36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 33
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 2, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-390. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1015
| PETITIONS
|
| Animal Rights
|
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAuley |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1020
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Randy White |
1025
1030
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 8
|
1035
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 17
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 18
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 19
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 20
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 21
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Motion No. 24
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion No. 25
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Motion No. 26
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Motion No. 27
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Motion No. 28
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Motion No. 29
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 30
|
1040
1045
1050
| Mr. Randy White |
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. John Finlay |
1110
1115
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1120
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1125
1130
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1135
1140
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1200
1205
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1210
1215
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Ted White |
1235
1240
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1245
1250
| Mr. John Duncan |
1255
1300
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1305
1310
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1315
1320
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1325
1330
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1335
1340
| Mr. David Chatters |
1345
1350
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| EDMONTON BALL HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| JUDSON SIMPSON
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
1400
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| WORLD AIDS DAY
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| STRATFORD FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1405
| CULTURE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| HIGHER EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| DISABILITY TAX CREDIT
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
| QUEBEC'S ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| JOB CREATION
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| CHILD LABOUR
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| FIREARMS CONTROL
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1425
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1435
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1440
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1445
| FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| BANKS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1455
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| RCMP
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| NORTHERN IRELAND
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| HAITI
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1500
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Question Period
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1510
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Report stage
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1515
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1520
1525
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1545
1550
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1555
1600
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. John Cummins |
1620
1625
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1630
1635
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1640
1645
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1650
1655
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1700
1705
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1710
1715
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-209. Second reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1735
1740
1745
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-209. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1750
1755
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
1805
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1810
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1815
1820
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1825
| Mr. Art Hanger |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 33
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 2, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[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 nine
petitions.
* * *
NATIONAL HORSE OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to provide for
the recognition of the Canadien horse as the national horse of
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce the national
horse of Canada act to provide for the recognition of the
Canadien horse as the national horse of Canada.
The Canadien horse came to Canada in 1665 from the stables of
Louis XIV. The use of the French language “Canadien” is in
respect of the breed's early ancestors in France and the fact
that the horse was indispensable to settlers in New France.
For over 350 years this little iron horse has worked with
Canadians, tilling our soil, carrying our soldiers through battle
and providing the foundation stock for today's diverse equine
industry.
These sturdy little horses adapted to Canada's rigorous
conditions, evolving into a breed that is noted for its strength,
endurance and determination. Clearly the Canadien horse shares
the qualities we all value, making it an excellent choice as the
national animal.
1015
The Canadien horse, currently classified as an endangered breed,
would enjoy a greater profile and enhance marketability as the
national horse of Canada. I hope I earn all hon. members'
support for this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
ANIMAL RIGHTS
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 200 people,
mainly from my constituency of Scarborough Southwest.
Their plea is specific. They petition the Government of Canada
to take the steps necessary to enact into law significant
increases in the maximum allowable sentences which may be imposed
upon persons convicted of cruelty to animals. I note that we
have acted on that.
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by
1,273 concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.
These petitioners ask our government to affirm that all
Canadians are equal under all circumstances and without exception
in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to
remind our government to only enact legislation that affirms the
equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been asked by some petitioners to present another petition on the
bombing of Yugoslavia, even though at the moment this is a thing
of the past. They believe it violates international law and
undermines the United Nations.
They call upon parliament to use its influence within the United
Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, OSCE, to establish a process of genuine negotiations
intended to seek a fair and balanced solution to the crisis which
still exists in Kosovo.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my
riding of Nanaimo—Alberni and contains 226 signatures.
These petitioners call upon parliament to invoke section 33 of
the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the notwithstanding
clause, to override the B.C. Court of Appeal decision regarding
child pornography and reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1
of the Criminal Code to make child pornography illegal.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 23 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 23—Mr. Randy White:
With respect to incidents of drug overdose in federal
correctional institutions in 1998: (a) what was the total
number for all institutions combined; and (b) what was the
number for each institution?
Hon. Lawrence MacAuley (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): With respect to incidents of drug overdose in federal
correctional institutions, five incidents were recorded for the
calendar year of 1998. They are as follows: April 2, 1998,
Kingston Penitentiary, maximum, Ontario region; July 7, 1998,
Bath Institution, medium, Ontario region; August 27, 1998, Elbow
Lake Institution, minimum, Pacific region; September 2, 1998,
Leclerc Institution, medium, Quebec region; and November 27,
1998, Millhaven Institution, maximum, Ontario region.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 11.
.[Text]
Question No. 11—Mr. Peter MacKay:
What criteria and evidence does the Department of Environment
rely upon to substantiate the argument that PCB compounds are
hazardous to your health?
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: The
Department of the Environment works with Health Canada on the
assessment of toxic substances such as PCBs. Environment Canada
provides the environmental toxicology and Health Canada provides
the health component.
PCBs satisfy all four criteria outlined in the federal
government's toxic substance management policy, TSMP, for track 1
substances. Track 1 substances, such as PCBs, are predominantly
anthropogenic, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1020
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been negotiations among all parties in the
House and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order 76(1) and
(2), the report stage of Bill C-2 may be taken up on the second
sitting day after the said bill is reported to the House by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, provided that
any notices of amendments at the report stage may be received on
or before the day immediately before the report stage commences.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: You have heard the terms of the motion.
Shall we proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, an act to
give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: In the act to give effect to the Nisga'a
final agreement, Bill C-9, there are many motions in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9.
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 30.
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 31 to 72.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motions Nos. 73 to 118.
Group No. 4 will be the rest of the motions.
I will now hear a point of order from the House leader of the
opposition party.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker
I rise on a point of order with regard to an amendment which I
submitted to Journals and which did not appear on the
order paper yesterday, nor did it appear on the order paper
today. I assume because of that you considered it out of order.
I would like to comment on this particular amendment in some
detail. I realize it was a task for the clerks involved in all
of the amendments that we had submitted. We were in touch with
the Clerk's office frequently. I think perhaps it is just a
misunderstanding as to why this particular amendment has not
shown up.
The one amendment attempted to attach the Nisga'a final
agreement to the bill as a schedule.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 690 which talks about new schedules in the context of
how they are considered. The sequence in which a bill is
considered is new schedules after other clauses and schedules.
Citations 702, 703 and 704 state that schedules are treated in
the same manner as clauses; in other words in terms of
acceptability and form. Erskine May states the same thing on
pages 497 and 498.
Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition listed anywhere in any
procedural text against the inclusion of a new schedule in a
bill. The important factor to be concerned with is relevancy.
Certainly the Nisga'a final agreement is relevant since it is
mentioned in just about every clause of Bill C-9.
In 1956 there was a Speaker's ruling discussing this very point.
The Speaker said on page 568 of the Journals of that year:
The hon. member's main objection is this. It is his contention
that, because this bill refers to an agreement and the terms of
the agreement not being a part of the bill and not being printed
in extenso in the bill, the control of the House over the
expenditures which may be involved therein is being denied.
The Speaker suggested on that same page that he cannot be
expected to study every bill in an effort to find out whether or
not something has been omitted.
1025
The Speaker went on to say:
Honourable members have taken care of that by insisting in their
procedure that after second reading all bills be referred or
committed either to one of their standing committees or to the
Committee of the Whole.
He suggested that proper amendments may be moved and new
schedules may be inserted.
In that case the complaint was that the bill did not contain the
agreement. The Speaker suggested that it could be included as an
amendment in the form of a schedule.
In the case of Bill C-9, which we are talking about today, the
agreement is also omitted from the bill. I think it should be
part of the bill so I am attempting to include it as the Speaker
suggested could and should be done in 1956 and as Beauchesne's
and Erskine May support.
I was not the only one concerned that the agreement was not
attached, Mr. Speaker. Professor Stephen Scott of McGill
University raised this in committee. Professor Scott, as we
know, is a very knowledgeable individual on these matters. He
said:
I am concerned at what seems inadequate provision in the
agreement and in Bill C-9 to ensure the continuing integrity and
preservation of legislative and administrative archives in the
Nisga'a government and indeed, the lack of obligatory provisions
for publication of legislative and executive acts. In Bill C-9
itself, the Parliament of Canada has set the worst possible
example since the final agreement and related instruments, though
they are to be separately published, are not annexed to the bill
itself. In practical terms the final agreement and other
instruments will often be unavailable to users of Canadian
statutes in Canada and abroad, even though by section 4 the
agreement is given force of law, and by section 5, binds third
parties and can be relied on by them. This is a travesty of the
rule of law and a total disgrace. I feel so strongly about this
as to think that no responsible that no responsible member of
either House could vote for Bill C-9, at least until it is
amended to annex the final agreement to the bill and, I think,
the related agreements too.
That says it all of what the concern of the official opposition
is.
Mr. Speaker, if you and the members of the House are wondering
why I want to attach the Nisga'a final agreement to a bill that
gives effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, I think Professor
Stephen Scott articulated the need very well.
I was thinking about raising the fact that the bill did not
contain the agreement at second reading but since Speaker's
rulings, Beauchesne's and Erskine May suggest that such an
omission could be rectified by inserting it later as a schedule,
I do not want to waste the time of the House by making that
argument.
I am concerned that today a new precedent will be set wiping out
any opportunity to attach a new schedule to a bill in the future.
There does not appear to be a sound reasoning to disallow it.
Procedural authorities and constitutional experts support
including Nisga'a final agreement as the schedule to Bill C-9, an
act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.
With respect to any minor, and I say minor, technical deficiency
which may have existed with the amendment we submitted, the
Speaker and/or Journals could have made the necessary
corrections. This is done all the time. It has been done since
we have been in the House of Commons and even recently. It would
be improper for the Speaker to choose to make minor corrections
in some cases and not in others, or to choose to do it for some
members and not for others. This particular amendment was
brought to the attention of the clerk and it was made clear that
I wanted to have the Nisga'a agreement attached to Bill C-9.
The Reform Party is alone in the House in opposition to this
bill. We are faced with the tyranny of the majority when it
chooses to close off debate. We do not need another obstacle to
our opposition. We do not need another form of closure with
respect to our amendments and the consideration of our
amendments.
Not only do I think it is procedurally correct to attach the
Nisga'a final agreement to Bill C-9, but I believe it is our duty
in the House to attach it.
1030
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his point of
order. I will take it under consideration and I will get back to
the House.
I would agree with him, perhaps as an understatement, that we
did get quite a few amendments to this particular bill and we are
doing our best to deal with all of them in a procedural way.
I will take his intervention under advisement and I will get
back to the House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I realize we are about to begin debate
on report stage of this bill. Does the Speaker have a timeframe
of when he may be back because it may affect which groups that we
are going to be speaking on today and so on?
I do not want to pressure the Speaker too much, but could he
give us some idea of when he would report back so we could know
which amendments we would be speaking on, and adjust our speakers
accordingly.
The Speaker: Well, I can say this with certainty. It
will certainly be before we come to the votes. I want to give
myself room. The hon. member has given me quite a bit to have to
research from the perspective of the House.
I will get back to the House as soon as I have considered the
matter and made a decision, but, yes, it will, of course, be
before the vote.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Randy White (for Mr. Leon E. Benoit) moved:
Mr. Randy White (for Mr. Rob Anders) moved:
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1
to 5 on page 1.
Mr. Randy White (for Mr. Leon E. Benoit) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1
to 5 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 4
and 5 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Randy White (for Mrs. Diane Ablonczy) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing, in the
English version, line 4 on page 1 with the following:
1035
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Randy White (for Mr. Grant Hill) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 5
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 5
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Randy White (for Mr. Richard M. Harris) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 6
to 9 on page 1.
Mr. Randy White (for Miss Deborah Grey) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 6
to 9 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 8
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak on Bill C-9 at report stage. I want to inform the House
at the beginning of my intervention that I recently had the
privilege, I suppose, if one wants to put it that way, of
travelling to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member. I have just been informed that we can
dispense with the reading of one motion, but we cannot dispense
with reading all the motions. We will have to dispense with each
one as they come up individually.
This is the procedure that needs to be followed. We have
Motions Nos. 16 to 30 and each needs to be moved, seconded and
deemed to have been presented to the House. If it would be
possible to have that motion, we will deal with it.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was just going to suggest to
you precisely that in an an effort to have the debate start as
quickly as possible.
I move that all the motions in Group No. 1 be deemed to have
been moved, seconded and read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion. Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 8
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 9
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 9
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 10
to 15 on page 1.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 14
and 15 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 14
and 15 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 15
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 18
to 20 on page 1.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 19
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 21
to 27 on page 1.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 21
to 27 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 28
to 30 on page 1.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.) moved:
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 2 with the following:
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask that my hon. colleague, who has led this issue for
the official opposition, be allowed to resume from the start
because he was interrupted.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Agreed and so
ordered.
1040
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to speak to the
report stage of Bill C-9. I want to inform all members of the
House and members of the public who may be watching this at home
that I was part of the standing committee that recently travelled
to British Columbia for a five day dog and pony show at which
time we heard from a selected group of witnesses that were
concocted primarily by the Liberals. British Columbians were
denied and shut out of the process. They were unable to appear
and provide their deeply held views on the Nisga'a treaty. That
has been the problem with this treaty right from 1991 when the
secrecy agreement between the three parties was signed that led
into the process that brings us to this debate today.
In response to that cynical, arrogant move on the part of the
government and the other opposition parties in collusion with one
another, the Reform Party held its own meeting in Vancouver last
Friday to which we invited all members of the public and anybody
who had been denied an opportunity to speak at the standing
committee so they could speak to us. We had a court reporter
there. We put on the record the comments, remarks and
observations that were made. My colleagues over the next hours
and days in debate on the Nisga'a treaty will endeavour to read
as much of that into the record as possible.
