say to the Reform Party, shame on it for using the
guise of a referendum to derail what has been a democratic
process. Shame on it for saying that it stands up for equality,
yet it is here today to deny the Nisga'a people their equality
under the constitution. Shame on the Reform Party for distorting
this treaty and for peddling all of its propaganda out to the
communities so that people now are totally confused.
The truth must be told. It will be told. This treaty will be
ratified.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My apologies to the House for interrupting the question and
comment period of the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party,
but following discussions between the parties I believe if you
were to ask, you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at the expiry of
the time provided for government orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I could not help but hear the absolutely incorrect
comments, and that is putting it kindly, by the member from the
New Democratic Party.
It is true that the Reform Party stands alone in opposing the
Nisga'a treaty. It is not because we are against the Nisga'a
people. It is not because we want to keep the Nisga'a people or
indeed aboriginal people under the hammerlock of separation and
impoverishment that they have been subjected to for more than 100
years. Rather, the Reform Party wants to liberate aboriginal
people and make sure they have the same powers, the same
equalities and the same rights and responsibilities as
non-aboriginal people.
In 1969 the then aboriginal affairs minister who today is our
Prime Minister said very clearly that the aboriginal people stood
at a fork in the road. They could either pursue a course of
separation and marginalization and of being treated differently,
which I might add the Nisga'a treaty epitomizes, or they could
move forward in the ability for them to live by their own
cultural traditions and rights and responsibilities in the
context of being equal with other Canadians.
Does the member from the New Democratic Party agree with the
white paper on aboriginal affairs put forth by our present Prime
Minister in 1969? Does she agree that the rights and
responsibilities that exist under the Nisga'a treaty, the right
to own land and the benefits from the Nisga'a treaty, are accrued
to the aboriginal leadership and not to individual aboriginal
people?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, that is the most
ridiculous thing I have ever heard, that the Reform Party wants
to liberate aboriginal people. I guess talk is pretty cheap.
That is what we just heard from the Reform Party, that it wants
to liberate aboriginal people. Every single action I have seen
in the House, every single example that is used by the Reform
Party when it comes to aboriginal people, has been negative, has
been allegations of what it perceives to be corruption, and has
been divisive. If that is what the Reform Party calls liberation,
I do not want any part of its liberation.
I do not know about the 1969 white paper. I was 16 years old at
the time and I do not know what it said.
1535
But I do know that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated by the
Nisga'a people. If we are talking about liberation, then we have
to understand that the representatives of those people sat down
at the table, negotiated in good faith and came up with an
agreement, while not perfect, is one they could live with. They
did that in good faith. To me that is part of a just and
democratic process and it is a liberation in terms of assertion
of their equality.
I might ask the Reform member why his party's position is so
patronizing to the Nisga'a people to assume what they negotiated
is somehow not right for them? They are the people who did the
negotiating. The member was not at the table. I was not at the
table. It was their representatives and they believe that they
have treaty. To me that is something they are willing to live
with. I think it should be ratified by the House.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member kept using the words “divisive” and
“uncertainty”. She said that our calls for a referendum on the
issue would cause uncertainty and divisiveness.
My question for her is how on earth could a referendum in which
all the citizens could participate and exercise their democratic
will, and after which there would be a clear result, possibly
create uncertainty? Would that not clarify the matter? Would
that not empower the people of British Columbia to determine
their destiny on this?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I believe that it would
be a grievous error to submit this treaty and the issue of
minority rights to a referendum. Who would vote? The Reform
Party is saying that it would be everyone in B.C. Some people
may argue that all Canadians should vote.
I believe that democratic expression and the substance of that
is what is valued. There are times for referendums. There are
times when a referendum can be appropriate. Under our
constitution our governments have the mandate and the
responsibility to negotiate treaties. That is what was done in
this case. That is what has been arrived at and that is what
must be approved.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to the debate today. I have spoken on this issue many
times, have participated in the debate, have examined and
cross-examined witnesses. Having the information before me as a
member of parliament, I really do welcome this debate today.
Primarily, I welcome this debate for very selfish reasons.
This debate will be on the record, further debates will be on
the record and past debates on this issue are on the record.
There has been a lot of reference to what has been said, what has
not been said, who has said what, when and where. I implore
members of parliament and the listening public to see for
themselves. They do not have to take my word for what has been
said. Look in the records. Check Hansard. Look at the
record of the committee. See who said what, where and when.
All one has to do is look at the records to see what has been
said by the members for Prince George—Peace River, Prince
George—Bulkley Valley, Skeena and Calgary Southwest, and by the
Leader of the Official Opposition, have said. They have
repeatedly said in the House that the treaty will lead to a
fishery based on race, that it will take away the rights of
women, that it will affect the constitution of Canada and that it
will somehow change the charter of rights and freedoms so that it
will not apply to this group. Those statements are patently
false.
If anyone wants to listen to the Reform wrecking ball approach
to public policy debate, then they should check the record. The
record stands. The written word is there for anyone in the
country to check.
1540
There have been a number of mistruths said in the House. I want
to make a statement about mistruths. I was thinking about this
earlier while watching the debate. A mistruth is not necessarily
a mistruth if the speaker does not know any different or any
better.
If a member of parliament has not done his or her homework, it
could be said that her or she has been delinquent in his or her
duty as a member of parliament. However, if that member of
parliament has done his or her duty as a member of parliament and
does know the difference and does know how this treaty applies,
and that member stands and deliberately leads the public in a
mistruth, then that member is delinquent in his or her duty as a
member of parliament. There is a dramatic difference.
Let us talk about this treaty as it applies to Canadians and as
it applies to the Nisga'a. Some time ago we entered into a
treaty process in Canada in good faith with all parties coming to
the table. We allowed first nations to sit down with the
provinces and federal government and negotiate the best possible
treaty we could work out.
I support this treaty for very selfish reasons. I support it
because of the things it addresses, the inequalities and
inadequacies of the old Indian Act, which on a good day is a
colonial piece of legislation and on a bad day is definitely a
racist piece of legislation. What this treaty does for the
Nisga'a is it takes them out from under the umbrella of the
Indian Act. It forever takes away the right of the Indian Act to
govern the Nisga'a.
The Nisga'a will govern themselves. They will govern themselves
in a municipal style of government with some rights that are
quasi-provincial and some rights that are quasi-federal. I have
listened to Reform members of parliament talk about how these
changes will have a detrimental effect on the good people of
British Columbia and on the Nisga'a themselves.
All anyone has to do is read the Nisga'a final agreement. It is
not a secret document. It is a public document. It is there for
any and every Canadian who would care to take the time to read
it.
I can certainly attest to the fact that I am one Canadian who
has read the NFA. It takes a little wading through. Starting at
the beginning one asks a lot of questions before getting to the
end. However, there is not one question arising from reading
that document that cannot be answered.
What it takes is someone who can read the document with an open
mind, who can see into the future of the country and can accept
some of the basic rules and laws that we all accept as Canadians.
We would hope that some day those rules, laws and regulations
would be applied to all of us.
The information can be checked off. The Reform Party has stood
repeatedly and said there is something wrong with the process. I
cannot attest as a new member of parliament to everything that
went on in the past regarding the debate of the treaty. I can
attest to what has happened since I have been involved as the
Progressive Conservative Party critic on this issue.
Certainly we all know, and it is a matter of record, that there
was debate in the British Columbia legislature. I have heard two
different numbers; one is 116 hours and the other is 120 hours.
It should be duly placed on the record that debate in this House
on the average for a piece of legislation that is fairly hotly
contested may be eight or ten hours, but more often it will
probably average five or six hours.
We had 116 or, Madam Speaker, if you prefer, 120 hours of debate
in British Columbia and somehow that debate was not adequate. It
was insufficient. It is kind of like the old adage when one is
on a job working. If the first break is not sufficient, thou
shalt have a second break of equal length. That is not quite how
it works.
1545
We had honest debate and fair debate. Everyone who wanted to
speak on this issue had opportunity to speak. The debate
collapsed after 120 hours, as it rightfully should.
The motion today is about referendum, about the fact that the
majority of Canadians should establish laws and should judge laws
for the minority. It is never good, ever in any way, shape or
form, to have the majority continually be in charge and make laws
that apply always to the minority. If we go to referendum that
is exactly what happens.
There has been a referendum. It has gone through democratic
debate in the province of British Columbia. It has gone through
democratic debate and is continuing to go through democratic
debate in the Parliament of Canada.
We have heard many witnesses before committee and we will
continue to hear them. I think some 64 witnesses in total will
appear before committee.
This process has been a very long process and continues to get
longer. As part of that process, there are extremely legitimate
views and opinions that deserve and need to be heard. However,
let us stop for a second and let us take a handful of the
opinions that have been put forth.
One of those ideas and opinions just minutes ago was the fact
that we are not going to have fee simple land management. Quite
honestly, I have spoken about land ownership until I am blue in
the face talking about it. Clearly stated in the NFA is that the
Nisga'a will own their property fee simple. We cannot make it
any plainer than that.
On the day that this treaty is approved some of the lands that
the Nisga'a hold will be fee simple to the Nisga'a government.
Some of the lands will transfer fee simple to individuals. The
rest of the lands that are owned now without any property
ownership system at all can in the future be turned into fee
simple and can be held fee simple by the Nisga'a government the
same as any municipality holds its property fee simple. It is
the same as the province of Nova Scotia where I come from. It
holds its crown based property. To allude to it any differently
is to mislead the public.
We have debunked the myth of secrecy of negotiation. We have
debunked the myth of fee simple land ownership. Let us go back
to referendum. Does B.C. have a right to vote but not the rest
of Canada? Does Canada have a right to vote but not B.C.? Who
decides? Referendums in our constitution are there and can be
used for items that change the constitution. That is another
myth of this treaty. This does not change the Constitution of
Canada. It is affected by the Constitution of Canada and
protected by the Constitution of Canada but it does not change
the Constitution of Canada.
We can say it a million times, but if individuals have their
fingers in their ears they will not hear it. It is important, as
long as we are debating the motion, to talk about the real
issues, the substantive issues, the issues that concern Canadians
and all of those issues which concern Canadians.
1550
I have heard time and time again the official opposition saying
that it is not against the treaty process, that it supports the
treaty process. Well, this is the treaty process. This is the
negotiated process entered into in good faith by three parties
that came up with the negotiated solution. Some people gave up
items during the debate and the negotiations and some people
gained some. It is like any negotiated process, a process of
give and take. At the end of it, we reached the best possible
agreement we could reach to the advantage of all three parties.
That is what we have today with the Nisga'a final agreement. We
have the best possible solution reached by people working in good
faith.
Individual members of parliament may not like that. They may
want to vote against it for some obscure reason that I have not
been able to identify. If that is the case, they have every
right to stand and vote against it, and I support that. However,
they should not stand and vote against it on the basis that we do
not have fee simple land ownership. They should not stand and
vote against it on the basis that the charter of rights and
freedoms does not apply. They should not stand and vote against
it because they say that the Constitution of Canada will not be
effective. Those issues are very clearly laid out in the NFA and
dealt with.
I have heard the numbers 14, 15 and 17 areas where the Nisga'a
will have greater jurisdiction than the province of British
Columbia or the federal government. Let us look at some of those
areas. We are talking about areas of environmental regulations.
We are talking about areas of family and children's services.
This is not a giveaway of unprecedented proportion in Canadian
history.
We have said to the Nisga'a that through negotiation they have
the right to control family and children's services, which would
ordinarily be a provincial right. However, when the members of
parliament rail against that, they forget to mention that it very
clearly states in the agreement that those rights and privileges
have to be as good or exceed existing provincial regulations.
Therefore the Nisga'a cannot be less protective of families and
children than the Province of British Columbia. They can be more
protective if they wish but they cannot be less protective. It
is in the agreement.
I have said time and time again that members should read all of
the Nisga'a final agreement. They should get their
constitutional experts and they should ask for legal opinions.
They should talk to the province of British Columbia. They
should talk to all of them.
I have listened to the Reform debate on this until I am sick of
it. We have an expression at home, and if anyone in the House is
a hunter they will recognize it. When the debate has heated up
and we have chest pounding, hair pulling, arm waving and
squawking, it is like crows on a gut pile. That is exactly what
it is like.
We have to get beyond this. We have to talk about the real
issues in this treaty. There is a very serious question of
overlap. The Gitanyow and the Gitksan are extremely troubled
about overlap. Again, it is dealt with in the Nisga'a final
agreement. It very clearly states within that agreement how the
Nisga'a will deal with overlap. It does not exclude a final
settlement coming down in favour of the Gitksan or the Gitanyow,
but what it does include is that if the the Nisga'a lose
territory because of future land claim settlements, they will be
given compensation of some form, either more land or dollars.