I wanted to say that at the outset so there would be some
context to the amendments proposed by the Reform Party in this
group and in the groups to follow. The main reason the Reform
Party has tabled these amendments is that we are looking for some
change to the agreement. We are primarily looking to decouple
the self-government provisions in the agreement from
constitutional protection.
In other words, we are saying that we do not think this
parliament should be so arrogant and so self assured that it
would know for all time what is good for the Nisga'a people, that
it would entrench a third order of government and provide it
constitutional protection under section 35 so that it can never
be changed and will be there for all time. For years we have said
that is a major flaw in this agreement and that needs to be
changed. We are saying not only for the benefit of a united
Canada, a Canada that works together and stays together, but we
are also saying for the benefit of Nisga'a people themselves that
is not the right way to go.
Incidentally, we heard that from an untold number of British
Columbians over the last few weeks. We heard it at the standing
committee. Even the Liberal standing committee dog and pony show
heard that from a number of witnesses. As my colleague from
Fraser Valley pointed out, professor Stephen Scott from McGill
University, a widely recognized expert on law and constitutional
matters in this country has said the same thing, as has Gordon
Gibson, as has Mel Smith, as has Tom Flanagan, and the list goes
on and on. These are names that are recognizable by many
Canadians as being relatively expert in their fields.
As my colleague pointed out and as is the thrust of one
amendment we have asked the Speaker to consider, we say that the
treaty must be appended to the legislation. That did not come
from the Reform Party. That came from the witnesses. The whole
point of having a standing committee, the whole point of inviting
expert witnesses to appear, because certainly we in this place
are not experts, is to consider the advice that they provide us
and then to incorporate that advice into the legislation we are
dealing with. Here we have a pre-eminent legal scholar,
professor of law at McGill University, who tells us in no
uncertain terms that not only is it a mistake for parliament not
to append the treaty to the legislation but that no member in the
House should vote for Bill C-9 until and unless that is done. My
colleague so eloquently quoted the professor there is no need for
me to do that again.
The bottom line of what we are saying is that from the Reform
Party's point of view, while we disagree with the treaty in many
aspects, the most serious and fundamental flaws include the fact
that the self-government provisions receive constitutional
protection.
That is the subject of at least two lawsuits right now in British
Columbia. It is the subject of most of the concern that is
coming out of British Columbia. That should be removed from the
agreement and an addition to the legislation should be included
which would say that the self-government provisions as delineated
in chapter 11 of the agreement would not constitute an aboriginal
or treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the Canadian
constitution. It would be that simple. We are saying that the
treaty should be appended to the legislation.
1045
We were told by a pre-eminent legal professor in Ontario that
was the right thing for parliament to do. Regardless of whether
or not we support the treaty in principle, that is the only right
way to proceed from a procedural point of view.
Third, the Reform Party wants the removal of the commercial
right to harvest fish from constitutional protection. We know the
government wants to leave it in there. We know the Nisga'a want
to leave it in there. We do not agree with it. We think it is
wrongheaded. We think in the end it will not be of benefit to
Nisga'a people. It will be contentious. It will be divisive in
British Columbia.
We are saying that at least the constitutional protection should
be removed from that part of the treaty. We should not create in
effect a constitutionally protected business in the country.
Nobody else in Canada has the right to a constitutionally
protected business and it should not be created in this treaty.
Fourth, it is irresponsible for the government to proceed with
ratification. The Reform Party could never in any way endorse or
support any move to allow the bill to proceed until and unless
the government sits down with the Gitksan and the Gitanyow people
in an honourable way and comes to an agreement that is
satisfactory to them, an accommodation.
This issue is so serious to these people that when they
testified in front of the standing committee they said that they
considered this treaty an act of aggression, not only by the
Nisga'a but by this government and by the Government of British
Columbia. It is irresponsible. It is inconsiderate. It is a
huge error in judgment on the part of government to proceed with
ratification until an accommodation is reached.
When the Gitksan and Gitanyow leadership testified in front of
the standing committee they gave us reasonable options. They did
not say they wanted to have their land claim resolved first. They
did not say that this treaty could not proceed. On the contrary,
they said to go ahead and proceed with the treaty but to put some
amendments in.
They gave us proposals for amendments that the government did
not even consider when the legislation was debated at committee
after the end of the testimony from all witnesses. The
government did not ever consider them. I want the Gitksan and
Gitanyow people who are watching at home, as I know they are, to
know for the record that at committee the government did not even
debate for one minute the amendments submitted by the Gitksan and
Gitanyow chiefs when they were in Smithers.
We are saying that not only is that a mistake, not only is that
a huge error, but it is reprehensible and we cannot proceed in
parliament until that is addressed.
Those are the four major points that the Reform Party wants to
advance in the course of debate over the next hours and days on
the amendments that we submitted. I appreciate that we have
submitted quite a number of amendments, but I suggest that if the
government and the other opposition parties were willing to
consider those four changes, the Reform Party would likely be a
lot more accommodating to deal with than we will be if there is
no hope or sign of any amendment or any change whatsoever. From
the Nisga'a leadership point of view there should not be any
undue alarm or concern with the four main points I have outlined
today.
I see that my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to lead
off the debate and to advise the House of the main thrust and
intention of the Reform Party's position on debate during report
stage of Bill C-9.
1050
I look forward to listening to other members of the House,
particularly my colleagues, as they read into the record some of
the testimony we heard in British Columbia, independent of what
the standing committee did not hear because it denied witnesses
and British Columbians the opportunity to come forward and be
heard.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Today we are debating Bill C-9, the Nisga'a agreement,
which will have huge implications on how Canada deals with native
people in the future, and there is not one minister of the crown
in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Wetaskiwin knows full well that we do not to refer to the absence
or the presence of members in the House either collectively or
individually. If the member wishes to call quorum he may do so,
but the Speaker sees a quorum.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to talk about two questions today with regard to the
Nisga'a agreement. First, what is an opposition party and what
are its responsibilities? Second, what is a democracy? What is
a democracy all about when we are facing issues such as this one?
When a problem or a concern of any kind about government
legislation hits the House of Commons, there is a responsibility
and onus on members in opposition to bring it to the attention of
the public without concern for name calling or putting people
down for what they think they should be challenging.
My colleagues have a detailed knowledge of the agreement. They
know what they are talking about. They live the implications of
these matters all the time.
We raised in the House financial concerns about future
commitments in perpetuity for our young people. There is a
commitment of dollars by the government on one land claim, not on
the 40, 50, 60 or 100 that will be coming down the road. This
one land claim involves hundreds of millions of dollars in cash
payout that in today's dollars will amount to approximately $32
million in perpetuity on which young people, their children and
their children's children will be taxed. That is a concern to
me. I have the right to come here and express concern about the
commitment the government is making, and so do my colleagues.
We have lived with the problem of the Musqueam reserve in
British Columbia. We have seen people who live on property being
charged lease payments which went from $300 to $400 a year to
$26,000 a year. That is a concern. The Nisga'a agreement has
implications on other things we are doing in the country. We
have concerns about overlapping land claims on behalf of other
aboriginal groups that have expressed those concerns.
Let us go back to my question on what is an opposition party.
Why is it that only my colleagues in the Reform Party ask these
questions? I have heard racial innuendo, bigoted comments and
that sort of thing from other parties which should not even be
articulated. An opposition party is in the House to question
where things or going, why overlapping land claims are not being
listened to, or why there are future commitments of millions and
millions of tax dollars
Those were the questions we had.
1055
Where are the other opposition parties in the House? Why are
they not speaking out? What do Canadians want as an opposition
in the country? Do they want members who are afraid to speak out
because they might be slandered with some kind of comment, or
members like my colleagues who will stand and say they have some
concerns which they want addressed. This is what one would
expect from an opposition party. I find it strange that the
other three parties find absolutely nothing wrong with the
agreement.
What is in a democracy? When my colleagues and I came to the
House we thought we would change things faster than we have. We
have been forcing change on the people on the other side. When
members first come to the House of Commons they think there
actually is a real democracy in the country. However when they
look at the effects of a majority government they begin to
question that point, as have my colleagues and I. It is a joke
to say that a majority government is a democracy.
Let me say what happens in a majority government. When we
raised the Nisga'a issue we did not buckle down to the people
across the way. We said that we wanted to debate it. After four
and a half hours of allowed debate by the only party opposed the
Liberals called time allocation to cease debate. Is that what a
democracy is, four and a half hours of debate on one of the most
important pieces of legislation brought before in the House since
1993? That is shameful. What is wrong with discussing this
issue? It is disgusting that it is not being discussed.
The British Columbia government, as unfavourable as that
government is these days, allowed debate to go on and on so
people could listen to it and understand it. For weeks and weeks
that government talked about the Nisga'a agreement. It tried to
get all the issues out. When it comes to big bold Ottawa, after
four and a half hours of debate government members told us to get
the issue out of here. That is not a democracy. That is not
what this is about. They cannot just do what they want in the
House of Commons because they have a majority.
After debate the bill went to committee where it was rammed
through. Government members said that they did not want to
travel anywhere and asked why on earth people in British Columbia
would want to hear about it. This is the biggest issue in
British Columbia for many years.
What did we have to do? We told members of the democratic
government across the way that they were not going to travel on
any committee, that we would debate every committee that wants to
travel, and that we would hold it all up if they did not want to
go to British Columbia. Then they said that they would go to
British Columbia, but they were unhappy about it.
We said that we wanted them to go to communities affected
immensely by the agreement. They did not want to go there. They
did not want to go to Smithers. They do not like it there. Is
that a democracy? They did not want to go to Kamloops because
they are unhappy in Kamloops. They decided to go to Prince
George. The people in Prince George are concerned too. We
forced them to go to five places. This is democracy in this
country.
They said they had to hear from witnesses who appear before the
committee. They tabled a list of 62 or 64 names, all in favour
of the Nisga'a agreement. My colleague from Skeena and I had to
fight just to get people who were opposed to be heard. They were
a small minority. When they got to Prince George members of this
democratic government hauled in four or five witnesses who were
not even from Prince George but were in favour of it. They say
that is a democracy.
1100
We put a vote to the House and asked at least to be given a
referendum in British Columbia, one of the basic foundations of
democratic principles. They voted it down and were supported by
three other opposition parties.
What about the fact that this may happen in Ontario, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland or Saskatchewan? What will people say then?
The precedence has been set in the House of Commons. We do not
hold referendums here. They send people who are in favour of
these things. It is not a democracy if the government acts like
this. The attitude has to change.
It is time to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to hold
a referendum in British Columbia. I will do that. Why not do
that if this is a democracy? Give us what we are asking for.
A lot of my colleagues are from British Columbia. They
represent the greatest part of that province, the third largest
province in the country. Give them what they are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
allow a referendum to be held in British Columbia to deal with
the Nisga'a agreement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Langley—Abbotsford has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to hold a referendum on the Nisga'a agreement. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When you ask for consent, Mr. Speaker, are members
allowed to yell no from a standing position behind the curtain?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes. The
established protocol is that the Speaker, upon recognizing a
member, may recognize that member from any position, provided the
member is in view, including the galleries.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, now we can see the results
of democracy in this country. They come slithering through the
doors when it comes time to talk about a referendum. It is not
democracy. It just will not work.
We are the opposition. We sit here as the official opposition.
Where is the democracy in the Liberal Party which has a majority
government? There is no proper democracy. It does not work.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like the record to show that there is not one member in
the House from British Columbia other than my colleagues in the
Reform—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As I mentioned
earlier today, it is not appropriate to refer to the absence or
presence of members specifically.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to suggest to the hon. member opposite that I stood to say I was
withholding unanimous consent. Unfortunately the member was not
able to see me because I was blocked from his view by the clerk.
He saw this gentleman. That is fine. I stood and said that I
disagreed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Thank you. Given
the fact that we go from one side to the other, I did not see the
member on the other side on his feet and I should have. When we
resume debate we will hear the member for Oxford.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oxford has a
son who lives in my riding. He is depriving his son of a
referendum on the Nisga'a deal.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
1105
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my son is
very supportive of some of the initiatives of the member for
North Vancouver. He has written letters to him. I am quite
aware of that. I also have a brother in Vancouver. I have known
him for 68 years. He and I are at odds on many of these
questions, the Musqueam leases being one and the Nisga'a
agreement perhaps being another, although I have not discussed
that with him fully.
The motions today are interesting. Most of them are frivolous;
however, they do say that the bill will be changed to say “an
act to implement” instead of “an act to give effect to”. I am
not sure which is the more parliamentary term. I guess it does
not matter very much since they both mean precisely the same
thing in English.
When I first arrived here six years ago I did not know much
about the Nisga'a or their land claims in the Nass Valley of
British Columbia. I came to the House as the member representing
Oxford County with a strong interest in the environment. I
quickly had an opportunity to explore those interests as a member
of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development.
As a member of that committee I had an opportunity to visit many
of the northern regions of the country, places like Cambridge
Bay, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, Resolute, Yellowknife and Whitehorse
in Yukon. I spent some time in Vancouver and other parts of
British Columbia, Kamloops, Okanagan, Shuswap and Vancouver
Island, because, as the hon. member said, my oldest son and his
family, my two grandsons, live there and I have a brother who
lives there. I was able to learn a great deal about the
incredible attachment of our native people to the land. Many of
the northern environmental problems are also aboriginal problems.
As someone who cares about the environment, this was an
attachment I was almost jealous of because I realized that no
matter how much I learned, studied, travelled or used my training
in the sciences I could never have the same spiritual connection
to the land as native groups have across this great country of
ours. I could, though, learn more about our first nations, work
with them and for them to ensure their voices were heard. This
would allow me to connect a little more deeply and a little more
spiritually with our native people.
At this time I asked my party whip to move me to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, a
committee on which I continue to sit as the vice-chair. It is a
committee I enjoy. I relish the opportunity to learn more about
those who settled, survived and lived in this beautiful, rugged,
and at times forbidding land before European settlers arrived.
Over the past year I have learned a great deal about the Nisga'a
agreement. I have studied it. I have talked to the people who
negotiated it and those personally affected by its provisions. I
have come to the conclusion that the agreement deserves to
receive the approval of parliament and of all Canadians.
The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil
Fontaine, told our committee members just a week ago:
Notwithstanding the best attempts of reactionary forces, both in
British Columbia, certain political parties and elsewhere, to
describe the terms of the Treaty in inappropriate and
misrepresentative terms, the truth is that its contents are fair,
just and reasonable, not only because each and every part of the
Treaty is defensible but because the very process of its
negotiation was transparent, civil and comprehensive in a model
of modern governance.
The Nisga'a treaty negotiations predate the British Columbia
Treaty Commission process, which only began operation in 1993.
1110
The federal government began negotiations with the Nisga'a in
1976. These negotiations were bilateral and progress on land
related issues could not be achieved until 1990 when the
provincial government formally joined the other two parties at
the table.
From 1990 onward the negotiators conducted extensive
consultations with the public and third parties. Advisory
committees included the Kitimat-Skeena Regional Advisory
Committee, made up of a broad range of community, local
government, wildlife, fisheries, business, resource sector, and
labour interests; the Nisga'a Fisheries Committee, made up of
province-wide and local commercial fishing interests, processors,
unions and Terrace sport fishing interests; the Nisga'a Forestry
Advisory Committee, made up of the area's forestry companies and
the Council of Forest Industries; the Nass Valley Residents
Association, made up of the existing private property owners and
residents of the Nass Valley, who told us personally that they
were delighted with the Nisga'a agreement and supported it
wholeheartedly; the Skeena Treaty Advisory Committee, made up of
local government representatives from municipal governments and
the two regional districts, Skeena-Queen Charlotte and
Kitimat-Stikine; the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and
its sectoral committees, established in 1993 as a
federal-provincial, ministerially appointed committee of 31
organizations which has sectoral committees for government,
fisheries, lands, forest, wildlife and compensation; and the
Certainty Working Group, which was established to review and
discuss approaches to certainty.
Yet, the official opposition rails day after day that
consultations among the people of B.C. and the Nass Valley were
inadequate. I ask them now, which group was under-represented?
Which voice was refused a hearing since 1990 with one of these
groups? There have been more than 450 meetings before and since
the agreement in principle was signed in March 1996. That is a
meeting about every two days.
Between November 14 and November 19 I had the opportunity to go
to British Columbia with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development, which held hearings on the
Nisga'a agreement. While there we met with representatives of
both sides of the debate. We also had to deal with a roomful of
protesters who were asked by Reform members to disrupt the
meetings. It was a difficult process, but I came away from those
meetings even more convinced that adopting the Nisga'a treaty in
this parliament is the right thing to do.
Reform members disagree with me, and that is their right.
However, I ask them whether the Reform member of parliament for
Skeena, which riding includes Nisga'a lands, has effectively
represented the views of his constituents, the Nisga'a. Perhaps
we should take the time to ask him how many times he visited and
met with the Nisga'a tribal council, and how many times he held
town hall meetings with the Nisga'a people. When we are finished
asking him these important questions we may want to ask ourselves
if this is effective representation. In my mind it is not.
How many of us have ignored over 5,000 people in our
constituencies? It would be political suicide for most of us to
do so, let alone shirking our duty as members of parliament for
all of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not.
According to what the chief of the Nisga'a tribal council, Dr.
Joseph Gosnell, told me and many others present at a breakfast
meeting at the National Press Club, the member for Skeena met
with the tribal council only once since his election in 1993, and
I think it was in 1994. He could tell us that. That is one very
short visit in six years. The visit was 30 minutes in length and
he did not stay for lunch.
I am in favour of the Nisga'a treaty. I believe it is the right
thing to do.
Day after day we hear members of the official opposition talk
about how our native people want to be treated like other
Canadians, how we are practising race based politics by making
agreements with them. My answer is this. As a nation we must
adhere to the principles for which we stand. It is fine to say
that we must all be treated equally, but what if one portion of
our society had their land taken, either by force or guile, had
their children taken and placed in residential schools, had
treaties signed and then forgotten? What of these people whom we
have ghettoized to the point where their unemployment rate,
suicide rate, drug abuse rate and infant mortality rate are far
above the national average? Are we to say “Sorry. We will
treat you just like any other Canadian now. There will be no
assistance and you can enjoy the same rights and privileges as
everyone else”?
Or do we stand up, admit our mistakes, apologize for them and
seek to assist our first nations in developing their communities,
their infrastructure, their spirituality, their culture and their
land to the point where they can become full partners in the
Canadian dream? This is what Nisga'a does. I am proud of this
agreement and I will wholeheartedly defend it in the House of
Commons or anywhere else in the country.
1115
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as a member
of parliament and a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I
also travelled with the committee to B.C.
I do not think it helped parliament when the hon. critic from
the Reform described the trip as a dog and pony show. I did not
treat it as a dog and pony show and had in fact advocated early
on last spring that it was important that the committee travel to
B.C. because the treaty was so important in the area. Having
come through a long negotiation and treaty process in the Yukon
for self-government, I felt it was critical that we do go and
hear from people in B.C.
Also, as a member of parliament, there were so many witnesses
that I did not get on the list whom I advocated for and Reform
members voted against them. It was a process to determine who we
would put on the list. I think as a committee we did our best to
hear from everyone. But to say that people were deliberately
left off because they opposed the treaty is completely wrong.
There were witnesses that I had proposed who were left off the
list because there just was not room. It was a two way process.
There were witnesses on both sides who did not get to be heard at
all.
I was sitting here listening to the member for North Vancouver
on a point of order talk about how the Reform Party is facing the
tyranny of the majority and also speaking about what democracy
is. We have decided on a democratic process in the country that
we may not all agree with. I would prefer proportional
representation myself, as a member of parliament, but we do not
have that. We have a majority government. We have three other
parties who support the treaty. At this point Reform is alone in
opposing it.
There have been other times when the New Democratic Party has
been alone in opposing government legislation. That is the
democracy we face.
The comment made by the member for North Vancouver saying that
Reform faces the tyranny of the majority is exactly what he is
proposing for the Nisga'a people, that they should face the
tyranny of a majority. These people, the first nations of the
country, have faced the tyranny of the majority far more and in
greater depth over this last century than we will ever imagine.
There is a very long and in depth paper on the history of
discriminatory laws against first nations people. The
discriminatory laws, as they are set out, infringed on their
basic human rights.
I do not know if everyone here realizes, but there was a time on
this continent when Indians were slaves. They were called
Pawnee. It was perfectly all right under the British Empire for
them to be slaves because they were Indian. They have been
denied the vote. They have been denied property rights. They
were denied the right to homestead. In fact, in B.C. there was a
great scandal when an Indian tried to apply for land to homestead
and was denied it. They have been restricted from the right to
sell agricultural products. They have been restricted from the
right to make a living. They have been restricted from a right
to even write their own will. In fact if one was a woman one
would face even worse conditions than anyone else. If a woman
had a husband who died, she could not even inherit his property.
If someone determined that one was a woman of poor moral
character then she did not get anything at all.
I support the Nisga'a treaty because the Nisga'a people through
incredible adversity have negotiated what they see as fit for
them as a people. They have the support of their people to do
that.
An hon. member: Not all of them.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Probably not all of them, but the
majority of their people have voted that this agreement will give
them a chance to determine their lives, their future and their
government. There is room in the country for Nisga'a people to
be Nisga'a and still be Canadians. There is no reason to fear the
freedom of the Nisga'a people to determine what will suit them in
their lives.
I stand here to say I oppose the amendments made by the Reform
Party because all it wants to do is slow down the process and
deny these people the right to govern themselves. If they make
mistakes, they will make them on their own merit and they will be
responsible for their own mistakes. It will not be us who have
nothing to be proud of when it comes to first nations people and
telling them what is good or what is bad for them.
1120
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been sitting in the House listening to the debate
at the report stage of Bill C-9. Most of what the previous
member who spoke said pertains to the Indian Act. I do not think
there is anybody in the House—
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He is such a
good speaker and he was going to say such a good thing about the
Nisga'a treaty, but I do not see any Liberals except for two who
are listening to the debate. I would like to call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that
intervention in regard to having a quorum in the House. After
all, the government is supposed to listen, even though we know
better. It has not happened in the House before. I do not
expect it to happen now.
The previous speaker spoke basically on the Indian Act.
I want to remind everybody who may be listening that the Indian
Act, as we know it, has been strictly enforced by the Liberal
government and by the previous Conservative government. The
problem lies directly at their feet and at nobody else's. In
regard to the Nisga'a agreement, nowhere in the agreement do I
see that this will rectify the wrongs that have been done under
the Indian Act.
1125
I heard the previous government speaker talk about his travel to
Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. I live in British
Columbia. I worked out of the New Aiyansh area in the Nass. I
talked to a number of people there. I also had the opportunity
and pleasure of having lunch with the Nisga'a chief and council
and have met with them a number of times. We have politely
agreed to disagree on this issue.
There are a number of concerns. I would also like everybody out
there to understand that the hon. member for Skeena also has to
represent many people in his riding. There is great concern in
regard to the native populace, the Gitksan and the Gitanyow,
about this so-called agreement. Their concern is that they are
not being heard. They have claimed that parts of their land are
being taken away. I can see nothing but ongoing confusion and
ongoing law cases. As a matter of fact, I have come to the
conclusion that the only certainty of livelihood in regard to the
Nisga'a agreement will be the livelihood of a good living for the
lawyers. I have absolutely no doubt that it will be an ongoing
situation.
We also heard that this was the most studied and most heard
piece of legislation in B.C. history. Let me give members an
example of how the B.C. government worked with this. Very
quietly it said is was going to hold consultations. There was
absolutely no advertisement and no agenda. Nothing was put
forward to the people of British Columbia so they would know who
to get hold of or where to go for the hearings. When I found out
about this I took the opportunity to advertise it in the local
media in our constituency. They had no idea that this would be
taking place. Through that advertisement, they were able to turn
out for the hearings. Even the Government of British Columbia
said the Salmon Arm turnout was the biggest it had in regard to
the Nisga'a agreement.
Following up on that, we did a number of questionnaires and
polls in the constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap on the Nisga'a
agreement. Here are some of the results. I will read the
questions so the people can understand.
Question one: “Do you believe the public has had an adequate
opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty?”; 1,010
no, 106 yes and do not know 15.
Question two: “Do you believe that the people of British
Columbia should have the right to vote on the principles of the
Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum?”; 1,142 yes, they
should have that right; only 92 voted no.
Question three: “How do you want your federal member of
parliament to vote on this treaty in the House of Commons?”;
1,134 to vote against it; 91 in support; 8 to support if changes
are made; 5 do not know.
That is a rough idea of what it is like in British Columbia in
regard to the Nisga'a treaty and the ongoing debate. The people
of British Columbia are very concerned with the lack of
consultation with them and the unconstitutional move of not being
allowed to vote on the Nisga'a treaty.
Before I go further in this debate, I want to go on record as
saying that if this attitude of the government keeps up and if it
thinks it has trouble now with the separatist talk and separatist
movement in Quebec, it had better be well aware of the feelings
in British Columbia right now, which are along those same lines.
This is what I hear in British Columbia and it really concerns
me.
They are forcing the people of British Columbia to sit back and
say that Ottawa really does not care what happens beyond those
mountains, let alone west of Winnipeg. The people of British
Columbia have a legitimate reason to have these concerns. They
feel that if they cannot get legislation from the government that
is beneficial for British Columbia, then why do they need this
part of Canada to represent them. I have to question that
myself.
1130
I have a number of letters from my constituents with regard to
the Nisga'a agreement. These are from people who were not
allowed to be heard in the travelling dog and pony show of the
Liberal standing committee on this matter. The Liberals said
they debated, but they chose who would be heard.
I and I think everybody should have great concern over who was
chosen. When the Liberals refused to listen to an ex-premier of
British Columbia who sat in on the negotiations of the Nisga'a
agreement when he was premier, when the Government of Canada
refuses to allow that gentleman to sit in on these hearings and
have a say, I think everyone in Canada should be concerned, not
just us on this side.
We have heard from other members about how good the Nisga'a
agreement will be. I have had the opportunity to speak to many
Nisga'a who are not in favour of the agreement, particularly the
women. They have grave concerns. I do not understand the NDP in
the House not meeting with these people and listening to their
concerns. They have real concerns about what could happen to
them if the treaty goes through this way, if these land claims
are to be furthered this way. They have grave concerns about
what is going on here. I really wish they had the opportunity
and time to talk to some of these people.
I have also talked to members of the aboriginal community who
have actually been threatened if they showed up at these
hearings. If they say anything, threats are made against them
and their children. I have not heard that mentioned in the
House.
When people ask me if I have concerns with regard to the Nisga'a
agreement, I tell them that I have many and my constituents have
many.
I have a letter from Mr. Hal Finlay. He says that the white
paper that was presented by Prime Minister Trudeau and the then
minister of Indian affairs, now the Prime Minister, in the early
1960s was on the right track. We have gone off that track. He
has grave concerns about where we are going here with regard to
the Nisga'a treaty.
In conclusion, I just want to stress to the House that the path
the government is following on this is alienating the people of
British Columbia. It should remember that and remember that I
said it here.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today and speak again to this very important
issue, probably the most important piece of legislation that has
come before the House maybe even in this century.
Some of my colleagues on this side of the House and in this
party have talked today about the fact that as the official
opposition we are the only party in the House that are standing
against this legislation.