The process is there. It allows for arbitration. It allows for
joint jurisdiction with other bands, the federal government or
the provincial government in some areas. Surely we have reached
a stage in the evolution of the political life of the country and
the provinces and territories that make it up, that we can
embrace this type of legislation.
1555
Surely we have reached the point in the country where we can
look at legislation for what it is worth to the nation and not be
against it for what it is worth for a political party. Those are
entirely the wrong reasons to be against something.
They should take the politics out of this and talk about the
treaty. They should deal with the question of overlap. It is
dealt with in the NFA. They should make recommendations if they
want to make recommendations, but they should not burn the barn
down because they are not happy with the fact that they are not
making a good living. They should not just destroy it. They
should step away from this wrecking ball approach to public
policy debate. They should be constructive by looking at the
issues one at a time and deal with them.
We went to British Columbia on committee and I welcomed the
opportunity to go there. It was an interesting process in B.C. I
have been out there several times so I feel very much at home in
British Columbia. I talked to a lot of people on the street and
a number of shopkeepers. Maybe these non-scientific polls that
were done are a reality, but that was not the opinion I got on
the streets in B.C. It was not even close to the opinion.
Unfortunately, the hearings were marred by some protesters.
Anyone has the right to protest and that is one of the great
things in this nation. However, no one has the right to
interfere with involved, informative and insightful debate.
There are many issues and certainly one is the referendum issue.
Do we in Canada want to establish public policy with a
referendum every time we turn around? Referendums are generally
espoused and advanced by people who have already lost the debate.
They took part in the process and they have lost the debate so
they want one more kick at the can. That is the referendum
mentality.
It is unfortunate that we run out of time in the House. Part of
that, as I understand it, is because the Reform Party and the
Bloc in 1993 really did not do their job as the opposition and
allowed debate to be cut off after six or eight hours.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague
from the South Shore give a rather compelling, thought-provoking
dissertation on this particular treaty, but one thing struck me
very clearly. It seems to me that the Conservative Party, which
is perceived to be a bit right of centre of the political
spectrum, is completely at variance with the loyal opposition.
I was wondering if the member from South Shore could fill me in
on how members in his party could ever believe that they would
ever come together with the Reform Party in some kind of a united
alternative when it disagrees with something as fundamental as
this.
Would the hon. member for South Shore please inform those
members present on all sides of the House why his party's
position is so different from the loyal opposition, and
especially from the position of the member for Wild Rose who
seems to think that the member for South Shore is coming from the
wrong side of the boat on this?
1600
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, sometimes marriage can
be a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be a marriage of
convenience. Sometimes it is arranged. Sometimes it ends in
divorce. Sometimes it never happens. I appreciate the hon.
member's question and I will try to answer it fairly succinctly.
It is difficult as I am trying to think of the proper answer to
it.
I am a Conservative. I have conservative values. I am a fiscal
conservative. That does not mean that when I was born someone
cut out my heart and threw it away. One can be conservative and
still have a heart. If there are inequalities or injustices in
the world one can still stand up for the rights of people who
have no one to protect them. One can still look at legislation
as it exists and judge it one item at a time.
We do not have to agree with everything the government does, and
quite frankly I do not. We need to look at the merits in
legislation and approve or disapprove it on its own merit.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member for South Shore said that the opinion the Reform Party
was expressing was not the opinion he heard on the streets of
British Columbia. I would like to bring his attention to a
couple of facts and some questions which were asked of British
Columbians.
The first question was: “Do you believe the public has had
adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty?”
There were 7,556 people who responded to that question. Of those
88.75% or 6,706 said no.
The second question was: “Do you believe that the people of
B.C. should have the right to vote on the principles of the
Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum?” The number of
responses in total were 7,556. Those who said yes totalled
6,923.
In the few minutes the member for South Shore had to talk to
people other than those on the gerrymandered witness list, I
wonder what percentage he found, how many thousands of people
from British Columbia he talked to, and whether it would add up
to 90% disapproval as I have just pointed out to him.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, as I said at the
beginning the great thing about this debate is that it is on the
record. We can look and see what people have said. We can check
it in 10 years time or we can check it tomorrow. It is all on
the record.
As far as public input in British Columbia is concerned, I want
to ask the hon. member where it stops. At the end of the day
somewhere and somehow there has to be an end to the process. We
might not all agree with that.
There are compelling reasons to have ongoing public debate, and
120 hours is pretty serious public debate in B.C. Numerous
information sessions have been brought to my attention. However,
at the end of those sessions we might have a small minority or a
small majority of people who are not satisfied with the public
debate, are not satisfied with their public officials and want to
throw it out and start over. They want to forget the negotiation
process, forget everything.
That is like Reformers saying they can get rid of the Indian
Act. The Indian Act is protected by the constitution. It is
part of the constitution. They cannot do that. That will not
happen. It is false to insinuate and to lead people down that
trail. They cannot even begin to do it. As far as the people I
have talked to in B.C.—
An hon. member: Two.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are a few more than two. I was
surprised that ordinary men and women on the street were not
pulling their hair and cawing. There was hardly any cawing out
there at all. People were concerned. They had legitimate
questions and they wanted legitimate answers. The trouble is
that they have not been receiving legitimate answers.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have been listening today to the comments and the back
and forth dialogue across the House. Would the hon. member not
admit that what we are establishing within the treaty is a brand
new level of government?
Never before have we had such a level of government created in
Canada.
1605
With that said, is it not possible or is it most likely that
once the treaty is passed there will be 130 or more across Canada
who will want to follow almost the exact wording of this treaty?
The treaty is probably the most socially important piece of
legislation we will face in the next century.
The member should not stand here and tell me that this is a
bunch of nonsense. People from coast to coast want to know where
it will go next. Will the government and this member justify six
or seven treaties going on in my constituency within the next two
years once this one is passed?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent
question. It absolutely is not a bunch of nonsense.
Categorically this is not a bunch of nonsense. This is an
extremely important debate.
We are not setting up some type of brand new government. A
brand new government would imply that the charter of rights and
freedoms does not apply. It would also imply that the
constitution of Canada does not apply. Anything in the country
that is under the constitution and under the charter of rights
and freedoms is acceptable to the laws and the governments of
Canada.
It is very clear. It is not patent foolishness at all. It is a
few uninformed individuals who care not to look at the facts, who
care not to enter upon debate, who want to call down, call names
and wave placards every time somebody else has a different
opinion. I am frankly tired of it. I am not exhausted but I am
tired.
It makes one want to fight that much harder. It get one's blood
up. There are issues here we need to discuss. I am willing to
stand here as long as the Reform Party of Canada cares to enter
into this debate and debate it.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
commend the hon. member on his speech. Three-quarters of it was
directed at the Reform Party. I thank him for that. I am glad
he recognizes us.
The NDP people have done the same in their speeches. They talk
about the Reform more than they do about the Nisga'a. I thank
them very much for recognizing the Reform. The Liberals are just
renowned for that, especially the member for Mississauga West who
cannot wait to get up and say something about the Wild Rose guy.
Then there is the Bloc party from Quebec that constantly likes to
try to conform.
It is wonderful to be the official opposition in a House where
nobody likes us. That is good. In 10 short years we got here
and the reason we are here is the undemocratic processes that
have been taking place for 130 years in the House. The nation
was brought to its knees with a $600 billion debt by the party at
that end and that party over there. They are just like brother
and sister. Why do they not unite?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I will leave the uniting
of brothers and sisters to the Reform Party any day.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for
South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
In a way as House leader I have witnessed a lot of things on
process in the House. I will talk about the process but I find
it sad the way some of these parties are going on about this
important Nisga'a debate. I will talk a bit about what it is to
be opposition in the House of Commons and about what it takes to
stand up and have a little courage in one's convictions.
The process of debate in the House on this whole issue was not
only shortened by time allocation after four and a half hours of
our debate time. The total time was around eight hours, but of
course the other parties that are supposed to be in opposition
here agree with the issue.
1610
That may not seem much to the government but it is to the people
we represent. The issue has come up in question period time and
time again. Government references the official opposition by
saying that all members from British Columbia should speak to the
issue as they know what they are talking about. It happens that
a majority of them are in this caucus and should have had full
opportunity to speak to this issue rather than have debate cut.
After the government eliminates debate time through time
allocation we go into committee. The committee on aboriginal
affairs did not want to go to British Columbia, so as House
leader I basically said that we would not travel in any committee
then, that all committees had to come through the House for
approval to travel and we would oppose them all. That encouraged
the government to travel to British Columbia. That is the only
reason it ended up going to British Columbia. Otherwise it was
not going.
We said then we wanted to go to a number of communities in
British Columbia. No, it did not want to go where the Nisga'a
agreement was opposed. After hours of debate we finally got it
to go to Victoria, Vancouver, Terrace, Prince Rupert and
Smithers. It did not want to go to Smithers because of the
opposition that it knew it would hear. It did not want to go to
Kamloops so we sawed it off and went to Prince George.
I was sitting in my office and members of the aboriginal affairs
committee came in and said that a list of 62 names, all in favour
of the Nisga'a agreement, were tabled in that committee. They
were voting to bring those names forward as they travel
throughout British Columbia to support the Nisga'a agreement. We
went back into committee and said there should be better
representation, pro and con. That seemed reasonable.
What happened? A small minority of individuals were opposed to
it and a vast majority were in favour of it. The vast majority
of people in favour of the agreement got to fly to British
Columbia at government expense to make presentation as witnesses.
Some of them were not even from British Columbia. A minority of
people who were opposed were allowed to speak.
We could ask what is the point of going to British Columbia and
what is the point of even having witnesses at a committee. Under
those circumstances there is not any point, but what the
government and people in the country do not understand is that
this happens frequently with all committees such as the
agriculture committee and the finance committee. All the
witnesses are voted on by a majority of government members.
People think committees are travelling around the country getting
input. The whole thing is staged. By and large the environment
committee and all these committees are just staged events by
government. That is the problem.
Since we have seen this with the Nisga'a agreement we are now
about to change the rules on how committees work because I will
no longer put up with this charade. Committees will not travel
if that is the way it is to be. We will have to see about
debating committee travel in the House if and when they want to
travel. That is fine with me. I would sooner have it that way
anyway.
They would not allow television. No television cameras could go
into the committee meeting because they said the rules were not
set up ahead of time. A committee is master of its own destiny
and choices. They could have changed it right there but they did
not want to allow it.
They are right. This is probably the end of this debate because
the government has a majority and can outvote us any time it
wants, particularly when there are opposition parties that are
more Liberal than on the right side of politics.
What will we do? We will have a referendum next, an opportunity
to give people input in British Columbia. They have told us time
and time again they want it. The NDP government in British
Columbia would not allow it, even though the opposition parties
and the majority of people in British Columbia wanted it.
Tomorrow night there will be a vote in the House.
All the Liberals will stand and say “no referendum”.
1615
Why not give the people their say through a referendum? The NDP
will stand and vote against the referendum. I do not know where
the Bloc stands on a referendum. The Progressive Conservatives,
the people who brought referendum legislation into the House of
Commons, will not even agree to a referendum.
I ask myself, what does it take to be in opposition in this
country when we have a bill such as this which has such
ramifications and about which there are many questions?
I have a question about the perpetuity of the financing, the
more than $30 million a year for the rest of our lives, our
children's lives, and our children's children's lives. I have a
question about that. I thought the permanent financing would
come to an end at some point.
Why should I not have the right to debate? Why should the
people in my community not have the right to ask the question:
What is $32 million in perpetuity? How much is that in tax? If
this is only one agreement and it is the template for all other
agreements and they are all going to have money in perpetuity,
should we not ask the questions now instead of later? I did not
think there would be benefits in perpetuity, so why can I not
have the right to ask the questions?
If anybody in opposition has these questions, do they not have
the right to ask them without the slanderous and ridiculous
comments of New Democrats, the socialists in the House, and
without the comments of the PCs, as few as they are in the House?
What is wrong with asking questions in the House of Commons? Why
is it that these opposition parties will not even oppose or ask
serious questions about these kinds of issues? It is because
they are too damn busy calling those who are asking articulate
questions racists and bigots. That is their problem. They are
afraid that if they stand to ask questions about this they will
be labelled by that sort of talk.
I thought we were past that in this day and age. What is wrong
with the House of Commons that we have got down to the lowest,
dirt level talk, this gutter talk? There is something wrong when
members cannot stand to debate an issue, no matter what the
issue, without these people trying to make political brownie
points by slandering others. It is terrible.
If that is the kind of opposition that people watching this and
listening to me today want, those comments which are nothing more
than slanderous rhetorical statements, rather than getting down
to the real problems that exist in legislation, then we are in
serious trouble. This government will be perpetuated along with
those who support it.