Sometimes people ask us why we are doing that. They want to
know why we would stand against it when no one stands with us on
it.
It is clear that there are times in one's life when one must
take what might be considered an unpopular stand, one that
perhaps may not win votes across the country and one that may
engender hatred toward us, racial slurs, threats of violence and
all kinds of things.
They want to know why, in the face of all that, a party would
take such an unpopular stand. We do it because we believe it is
out of principle, the principle of fairness, the principle of
equality and the principle justice. The former Premier of B.C.
said that this agreement was a template for the many other
agreements that are going to come along. If we do not take this
stand now, I suggest things will not get better but will get a
whole lot worse.
1135
It has been my fervent wish that all British Columbians, indeed
all Canadians, would have an opportunity to democratically state
their opinion on the Nisga'a agreement. To date, only the
Nisga'a people themselves have been afforded this opportunity.
Even there it is not complete agreement by any means.
The government has tried to tell Canadians that the Nisga'a
agreement is far too important and complicated for the citizens
of B.C. to have a democratic vote. A lot of people would call
this simply arrogance. The government prefers to keep its
blinders on rather than listen to what the people of B.C., the
people directly affected by this treaty, are saying to it.
I want to challenge, particularly the Liberal members from
British Columbia, to listen to their constituents. I believe
their constituents would like to say and are saying a lot of
things but these members are not listening to them or hearing
them.
The people of B.C. recognized long ago something that this
Liberal government still ignores and fails to understand. The
citizens of B.C. understand that the Nisga'a agreement will not
solve the problems that are rife throughout the aboriginal
system. They see the very real damage that this agreement will
cause in British Columbia and, by extension, all across Canada.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is out
of touch when he says that the people have already had their
referendum when they elected MPs sitting in the House. Perhaps
he would then convince the government House leader to make it a
free vote and allow the members to truly vote on behalf of their
constituents, particularly the Liberal members from B.C.
This is not the only example of the government's undemocratic
ways. This treaty is not just about bringing equality to our
native peoples. It is also about democracy and the misuse of it
in the country. Let us consider how many times the House has had
closure and time allocation invoked by the government. By my
count, it is close to 60 times since the Liberal government came
to power. It will soon eclipse Brian Mulroney's record.
We have also allowed the Prime Minister to have incredible
power. The shift in power to the PMO from the House of Commons
traces its roots back to the nemesis of western Canada, Pierre
Trudeau. The current Prime Minister has continued to expand upon
the flawed foundation that Trudeau built up from fuddle duddle,
the one finger salute, the dreaded national energy program and
now the Nisga'a agreement. Western Canadians fully understand
what the Liberals think about them.
Naively, many people assumed that the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs' recent hearings would actually listen to the
people of B.C. According to the member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, he stated “We are only out in B.C.
because of a tactic by the Reform Party”. The Reform Party is
proud that it forced the Liberal Party to actually go out to B.C.
What is shameful is that the Liberal members cannot think for
themselves and take the time to listen to the concerns of the
people of B.C.
One of my constituents followed the committee process. He
submitted his name to the clerk and asked to make a presentation.
Everyone knows what the answer to that was. Even though he has
worked for many years with native people in his capacity as an
RCMP officer and could offer his own insights from a grassroots
level, he was denied an opportunity to present his views or ask
any questions of the committee.
1140
I have known Mr. Ken Conrad personally for some years and I
respect his opinion. I therefore want to put his brief into the
record of the House of Commons today. Ken says:
I am 63 years of age and have been associated with native Indian
people most of my adult life both here in B.C. and also in
Saskatchewan. I have a great many close friends who are native
Indians.
The current Reservation way of life has never worked and I see
nothing in your current treaty negotiations which would change
it. Native people have never owned any real property on
Reservations, they have no hope of even owning the homes they
live in. How can you expect anyone to have any sense of pride
under these circumstances? Native people have always been at the
mercy of their elected Chiefs and Council. If they vocally
disagree with what is taking place politically on a reserve; they
suffer the consequences.
At least in the past they could appeal to an outside agency in
the provincial or federal governments. Under these agreements
they will be at the mercy of a dictatorship. They will be forced
off reserves when they find the political climate intolerable.
They will be forced out of their homes rather than live under
conditions which no other Canadian citizen would tolerate.
All this is an ill-conceived creation of the federal Liberal and
provincial NDP governments. From all that I can gather from
discussing these agreements with my native friends, your
governments have made no effort to reach out to the grassroots
natives who must live with this decision. The only people you
have consistently consulted with are the persons who you deem to
be leaders of the communities.
Do not use the excuse that they could submit their concerns
direct to the Department of Indian Affairs. It is common
knowledge that any adverse communication ends back in the hands
of those being criticized. You have failed to communicate with
these people directly and have lost their respect in any process
which you are currently undertaking.
Your decision to move ahead with this treaty process will have
grave consequences in other areas. I see adverse reaction to
these special status Canadians already and it will continue to
get worse.
The citizens of B.C. are questioning the process which you have
rammed through without proper public discussion. I foresee a
serious problem with racism, a problem that you and the B.C. NDP
have created. You have made a very bad decision and
unfortunately my children and grandchildren are forced to live
with it.
I have taken the time to attend all public meetings (there were
only two of them) which were available to me regarding treaty
negotiations. The first was held in Mill Bay quite a number of
years ago. At that time, I listened to the various presentations
by both governments and native leaders and I was not impressed.
There were too many uncertainties. What was shocking was the
refusal of this committee of any public input. We as an audience
were told that we could not give a submission and were only
permitted to ask one question of the panel. I was completely
outraged by this so-called information meeting. I did take the
opportunity to ask my one allowed question and received a very
ambiguous answer followed with the comment that I could discuss
my question privately after the adjournment of the meeting.
The second occasion was a debate that attracted a large audience
and one could see the serious concerns that were not being
addressed by the panellists. The audience was not impressed by
what they heard and became very vocal. The NDP representative
did not seem too clear in his answers to such questions as cost
to the taxpayers and the description of the type of government
that would be controlling the reserves. He was vague on native
Indian property rights. Instead of clarification he created even
more questions to be asked for which he had no answers.
You have seriously underestimated the consequences of your
ill-conceived action and I feel certain that there will be
considerable unrest in B.C. as the general population start to
understand more fully the mess your governments have created for
us. I just hope that you have a plan in place to deal with these
problems which I believe you have created.
The people of B.C. have been demanding a fair say on this
matter. We need to return true debate back to the House. Let us
begin now. I would ask that the government immediately take
steps to bring forward a binding referendum on the Nisga'a
agreement to the province of B.C. Let us try to bring democracy
back to Canada.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my riding name was changed a couple of years ago. It was known as
Victoria—Haliburton and has now changed to its official title to
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, recognizing the second largest
riding in southern Ontario containing some 10,000 square
kilometres. Together with the riding of Hastings, it makes up
one-third of the land in southern Ontario. We do not cheer for
the Toronto Maple Leafs.
1145
I want to thank the previous member for mentioning the fact that
the committee travelled to British Columbia and had all party
representation. It had some fine input from other members in
other parties, in particular, the member for South Shore, even
though he was verbally attacked by the members of the Reform
Party who showed up to disrupt the meetings and cause dissension.
There was a member of the Reform Party standing in the parking
lot in Victoria with a bullhorn telling people to disrupt the
meetings and do whatever they could to make the Liberals look
bad. What they did was make themselves look bad. They showed
their true faces. A lot of times they are frustrated with the
facts. The fact is that we travelled to British Columbia. I
have been there about 13 times now. It is a great province. My
son even celebrated his first birthday there, despite all the
heckling of the Luddites. The fact is that the people of British
Columbia that I talked to, and I talked to people who oppose, do
we take the Fraser Institute versus the dilatory—
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I heard the hon. member refer to I think members of the Reform
Party and indeed members of British Columbia as being Luddites.
I would like to have the member retract it. The reason why those
people were complaining is because they were not allowed to
speak. Their democratic rights were being trampled upon by the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No word is of itself
unparliamentary. It is the form, the context and the tone. I
would not rule the form, the context and the tone of the word
Luddite in this instance to be unparliamentary.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, once again, a very wise
ruling and one that recognizes the dilatory motions of the Reform
Party to try to scuttle this agreement.
I went to British Columbia, as I said. We had some bad weather.
We could not land in the airports where we were supposed to land.
We had to travel by bus, but what that did was prove that one
bad weather day in British Columbia is better than five good days
in Ottawa. I love going to British Columbia. I am more than
happy to relay to the House what actually happened, not what the
Reform Party is talking about.
Let me quote from some of the people that appeared before the
committee. Let me quote Mr. Bill Young, whose wife Norma and
himself, and their company have registered fee simple to 160
acres of land in the beautiful Nass Valley. His take on the
agreement is, and I quote:
Two, the access to our property is guaranteed by the laws of
British Columbia and the provincial highways authority.
Well, does that put out an argument.
Third, concern regarding taxation is defined in the “Taxation”
chapter, paragraph 1, page 217, which says our taxes will be
levied and paid to the provincial government of British Columbia.
The fact that this third party negotiation and some kind of a
nation that is going to appear out of the blue is just a bunch of
hokey.
Let me quote from the presentation to the House of Commons
committee by the mayor, Jack Talstra of the city of tariffs,
right in the beautiful Nass Valley, the start of this area. He
says:
We as local governments want treaty settlements to be certain and
final, meaning that the final outcome of treaty negotiations will
be a completion of the process of addressing outstanding first
nations claims, and that in relation to the question of the
aboriginal right and title, the treaties will bring finality and
certainty to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that
self-government for aboriginals is a dynamic, evolving form of
government, as it is for local governments.
That, along with other presentations we heard, only strengthened
our resolve that what this treaty does is take us out of the
Indian Act and into a treaty process where fee simple rights are
going to be granted and people are treated equally.
I do not think there is anything wrong with being treated
equally, but let me go to Professor Foster Griezic who made a
presentation in beautiful Prince George. He said and I quote:
Nisga'a opponents favour assimilation, appear to reject the
reality of history and prefer providing as little as possible for
the Nisga'a and other first nations.
1150
These are not my words. These are the words of the people who
have appeared before us. The people who are against it, the
Reform Party, in particular, question Nisga'a ownership of land,
forgetting that when this occurred in 1887 a Nisga'a elder asked,
and he is quoted:
One Chief named David MacKay asked how the government could say
“We will give you so much land” when the land is already ours.
The Nisga'a own the land. We are not giving them back something.
We are recognizing their rights as human beings to have fee
simple property and to act as a local government.
Coming out of municipal government where you deal with the rights
of individuals and people who, God help them, are able to
actually own their own land, I do not see anything wrong with
that. Would this not be terrible to actually let people own
their own land and be able to build a house on a piece of
property and own the land that is underneath it?
As a former real estate agent, I find it passing strange that
the Reform Party would be against that. Is it against fee
simple? Is it against people being treated equally? Is it
against everything? It voted against everything to do with
native Canadians in the House and now it is going to tell us it
is going to make everybody equal and everything will be
wonderful.
Let me talk to the presentation given in Terrace, B.C. by
another band who said: “Our traditional territories cover
approximately 13,000 square miles of the northwest portion of
British Columbia, including the areas of Terrace and Prince
Rupert. This nation compromises approximately 10,000 members.
They think in here that we are neighbours with the Nisga'a and we
have a common border between the Skeena and the Nass watershed”.
They stood in 1966 with the Nisga'a to enter into a very
historical and traditional ceremony. They stand with them. That
is contrary to what we have been hearing here.
Once again they talk about the Nisga'a treaty bringing many
benefits to northern B.C. It will enable the Nisga'a to work
with other jurisdictions to improve the quality of life for all
northern British Columbians. Their direct assistance with
education, health, economic and general community development
issues will be positive.
We know that negotiations between third parties have taken place
for a period of years. An agreement has been reached, the
Nisga'a have ratified it and British Columbia has ratified it.
Now it is the responsibility of Canada to accept and finalize the
agreement reached in good faith between the parties.
If we go to the comments of Chief Phil Fontaine, he said:
If there is a disagreement among natives, if there is a
disagreement among aboriginals, let the chief of the Six Nations
go and negotiate with the people that are involved.
Not the Canadian government, not the Reform party, definitely,
and certainly, to a process that they themselves can best work
out through their treaty negotiation that has carried on for
thousands of years. They have a way of life that may be a little
different than what the Reform Party wants, but they have a way
of life that was established long before we as white people came
to Canada.
Do not take my word for it, go to the B.C. Federation of Labour,
a membership made up of more than 40 affiliated unions
representing over 700 locals. It speaks on behalf of 450,000
working people in British Columbia. The federation is the single
largest organization representing workers' interests in the
province.
Mr. Jim Hart: What do the B.C. Liberals say?
Mr. John O'Reilly: I will come to that. I am being
heckled here about the B.C. Liberal/Reform Party headed by Gordon
Campbell, the B.C. Liberal/Reform member who swims from a very
shallow gene pool when it comes to trying to get votes.
Bill Vander Zalm, the hero, the big reform guy out there in B.C.
endorsed this. Now, flip flop, flip flop; it is worse than
Stornoway. It is just another big flip flop by the Reform Party
and Bill Vander Zalm. Get real. Bill Vander Zalm, man, that is
sad. What people will not do in a leadership for votes. Where
are they? They are running around to every camera.
I will read this quote:
It is especially important now for the labour movement to discuss
the Nisga'a Agreement everywhere we can since David Black, who
publishes 60 community newspapers in B.C., has given instructions
to his editors to publish only editorials opposing the
settlement.
1155
I saw a member of the Reform Party's research department trying
to find a Globe and Mail this morning so—
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I request a quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member
feels there may not be a sufficient number of members to hear the
pearls of wisdom coming from the member opposite so he has called
quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint
my friend that there are enough people here who actually want to
listen, that he is not alone even though all his people have
abandoned him in trying to not have a quorum. I understand those
dilatory type motions they have.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are giving me the V-sign
for victory or whether I have actually come to the end of my term
here, so this will be my wrap-up.
Since 1993 when the B.C. treaty process was launched, treaty
negotiations have been wide open, the most open and accessible
process of its kind that the treaty commission is aware of. That
is from British Columbia. That is what British Columbians think.
They do not think of the three Rs of parliament that the Reform
Party brought—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to stand in the House today to speak at the report stage
of Bill C-9. There has been a lot of work done in committee and
a lot of debate in the House. There has been a lot of
information put forth and certainly a lot of misinformation put
forth. It is very difficult, but it is an interesting challenge
to discuss this treaty with most of the members of parliament in
this place and in other places where the committee has been.
The point that needs to be made and made consistently over and
over again is that this is a very important piece of legislation,
that it will be one of the major pieces of legislation to dictate
and formulate policy in the treaty process in this country as we
continue down the road of negotiation and treaty making. Although
this is not a template, there are certainly many areas in this
treaty that one would wish to be a template for other treaties.
It is important for the public and Canadian citizens at large to
understand those areas that the Reform Party has spoken to on
many occasions and that other members of the House have spoken
to. One of those areas is whether the Constitution of Canada
will prevail, and it certainly does prevail. Another area is
whether the charter of rights and freedoms will prevail, and it
certainly does prevail. And on and on it goes.
We could continue to debate single and numerous issues but I
have listed a few. I was able to stand in the House on several
occasions and debate this treaty. There were a few times after I
had looked back over what I had said that I noticed I had
actually missed a couple of points. It is important that we get
all the points out there so everybody can understand them.
First I will speak to the areas of the agreement where Nisga'a
laws will prevail to the extent of inconsistencies with federal
and provincial laws. I have heard a lot of chest pounding and a
lot of discussion and debate about the fact that there are
14—some days it is 14, some days it is 17—areas where Nisga'a
law will prevail. Let us take a look at those areas.
There are no areas of exclusive jurisdiction for Nisga'a
government. Instead Nisga'a laws are required to meet the
minimum standards of federal and provincial laws except in the
following areas. The Nisga'a government will be able to
establish laws on Nisga'a lands concerning administration,
management and operation of Nisga'a government. I do not think
the world is going to come to an end on that one. I do not think
the earth will crack open and people will be tumbling down this
great chasm never to be seen again.
1200
They control Nisga'a citizenship now. On the preservation,
promotion and development of Nisga'a culture and language I do
not think there is a hidden agenda. I do not think there is
anything in it so far that I have read to members of the House
that will significantly change the country of Canada that we all
live in.
On the use and management of Nisga'a lands, who should be in
charge of Nisga'a lands but the Nisga'a themselves in the same
way that anyone who owns fee simple property has responsibility
and ownership of that fee simple property? On planning and
development of Nisga'a lands including operation of a land
registry and expropriation, the same laws are due to any
municipality.
The agreement refers to possession and management of assets
other than real property, provision of health services,
authorization and licensing of aboriginal healers, and child and
family services on Nisga'a lands. I have made the point several
times but I think it deserves to be made again that it is fairly
clearly stated in the Nisga'a final agreement that the Nisga'a
laws regarding children and families cannot be less than the
provincial laws that are already in place. They can be greater
than. They can be more beneficial and more protective of
families and children but they cannot be less beneficial or less
protective of families and children.
On adoption of Nisga'a children, pre-school to grade 12
education on Nisga'a lands of Nisga'a citizens, post-secondary
education on Nisga'a lands, devolution of the cultural property
of Nisga'a citizens who die intestate, federal or provincial laws
will prevail. Other areas included are public order, peace and
safety, regulation of traffic and transportation on Nisga'a
roads, design, construction, repair, demolition of buildings and
structure, solemnization of marriages within British Columbia,
provision of social services, health services, prohibitions and
conditions for sale, possession and consumption of intoxicants on
Nisga'a lands, and emergency preparedness and emergency measures.
Except for adoption, social services and solemnization of
marriages, the Nisga'a government will only be able to exercise
its power on Nisga'a lands. For the three areas I mentioned
there is an obvious need for laws to apply outside Nisga'a lands.
A number of fallacies have also been mentioned with regard to
the Nisga'a final agreement. I have spoken about them at length
in earlier debate and I have mentioned some of them already
today. The application of the Canadian constitution and the
charter of rights and freedoms are areas that need to be
discussed and explained in a rational and straightforward manner
with extensive and substantive debate. The issues should be
raised, listed in priority, listed in order, discussed and
explained, and then we should move on.
For instance, there will be no taxation without representation,
which I have heard time and time and time again in the House. I
think the record would show that every Reform member of
parliament who spoke to this issue stated somewhere in his or her
speech that there would be taxation without representation. That
is patently untrue. There is no provision for that. It will not
happen.
The taxation chapter states that the Nisga'a Lisims government
may make laws in respect of direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens
on Nisga'a lands. If a non-Nisga'a person purchases a parcel of
Nisga'a land, that person will pay taxes to the provincial
government rather than to the Nisga'a Lisims government. It is
true that non-Nisga'a people will not be able to vote in
elections for the Nisga'a Lisims government, but in areas where
their interests are affected non-Nisga'a people will be able to
have input and participate on boards.
1205
It should be noted that there are hundreds of thousands of
citizens, permanent residents and landed citizens who pay
municipal, provincial and federal taxes and are not given the
right to vote.
The very small minority, the 90 plus non-Nisga'a residents who
live on Nisga'a land will not be taxed by the Nisga'a government.
They do not have the right to vote for that government although
there are provisions that could possibly change in the future.
They will not be taxed by that government. I heard a member on
the other side saying that perhaps that is not correct.
Obviously there is a fair amount of work required to get through
the Nisga'a final agreement. There is a lot of reading but it is
not that complicated. It is very straightforward. I would
recommend that before those members stand in the House to vote
against the agreement they should read it. That is one
recommendation I would like to make.
That the Nisga'a final agreement diminishes the rights of
non-Nisga people is patently untrue. On the contrary, they will
have far greater input than currently allowed under the old
Indian Act.
One of the best points about the treaty, one of the issues that
makes it work, is that the Nisga'a will no longer be covered by
the Indian Act. They will come out from under that archaic and
perhaps racist piece of legislation. They will have their own
laws, laws similar to those of any other municipality, with some
quasi-provincial applications and some quasi-federal
applications. They will become, if I can use the term, full and
equal citizens before the law and full participants in the
Canadian economy. They will receive the benefits that accrue
from it.
I also had the opportunity to travel in British Columbia.
Regardless of what some members in the House have said, I was not
dragged kicking and screaming to B.C. I voted to go to B.C. I
was happy to go to B.C. and I would certainly go back.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in this piece of legislation.
There is a lot to be explained. It is the job of the government
to provide that explanation and part of the explanation is
travelling to B.C. and speaking to all those who want to appear
before the committee. Unfortunately everyone who wanted to
appear before the committee was not able to be heard.
I appreciate having had the opportunity once again to speak to
this important subject.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin by stating that the amendments proposed this morning
strike me as useless, to say the least. They are not in the
least intended to improve the bill, only to delay it being
passed.
The number of amendments proposed by Reformers suggests to me
that their sole objective is to slow down the process leading to
the passage of Bill C-9. My colleagues and myself cannot endorse
such action.
We support the Nisga'a agreement overall. Now that the
committee deliberations are over and the bill has been
thoroughly examined, we do not want to see it held up.
It was important for a number of elements raised by the Nisga'a
agreement to be discussed. But second reading, coupled with the
committee meetings that were held in British Columbia, leads us
to the conclusion that we have been able to examine the bill
properly and that amendments are not appropriate.
I hardly need to reiterate that the Nisga'a final agreement was
duly endorsed by the three parties that negotiated it. The
Nisga'a nation gave majority approval to it in a referendum on
November 19, 1998.
1210
The Government of British Columbia signed and approved it on
April 22, 1999 with the passage of Bill 51. As for the federal
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, she
ratified it this past May 4.
All that is left is the passage of Bill C-9 for them to finally
have the necessary tools to develop as a nation. The Nisga'a
are most anxious to see this happen, and they deserve it. They
have been at the negotiating table for nearly 25 years.
Since the arrival of the first Europeans in the Nass Valley, the
Nisga'a nation has attempted to negotiate on numerous occasions
and to sign a treaty relating to their land claims.
In the mid 1880s, aboriginal leaders started making
representations to the authorities. However, their efforts met
with no success for several decades, because the leaders at the
time refused to recognize the aboriginal titles to the land they
were claiming.
Following written and verbal claims, official meetings and court
proceedings, especially in the Calder case in 1973, they managed
to establish the likelihood of ancestral claims to these lands
and the need to negotiate to establish their ownership.
In 1976, the federal government began negotiations with the
Nisga'a tribal council. In 1990, British Columbia joined the
negotiations. In February 1996, the three parties reached an
agreement, which was finalized in August 1998 with the signature
of the final agreement.
This agreement therefore puts an end to over a century of
claims. It puts an end to many years of claims by this nation
regarding its ancestral rights over land in the Nass Valley. It
means a settlement of the land rights of the Nisga'a and a
lessening of the economic uncertainty over the ownership and the
use of the lands and resources in the region.
So, Bill C-9 is the last stone needed to give effect to the
tripartite agreement among the Nisga'a, the Government of
British Columbia and the Government of Canada. We want to
reiterate once again the Bloc Quebecois' support for the
agreement and its pleasure at participating in this historical
moment for the Nisga'a.
The type of amendments proposed by the Reform members do not
improve the bill in any way.
Right from the outset, Reformers said they would do everything
in their power to delay implementation of the agreement. With
the amendments they are now moving, that is exactly what they
are doing.
Given the nature of the bill to give effect to the Nisga'a final
agreement, we feel it is parliament's role to debate, approve or
reject the bill, not to amend the proposed agreement. I repeat,
it has been duly approved by the three parties that negotiated
it.
In fact, under the provisions of clauses 36, 37 and 38 of
Chapter 2, the agreement may not be amended without the consent
of the Nisga'a—the Nisga'a of British Columbia, obviously—and of
the federal government. Amending the bill would, in our view,
be a show of paternalism that we want no part of.
1215
That is why the Bloc Quebecois will not be commenting on each of
the amendments moved by Reformers.
We would simply remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois
supported the main recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault
commission, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which
proposed an approach to the concept of self-government based on
recognizing aboriginal governments as having jurisdiction over
how their people were governed and their well-being.
In addition, the entire report was predicated on recognizing
aboriginal peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique
position in Canada.
The Nisga'a final agreement fully reflects the spirit of the
conclusions and recommendations of the Erasmus Dussault report,
and therefore constitutes a positive step toward a healthier
redefinition of relations between governments and the aboriginal
nations.
The majority of the Nisga'a, or 61% of the eligible voters,
voted in favour of this agreement, and we acknowledge their will
in this. The agreement represents a compromise approved by the
people. It is the result of close to 25 years of negotiations.
It clearly reflects the will of a nation.
It is not a one-size-fits-all model. The first nations are very
different one from the other, and there is no single way of
negotiating that could meet the needs of all aboriginal peoples.
It took many years to reach this agreement, and it would be
unrealistic to think that all such agreements will follow a
similar path.
There may, however, be some similarity in the paths followed by
other nations and, in our opinion, this constitutes a very
positive step toward improved relations between aboriginal and
non-aboriginal people.
We believe that the Reform Party's opposition is based on an
erroneous concept of Canada's political history. No matter what
they cost, they want all citizens to be treated on what they
consider an equal footing, but they are on the wrong track. By
so doing, they are completely closing their eyes to the
particular characteristics of aboriginal issues. Equality does
not equate with justice, and justice is what must be defended
when culture, language and traditions are involved.
Recognition of the right to self-government is recognition of the
right of aboriginal people to possess the tools required to
develop as a nation.
The Reform wants to give them nothing more than the powers of a
municipality, while retaining federal control over all of their
decisions. How could the Nisga'a accept having decisions
affecting their daily lives and their culture entirely the
responsibility of Ottawa?
The Reform is refusing to understand the realities of aboriginal
peoples and their culture distinctiveness. They want to see a
uniform vision of Canada at any price.
I will close by stating that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill
C-9, and opposes the amendments presented by the Reform Party.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, British
Columbia to speak at report stage of Bill C-9, the legislation
which will implement the Nisga'a agreement.
1220
For the people of Surrey, British Columbia and Canada who are
listening, and for the sake of the record, I point out that the
previous Liberal speaker, the member for
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, in response to a committee hearing
in B.C., pointed out that if it was not for the Reform Party of
Canada the committee would not have held hearings in B.C. This
is the same member who said that the committee hearings in B.C.
were a dog and pony show. That shows the arrogance of Liberals.
We are considering hundreds of amendments which my colleagues
and I in the official opposition have introduced in our effort to
change the bill. We are standing on behalf of aboriginal and
non-aboriginal Canadians who know that this treaty, the treaty
process and the bill are seriously flawed, and who want to avoid
the many problems that will result if the Liberals have their way
and pass the bill in its present form.
I must add, as I did in my speech on the bill at second reading,
because I want the record to clearly show, that the Reform Party
is the only party in the House opposed to the bill. Reformers
are the only members talking about the problems that will be
created. We are the only members standing for Canadians and the
Nisga'a people who have been forced to accept this treaty
because, after decades of effort, this is all they will get. They
are having to satisfy themselves with what is in this treaty, and
the Liberals are in a conspiracy with other parties in the House
to force the treaty on the Nisga'a people.