I am here as an opposition member. I am damn well here to ask
questions and I am going to stay here to ask questions. I am not
here to side with these people. I am here on behalf of many
Canadians to ask questions; logical questions I hope.
Finally, there is one other thing I want to say concerning all
of the questions on the Nisga'a agreement. Why is it that when
the issue of public schooling and the Catholic school system in
Newfoundland came up and there was a referendum in Newfoundland
nobody had a problem with that? That was the proper thing to do.
The referendum was held, it was brought back to the House and we
debated it. No one was then saying that this is an important
issue, but we have to push it through because there is a
referendum. In fact, the government wanted a debate on it. It
did not call time allocation.
One has to wonder what this is all about on all sides of those
supporting the Nisga'a agreement, whether it is just rhetorical
politics they are talking about or really trying to get in depth
on legislation.
[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
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Agriculture; the hon member for
Vancouver East, Poverty; the hon. member for Davenport, Foreign
Affairs.
1620
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, the
statement that was made about political brownie points was made
by the master of political brownie points. There is no lesson to
be taken there. There is a lesson given and a lesson received.
Concerning the referendum for religious schools in Newfoundland,
I am not absolutely positive, but I believe there was a
referendum on that issue because the constitution of Canada had
to be changed. That is why there was a referendum.
Mr. Randy White: So? I need one of these lessons from
one of these petty politicians from Joe what's his name and the
other fellows down there?
There was a referendum in Newfoundland. The members should try
to understand that there was a social responsibility. There was
an issue that was important to Newfoundlanders and the process
was the right process.
I am sure it was wise on behalf of Premier Tobin to hold a
referendum. Whether it was entrenched in any agreement, it was
the proper thing to do.
The member does not really seem to understand what he is talking
about. I was saying that it is the right thing to do in British
Columbia, much as it was the right thing to do in Newfoundland,
regardless of whether the process is documented in legislation.
Surely members on the other side can understand that.
If a referendum was permitted to be in the process in British
Columbia, then the people would either say yea or nay and they
would confirm either way for those who are attempting to get the
agreement in place.
There are overlapping land claims comprising well over 100% of
British Columbia's lands. This is the template. It is not just
about Nisga'a and the Nass Valley, it is about my community of
Abbotsford and Langley. It is about all of the communities of
the people who live in British Columbia. If the first agreement
is going to be the template, then why are all the people in
British Columbia denied a say in the template? That is what this
is about.
I know that Ottawa is a long distance from British Columbia. We
have known that for years. The mentality in this place is that
we live in the boonies. What we are saying to the House is that
we deserve a say. All of our communities deserve a say, not just
one isolated area.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I would like to enlarge
upon the Newfoundland referendum a bit. The member is talking
about these overlays and templates and he is trying to put them
on every public policy issue there is.
There was a majority of Newfoundlanders who had religious goals,
whether those goals happened to be Catholic or Protestant, who
needed the vote on that very important and fundamental issue to
Newfoundland. It was not the majority trying to decide something
for a minority right, it was the majority deciding for the
majority.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, we can spin it any way we
want. The fact of the matter is that the people of British
Columbia are asking the House to respect their wishes and hold a
referendum. That is what they are asking. These kinds of
arguments put forward by someone who obviously has not even read
the agreement, much less knows much about what I am talking, is
kind of sad. We in British Columbia are asking for a democratic
right we believe we should have. All we are doing is asking the
government to respect that in the vote tomorrow night.
1625
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, for the people who are watching the
debate, I think it is appropriate that I read the motion so it
can be clearly understood. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should
conduct a province wide referendum in British Columbia on the
Nisga'a Final Agreement prior to the consideration of any further
stages of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final
Agreement.
I do not think that is too much to ask, as my eloquent colleague
has stated. A referendum is the desire of the people of British
Columbia because of the social implications and the long term
implications that this Nisga'a agreement will have on the
province of British Columbia and all of the people who live in
the province of British Columbia, native and non-native.
British Columbians are concerned. They are concerned about the
long term financial commitment. They are concerned about the
responsibilities. They are concerned about the template. There
are 50-plus agreements yet to be settled. They claim over 100%
of the territory of the province of British Columbia. Of course
the people of British Columbia are concerned that all of the
issues need to be be clearly understood.
It is very clear to me from comments made by hon. colleagues
from around the country that there is not a clear understanding
of what are the implications of the Nisga'a agreement for the
people of British Columbia. There are people who support it and
there are people who do not support it. All the people of
British Columbia are asking is that they be allowed to express
their position on this agreement.
During the negotiations that took place over a period of about
10 years the people of British Columbia were excluded because the
negotiations were held behind closed doors. There was not an
opportunity for the citizens of British Columbia to take part in
the process.
When the agreement in principle was made public a couple of
years ago, the people of British Columbia asked to take part in
that discussion. They asked that there be a referendum. They
asked that there be a public consultation process. That was
denied them. It was a very controlled exercise in government
manipulation, both from a provincial level and from a federal
level, manipulating an agreement through the system without being
held accountable to the people of British Columbia.
It is not just non-natives who are concerned. There are a lot
of natives within the Nisga'a community, the Gitksan and other
communities who are concerned because of the way the agreement is
written.
All that we have asked is for the government to lay open the
agreement to the people of British Columbia and let them respond.
It is interesting that the government in turn tries to tell the
House and Canadians who are listening that it is the Reform Party
which wants this. Let me assure the House that it is not the
Reform Party, it is the people of British Columbia.
Months ago, before the heat of the Musqueam issue and the other
issues came up, such as the Marshall decision, I asked them
about the Nisga'a agreement and how they wanted it to be handled.
I asked if they wanted to have a provincial referendum and
78.66% said yes.
Since other issues have surfaced and this debate has drawn more
public attention, an official poll was taken. It was a
recognized poll done through the proper means, not a householder
poll. Some people would like to say that my householder polls
are not legal or official.
I noticed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sitting here a
minute ago. In his riding this poll showed that 92.21% of the
people opposed the Nisga'a treaty. It will be interesting to see
if he is going to respect his job to represent the people who
elected him to sit in this House and show his opposition, or if
he will do as he is told and support the government.
1630
When we have tried to address this issue with the minister of
aboriginal affairs, his responses have been, at the most, in
contempt of the people of British Columbia. When I asked him
whether a majority of members from British Columbia showing that
they did not support the government would be an indication to him
that the people of British Columbia, who we represent, did not
support the government on this issue, and would he recognize that
and withdraw the bill, he made some derogatory comment, which
seems to be his normal course.
This is the same man who after the supreme court Marshall
decision announced to the country that it applied to logging,
minerals and offshore oil and gas reserve. When the supreme
court subsequently announced that its decision did not apply to
any commodity other than the eel fishery, it said that it would
have been nice if people had actually read its judgment before
making all sorts of pronouncements about its implication. We
would have thought that the minister would have been one of those
persons who would have read the court's decision to clearly
understand it, or at least have had somebody else read it to him
if he was not capable of reading it himself.
It is this kind of contempt that the government has shown to the
people of British Columbia, who are asking for nothing more or
nothing less than the people of Newfoundland when it asked for a
referendum on Term 17, a very serious issue that challenged their
social structure and would have changed the way they lived with
each other.
The people of British Columbia understand the ramification that
this agreement will have on them in years to come. All we are
asking is for British Columbians to have the opportunity to go to
the polls and mark an X as to whether or not they can support the
government's position. All they are asking for is to exercise
their democratic right to involve themselves in the governance of
our country.
It is very clear from the attitude and actions of the government
that it does not respect democracy. It does not respect the will
of the people. It does not think Canadians have any right to
participate in the debate and in the decisions that are made on
their behalf.
We hear ministers and government officials saying that they are
in the House of Commons to represent them. We then hear that
they do not recognize that representation. Even though the
majority of the members of parliament from British Columbia will
not support the Nisga'a agreement and the government, it will
merrily win support with the majority that it holds from Ontario.
The 101-plus members on the government side will make a decision
for the people of British Columbia whether they like it or not.
It is interesting how some things never change in the country.
It expresses the need for government members and all
parliamentarians to really look inside themselves as to why they
are here. If they are only here to support a position by a
leader or by a dogma, and if they are not here to represent the
people who elected them to be their voice in the House of
Commons, then they should look inside themselves to see if they
really belong here. We are in this place to represent the people
who do not have the ability to speak out and who are now being
denied the ability to even make a decision and vote on the
Nisga'a agreement. They send us to speak on their behalf.
It upsets the people in the House that we speak on behalf of our
constituents or that we challenge the sections in this agreement
that are not right and are not clear. They do not seem to accept
the fact that we want accountability in the spending of
taxpayers' dollars.
I cannot be here in this place except to give my commitment to
the people I represent to speak on their behalf and to make sure
their voices are heard in this debate.
1635
I ask the other members in the House to look beyond their party
line and to consider what the people of British Columbia are
asking for, which is the chance to place their voice in this
discussion.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, when the hon. member was talking about people not
feeling represented, I spent a week listening to the very people
who were most affected, the Nisga'a people. They said that they
had not spoken to their particular member since 1993. As an
aboriginal person, I felt that I had to represent people who were
not being represented by their own member of parliament.
Over the week that I was in British Columbia, I also heard very
many different views presented to us. I do not think anyone of
them completely said what they wanted the referendum question to
be. I heard many different views of what they thought the
referendum question should be.
Who does the hon. member think should write the question and
what should the question be in the referendum?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I think it is quite
clear that the government of the day would probably write the
question. It seems to want to write all the referendum questions
that are being posed in the country.
I think the question can be very clear. It can be “Do you
support the Nisga'a agreement?” If the government feels that
the people of British Columbia do not know enough about it,
perhaps it should look at itself. It is the one that denied
British Columbians from being involved in the process.
When an agreement of this nature was being negotiated, the
governments of the day, both governments—because I hold the
Government of British Columbia equally responsible—should have
understood from the very beginning that if they wanted it
accepted by the people of British Columbia they had to include
the people of British Columbia in the negotiations so that there
would be an acceptance level there. They failed to do that. If
they had done their job properly, the acceptance of the
negotiations would probably be there.
It was because of the exclusion of the public in the debate and
in the negotiations and of having those negotiations behind
closed doors that the uncertainty is there whether they like it
or not. The Government of British Columbia and the federal
government have to share the responsibility for that situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had
the opportunity to take part in two of the five days of
consultation in British Columbia last week. I noted a lot of
individuals and groups, including native groups, supported the
agreement.
Some aboriginal nations were concerned about issues of overlap.
These concerns will no doubt have to be taken into
consideration.
What distresses me a lot in the position of the Reform Party is
what my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, tried to get this
House to understand.
They seem to want, for totally inappropriate reasons, to involve
all British Columbians in a referendum the federal government
would organize, whereas the provincial government, which
represents all of the people of the province, has said and
considered that this was not appropriate.
I therefore ask my colleague from the Reform Party why the
federal government should meddle in the affairs of British
Columbia, impose a referendum and impose a question, when the
B.C. government itself does not want to organize such a public
consultation?
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I thought I had made it
clear that the Government of British Columbia has to assume some
of the responsibility. It has denied the people of B.C. a vote.
It is not the federal government that would be imposing a
referendum.
It is the people of British Columbia who are asking for it to be
held. They have asked it of the provincial government which has
turned its back on the people of the province. The people of the
province ask whomever.
1640
If the province of British Columbia will change its mind and
allow a referendum, then so be it. However, if the provincial
government still refuses, then the people of British Columbia are
asking the federal government to step in and hold a referendum.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
One of the things I find most interesting about the debate is
that no one seems prepared to deal with the issues. All we hear
is people demanding a referendum.
Ms. Val Meredith: That's the most important thing.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, that may be the issue to the
members opposite, but why can we not hear from just one member in
this place what they object to.
Ms. Val Meredith: Because you cut the debate short.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: We did not cut the debate. Quite the
contrary. I will give some examples.
There have been over 500 public meetings. Someone said that
this was behind closed doors and in secret. There have been over
500 public meetings on this issue alone. There have been in
excess of 120 hours of debate in the provincial legislature in
Victoria.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Closure there, too.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand the role of opposition. I
spent five years in opposition in the province of Ontario and I
can say what the role is not. It is not to create gridlock in
spite of a clear democratic decision that has been taken through
more consultation than any other issue I can think of since I was
elected to this place.
There have been 500 meetings and 120 hours of debate. There has
been debate in this place. This is at least the second of third
time I have had an opportunity to talk about this issue.
They take the approach that because they are not getting their
own way they will stamp their feet and throw a temper tantrum. I
heard the House leader for the opposition, who was trying to
pretend he was being calm, cool and rational about this, say that
perhaps committees will not travel. Who does he think he is?