It was the B.C. provincial Liberal Party which opposed the bill,
while the soon to be ousted NDP government in B.C. rammed it
through the B.C. legislature. The process the bill has gone
through is a democratic travesty. Democracy is not only marking
an x on a ballot every four years; democracy is the
continuous representation of the people, with continuous input
from Canadians on all the decision making which affects them.
The Liberals across Canada are confused about the bill. They
are in conflict over the bill. The Reform Party is the only
party in the House that has a vision for the future. That is why
we are the only members with the guts to raise the concerns being
whispered by so many Canadians.
No one wants to offend the Nisga'a people or criticize their
treaty. When we talk about the Nisga'a treaty we are not talking
against the Nisga'a people. As a matter of fact, it is a tragedy
that no other party in the House is acknowledging that the
history of the government's treatment of the Nisga'a people is
shameful. No other party in the House is admitting that this
treaty is a very poor attempt to make up for the way the Nisga'a
people have been treated and what they have lost over the course
of decades. Most importantly, the Nisga'a will face a tough
future as a result of this treaty.
The Liberals are continuing to deny the Nisga'a an equal
partnership in Canada and full citizenship in our great country.
This treaty will maintain their segregation. It tries to buy
them off with millions of dollars in cash. There are many
problems with the treaty which my colleagues will address.
I have put forward and seconded amendments on behalf of the
people of Surrey Central, the official opposition and those
people in B.C. and Canada who feel strongly that the Liberals are
making a big mistake with Bill C-9. They are concerned with the
coming into force of Bill C-9, knowing that the Liberals and
other parties in the House will not likely permit amendments to
be made to the bill in this concerted dictatorship that is being
passed off as debate.
1225
We have provided hundreds of opportunities for the government to
rethink its position and delay the passage of the bill. We
proposed the delay of the clauses of the bill which deal with the
Nisga'a final agreement itself, the moneys to be paid out of the
federal government's consolidated revenue fund and the taxation
regime that will be created.
It is the intention of these amendments to allow time for the
Government of Canada to wake up to what the lawyers,
constitutional experts, historians and many other learned people
are saying about the problems with Bill C-9.
I also hope that by forcing a time delay in the coming into
force of the bill the Nisga'a people, by their own means or by
any other means, can manage a better deal. I do not mean more
cash, more land or resource rights based on race, but based on
need. I refer to a better deal that provides a good blueprint
for future negotiations with aboriginals that satisfies all
Canadians.
Our sole interest in this issue is to establish a new and better
future for the Nisga'a people in their relationships with each
other and other Canadians. We understand that this agreement is
all the Nisga'a people could hope to achieve. After years of
negotiation, most Nisga'a leaders feel they have no alternative
to this agreement and the principles on which it is based. We
understand that. For them it is this or nothing. I am sad that
they are forced to support it.
Rather than addressing the problems of our natives, our
governments pretended that the problems did not exist and they
hoped they would go away. Now, rather than addressing the
problems appropriately, the government is going to make a serious
blunder, a serious mistake. Two wrongs can never make a right.
What we get is a double wrong. That is what we are doing in
Canada through the courtesy of the Liberal government.
The magnitude of the consequences of the Nisga'a treaty may be
so great that it will have the potential to spark a big fire of
violence and threaten the peace, harmony and prosperity of our
nation.
This agreement contradicts one of the key founding principles of
the Reform Party, namely that we believe in the true equality of
Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for
all. We want equality for all Canadians. We want a new start
for aboriginal people in Canada. We want them to be full and
equal participants in Canadian society, with the same rights and
protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want aboriginal women
to be full and equal partners on and off Indian reserves.
The Nisga'a final agreement does not meet these requirements.
The treaty is not a perfect document because it is based on
compromise and race, rather than on consultation and need. The
flawed treaty process is driven by history. There is a need to
undo the mistakes of past Liberal and Tory governments, but
historians have not been included.
I would also point out that treaties, like diamonds, are
forever. That is why it is folly for negotiators to assume
omniscience and produce voluminous treaties that attempt to cover
every eventuality. What if the public attitude on these issues
changes over time? Treaties should be based on need, not race.
That is why the Nisga'a deal should be subject to the broadest
and most careful public scrutiny.
1230
Therefore, to not let British Columbians in on the deal,
essentially negotiated in secret only after the initial ceremony
and then told by those in authority that no change will be
considered, is the height of Liberal arrogance. This is simply
unacceptable. Every opportunity should be given to all Canadians
to have their input. We are asking for a referendum on this
treaty, which is so important to all Canadians, to maintain
peace, harmony and prosperity in Canada.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
listening to the interventions by members from the Liberal Party
the PC Party and the Bloc this morning, they talked about this
agreement bringing certainty.
Listening to evidence from a Queen's counsel in Vancouver at one
of the meetings on Friday, he said that the only certainty it
would bring was certainty for the lawyers because he could make a
living for the rest of his days off this treaty either by
challenging it because it was wrong or defending it because he
thought it was right. He said that either side would produce
certainty of income for the lawyers.
Some of the members here, who are not from B.C. and, frankly, do
not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about, said
that it has been in negotiations for 25 years, as if that
justifies signing it. Sure, it has been 25 years in negotiations
but that does not automatically make it right.
The fact that it was supported by the politically correct
Liberals and the politically correct provincial NDP in B.C.,
neither having more than 39% of the popular vote, is enough to
show that it was negotiated by the elite not by the grassroots,
neither by the grassroots non-natives or the grassroots natives
themselves. It was negotiated by elites using formulas that have
never worked and have no hope of working in the future either.
When I stood in the House on November 1 to speak on this bill, I
specifically asked the minister to name a single Indian reserve
anywhere in the country governed by a treaty where the standard
of living is equal to or higher than off reserve. That minister
stood and completely avoided the question. The reason is that he
cannot answer it because there is not a single Indian reserve
that has a higher standard of living.
I can use the example of the Samson Cree reserve, probably the
wealthiest reserve in the entire country in terms of income: $100
million a year. Yet 85% of the members live in poverty and I
believe 85% of them are on welfare.
Only time will tell who is correct about the Nisga'a treaty, but
I do not see any way that the Nisga'a Tribal Council can pull off
something that no other tribal council has been able to pull off,
and that is a success in a treaty. All of the evidence is
stacked solidly against it, and that 10 years from now we will
have the same levels of poverty and the same repression of the
women on reserve. These were exactly the same problems before
the treaty existed. There is absolutely no justification to have
it passed.
Not a single Liberal member from British Columbia has had the
the gumption to stand in the House and say what needs to be said.
They know what needs to be said. Every one of them has heard
the message from British Columbians that this is such an
important deal for British Columbia that it should be subjected
to a referendum of the people, not just the Nisga'a but the
non-natives as well.
As Noel Wright, a columnist in the Vancouver area said last
weekend in his column:
As the model for all future treaties with B.C. natives, it stands
to result eventually in a province pockmarked with 50 or more
tiny, apartheid-type independent “nations” wielding powers in
some 14 areas that would supersede those of the provincial and
federal governments.
That is the theme of many of the letters that I get from my
constituents. They do not see the treaty as bringing Canadians
together. It is separating Canadians based on race. It is
creating these apartheid-type or segregated-type communities that
we will pay a heavy price for promoting in the future.
I have also heard some of the members over there criticizing
Reformers. They make implications about our motives. I will put
a few things on the record here that may not be known by the
people opposite, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
1235
For example, the leader of the party worked for many years as a
consultant for native bands helping them to set up native
businesses and deal with the government. The member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan has adopted native children into his family.
The member for Vancouver Island North is married to a Métis. The
member for Edmonton North lived and worked on a reserve for many
years teaching native children. The member for Yorkton—Melville
also worked and lived on a native reserve. The member for Wild
Rose introduced a private member's bill in the House to cause an
ombudsman to be established to help native Indians with the
problems they have with getting help from Indian affairs to
investigate corruption in the bands.
While I do not have any direct connection with native bands, in
my riding more than 200 members of the Squamish band have
approached me by writing, coming directly to my office, via
petition and via telephone with their concerns about Bill C-49.
For anybody on the other side to say that we do not understand
the issue, that we do not have connections with natives and do
not understand where the problems lie in things like the treaty
or Bill C-9, is poppycock. We probably understand it a lot
better than the politically correct who sit on the other side of
the House and refuse to see that for every treaty that has ever
been passed in the country evidence shows that they do not work.
They create poverty. They continue with the process of
repression because they are styled in a socialist manner. They
set up a socialist style of community with collective rights that
are rife with corruption. It does not work.
I have just been corrected. I apologize to the member for
Vancouver Island North. His wife is a status Indian not a Métis.
When the Liberal government introduced enabling legislation for
the Nisga'a treaty to parliament on October 21, the minister made
it clear that there would be no committee hearings, there would
be no travel to the provinces, there would be no amendments to
the bill and the time for debate would be severely curtailed.
What sort of democracy does that represent?
It does not help us, who are elected to represent the concerns
of our constituents, to know that the outcome of every vote is
predetermined, that we do not have a hope of making a single
amendment no matter how many flaws we point out in the bill. It
contains 252 pages. How can there possibly not be one single
mistake in the 252 page bill? It is impossible. It is
bullet-headed. It is arrogant for the government to assume that
it is perfect in every respect. As I mentioned earlier, it is
nothing more than certainty of income for the lawyers.
The auditor general himself has said that the longer the treaty,
the more likely there will be legal challenges. At the moment we
already have more than $9 billion worth of legal challenges under
way to existing treaties. The Nisga'a treaty, which is not even
law yet, is under challenge from five different groups.
The Liberal Party of British Columbia, the bedfellows of the
federal Liberals, is challenging the treaty as unconstitutional.
The Gitanyow first nation, as a number of other members on this
side have mentioned, consider it an act of aggression. They are
challenging it in court. The fisheries survival coalition and a
group of Nisga'a people are taking this treaty to court. Where
is the certainty? The agreement has not even gone through the
House and there are five legal challenges against it.
How can members on the other side of the House have the nerve to
stand and tell us that there is certainty? How do they have the
nerve to tell us that it is a good agreement because it took 25
years, when every other treaty that has ever been negotiated in
the country has been a failure? They have no logic to defend
their position.
In my previous speech on November 1, I did bring up the issue of
the treaty producing apartheid-like or segregated-type of
communities. One of the Liberal members noticed my comment and
brought it up in a committee hearing to the chiefs of the Nisga'a
band. The answer from the chiefs was that they did not consider
the deal to be apartheid-like because those affected freely voted
for the system of government themselves.
Is apartheid not apartheid just because people voted for it? It
is a totally ludicrous position to take. If we are separating
people based on race, that is separation based on race whether we
vote for it or not.
This is creating segregated communities in British Columbia, not
only non-native from native but there will be one native band
segregated from another native band segregated from another
native band. They will all have their own bylaws and rules.
1240
What is British Columbia going to look like? We have more than
90% of all the Indian bands in the entire country. Nobody
outside of British Columbia understands the impact of this treaty
on British Columbia. The people of British Columbia should have
been involved in the preparation of the treaty. The people of
British Columbia should have had the right to vote on the basic
components of that treaty making process.
The only way that the treaty would have had the support of the
people of British Columbia is if they had genuine input into the
basics for that treaty. Then, if necessary, the government could
have negotiated a treaty that had public support and, if
necessary, use the notwithstanding clause to silence the lawyers
because it would have had the support of the people.
As it stands at the moment, we have a lot of big problems on our
plate. When this thing gets rammed through the House next week,
the law courts will open for business and we will see years and
years of expensive legal challenges.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is quite an interesting debate today. I did want to respond
to a couple of the comments that I have heard from the Liberal
Party in particular regarding the Nisga'a final agreement.
The first thing that comes to mind is that one of the members
said that it was just the Reform Party that opposes the Nisga'a
deal. That is not true at all. If we look at the vote that the
Nisga'a people had, there was not an absolute consensus on the
Nisga'a final agreement even with the them. Neither was there a
consensus or even a majority of people in the province of B.C.
who thought that the Nisga'a final agreement would bring
certainty. The official opposition in the province of B.C., the
B.C. Liberal Party, also strenuously objects to the Nisga'a final
agreement.
To enhance that argument, I point out that I have presented
literally thousands of names of people in my riding of
Okanagan—Coquihalla who are opposed to the Nisga'a final
agreement. Through the office of petitions in the House of
Commons, some of those are still being processed. There are many
more people who are still rising up and saying that there are
major problems with the Nisga'a final agreement and they want to
be heard. That is why the Reform Party of Canada is bringing
forward a number of amendments to this very important piece of
legislation that is being put through the House of Commons.
It should also be very instructive to the government that the
majority of B.C. representatives in the Reform Party of Canada
are opposing this. We would not be opposing it if we were not
hearing from our constituents in our ridings that they have
problems with this agreement. For the government, of which most
of its members are from Ontario or other provinces, to argue that
the Nisga'a final agreement is being accepted by the people of
B.C., is just a ridiculous statement if we look at the democratic
process that we live under. We are here to represent the
province of B.C.
I have an interesting story to tell the House. Some seven years
ago, my first trip to Ottawa before I was elected, I got on the
phone to make the flight arrangements. I remember distinctly
talking to the customer service representative of the airlines.
She asked me where I was calling from and I told her that I was
in the Okanagan Valley. She asked me where I wanted to go and I
said that I was going to Ottawa. After looking on her computer
screen she said that I could not get there from where I was.
Although she made that comment tongue-in-cheek, and it was kind
of humourous at the time and still is, that is the way a lot of
British Columbians feel. Ottawa is so far away and so disjointed
from the way we feel in the province of British Columbia that we
simply cannot get through to the people here, in particular the
Liberal federal government.
I have another example of how the Liberals deal with these types
of situations. We have had a considerable amount of unfortunate
incidents in my riding between non-native and native groups. It
has affected our economy.