Should the Canadian people be told that because one party in
this place out of five does not agree with the democratically
arrived at solution that they can no longer talk to committees
and that the finance committee cannot travel? If we want to talk
about lack of democracy, that kind of attempted sabotage to the
system that the Canadian people have a right to enjoy is totally
undemocratic.
What bothered me in the beginning, aside from the tactics, is
that I have not heard anyone talking about the issues. Someone
over here said that this was about a new form of government and
then someone else said that it was not. I think it is. It is
called self-government for our native communities.
I think the real question here to anybody who opposes this—and
I have no problem with people taking opposing positions—is for
them to just tell us why. We want them to tell us what it is
that bothers them so that maybe we can debate it. It is a very
simple question. Either one is for self-government or opposed to
self-government. Yes, it is a new form of government, perhaps a
form of government that is so long overdue in the country that it
epitomizes why we have all the problems we do have on our
reserves.
I recall a debate, and my hon. friend from Nunavut will remember
it well, where instead of creating the new territory of Nunavut,
the solution was just to give everybody up there a million bucks
or something. I think that is what they said.
Mr. Vander Zalm, reborn as the leader of the provincial Reform
Party in British Columbia, a man who had to resign in disgrace,
is now being the champion. His solution to the Nisga'a treaty is
to tear it up and give them all $250,000. Is that not just
incredible?
1645
The paternalistic attitude. They do not say to the Nisga'a
people “We understand that for 100 years you have tried to
negotiate with Victoria. You have tried to negotiate with
Ottawa. We understand the problem out in the community that is
false. We are going to deal with the facts”. I have not heard
the facts debated.
Do they object to the Nisga'a receiving title to the 2,000
hectares of land? Is that the problem? Say so if it is. I
think Canadians would like to see somebody with the courage to
stand up. It might be something different than courage but I
will not go there. They would like to see them stand up and argue
that the Nisga'a people are not entitled to that land.
I go back to the newest Reform champion, Mr. Vander Zalm, who
has criticized the agreement for perpetuating the old reserve
system with no private ownership of land. They want to have a
referendum but people in the community like Bill Vander Zalm and
others are perpetuating untruths.
Of course there is private ownership of land. The Nisga'a
people will be able to register the ownership of their family
homes and lots in the British Columbia land system. There it is
exactly, fee simple.
Why would people come out and say that there is no private
ownership of land? Of the rest of the land that will belong to
the entire Nisga'a community, they will be able to divide and
sell land for commercial and other purposes. Is that not
amazing? What a right in Canada. They can actually sell their
land. They can actually have it registered in their name, that
it belongs to their families, that they can give it to their
children. The Nisga'a treaty gives these people an opportunity
to perpetuate the history of their nation. It is one of our
first nations.
Is that what the opposition objects to? Is it that it would
like not to recognize the first nations? I do not know. I have
some quotes that members might be surprised to hear.
I am surprised at this one because I consider this individual to
be a fairly moderate and very intelligent member of the
opposition party, the MP for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He said
the following in Hansard on June 3, 1999, not very long
ago: “We have created an institutionalized welfare state for
aboriginal people by giving them things”.
What does he mean by that? Giving them their rights? Giving
them the rights that their people have fought for and negotiated
and saying that we are actually going to give them an opportunity
through this treaty for economic growth? They can have certain
rights over hunting, forestry, fishing, ecotourism and
opportunities to grow their community and create jobs for their
kids. Is this giving them things? That is such a condescending
remark for a member of parliament to make about something as
important as that.
This quote is from the member for Athabasca and was in the news
in 1995: “The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and
opened it up and settled it and because we didn't kill the
Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer
these people. If they weren't in fact conquered, then why did
the aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little
reserves”. Goodness gracious, it makes my blood boil. It makes
my hair stand up on the back of my neck to hear a Canadian
parliamentarian stand up in this place and talk about not killing
the Indians but conquering them.
Surely to God history has taught us the wrongs. The way we have
treated our aboriginal communities is not something we should be
proud of as Canadians. It is not something about which any of us
should stand here and say that we did the right thing. We have an
opportunity here to right some wrongs.
One of the most important signals this treaty sends is that
within the next 10 years, everybody involved in the Nisga'a
community will become a taxpayer. The tax exempt status will be
gone.
That is outstanding in my view. Canadians right across the land
need to know that because it is a first. Why not stand here and
celebrate it?
1650
I would have a great deal more respect for any members of the
opposition who would stand up and tell us the truth about why it
is they oppose this instead of pontificating on an absolutely
phoney issue such as a referendum.
This is a good deal for all Canadians and it is a good deal for
the Nisga'a people.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the member who just spoke talked about opposition from a
provincial party to this treaty. He should know that the B.C.
Liberals oppose this treaty. I would like to ask the member, why
does he suppose that might be?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I would question the
definition of Liberal in British Columbia. Having said that, I
have a lot of friends, people I have known over the years in that
party. In fact my former executive assistant when I was on the
city of Mississauga council is now an executive assistant to the
leader. I am a bit in touch with that party. Frankly I do not
agree with its position.
We do not get up every day, contrary to what the opposition
might try to paint, and say, “I am a Liberal and I am going to
do this by rote”. We have to have some people who think and
disagree. We have it in our own caucus, contrary to the opinions
of members opposite.
I guess Mr. Campbell is the leader of the opposition and has to
fight the Government of British Columbia any way he can. If the
only reason for opposing is to oppose, then I do not think that
is effective opposition. Tell us what the problems are with this
treaty instead of hiding behind the falsehood of a referendum.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member said, “I am a Liberal and I don't do
things by rote”. Who on the other side of the House voted
against this treaty when some 90% of the people in British
Columbia are opposed?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, this is the difference.
I gave some of the quotes. Unless the Reformers are prepared to
stand up and denounce Bill Vander Zalm as being inaccurate or not
portraying the truth in this matter, when we look at some of the
things that he says, he is not putting it in a truthful way. He
pretends that it is a $487 million payout plus 2,000 square
kilometres of land when the truth is that it is half and half.
It is $487 million including the 2,000 square kilometres of land.
Something can be twisted around.
I say to Mr. Vander Zalm, I say it to the members of the Reform
Party here, and more important, I say it to Canadians, look at
the truth of this agreement. It is absolutely unprecedented. It
is fair. It gives the Nisga'a people a chance to build on their
heritage and to create something for their families in the
future.
We are not hearing the facts put out by these—
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member did not hear my question. He said that the
Liberals do not vote by rote.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
debate. The hon. member for Mississauga West may wish to
conclude.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I would conclude by
saying that there is a difference between voting with all of the
facts on the table and voting while trying to skewer the reality
of what is in the treaty. Just be honest, tell the people the
truth and in my view they will support this.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I watched the opposition leader, the member for Calgary
Southwest as he gave his speech on this issue.
He said that the provincial Liberals are against this deal. Then
he rhymed off the names of all the federal Liberals. He said
that the people of B.C. will be watching how these federal
Liberals vote tomorrow night. That is what he said.
1655
What was going on there? Was the
member for Calgary Southwest really worried about the justice of
this treaty, the propriety of this treaty, or was he trying to
gain seats for the Reform Party in the next federal election? It
is just Reform politics. It is not an honest debate whatsoever.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.
Clearly the Reform members have a hidden agenda. Instead of
putting the issues out on the table and telling us what they
believe in and what they stand for, they filibuster. There is a
lot of hot air. There is nothing of substance in their debate. I
say tragically so, because they have an obligation as members of
an opposition party to put the issues on the table and to have a
debate of substance. It is unfortunate that they have not got a
clue how to do that.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to stand here today
having come back from the aboriginal hearings in British
Columbia.
We travelled extensively throughout British Columbia, to
Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Victoria and Vancouver in
inclement weather and in awfully poor landing conditions on a
small aircraft which we renamed. We will not go into that
because First Air is a very nice airline but hon. members can
figure out what we renamed it. We celebrated when we were
actually able to land in Terrace. As beautiful as it is, it is
very hard to get into at this time of year.
I want to talk about what happened there. The Reform Party went
out to try to whip up a crowd of protesters to show us that this
treaty process was terrible and that they want to go back to the
Indian Act.
I talked to some people on the streets of Prince George. They
had no idea what was going on, other than that finally we were
giving back the land to the natives which we had away from them.
They asked who had decided the Queen owned it. It was native
land. It always has been and it always will be.
It is different to go out there and be spat on and to hear
someone say to one of my colleagues from Nunavut “Go back to
your reserve”. It is sad, sad, sad that the Reform Party would
stoop that low.
Then some guy at a radio station in Vancouver was giving out the
room numbers of the members so people could call their rooms and
threaten them. My first call of the morning which I thought was
a wake-up call was a lunatic saying that if I showed up at the
meetings I would be dead meat. Was it not great for members of
the Parliament of Canada to be told to go back to the reserve, to
be told one would be dead meat and to be spat upon? I found
these kind of tactics to be absolutely disgusting. There was even
a lower one than that, but I will not talk about it because I do
not think the Reform Party wants to hear about it. There was a
lower one and I will keep that in my back pocket for another
time.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is the hon. member accusing a member of the Reform Party
of making these phone calls? That member should
be named.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would like to tell
the member for Souris—Moose Mountain at this point that maybe
the hon. member will just wait for questions and comments and at
that time he can ask the question.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, I know that was not a
point of order, it was a point of debate.
The fact of the matter is I said that it was Reform Party
supporters who came out. One lady who came to me said she was a
Reform Party supporter.
She was asked by a member of the Reform Party to come out and
demonstrate and disrupt the meetings as much as she could.
1700
When I gave over my time to the member for Prince George so that
he was able to speak, he thanked me and said I was a gentleman.
He did not think he would have enough time to express the views
of his constituents. I did not go out there with anything evil
on my mind or any hidden agenda. I went out there to hear
evidence.
Let me quote the evidence I heard from the B.C. Federation of
Labour. It said that provincial leader Gordon Campbell was
against a referendum last summer when he said the people of the
lower mainland should not be determining the future of the people
of the Nass Valley. Suddenly he is now in favour of a referendum
because he is a Liberal-Reformer. There is a whole pile of
people who are just a bit to the right of Attilla the Hun and
nobody playing left wing. If one is a hockey player it would be
a great place to be a left winger. Vander Zalm and he are in a
leadership race for votes. It would appear as though they swim
out of a very shallow gene pool when they are vying for votes on
the right wing.
The B.C. Federation of Labour also said that it was especially
important for the labour movement to discuss the Nisga'a
agreement everywhere it could since David Black who publishes 60
community newspapers in B.C. had given instructions to his
editors to publish only editorials opposing the settlement. Is
that freedom of the press?
Then we have the other Black. If one is a Reformer I guess two
Blacks make a right. The press is skewered, narrow and biased. I
challenged the press. I said I would be more than happy to
withdraw my comment that members of the press did not report the
news in B.C. They try to create the news in B.C. They try to
create it when 13 newspapers in my riding publish both sides of
the story. Generally the B.C. press is a very sick organization,
promoting only bad news concerning the native population.
In 1994 the governor general asked the press to give good news a
chance. I challenge the press in B.C. to send me one item which
shows something good being said about natives and native
agreements, that they are not buying into scare tactics and
fearmongering.
One organization on the Reform list, which was agreed to by both
parties, brought in by that party was the Fraser Institute or the
C.D. Howe Institute in British Columbia. As a rookie in 1994 I
went to the Chateau Laurier to hear the Fraser Institute tell us
that the present Minister of Finance would destroy the country,
that we would never get out of the $42 billion debt we were in.
Everything was doom and gloom and would never work. Obviously two
back to back balanced budgets have proven that statement wrong.
In my favour, I did not jump into the canal on the way back. To
say that we did not hear evidence to the contrary is just not
honest. We heard from Alpha Omega Capital Management which was
hired by the member for Delta—South Richmond. There was someone
who owned a calculator and asked them to skew the numbers so they
would look bad. We listened to this group and asked questions.
We received answers that had nothing to do with the truth. If
someone is buying the guy who owns the calculator, then there
will not be much of a debate.
What evidence did we hear from the B.C. Treaty Commission? The
B.C. Treaty Commission conducted hearings all over the place. The
one question I asked at every meeting was for it to tell us what
it would do to improve the treaty process.
It is a treaty process. It is not the old Indian Lands Act
where we take a bunch of people, set them on a reserve somewhere,
send a cheque every month and tell them they cannot do anything.
One can see that by going to the Sheshatsui reserve in Labrador
which has the highest suicide rate in Canada. People have been
taken and put 90 miles from nowhere. They are sent a cheque
every month and told not to bother us.
They have no hope. They have no future. They have no history.
They have no caribou to hunt. They have no fish to fish. They
have no industry to lean on.
1705
What is it that they want to do with these people? Do they want
to go back to that? Is that what they are doing? The treaty
process is one that gives people fee simple, the right to own the
land they build their houses on. Is there something terribly
wrong with that? As a real estate agent for 30 years I say that
it would be really nice for them to have fee simple as a basic
right. Why would that not be a basic right in the Nisga'a
agreement? Why would that not be something the Reform Party
would adhere to?
What did we hear out there? We heard all kinds of evidence for
and against. We had demonstrations by the Reform leader, Mr.
Vander Zalm screaming, yelling, calling us names, insulting us,
trying to do everything to make us feel as unparliamentary as
possible. That was my 13th trip to British Columbia, by the way.
I have skied there. I have been at Whistler. I have travelled
extensively throughout British Columbia and it is the first time
I have met people who were hostile.
I have always found the people of British Columbia to be caring,
to be people who used reason and logic. They were basically a
very friendly people with a very beautiful province. There I was
faced with all this hostility. One of the people yelled out the
name of the member for South Shore and said “Keddy, you are
next. South Shore, you are next”, as if they were going to get
him next because he smiled at somebody in the audience. That is
how sad it was. That is what we were dealing with out there.
To hear the evidence, to conclude from it, and to be told that I
am less than a Canadian for even thinking that I could go out
there and make an honest decision is beyond my scope of reason. I
say shame on them for whipping up the crowd, for trying to skewer
things so that we would not hear evidence, trying to manipulate
the witness list and then trying to throw it back on us.
I know I am out of time but I could go on for a long time. No,
I do not have notes. I speak from the heart.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, when the hon. member opposite talks about what is sad, I
think it is sad when an hon. member of the House would get up to
make all those types of accusations as he just did in his remarks
and not have absolutely any evidence to back them up.
He made statements such as that he was appalled the Reform Party
would stoop so low to these kinds of tactics. He went on at one
point to brag about the five minutes he gave up to my hon.
colleague, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, during
the hearing in Prince George so that my colleague could address a
certain witness who was appearing before the committee at a bit
more length. He is quite right. My hon. colleague did thank him
for that.
What I find appalling is that he obviously stooped to those
types of tactics just so he could come into this place, stand
before the television cameras and brag about how he gave up five
minutes of his time.
I was present as well at the hearing held in Prince George
because part of the beautiful city of Prince George is in my
riding as well as in the riding of the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley. I had the good fortune, or the
misfortune I guess is more closer to the truth, to attend that
particular hearing. I have a distinctly different view of what
transpired and I will go into that in some length when I have the
opportunity to speak and set the record straight during my
remarks later today.
The hon. member was quoted in the very first hearing held on the
Monday of last week in the city of Terrace as saying “We are
only in B.C. because of a tactic by the Reform Party to hijack
parliament. This little dance and song is costing $500 directly
by the Reform Party”.
1710
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and ask the viewing public at
home—
The Deputy Speaker: You had better stick with me.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member through
you—and obviously the viewing public will make this judgment—if
that sounds like someone who went out to British Columbia for
those five hearings on five consecutive days with the intent of
listening to British Columbians with an open mind.
Is that the type of comment that could be attributed to someone
who went out there to listen with an open mind? I think not and
I think the actions of the hon. member and some of his colleagues
clearly demonstrated that during the hearings.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in
the member's comments. He is articulate and carries himself
well. He did so out at the meeting. I do not think he asked a
question.
I was asked to go as part of the committee. I was also asked to
stay home because of a vote that was to take place in the House.
I said at that time, and I will say it again, that given the
chance to go to Ottawa or British Columbia, no matter how bad the
weather is, one bad weather day in British Columbia is better
than five good weather days in Ottawa. I was very anxious to go
to British Columbia. I went there with no preconceived notion
other than from the evidence that I had heard from the Nisga'a
and the treaty process in Ottawa.
I felt we did not have to spend $500, as the member said, but
$500,000 brought on by the Reform Party. I was glad to go. I
love British Columbia. I will go back any time. I would go next
weekend if I could get away and the Reform Party would pay for
it, which it said it would. I went with an open mind. I heard
all the evidence. I heard many things.
I wonder if the Reform Party would vote against the hate laws
that it just voted against, knowing what it knows now. Would it
vote in favour of the Nunavik Act, knowing what it knows now?
Would it not look at a treaty negotiated in good faith by the
Nisga'a and debated for the longest debate in the history of the
B.C. legislature and think that sends a signal that the treaty is
a good thing, that the treaty grants fee simple?
The member talks about the vast regions of B.C. and that someone
from Ontario would not know about them. We are talking about
2,000 square acres. My area is 10,000 square acres. I think I
have a decent sized riding to be able to speak on rural Canada.
I could go on. I would like to ask more questions and receive
some, but time does not permit.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin by notifying the Chair that I am
pleased to split my time with my hon. colleague from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The hon. member across the way who just delivered his speech
made some very serious allegations that I found quite disturbing,
obviously since they were directed at me, at my party and at my
colleagues.
I would like to start by noting that despite the claims to the
contrary the reality is that the Liberal government in Ottawa
shut down debate in the House of Commons on this piece of
legislation after allowing the official opposition only four
hours and 12 minutes of debate.
Why do I single out the official opposition other than the fact
that obviously I am a member of it? The reality is that in this
debate we have the absurd situation where three of the opposition
parties are in total agreement with the government.
They are not opposing it at all, even though there are things I
am sure they could find wrong with the legislation and the
treaty. They have to find something that they would oppose. Yet
to listen to them in debate, one would think that it was perfect,
that the whole situation has been supposedly resolved, that it is
a perfect piece of legislation and they have little to do other
than to support the government.
1715
In reality, while we have had more debate than that, what is the
point of debate or should we even call it debate, if speaker
after speaker from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois,
and the Progressive Conservative Party are basically the
mouthpieces for the Liberal government on the bill? How is that
a debate? I think the people of Canada realize that it is not a
debate.
The only true debate taking place is by the official opposition
in the points it is raising. I pointed out to the viewing public
that only four hours and 12 minutes so far have been allocated to
members of the official opposition to bring forward these points
of how the treaty, once implemented, is going to change the
landscape of Canada for all time.
The thing that saddens me the most and which was really
reinforced when the committee travelled last week to my home
province of British Columbia is that democracy plays little or no
role in this process. In fact, if democracy was ever a part of
our political system in Canada, it is certainly nowhere to be
found in the debate on the Nisga'a treaty.
I challenge the members, as did my leader when he made his
remarks earlier today, that this debate is not so much about the
specifics of the treaty. We have had the limited debate the
government has allowed on that particular aspect contained in the
treaty itself, the pros and cons. Obviously, the government is
not listening to the points being brought forward about some of
the dire consequences once it is rammed through parliament. The
debate today is about the process of holding a referendum on the
issue and giving all British Columbians the opportunity to vote
either to support or to reject the Nisga'a treaty.
Let us look at the process that took place until now. Hon.
members from across the way, and I believe from some of the other
so-called opposition parties, have stated that it was Reform that
forced the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development to travel to British Columbia. Contrary to the
points of view put forward by some of the members across the way,
it was not to try and orchestrate some huge protest or to try to
demean individuals and their parties. We were hoping against hope
that once the committee was in British Columbia it would actually
listen to British Columbians about this legislation and treaty.
Unfortunately, that did not happen. Unfortunately, the committee
chose not to listen. Unfortunately, it chose to prevent people
from making presentations.
We tried to get the committee to spend more time in British
Columbia. We tried to get it to go to more locations than just
the five: Monday in Terrace; Tuesday in Smithers; Wednesday in
Prince George; Thursday in Victoria; and Friday in Vancouver. We
tried to get the committee into Kamloops but there was no
movement by the government. It was opposed to letting the people
of Kamloops come forward.
Let us review what took place at the meeting I attended. It is
the one I have firsthand knowledge of because I was there. I was
in the city of Prince George for that hearing.
We started out with seven, possibly eight witnesses. A couple of
possible or probable witnesses to appear were listed. All but
one were from out of the area, from the lower mainland, from
Vancouver, Vancouver Island. As time progressed, people dropped
off for various reasons.
1720
It came to the attention of the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley and myself that we were left with four
witnesses that would appear that day. Three were from Vancouver
or Vancouver Island. Only one was from Prince George itself.
When the hearings began, my colleague from Prince
George—Bulkley Valley and I attempted to raise a point of order
with the committee chair. We asked her, that since we had people
who had dropped off the witness list and that since there were
people who had taken time off work to attend that hearing that
day who represented groups of local people in Prince George, if
the committee in its wisdom could not decide to hear them. We
all know that a committee is the master of its own destiny. It
can make these decisions. It can change the format. It can
change the witnesses if it so decides.
The chairman of the committee ruled that we were not even
allowed to put forward that point of order. The government did
not want to hear the people from Prince George who had taken time
off work to go to that hearing. They were sitting in the
audience, prepared to step up to the microphone and put forward
their point of view on the treaty.
One group wanted to speak out in favour of a referendum. It has
a very special interest in holding a referendum. It was the
organization that had spearheaded a local plebiscite in Prince
George. It was a voluntary plebiscite in which over 9,000 people
participated. Some 9,000 people in northern British Columbia
came forward voluntarily to participate even though it had no
mandate and even though they knew their vote would probably fall
on deaf ears. Nevertheless they came forward. People took the
time to come from work or home to cast their ballot and 94% voted
against the treaty.
That group, called B.C. in Focus is a non-partisan group. They
are not Reformers. Certainly some of them are. Both the hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and I are here as
testament that we have pretty solid support in the city of Prince
George so obviously some of those people who belong to B.C. in
Focus, that lobby group and citizens group, are obviously
reformers. It is not some conspiracy concocted by the Reform
Party of Canada. It is an independent group. It was refused the
opportunity to put forward its point of view.
The other group was the Central Interior Logging Association. A
gentleman whom I know reasonably well, Roy Nagel, is the general
manager. That group came with a brief to put forward to the
committee. The group asked for permission to do that and was
turned away.
Some very unfortunate comments were made, I would agree with my
hon. colleague from across the way. On behalf of the citizens
and people of Prince George, I would apologize to anyone. The
hon. member for Nunavut is present today, and I offer that
unconditionally.
I think we have to look beyond the fact that those types of
comments were made and look to why they were made. It is the
extreme frustration the people of British Columbia are feeling
about this process and the treaty. That is the problem. It has
been a closed door process from the very beginning. People were
shut out yet again when this group came to Prince George.
Unfortunately some people voiced their frustration in ways that
were not very kind.
Obviously we have to turn a corner here. I call upon all members
of all parties to exercise their right to vote in favour of this
motion and give the people of British Columbia a referendum on
this treaty.
1725
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
member from Prince George made a statement about something that
happened in Prince George which I had no intention of bringing up
in the House today. I was there. I was at all the meetings. I
would like an answer from the member for Prince George—Peace
River. It would have been much more apropos to give the apology
in Prince George, in the area the member represents with the
people he represents.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, we could debate all day
whether it would have been apropos for me to make an apology. I
was not the one who made those comments. I would never make
those types of comments. The fact of the matter is as I have
said, that I think people were expressing their deep frustration.
The hon. member for South Shore was part of a process of sucking
up to the Liberal government during the hearings. That is the
reality. I cannot speak about the other four hearings as I was
not there, but everyone who was present at the hearing in Prince
George saw the type of opposition member that the member for
South Shore is. People were quite appalled by the fact that he
supported the Liberal government in excluding people from Prince
George who had taken time from work, had gone to that hearing and
wanted to be heard. He supported the Liberal government in
excluding those people and in denying them their democratic right
to be heard. It has been pointed out that the committee incurred
expenses with taxpayers' money to travel to British Columbia
supposedly to listen to British Columbians on this important
issue.
Imagine the extent of their frustration and anger. They had
taken time off work to put their points of view forward. While
sitting there they learned that the committee chair and the
committee, supported by members like the member for South Shore,
were going to deny them their right to be heard by the committee,
yet their tax dollars had been used to fly in an author from
Vancouver because he was the only person the committee could find
who would support the Nisga'a treaty. It could not find local
people so it had to fly in somebody from Vancouver at taxpayers'
expense. This author was representing only himself. He was not
representing a group. He admitted that during his testimony.
Sadly that frustration bubbled over and some very unkind things
were said. As I already said I think the individuals who would
have said those things, once they had calmed down, would
apologize.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the member informing us of what took place in Prince
George. I was not aware of exactly what took place. I have to
admit that I am really saddened to hear that kind of a report
coming from a group of people that claims to be a democracy
travelling across the country listening to people. What a farce.