1245
One of the most recent ones was when the Minister of Transport
sent a Liberal senator to make a big announcement at the
Penticton airport. The announcement was that the federal
government would put $650,000 into repaving the runway at that
airport. That in itself is not bad and the work needs to be
done, but the fact is that for years now I have been telling the
government that there is a serious problem which has caused
division in the riding between the native and non-native groups,
that is a specific land claim against the Penticton airport.
I almost felt sorry for that Liberal senator. He should have
known, after years and years of attempting to get this message
through to the Government of Canada, that they have to deal first
with the root problem we are facing in Penticton, which is the
land claim settlement and the issues with the native band
regarding ownership of the land. They blew into town, dropped
$650,000, blew out of town as quickly as possible, and left the
problem with the local people who have no authority to deal with
the issue.
What has that caused? It has caused a number of things. It
caused more disruption at the Penticton airport. The band and
the locatee families have stopped the paving company from
fulfilling its work. It has caused all kinds of problems but
this is typical of the Liberal government.
When we look at the Nisga'a agreement it is the same. They came
to the province of British Columbia and said that this would
solve all their problems and left town. They will push it
through the House of Commons very quickly, and who will be left
with the economic problems at the end of the day? First it will
be the Nisga'a people and then the people of British Columbia.
That is unsatisfactory.
I have heard from members in the House today that the agreement
will not affect anyone else. In the research I have done I
discovered a briefing note from the NDP ministry of agriculture
to the minister of agriculture which confirmed that the former
premiers of British Columbia continually see the Nisga'a final
agreement as a template for treaty negotiations in B.C. I say
former because they keep changing premiers as the NDP has trouble
keeping someone in place there. Then it went on to state:
Impacts on current agricultural uses of crown resources will
result if the Nisga'a land selection and settlement model is
repeated.
The briefing note then detailed what the impacts would be by
stating that we could expect to see significant localized
disruptions to individual ranchers within close proximity to
first nations land. As an example it pointed out that 1,000
farms in the south Okanagan held crown tenures within 10
kilometres of existing Indian reserves. The same land holds 69%
of the British Columbia agricultural land reserve. All this land
will become the subject of land claims if the Nisga'a agreement
is used as a template, which even the former premiers of British
Columbia admit. The briefing note went on to state:
—that the total land quotum to be transferred to First Nations
would be in the range of 5% of the total land base, an area
larger than the total Agricultural Land Reserve. This amount of
land would likely consume the majority of Crown Agricultural Land
Reserve, approximately 2.5 million hectares.
Given the dramatic impact of the Nisga'a final agreement in a
riding that is so far away from the Nass Valley, the House must
consider those problems. We must be very cautious. We must be
very sure that we have processes in place to make sure that other
economic industries, whether it is ranching, orcharding or
natural resources such as mining and forestry, are not disrupted
by this type of land settlement. Those areas are of great
interest to the province of B.C. To say that this agreement
brings certainty is far from the truth.
The briefing note I have presented today is just one of the
examples we have.
1250
There has been a lot of talk in the House about private
property. I stress that the Nisga'a agreement gives collective
rights. The Reform Party would like to see it be individual
rights.
We think there will be some problems down the road. What do we
do when collective rights come in conflict with individual
rights? That is the big question. As the Liberal government
does time and time again with legislation, it will not spell it
out clearly. It will leave it to the courts, which means more
more economic uncertainty in the province of British Columbia.
My colleagues and I want to see certainty. We want to see
finality to the whole issue of native land claims. Unless we
have that we will have years and years and probably decades of
more uncertainty in the province of British Columbia.
On behalf of the riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla and the people
of B.C., I urge the government to look at our amendments very
carefully and accept the express desires of the people of B.C.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for North Vancouver asked me to correct a
statement he made in the heat of debate in which he mentioned
that British Columbia had over 90% of the bands in Canada. The
number is actually about 30%.
As a politician I thank the Liberal government for being so
stupid, clumsy and arrogant in how it is imposing this agreement
since it is creating animosity toward the governing Liberals that
will not scrub away. I am more concerned about what will happen
to my family, my community, my province and the nation. The
Nisga'a disagreement is the most important and the worst social
and economic legislation and constitutional amendment in my
lifetime.
I have been talking about the Nisga'a agreement since 1995. I
am intimately familiar with the agreement. Much to the contrary
of what some of its proponents have been saying, we have read the
agreement. We have studied it. We are familiar with it. I wish
they were as familiar with it. They are glossing over the real
facts. I have done more than read it. I have analyzed it. My
analysis is available at my website, www.duncanmp.com.
It is with a heavy heart that I speak to this agreement once
again, knowing that the government is committed to what will be
seen down the road as a monumental social and economic blunder.
I have talked to live audiences more than 25 times and sent out
half a million householders across the province. British
Columbians are well informed compared with people in other
provinces, jurisdictions and territories in terms of the Nisga'a
agreement. They are better informed than many members of
parliament. I only had to witness some of the comments this
morning to appreciate how true that is.
On Friday, November 26, I spent the afternoon in Vancouver at
the official opposition sponsored hearings. I will briefly talk
about three presentations that were made because they illuminate
with some clarity what is going on. Mike deJong and Geoffrey
Plant, provincial MLAs from the B.C. Liberal Party, the official
opposition; Jeff Rustand, the lawyer representing Mr. Lloyd
Brinson, a small landowner in the Nass Valley of British Columbia
who is surrounded by Nisga'a lands; and Miss Kerry-Lynne Findlay,
Q.C., a lawyer and Musqueam leaseholder, appeared as witnesses.
1255
Interestingly both B.C. official opposition Liberals and Mr.
Lloyd Brinson have launched lawsuits in attempts to bring
accountability and common sense to this federal and provincial
negotiated agreement which has excluded the public interest and
flies in the face democracy, equality and constitutional
principles. For starters, I will quote Kerry-Lynne Findlay:
I am a Musqueam leaseholder. I live there with my husband and
four children. I am a mortgage holder. I am also a lawyer and I
seem to have found myself in the role of kind of general counsel
and spokesperson for the Musqueam leaseholders. I have advocated
on their behalf in many areas. Taxation without representation,
Bill C-9, particularly the expropriation portions of that bill,
and the treaty process in general. One of the comments I am
always given, one of the answers I am always given by the federal
government is that the Musqueam situation has no bearing on Bill
C-9, which is separate legislation. It has no bearing on the
Nisga'a Treaty, which is a separate matter.
It has no bearing on
the treaty process in general, which is a separate matter. I
have a fundamental disagreement with that concept because I
believe it is part of an overall approach of divide and conquer,
which is very much alive and well in Canada in 1999. All of
these legislative initiatives, the treaty process, what is
happening through the transfer of taxation powers to aboriginals
under the Indian Act, this is all about the transfer of power and
authority and the setting up of new governance institutions and
new governing systems. Of course the stakes are very high...
There are many aspects of the treaty that concern Musqueam
leaseholders.
They include, if I can just highlight, the
treatment of non-aboriginals on aboriginal lands; the fact that
the treaty is one step away from giving taxing authority to the
Nisga'a and, in our experience, could very well mean taxation
without representation and all of what that entails because of
the lack of vote that non-aboriginals have in Indian government;
the lack of a timetable for this Nisga'a self-sufficiency; the
open-ended financial commitment that all taxpayers are being
asked to enter into and, of course, the constitutional level
changes we are dealing with...all of this process reminds me very
much of the discussions around the Meech and Charlottetown
accord. At that time I was the National Chair of the
constitutional law section of the Canadian Bar Association. I
was very involved in those discussions and the process that
evolved at that time. What happened there, of course, is not
news to most people here, is there was the Canadian elite, those
who headed up the large businesses, large monopolies of the
country, big business and big government, got behind both of
those and said that's the way this country should look, that is
what we want.
Ms. Findlay continued:
I say that, in part, as a Liberal, and I want to say that today
because I think it's important. I have been a Liberal Party
member nationally and provincially since I was a teenager. I
worked for that party. I've actively campaigned for that party
in elections. I have acted as a legal adviser to people who are
now members of parliament. I am fundamentally ashamed of that
party and its lack of vision...I use the word “ashamed” because
it is the true feeling I have and I think many of us will have
right now because of the way the government has shown its
indifference and arrogance on this issue. It is a fundamental
issue for the Canadian fabric and it is important to both
non-aboriginals and aboriginals that it be handled well and
clearly and that the guidelines be precise.
We had testimony from Geoffrey Plant and Mike deJong of the
B.C. Liberal opposition. I will quote briefly from what they had
to say:
We have commenced a court action. We have concerns about what is
in this treaty, we have concerns about the self-government
provisions, we have concerns about a treaty that would purport to
limit your ability to vote for a government that has
responsibility over you and limit that right to vote on the basis
of your ethnicity. We think that's wrong. We think a fishery, a
commercial fishery, based on an allocation that is tied to
ethnicity is wrong, and we think there are alternatives...We're
asking the court to declare that the Nisga'a final agreement is
unconstitutional. There are three basic pillars of the argument.
1300
They went through them and concluded by saying:
If we're right on any of those points, then what has happened is
that the governments have tried to negotiate a document which is
outside their constitutional authority to do so.
Finally, we had testimony from another very interesting witness,
and these are only three of many, Mr. Rustand, representing
Lloyd Brinson, a small landowner in the Nass Valley. I will
quote a bit from his speech because I am running out of time. He
said:
Mr. Brinson owns a small patch of land up in the Nass Valley. The
land that he owns is going to be if this treaty is implemented
surrounded by what is known as the Nisga'a Lands. Now, what this
means is that although Lloyd's land will remain technically part
of the B.C. Land Title system and part of B.C. and subject to the
laws of Victoria and Canada, all the lands about him will be
subject to the laws and the administration of the Nisga'a
government. To give you a microcosmic view of what this means
for Lloyd and others who will be in his position, this means that
everything related to his livelihood and his daily living will be
under the purview of a government that is established for the
purpose of administering to the needs of a racially defined
group, on a communal basis, without an outsider. The issues that
will come up for Mr. Brinson are such things as water...wood-lot
rights, he requires wood for his heating...simple things like
garbage disposal, business activities, commercial transactions,
zoning, access to health, education, maybe not so much for Mr.
Brinson, payment of local taxes....Because Mr. Brinson lacks the
bloodlines to qualify as a Nisga'a citizen, the treaty takes a
giant step backward to something which, if this happened in any
other community in Canada today, would be considered an
abomination.
Rafe Mair said recently in a public meeting which I attended,
“Never assume that the people in charge know what they are
doing”. That is what is happening with this Nisga'a
disagreement.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it rather interesting that only members of the
Reform Party seem to feel that this tremendously important
legislation which is before us is worthy of debate. I do not
know why we are not hearing, for example, from the British
Columbia representatives in the Liberal Party. Perhaps they are
a bit afraid to show their faces around here. I do not know.
This appears to have turned out to be “dump on B.C. week”. We
have a government which is using its heavy-handed powers to
impose its will upon a province which freely entered into
Confederation in 1871. I asked a fellow from B.C. the other day
if he could tell me for sure if it entered Confederation in 1871
or 1872. He said “I am not quite sure, but I will sure remember
the day we leave”.
That is what really concerns me. Over here we have the
so-called party of national unity, which expends a great deal of
hot air telling us how it wants to keep Canada together, yet it
has mounted a full frontal attack against one of our major
provinces. Why, I do not know, but I find it extremely
disconcerting.
When the Liberals purported to want to consult after the fact
with residents of B.C., after they had already tabled their
legislation for the treaty in the House, they went through a
little dog and pony show, or some smoke and mirrors. They were
going to consult with the people of British Columbia and they
were going to have hearings out there.
We have already heard in the House today how that went. Only a
very select group of people were allowed to appear before that
committee. When the government could not find suitable
pro-treaty people to appear before the committee in some of the
smaller cities, it flew them in from Vancouver and Victoria to
appear before the committee because it had to stack it. That is
not my definition of democracy.
1305
Fortunately, or perhaps it will not be fortunate because I do
not know what good it will do when we live with an elected
dictatorship, but nevertheless I will say fortunately, the Reform
Party representatives from B.C. were able to hold their own
hearings and they invited interested parties on both sides of the
issue to address the treaty. They received many submissions. I
just pulled a bunch of them off the Internet.
I want to quote from some of the eloquent testimony that was
given at those hearings. I emphasize the word eloquent because
these people were speaking from the heart. They were fighting
for their lives, basically. If I ever hear the degree of
eloquence in the House that came out in these hearings,
particularly from over yonder, I will be a very pleased man
indeed.
I want to quote briefly from some of the submissions that were
made. Clearly there are some 60 pages of fine print. I wish I
could read it all, but I am sure the Speaker would not permit
that. The Speaker is nodding his agreement. Therefore, I will
quote a few little highlights.
This is part of the submission of Mr. Doug Massey. Doug Massey
is a fisherman. His father immigrated to Canada from Ireland.
He got into the fishing business. His son came in and took up
the business behind him. These are some of the comments which Mr.
Massey made:
I believe this land and resource known as British Columbia has
been provided in trust to all inhabitants, past and present, to
be used as a source of life and to be protected for the
continuance of life. No one segment of the human race should be
recognized as having claim merely by being here longer.
In Ireland...to fish or hunt for wildlife or wild fowl was
illegal, for every stream and forest was owned by land barons and
anyone caught was a trespasser and a criminal. You can
understand why, upon arrival in British Columbia, my father
considered this to be a land of freedom, plenty and untold
beauty. Are we heading in the direction of the Irish where we
are not going to be able to even enter into our own forest to
hunt and fish?
I could answer Mr. Massey. The answer is yes, because the
Nisga'a treaty is widely acknowledged by people on both sides of
the debate to be a template. More than 100% of the rural land of
British Columbia is covered by land claims—overlapping land
claims.