The member knows that I was in his riding and in the riding of
the member for Skeena visiting with a lot of grassroots natives.
Those people are suffering in squalor. They asked me if they
would ever have an opportunity to have a word with the minister.
I asked if they had every tried. They have tried thousands of
times but they cannot get to the minister. They cannot get
through to Indian affairs. They are not listening to the
grassroots people, the ones who are hurting the most.
When the Nisga'a matter came up and I became aware of the
committee travelling to British Columbia, I alerted some of these
people to attend the sessions and try to get a voice. Could the
member tell me about Terrace and Prince George? When the
committee visited those areas, were grassroots natives trying to
have a voice with the committee and if so, what was the result?
1730
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has quite
rightly pointed out, there were grassroots native people present
who would have liked to have had a chance at the microphone.
They were excluded and that was noted in the local paper. It was
not only non-aboriginals.
There is a final point I would briefly like to make. A
referendum would not only give non-native or non-aboriginal
people the right to vote on this. Very clearly it is not just
the Nisga'a who deserve a vote, but also the Gitksan, the
Gitanyow, other tribes and other Indian bands in the province.
They deserve a vote as well. The referendum, were it to be
supported by the House and put to the people of British Columbia,
would accomplish exactly that.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to divide my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for
division of the hon. member's time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed because
my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan had a very important
intervention to make on behalf of Mr. Ken Conrad of his riding,
which would have been very valuable since he was an RCMP officer
who worked closely with aboriginal people in Saskatchewan for a
very long time.
We have heard a great many comments from members across the way,
comments that were extremely egregious, comments that were
extremely false, comments about the B.C. media being biased.
This issue is not about stupid political rhetoric, it is about
people. This is about the most impoverished people in our
society.
I would like to cite some examples from the first nation's
aboriginal health task force which put together some information
that I think would be very valuable to the House in understanding
the scope of what we are dealing with, so that we do not have to
listen to the idiotic comments coming from members on the other
side which have no constructive basis whatsoever in trying to
improve the health and welfare of the aboriginal people of this
country.
First, I have some comments from the aboriginal community.
Fifty per cent of aboriginal people have a water supply that does
not even meet the minimal safe drinking water guidelines within
Canada. Of the 613 water systems on reserve, 50% have no
treatment facilities. Of the 71,531 homes on reserve outside the
Northwest Territories, 20,700 have no indoor plumbing and 16,900
have no sewage system whatsoever. Sixty-eight per cent of
aboriginal people were on social assistance in 1990. On reserve
unemployment is greater than 30%. Seventy-five per cent of
tuberculosis cases were in aboriginal communities, and on and on
it goes. That is what we get for spending over $6 billion on
aboriginal services today.
If treaties are so good, then I think it is useful for us to
take a look at where they have been employed, east of the
Rockies. If treaties are so good, and the Nisga'a treaty is
something that the government and other political parties want to
pursue, then they must have a good track record and they must
improve the health and welfare of aboriginal people. But that is
not the case.
If we consider the treaties that have been signed east of the
Rockies, if we look at what is happening to people in the
trenches, if we look at aboriginal people on and off reserve, we
see a deplorable situation. They occupy the lowest social rung
in our society today.
Treaties, in their current form, do not work. They do not work
because they further the separateness that is embodied in the
Nisga'a treaty and the Indian Act. The government was not always
so fixed on its current platform. In 1969 the Reform Party would
have locked arms and pursued the course which the then government
had agreed upon when the then aboriginal affairs minister, our
current Prime Minister, produced a white paper.
At that time Prime Minister Trudeau said that aboriginal people
stood at a fork in the road and they could do one of two things.
They could either pursue the course embodied in the Indian Act of
separate development, which has been like a boot on the necks of
aboriginal people for more than 100 years, or they could pursue
what the current Prime Minister said at that time. He said that
it was time for aboriginal people to move forward, to own land as
individuals, to have equality with non-aboriginals, to have the
same opportunities, goals, rights and responsibilities as
non-aboriginals, and that it was time for integration, not
assimilation.
1735
That is what the current Prime Minister said in 1969 with the
support of Prime Minister Trudeau. That is 180 degrees from what
he is saying today.
It is the Reform Party that wants to get rid of the Indian Act.
It wants to pursue equality and give every aboriginal person the
same rights and responsibilities and hope for the future as we
have in the House today. The reason we oppose the Nisga'a
agreement is not that we are against the Nisga'a people, it is
because this treaty is an extension of the separateness and
balkanization that is embodied in a 125 year history of separate
development that has crushed the ability of aboriginal people to
be the best they can become.
Every year $6 billion is put into aboriginal affairs. Where is
that money going? My colleagues from Wild Rose and Skeena have
been listening to grassroots aboriginal people who have been
telling them that they see money coming into the reserves but
they do not know where it goes. They say that their children
still lie on cold floors in basements and they still commit
suicide because they see no hope. Where is the money going?
The department of Indian affairs was forced in over 150 cases to
intervene in the management of aboriginal reserves. That is just
the tip of the iceberg. Most often the department does not even
want to go to determine what is going on.
At the end of the day, who really gets hurt? Is it the people
at the top? It is the people whom the government professes it
wants to help. They do not have a say. The grassroots
aboriginal people, the man, woman and child who are on the street
on and off reserve, do not have a voice. The Nisga'a agreement
will not give them that voice because the power will be centred
with the people at the top.
We would not want that for ourselves. Why is the government
trying to pursue a course that would cement this kind of control
at the top without any municipal power for the people and without
the people having a say in a meaningful way? Why is the
government continuing to support this course which has been
proven to be an abysmal failure? I cannot understand it and my
colleagues cannot understand it.
At the end of the day, our goals are the same. Not a person in
the House wants to see the state of affairs of aboriginals on and
off reserve worsen. We all want to see it improve. Our
objection is that this is not what the Nisga'a agreement will do.
What is worse, it will be a template for other agreements that
will be made in British Columbia.
What the rest of the country does not understand is that in
conjunction with Delgamuukw there will be an opportunity to open
up treaties across the country. If we think we have problems
now, imagine what it will be like in the future.
No one is even discussing who will pay for it. In Alberta alone
the cost of trying to resolve aboriginal claims is estimated at
$107 billion. Money does not grow on trees. Where is the money
going? Would it not be better if we scrapped the Indian Act and
made selective investments in aboriginal services so that
aboriginal people would have the training, job opportunities and
skills required? People, regardless of their race, cannot have
pride or self-respect if they are wards of the state.
For men and women to have self-respect and pride, they have to
be able to provide for themselves, their families and their
communities.
That is the only way they will have the pride and self-respect
which will enable them to stand on their own two feet.
1740
What Reform wants is what the Prime Minister wanted in 1969, an
opportunity for aboriginal people to exercise their traditional
rights and responsibilities, to have the same rights and
responsibilities as everyone else, to scrap the Indian Act and
pursue a course of equality for all peoples.
The money that will go into this agreement and indeed the
50-plus agreements that will take place in B.C. will create a new
level of bureaucracy that was agreed upon by former Premier Clark
of British Columbia. It will also mean new bureaucracies at the
provincial and federal levels.
Rather than putting that money into bureaucracies, why do we not
put it into the hard edge of making sure these people have the
skills to provide for themselves, their families and their
communities?
People cannot have pride and self-respect if they are wards of
the state. Over the last 125 years we have created an
institutionalized welfare state. If you visit many reserves, Mr.
Speaker, you will see this.
During my time working as a physician on and off reserve I went
to these reserves. I saw people in the worst possible state of
affairs. I have not seen things like that since I worked in
Africa.
We should not have that in this country. We should pursue a
course that will empower and strengthen individual aboriginal
people, rather than the leadership at the top. That is something
on which we would work with the government to pursue, but we will
oppose the government if it tries to put the strength and the
power of this agreement in the hands of a very few while
excluding the majority.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with care today to the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
I want to ask him questions in two areas. The first concerns
his suggestion that this is an agreement that does not respect
the rights of the Nisga'a people themselves. I believe that he
said that the concerns of the grassroots Nisga'a people were
being ignored in this particular process. He talked about
control from the top of the Nisga'a leadership.
Perhaps the hon. member is not aware of the fact that there was
a vote among the Nisga'a people themselves. I want to remind the
hon. member of that. There was a democratic vote among the
Nisga'a people to ratify this particular treaty and 71% of those
grassroots Nisga'a people voted in support of this treaty.
How on earth can the member suggest that this treaty does not
have the support of the grassroots Nisga'a people when they
overwhelmingly voted in favour of it? I suspect that the hon.
member himself got something less than 71% of the vote in the
last federal election. Is he suggesting that somehow his mandate
was illegitimate because he did not get 71% of the vote? I ask
him that question.
My second very brief question is this. The member understands
better than most members of the House the evils of apartheid in
South Africa. How could he possibly compare that to the
ratification of this Nisga'a treaty, which is supported
overwhelmingly by the Nisga'a people and the Nisga'a leadership,
which will lead to a sense of pride and self-respect? How could
he so degrade and pervert history as to suggest that this has
anything to do with apartheid whatsoever?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I will educate the hon.
member on one thing and that is what apartheid means. Apartheid
is separate development. That is what the Nisga'a treaty is all
about. That is what this process is all about. It is separate
development. I suggest that he look in the dictionary to prove
that to himself.
With respect to his first comment about what the Nisga'a said,
he may be interested to speak to many Nisga'a people who are
actually concerned that this is not representing their interests.
Many of the Nisga'a people are going along with the flow because
they do not see another option. There are Nisga'a people who are
saying very clearly to us that they have been excluded from this
process, that they are not aware of what is going on and that
they are not being told by their leadership what is going on.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the
hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I know that his party,
the Reform Party, is fighting tooth and nail against the Nisga'a
bill. I respect the hon. member's views very much. Certainly I
think he is always very sincere in the debates we have in the
House.
Just as hard as he is fighting now, his party fought very hard
against hate motivated crimes. Just this last week, we saw a
tragic case in Surrey, British Columbia where a Sikh man was
murdered. The Reform Party in the House fought against the
Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives, and now it has voted in
favour of increasing sentences for hate motivated crimes.
1745
I think British Columbians and people who live in Vancouver
would like to know from this member whether he and his party
would vote the same way having seen what happened and having seen
this law now work where the sentences were increased to those
social misfits who murdered this innocent individual. Would
they still vote in the same way on hate motivated crime that this
government and all members in the House, expect the members of
the Reform Party, voted in 1995. Would he still vote the same
way and would his party still vote the same way?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I would first refer the
minister to the comment by my colleague from Surrey Central, who
is also a Sikh and who made a very eloquent, passionate statement
in the House concerning that issue. In our view, the scum who
killed that Sikh gentleman should have been put away for a longer
time. That is the bottom line. They committed an atrocious act.
What the Reform Party is saying on violent crimes or hate crimes
is that if somebody commits a crime against another person
because of the colour of their skin, is that really worse than
committing a crime, a random act of violence? Is it worse if
someone is hurt because of the colour of their skin or their
religion, or if somebody happens to be passing by and their head
is smashed in? They are both victims and they have both been
hurt. They both have families that are hurt. They both bleed
equally and both feel the same amount of pain.
The problem is that the judicial system is not supporting the
victim. Right now the federal government should be pursuing a
course where scum who commit an egregious act will be dealt with
in a much stronger way.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to conclude the debate this
evening on this motion put forward by the Reform Party.
I just returned to the House after a week of public hearings in
the beautiful province of British Columbia. I will begin by
thanking all those citizens who participated, both directly and
indirectly, in that process and for their views, which have been
considered in the House and will be considered throughout the
debate on this important process.
I stand before the House today not only to show my personal and
the government's support for the proposed legislation to ratify
the Nisga'a final agreement, but also to clarify once and for all
the many reasons why a referendum in British Columbia would be
the wrong thing to do.
I am here to ask: What Nisga'a treaty are the members of the
opposition talking about, the real Nisga'a final agreement before
us or the mythical one that they purposely continue to
misrepresent?
I do not think we can categorize any of the opposition party
members as forward-thinkers, least of all their leader. If they
had their way they would subject their version of the Nisga'a
final agreement to a British Columbia province-wide referendum.
They claim that the treaty will be an amendment to the Canadian
constitution and that it therefore triggers a referendum under
legislation in effect in British Columbia.
If they had read the final agreement, which my minister has
suggested today, went out into the communities with those
concerned citizens that they purport to represent and worked page
by page and paragraph and paragraph through that treaty, they
would have come to no other conclusion than that this was not a
constitutional amendment.
This is a good treaty. It is good for the people of Nisga'a. It
is good for their neighbours who have said so. It is good for
the people of British Columbia and, therefore, I believe for all
of us.
They would see for themselves that section 8 of the general
provisions chapter clearly states that the agreement does not
alter the constitution. In fact, we put that in the agreement
specifically in anticipation of these questions.
1750
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if the member opposite can say that the Reform
Party is purposely trying to misrepresent. I would like to—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are getting into
debate right now. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am asking if the
gentleman across the way is using parliamentary language when he
accuses the Reform Party of purposely trying to mislead.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are getting very
close to the line right now. I will ask the parliamentary
secretary to please use his language very judiciously.
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I would say that perhaps
it was not purposeful, that it was not intentional but that it
was perhaps systematic. I think I will go to that safe ground
and continue.
Moreover, Bill C-9 affirms this provision of the final agreement
and notes that our constitution is the supreme law of Canada.
This agreement does not and cannot alter our constitution. To
suggest otherwise is nonsense. The rights contained in the
agreement, including the governance rights of the Nisga'a, will
be protected by section 35 of the constitution but the protection
of these rights does not alter the constitution.
Brian Slattery, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School at
York University, agrees. He says:
There is nothing in section 35 (or indeed elsewhere in the
Constitution Act, 1982) to suggest that such treaties and
agreements must be implemented by constitutional amendment in
order to take effect or to receive constitutional protection.
Peter Hogg, a recognized constitutional law expert and dean of
Osgoode Hall, has also publicly said that in his opinion “it
would be undesirable to hold a referendum every time a treaty is
entered into with aboriginal people”. It is worth repeating
that at the beginning of the formation of our country, when the
British crown signed treaties on behalf of the King of England
there was not a referendum back in England or even a vote for
that matter in the House of Commons.
He continues by saying:
These treaties are intended to provide clarity and certainty to
aboriginal rights that have been held by aboriginal people since
before European settlement. The treaties are long, complicated
documents reflecting years of negotiation and much compromise on
both sides. It would be very difficult to communicate all the
issues in a balanced way in a province-wide referendum.
This was stated by Canada's leading constitutional expert.
How does the opposition party propose to reduce a 500 page legal
document to one question? I can just imagine how loaded its
over-simplified—and we have seen this after six years in the
House—question might look, especially since it appears to be
debating a different document than 80% of the rest of us in the
House.
What is the point of negotiating treaties at all if the
opposition party would have its way?
Mr. Joe Easingwood wrote in the Victoria Times Colonist
that “considering it has taken some 30 years, plus intense,
complex and emotional negotiation to work out this proposed
Nisga'a treaty, how can anyone with an ounce of credibility
suggest that the issue can be boiled down to a single question on
a referendum?”
A referendum is a totally inappropriate way to deal with a large
complex package of provisions such as the Nisga'a treaty. And,
the people of British Columbia have already had a voice in
negotiations.
The Nisga'a negotiations included one of the most extensive
consultations and public information exercises ever conducted in
the context of treaty negotiations in Canada. Approximately 500
meetings were held in relation to the negotiation of the
agreement in principle and final agreement.
1755
Much of the advice from these consultations is reflected in the
document before the House. For example, those consulted
indicated that they wanted the treaty to represent a final
settlement with the Nisga'a people. The final agreement is a
full and final settlement of the Nisga'a aboriginal and treaty
rights.
Third parties wanted conservation to be a priority in the areas
of fisheries and wildlife. The Nisga'a final agreement contains
provisions to ensure that federal and provincial ministers retain
their overall authority. I will say that again. The federal and
provincial ministers retain their overall legislative authority
to manage fish and wildlife. Conservation, public health and
public safety are identified in the final agreement as top
priorities.
There are other provisions contained in the treaty that allow
Nisga'a lands to be registered in the British Columbia land title
system. We have heard a lot of hollering and yelling about
communal systems. This is not true. These provisions are a
direct result of third party advice that we have heard, listened
to and acted upon.
We also found through consultations that it was important to
third parties that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and federal laws such as the criminal code continue to apply.
Those do as well.
Third parties in advisory committees also indicated that they
wanted all citizens to be subject to the same taxation regimes.
Through the final agreement, the Nisga'a will pay taxes in the
same way other British Columbians do after a transition period of
eight years for sales tax and twelve years for income taxes. And
the Nisga'a government receives a tax exemption similar to that
provided to municipal governments. What could be more fair? Do
we not say that we want all people to be equal? Is this not an
important provision that the people of British Columbia would
accept when we say that for the first time in Canadian history we
have a treaty where the first nations people are saying to the
federal and provincial crowns that they will pay those taxes the
same way anyone else does? I think that is an honourable and
very dignified compromise.
In the past, the federal and provincial governments have entered
into many agreements and passed many laws that have far more
consequences on the majority of Canadians than will the Nisga'a
treaty. Let us take the North American Free Trade, the original
Free Trade Agreement or the Columbia River Treaty. None of these
were subject to a referendum.
Where referendums have been used in the past, they have been in
respect of a single, or at least a relatively narrow set of
issues. Compare, for example, the complexity of the Nisga'a
treaty with the single question that was posed to the people of
Quebec in the referendum on separation.
The Nisga'a treaty is complex. It deals with dozens and dozens
of different issues. Within each of these issues there are many
complex provisions, compromises and specific arrangements. This
sort of package is not conducive to an all or nothing
consideration demanded in a referendum vote.
Mr. Ken Georgetti of the B.C. Federation of Labour recognizes
the ramifications of a referendum. In his words:
The Nisga'a Final Agreement is one of the most important social
and economic developments of the last century—A referendum on
the Nisga'a Treaty would be analogous to requiring a public
sector union to submit its collective agreement to a
province-wide vote.
Of course, to all Canadians this is unacceptable.
The real goal for a referendum is to block the treaty.
Leaders from all walks of life recognize that the Nisga'a treaty
is the result of more than 20 years of intense negotiations. The
treaty represents a delicate balancing of interests and reflects
the compromises and trade-offs made by British Columbia, Canada
and the Nisga'a people. It is not possible to re-open or attack
one portion of the treaty without undermining the entire
agreement.
Early on during the negotiations, Canada, British Columbia and
the Nisga'a agreed at the negotiation table on a specific process
they would use to ratify the final agreement. We are now,
thankfully, in the final stages of that process.
1800
The Nisga'a have ratified the treaty. The province of British
Columbia has ratified the treaty with the historical debate in
the provincial legislature, some 120 hours of debate, the longest
in the history of that legislature.
Now it is Canada's turn to go through the ratification process.
This government is committed to concluding treaties with Canada's
first people. Treaty making is a federal responsibility under
subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1857. The province's
involvement is necessary in order to ensure that land and other
resources are properly dealt with.
However, the legal reality is that treaty making is a national
responsibility that transcends the interests of individual
provinces. This is reflected in the fact that the federal
government is providing the great majority of money that
represents the costs of the treaty. The member for
Burnaby—Douglas made that point earlier in the debate today.
There is therefore no basis for a provincial referendum in which
British Columbians alone would determine whether or not this
national endeavour would go forward.
The Nisga'a final agreement represents a fulfilment of more than
20 years of negotiations. The opposition party would have us
withdraw our commitment to it. Honourable governments must
continue to be honourable. They must follow through on
agreements negotiated in good faith. Perhaps the opposition does
not share this.
The community of Terrace is the closest neighbouring community
to the proposed Nisga'a lands. We heard this morning, this
afternoon and throughout the debate that the mayor came to the
hearings in Terrace. He appeared before us and under
cross-examination we asked him if it was only his view to support
it because, as the the member from Skeena says, he is a Liberal.
No, that was not true at all. In fact, his six councillors
debated a motion put forward by one of them several months ago
whether to ratify or not ratify the treaty. It was unanimously
agreed to by the Terrace council. It was unanimously agreed to
by grassroots politicians to accept the deal.
Further, Joanne Monaghan, regional chair of the district in the
Nisga'a area representing 45,000 people and some 40 to 50
politicians in that catchment area, appeared before the committee
too. Again under cross-examination, so that we could be very
clear about the intentions of local people and grassroots people,
she told us that unequivocally and categorically, having thought
about it for years and originally not a supporter of treaties,
that she supported it. It was good for her, good for her people,
good for the area and good for the Nisga'a people. She believed
as well that it was good for British Columbia and Canada.
A referendum would be just plain unfair to the Nisga'a people.
When the negotiations commenced and when framework agreements
were entered into among the parties, the understanding was that
the final agreement would be ratified by votes of the Nisga'a
nation, the provincial legislature and parliament. We agreed to
that and we will have our vote in parliament. The Nisga'a
agreement in principle included this understanding. There has
never been any suggestion that the Nisga'a final agreement would
be passed outside that process.
Why would we subject the Nisga'a to this process at two minutes
before the hour? No treaty or land claim agreement in the
history of Canada has ever been subject to a provincial or
national referendum. By the time all land claims in British
Columbia have been settled 30 to 50 treaties will have been
signed. Is the opposition saying that it would subject each one
of these agreements to a provincial or national referendum? What
nonsense. Reasonable people understand how unfair and how
foolish it would be to arbitrarily impose such a hurdle on these
first nations people.
Canada is a parliamentary democracy. The federal government is
composed of members who are elected and accountable to our
voters, including the decision that was made on how the Nisga'a
treaty would be ratified. The people of Canada elected this
government to do the right thing, and we are doing the right
thing.
We are honouring the terms of the ratification we made with the
Government of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia
and the Nisga'a people. We are honouring the obligations
bestowed upon us by the people of Canada who elected us.
1805
Reformers would have Canadians wrongfully believe in their
mythical treaty and renege on their word to the Nisga'a people
and the Government of British Columbia. What are they really
asking us to do? Are they asking us to perpetuate the status quo
in continuing uncertainty in British Columbia? The opposition
has proven adept at creating myths and continue to fall flat in
making its intentions known for clear and viable alternatives to
present to the Canadian people.
It is just not fair. We have an agreement that will work. It
is one that is fair and equitable. It was negotiated in good
faith. We have every intention of keeping our promise to the
Nisga'a people, to the mayor of Terrace and to the politicians in
that region who support it. We will keep our promise generally
with the people of British Columbia through the legislature and
through their due process where this was debated. We will keep
our promise to the House and the honour and dignity of the House
to do the right thing through both substantive and procedural
justice so the treaty will come to the floor of the House.
Reform Party members on the other side will be standing alone
with the 21st century only 39 or 40 days away on one of the last
pieces of business we will do before returning to our ridings
throughout Canada. They will wear the badge going into the new
millennium as the only party in the House to oppose progress, to
oppose peace among Canada and the first nations people, and to
oppose moving them from the backwoods and the doorsteps into the
front with all Canadians in the 21st century.
On behalf of my colleagues I want to say that we will not have
anything to do with it. We are doing the right thing. We will
not be on the side of wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, last
week I had the pleasure of participating in the work of the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development with the parliamentary secretary.
I too noted that, contrary to what Reformers are saying, a
number of individuals, groups and even other first nations
support the Nisga'a agreement, although we should be concerned
about problems of overlap that certain nations have drawn to our
attention.
I wish to comment on what the parliamentary secretary said, to
note that the federal government does not appear to want to hold
a referendum, to take the approach proposed by Reformers,
because not only does it want to respect the will of the
provincial government to consult and take the decisions it sees
fit in this regard, but also, and particularly, because it wants
to respect the decision of the Nisga'a nation, which has itself
opted, through a referendum, for the new political status
conferred on it by the Nisga'a Final Agreement.
I am therefore very pleased to note the will of the federal
government to respect the popular and political will of the
Nisga'a nation.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I think it was more of a
comment by my distinguished colleague. I thank him for his good
work on the committee as we travelled through rural British
Columbia. I have great respect for the member. Those watching
television right now, including my friend Jeremy from Oakbank,
would want to know that the member who just asked the question is
an expert in these matters.
We respect the wishes of the people. We have done
that with respect to the Nisga'a. They held their own internal
process which was outlined in the agreement in principle.
They went through that ratification process, voting with members
both off and on reserve, as was noted by the member from Burnaby
and others today, with an acceptance of 71%. I think that is a
good number of to start with.
1810
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this member just recently shut down some interventions in the
House on behalf of Canadians. I would like to ask him on behalf
of my constituents if he agrees with the statement that Mr. Ken
Conrad from my riding wanted to make to the aboriginal affairs
committee when it travelled to Victoria.
Along with many other Canadians in B.C. he was not allowed to
address his concerns. I am told that members such as the one
opposite simply mocked the people who had any concerns about
Nisga'a. That does not surprise me with the Liberal record on
undemocratic methods.
I will ask the hon. member about this comment. Mr. Conrad says
that all this is an ill-conceived creation of the federal Liberal
and provincial NDP governments. From all that he can gather from
discussing these agreements with his native friends, governments
made no efforts to reach out to the grassroots natives who must
live with this decision. The only people they have consistently
consulted with are the persons whom they deem to be leaders of
the communities. He suggests that they not use the excuse they
can submit their concerns directly to the department of Indian
affairs, that it is common knowledge that any adverse
communication ends back in the hands of those being criticized.
They have failed to communicate with these people directly and
have lost their respect in any process which they are currently
undertaking.
If this gentleman who has worked with native Canadians for a
long time is correct then I am asking the member if this does not
bode ill for the future.
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. The process with respect to the selection of
witnesses was done in camera. Although the Reform Party has
chosen to put that in the public domain, I will not go there,
only to say that I have gone on record on CBC Newsworld as
commenting that the House leader for the Reform Party, after the
selection of witnesses, thanked me for being very fair and
reasonable in terms of including a number of people from the
riding of the hon. member for Skeena who wanted to be included.
To Mr. Conrad, whom he is allegedly quoting, I suspect some
person from his riding, I would say that in fact we did hear from
these kinds of people. There was a Mr. Barton who is a Nisga'a
person who filed a number of charges in the courts. One of the
courts, the court of appeal, heard the case in Kamloops and ruled
against him although there were a couple of court cases wherein
he brought charges against the Nisga'a people and was found
seriously wanting in those charges.
I can report that he would say that if there is anyone who is
grassroots it has to be Mr. Barton. We accepted him and embraced
him to come before our committee in Terrace. We heard him for
about an hour and a half in his testimony and we understood very
clearly where he was coming from. I do not accept at all the
suggestion or allegation that we are not listening to grassroots
people.
The hon. member is quite right. I have spent quite a bit of
time in my professional life working with folks from first
nations. I think they would be quite surprised indeed to learn
that the Reform Party somehow was their spokesperson.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.15 p.m.
and pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary
to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division
deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 23, 1999,
at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1815
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a question I
raised with the minister concerning agriculture in Saskatchewan.
Farmers are suffering the worst income crisis since the
depression. The reason is that the cost of production far
exceeds in most cases the costs and revenues they receive when
they sell their products. Farmers are feeling very desperate and
abandoned by the Liberal government.
We saw in the Star-Phoenix and the Leader-Post
newspapers on Monday, October 25 headline stories, which by the
way were during the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar byelection, to
the effect that the Minister of Finance said that there will be
$900 million more provided to farmers in western Canada. When I
raised the issue in the House of Commons, the Minister of Finance
ducked the issue.
We have seen the Liberals, egged on by the Reform Party, cut
more agriculture subsidies than has any other country in the
world in the last five years. As a matter of fact the Reform
Party wanted more cuts to agriculture than we have already
witnessed. This has brought a great deal of hardship to our
agricultural economy.
In 1995 there was the elimination of the Crow benefit. This was
a transportation subsidy provided to farmers in western Canada,
not for free but in exchange for billions of dollars of assets,
land and mineral rights provided to the railroads so they could
use that revenue and those assets to subsidize inland grain
transportation to the ports.
The Liberals eliminated the Crow benefit and they supported the
CPR in getting rid of all of the very high profit centres. Like
the oil business, the pan-Canadian company which is now a CPR
subsidiary does not contribute to rail transportation whatsoever.
There is Cominco, the mining company. There is the land company
from CPR. They have all made hundreds of millions of dollars of
profits annually, yet the farmers are continuing to be squeezed
by CPR and CNR at the encouragement of this government.
In the newspaper the other day, the minister of government
services was quoted as saying “The disaster financial assistance
arrangements are a good example of the co-operation and
solidarity which characterize so well our Canadian society”.
This is in reference to yet $100 million more going to Quebec for
the ice storm. He talks about how proud he is to provide this
financial help on behalf of the government to help Quebec farmers
and others. Yet when it comes to the disaster of mega proportions
in western Canada, the Liberal government is nowhere to be seen.
We are trying to find out today from the Minister of Finance if
he was playing politics in the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
byelection when he falsely announced $900 million more for
agricultural aid. Was he misinforming farmers? Was he
misleading the electorate in that byelection? What was he doing?
Obviously, he did not come forward with the money. Or did he
just not understand the hardship that the Liberal government and
the Reform Party have inflicted upon western agriculture?
We look forward to having an answer from the Minister of Finance
this evening. Will he come clean and tell the people of this
country and the people of Saskatchewan why he misled them with
respect to agriculture assistance?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, while overall the agriculture and food
sector is strong and makes a significant contribution to the
Canadian economy, the government knows very well that the past
year has not been an easy time for many producers.
The updated projections which were released on November 2 were
produced jointly with the provinces. The Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food does not produce incorrect or
misleading information. The $325 million upward revision between
the July and November projections for 1999 is mainly the result
of an increase in NISA payments, cattle and durum wheat receipts,
combined with a decrease in operating costs, in particular,
pesticide and fertilizer.
The farm income forecasts are not the most important issue here.
Numbers are fluid and changing. Whatever the numbers turn out to
be, they are just that, numbers. The real subject here is
people, not income forecasts.
We know it is an extremely difficult situation for many farm
families, particularly in the west. As a government we will
respond to the human situation wherever that occurs.
In response to the current income situation, the government
moved to the aid of Canadian farmers by introducing the
agricultural income disaster assistance program. Through AIDA
the Government of Canada is making available almost $1.1 billion
to those farmers facing severe income declines. With provincial
participation, the AIDA program would now put $1.78 billion into
farmers' hands. This funding is in addition to the $1 billion
that federal and provincial governments contribute each year to
safety net programs.
1820
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
today in the House when I asked the government what action it
would take to face up to the horrible reality that child poverty
has increased by 50% since 1989 as a result of the finance
minister's policy, the only reply of the Minister of Human
Resources Development was that I should read the throne speech as
evidence of the government's attention. I have read it many
times, searched high and low, and it tells us nothing.
I would urge the minister to read the recently released National
Council on Welfare report that slams her government for its
inaction on poverty. The National Council on Welfare is actually
appointed by the government and has produced excellent reports
that document over and over the plight of poor children and their
parents.
Just think of it. Since the unanimous resolution was passed in
the House of Commons in 1989, there are now half a million more
poor children in Canada. On every front, government policy is
the reason for the growing gap between poor and wealthy
Canadians. Whether it is the elimination of the Canada
assistance plan in 1996, the elimination of social housing in
1993, or the broken Liberal promises on 150,000 child care
spaces, or the cruel and vicious cuts to unemployment insurance
that have literally driven women into poverty, the government's
record is awful, just awful.
I have spoken many times in parliament about poverty. I have
met with many social justice and anti-poverty and housing groups
across the country. In fact I travelled across Canada in
February and met firsthand with front line housing activists. I
met with homeless people and people who are one paycheque away
from destitution. I can say they are fed up with the
government's pathetic excuses and so am I. I feel quite ill when
I hear the typical message box response, the sweet words of
concern, while the poor are being hammered and pepper sprayed.
So again I ask the government, when will the Liberal government
stop poor bashing? When will we see a real commitment to the 1%
solution for a national housing plan? When will the government
use its massive resources for people, for a national child care
program, for fair taxation, for housing and for healthy kids?
I implore the government, no more professed concerns. We need
real substantive action to end the war on the poor. I can
already hear the Liberal message box response.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to review today the Government of Canada's housing
policy.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, our national housing
agency, is responsible for carrying out the government's housing
policy. The policy involves improving housing affordability,
accessibility and choice in housing for Canadians.
I can assure my hon. colleagues that the government understands
the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. Our
commitment to housing is visible in communities right across the
country.
For example, the Government of Canada contributes $1.9 billion
to support approximately 644,000 community based housing units
for seniors, people with disabilities, and low income families.
This includes support for non-profit and co-op housing projects
in many communities, as well as support for low income aboriginal
people in cities and on reserves. My hon. colleagues are
probably familiar with such housing in their own ridings.
Through CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, Canadians are able to
gain access to affordable financing choices. In the past year,
CMHC has helped Canadians gain access to over 475,000 homes with
the use of mortgage loan insurance at no cost to the government.
Through its research activities, CMHC encourages innovation in
housing design and technology, community planning, housing choice
and financing to improve the quality, affordability and choice of
housing available in Canada.
The government is well aware that in spite of its significant
efforts in the housing field, our country is experiencing a
problem with homelessness. We are working in partnership with
governments, community organizations and the private sector to
find solutions to this extremely complex issue.
Rest assured the government will enthusiastically support the
activities of CMHC to ensure that our national housing agency can
continue to carry out our housing policies in the most efficient
and effective manner possible for the benefit of all Canadians.
1825
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on
May 15, 1998 and again on November 3, 1999, I asked the Minister
of Foreign Affairs when he planned to introduce legislation to
ban water exports and removals.
Today, the minister introduced Bill C-15, an act to amend the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. These amendments will
only prohibit the removal of boundary water between Canada and
the United States.
While these amendments would cover only boundary waters such as
the Great Lakes and Columbia River, they would leave out most of
our lakes, many water bodies, the entire province of Newfoundland
and et cetera.
This is a most frustrating situation considering the fact that
we are still waiting for the water export policy as well as for
the comprehensive water policy as recommended by the Pearse
report 15 years ago.
Then there is the question of the proposed voluntary accord. I
with to congratulate the federal environment minister for taking
a watershed approach that would ban the removal of water from its
natural basin. Clearly, this is more comprehensive than a simple
export ban as it makes ecological sense to stop bulk water
removal at the source and not only at the border.
However, the Minister of the Environment intends to do so
through a federal-provincial voluntary agreement to ban water
removal from major drainage basins. I submit this approach ought
to be broadened to all Canadian water bodies and not limited to
boundary waters. I am saying this for three reasons or at least
two.
First, the proposed voluntary accord would be just that,
voluntary. It would not legally bind any province to protect our
water resources.
Second, the proposed accord would do nothing to prohibit export
initiatives undertaken by municipalities, crown agencies,
corporations or even private parties. Even if the provinces
wanted to ban water removals and exports, it is the federal
government that has the constitutional authority to regulate
trade.
Understandably, the federal government hopes that a province by
province voluntary ban would treat water protection strictly as
an environmental issue and that trade lawyers will not see the
disguise.
However, water removals and exports are already a trade issue
since there is a challenge under NAFTA brought by a water export
company against the Government of Canada for compensation because
of British Columbia's decision to ban water exports. Through the
proposed accord, the federal government is thus asking the
provinces to take their own action on banning water exports.
The government's definition of basins as Canadian is weak
because basin describes a geographical feature without regard to
political boundaries. The concept of basin is problematic for an
accord or legislation intended to secure resources management for
political institutions. This is an essential concept for any
legislation that intends to withstand trade challenges that are
exactly intended to transcend political boundaries.
The proposed accord will lead to a patchwork of provincial
initiatives, thus making Canada more vulnerable to trade
challenges. The legislation tabled today is, it seems to me, too
limited in scope to provide protection to most of our water
bodies.
It seems quite clear, that a meaningful protection of our water
resources requires the federal government to face the reality of
international trade agreements. In search of the most effective
strategy to protect our water resources from exports, I would
recommend: first, to enact federal legislation designed
specifically for the purpose of banning bulk transboundary water
removals from Canada; and second, to renegotiate international
trade agreements to seek an exclusion or waiver of water from
such agreements.
I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's comments.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Canadians are looking
to all levels of government to take action now to ensure that
Canada's freshwater resources are secure as we pass into the 21st
century.
The federal government recognizes the importance of this
question. Last February, we announced a three point strategy to
prohibit the bulk removal of water from all Canadian water
basins.
[Translation]
I am pleased to announce that marked progress has been made in
connection with the three components of our strategy.
As promised, we have today introduced in parliament some
amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. The
Government of Canada is therefore acting within its
jurisdiction.
With these changes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have
the power to ban the bulk removal of water from boundary water
basins.
This means that the vast resources of the Great Lakes and other
boundary waters—for example, Lakes Champlain and Memphrémagog in
my own riding—will be protected from bulk removal of water under
the federal legislation.
1830
[English]
The international joint commission, responding to the joint
Canada-U.S. reference on water uses in the Great Lakes, concluded
in its August 1999 interim report that there is no surplus water
in the Great Lakes, and recommended, pending the final report due
next February, a very cautious approach to bulk removals or
diversions of water. This is precisely what the federal
government is doing in its strategy and amendments to the act.
We will be providing a formal response to the international
joint commission soon, and the federal government has called for
a Canada-wide accord to prohibit the bulk removal of water from
all Canadian water basins. The Minister of the Environment plans
to have the agreement of his provincial and territorial
colleagues on the accord within the next weeks.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada has shown initiative in this affair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)