When Nisga'a becomes the pattern, as it must for future land
claims agreements, we will end up with a situation where the
average citizen of British Columbia will be excluded from
entering what is now the public domain in the same respect that
people in my part of Canada are now excluded from entering Indian
reserves. The difference is that in B.C. most of the land will
end up with reserve status if people follow the course they have
been blindly following.
I heard somebody in the House this morning state that there are
no dangers in the Nisga'a treaty for native women, that their
rights will be truly respected; don't worry, be happy. I would
also like to quote Ms. Wendy Lundberg, a status Indian from the
Squamish Nation. She delivered a very long dissertation. She
lives off reserve. She is unable, therefore, to claim access to
many of the benefits, such as mortgage and rent-free housing,
freedom from taxes and other benefits which reserve members
enjoy.
This is what she had to say about reserve governments and what
she foresees for the Nisga'a government:
In an attempt to build a better relationship between native and
non-native Canadians a federal action plan called Gathering
Strength was introduced by the former Minister of Indian
Affairs....To grassroots native people, particularly native women
and band members outside the governing elite, Gathering Strength
appropriately describes another tool used by male dominated
councils to maintain their control over federal funding, programs
and governance. Gathering Strength is exactly what our so-called
native leaders have been doing to the detriment of their own
people who remain oppressed under their leadership. While young
native warriors are out on the front lines hunting, fishing and
logging, native leaders armed with cell phones, lap tops and the
Internet sit comfortably on padded, ergonomically correct swivel
chairs, orchestrating their assertions from behind massive
mahogany desks. They are secure in the knowledge of supportive
fellow leaders with whom they have set up mutually beneficial
advisory boards, joint ventures and partnerships.
1310
Ms. Lundberg went on to say:
The reason the Indian Act was put into place is because natives
were considered to be stupid and irresponsible and the Indian Act
allowed the government to control them. This is the same logic
used by the chiefs today to control their own people. I assert
that self-reliance and self-government must go hand in hand with
responsibility, accountability and transparency. Native leaders
say they must exercise what they believe is their inherent right
to hunt, fish or log. They say they must do this in order to
educate, house and feed their people, even though native programs
are funded $3.6 billion annually by the federal government.
Where does this money go to? This is a question that continually
perplexes me.
I really do not think Ms. Lundberg is very perplexed, but she
was being polite when she made her submission. This particular
question has been raised many times in the House by members of
this party. I think it is something that has to be taken into
consideration when we talk about a treaty which will be
constitutionally cast in stone if it is approved by the House.
The problem is the permanency, the perpetuity. We have to stop
this thing before it is too late.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise today to speak to
Bill C-9.
From my perspective, it is a shame that the bill in its current
form has come to the House without the adoption of solutions that
my colleagues in the Reform Party have put forth, and in
particular the member for Skeena, who in my view has done an
excellent job on this particular bill.
I am going to take a different tack. I am going to look at what
the government, aboriginal people and Reform would agree on with
respect to this issue. If we looked at the heart of what we do
not agree on, at the end of the day I think we would find that we
agree on a great deal. However, we disagree on the way to pursue
it. In fact, we would counter that what the government is trying
to do in achieving this goal will do the exact opposite.
We agree with the emancipation of aboriginal people. In the
words of an aboriginal gentleman who wrote an editorial
countering mine in the Ottawa Citizen about a week ago,
“We agree on the integration, not assimilation of aboriginal
people. We also strongly believe and support the ability and the
right of aboriginal people, as guaranteed under our constitution,
to engage in their traditional activities for traditional
purposes”.
We agree with all of that. We also agree wholeheartedly in
reversing the appalling socioeconomic conditions that aboriginal
people find themselves them in: a suicide rate four to five
times that of the non-aboriginal population; a diabetes rate that
is three to four times higher than that of the non-aboriginal
population; a high mortality rate; a shorter lifespan; a high
infant mortality rate; and, in effect, socioeconomic conditions
that rival those found in third world countries.
1315
I can say from personal experience, having flown into reserves
where the unemployment rate is 80%, there is a very high rate of
fetal alcohol syndrome, people living with many in a house that
does not have proper ventilation, where elderly people are
sleeping in the middle of the living room on soiled mattresses.
When I do house calls to these homes, it breaks my heart to see
that and to watch the children with infections on their faces
that I have not seen since being in a developing nation.
Let us take a look at what is going on here. The government
wants to pursue a treaty negotiation. If it was good, let us
take a look at what treaty negotiations have done. We need not
look any further than what has taken place east of the Rockies
where treaties have been signed.
If treaty negotiations were effective then we would find the
people east of the Rockies who have had treaties negotiated with
conditions that are a lot better. But their situation in many
cases is as appalling as the conditions in British Columbia where
treaties have not been signed.
Treaties in and of themselves and the way that they have been
negotiated rather than integrating, not assimilating aboriginal
people have actually been a boot on the neck of aboriginal
people, causing their separation. This is the crux of the
argument that my colleagues and I are proffering to the
government.
The member for Yukon, an aboriginal lady herself, spoke
eloquently and mentioned the important point we agree on, that
aboriginal people want to be treated the same as everyone else.
If that was the case, then all we would need to do is remove the
barriers that governments in past years have instituted in law to
separate aboriginal people from non-aboriginal people. If we
remove those laws, instead of hindering aboriginal people with
such things as the racist Indian Act, those restrictions on
aboriginal people will be removed. It would still leave them with
socioeconomic conditions that are appalling. It would still
leave them far behind the eight ball, but instead of investing
moneys into a bureaucracy, exemplified by the department of
Indian affairs, and putting money into the sink hole, we could
make sure that those moneys are used on the hard edge of helping
aboriginal people help themselves. We could give them the tools,
give them the ability to provide for themselves.
This brings to mind another problem that we have with this whole
process. Members on the other side say “This is going to
empower aboriginal people”. Every member in the House knows
that the powers do not go to individual aboriginal people. It
goes to a collective.
We are not doing this out of spite, but there is a fundamental
lesson. Regardless of racial background an individual human
being cannot be empowered if the power is not given to them, but
is given to a collective. The Nisga'a treaty in Bill C-9 is an
extension of what the government and previous governments have
been doing for decades. They have been empowering the aboriginal
people on top at the expense of the individual aboriginal people.
A person living in Kanesatake, Kahnawake, Yukon or downtown
Vancouver off reserve, how can that individual aboriginal person
ever be able to have self-respect and pride if they are unable to
provide for themselves, unable to provide for their families,
unable to contribute to their society? How are they and their
society going to get the pride and self-respect that they so
richly deserve? They cannot. No one can. People cannot get
pride and self-respect unless they take it. They cannot get
pride and self-respect unless they have the power to be able to
provide for themselves. They cannot do that by living in an
institutionalized welfare state.
In point of fact that is what the government has been doing for
years. This is the system that we have for aboriginal people
today. We have an institutionalized welfare state. It has
rotted them. What a profound tragedy that this has happened, not
for all but for most. For those bands that have been successful,
their leadership has acted in a very responsible way to share
with and involve their people.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in too many situations. In
fact, of the 660 bands that exist in the country today, roughly,
150 of those or more had to be investigated by the department
because of misappropriation of funds. There are bands into which
millions of dollars are poured, yet the people live in abject
poverty. Why? The department will turn its back on that.
1320
There is no protection in the treaty for individual aboriginal
people. What we would like is to make sure that aboriginal
people do have the right to engage in their traditional
activities for traditional purposes as protected under the
constitution. We want to see them integrated, not assimilated
members of Canadian society. We want to see the changes in those
socioeconomic conditions and we want to see the money that is
poured into the situation go to help the people, not to create a
bureaucracy.
Nunavut may be a case in point to see what has taken place.
Rather than creating a system where people who live in Nunavut
can live according to their traditional ways congruent with their
traditional activities, we are creating a society of pencil
pushers. We are creating a society of bureaucrats. That is no
more congruent to the history of a person living in Nunavut than
it is for us to be hunting polar bears. It does not work that
way. In the creation of Nunavut we are actually committing
cultural genocide in slow motion.
The government needs to take a careful look at what is going on
up there. It is rotting the heart and soul of a proud people.
That is unfathomable and unforgivable.
We need to work with grassroots aboriginal people to make sure
the limited resources that exist today go to the people who need
them so they will have the tools to be employed, the health care
they deserve, the educational opportunity, the employment
opportunity, the housing opportunity and they will take charge,
as individual men and women, of their destiny as an integrated,
not assimilated, part of Canadian society.
We are not being spiteful by pursuing the course that we have.
We are not being spiteful by standing alone in the House against
the Nisga'a treaty. We do it because we care. We do it because
we want to see, as all members of parliament do, the situation
change. If we ask members from all political parties behind the
scenes they will admit that we are creating a Gordian knot. We
are tying ourselves up in a situation from which we will not be
able to extricate ourselves and it will be a system that will
affect all of us in an egregious fashion.
I hope that the government will listen to my colleagues'
constructive suggestions that we have put forth so that all of us
can work with all aboriginal people to ensure that they are
empowered and have the same rights, responsibilities and hope for
the future as non-aboriginals have.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as you well know, I could probably fill the entire day
of debate on some of the things that the Reform in general have
been doing and I, in particular, have been doing. However, in
the limited time that I have and as has been stated by our critic
from Skeena, we would like to put into record some of the things
that were provided to us by people who were denied access to the
main committee by the Liberal government but came before the
special hearings held by Reform to give these people an
opportunity.
One particular individual, Ehor Boyanowsky, is a professor of
criminal psychology at Simon Fraser University. His area of
expertise is individual and group violence and inter-group
violence and conflict. Mr. Boyanowsky stated that he is also a
writer and he finds that sometimes things can be put in better
perspective with a story than with a long string of facts and
figures. Mr. Boyanowsky told us a story which is an
extrapolation of current facts into a future scenario.
1325
The year is 2025. A young woman has arrived in Vancouver with
her small children to seek her fortune.
The azure of the sky and ocean, the green of the forested
mountains filled her with exhilaration and hope. Not for long.
Vancouver, bounded by Musqueam, Sto:lo, Squamish and other
national territories, though vital at its core as a city-state,
inhabited by an international population, was crumbling at its
extremities where aboriginal government had the purchased land
and incorporated it into the national territories ceded by recent
treaties, thereby removing them from provincial and municipal tax
base. Tenants faced with sky rocketing rents, no longer able to
vote for local government, and no longer fully protected by the
Canadian constitution, were bailing out. As a result, rents both
on Indian lands and in the city centre were among the highest in
the world.
Despite heavy subsidies provided by the federal
government, since the signing over of over 5 treaties, aboriginal
leadership claimed they could not finance the infrastructure for
the rapidly expanding land base. Animosity toward treaty
aboriginals was so high they no longer were safe to walk the
streets of Vancouver unprotected. She decided to head up north.
There were teaching positions advertised in the Nisga'a national
territory, a vast area at the time of ratification of the treaty,
about four-fifths of the size of Vancouver Island. With the
recent expansion and incorporation of surrounding lands, the
territory had now grown to 125 per cent of the size of Vancouver
Island. It had taken two days passing through interminable
aboriginal territorial check points to get there. Twice she had
been checked by aboriginal militia for contraband, fish,
wildlife, meats or plants prohibited from being transported from
one tribal territory to another.
Twice she'd been fined for
being in possession of goods without a bill of sale from an
establishment in that territory. Twice she'd had to buy permits
for legal access on to lands away from the highway. The
countryside was littered with abandoned houses, those of white
settlers, peoples whose families had been there for nearly a
hundred years.
They'd suddenly found themselves, as a result of
treaties, or through the expansion of aboriginal lands, either on
or surrounded by aboriginal homeland territory. Ironically, those
disenfranchised citizens of a diminishing Canadian nation
regarded themselves as native Canadians born and bred over many
generations. Now they were dispossessed and bitter living in
city enclaves like Prince George and Prince Rupert. As she went
farther north, the encounters at borders got more tense.
Young men of the various aboriginal militia dressed in camouflage
fatigues sat on armoured all-terrain vehicles nervously fondling
their assault weapons. There had been clashes among Gitanyow and
Nisga'a militia and others, and the Gitanyow were specially
bitter about the original Nisga'a Treaty ratified back in the turn
of the century. They claim that they had been cheated out of
much of their traditional territory. They cursed the politicians
of the time, both white and aboriginal. She arrived in New
Aiyansh, the major Nisga'a centre. To her surprise, it looked
much like an Indian reserve of old, but bigger. Unprepossessing
tract houses, most fewer than two years old, were scattered to the
horizon.
Until she came to a very posh suburb of large, palatial
houses more reminiscent of southern California than northern
British Columbia, patrolled by uniformed security and guard dogs.
It was where the chiefs and the executive council lived. The
charming young man from the Nisga'a University explained to her
that these standards of living were necessary to attract capable
people into politics and administration. Since the resources
were held in common, you couldn't borrow against individual land
or resources to build a business.
She got the job and as she
lived there, she discovered that individual Nisga'a trying to get
ahead would move any finances they acquired off-shore buying
condos in Hawaii, et cetera, to avoid them being reabsorbed by
the nation when there was a change in the administration and a
rival family got into power. She fell in love, got married and
ended up living with the young Nisga'a man for four years. He
spoke longingly of united native nations that would opt out of
B.C. entirely, but several forces colluded and produced a crisis.
Canada racked by the financial demands of treaties renegotiated
across the country, reduced subsidies drastically.
The Nisga'a
nation having expanded quickly, was over-extended and things grew
worse as border clashes increased with the discovery of oil and
gas in the disputed territories. Resources, especially precious,
as the nation paid no royalties to the Canadian or B.C.
governments.
Her partner was voted out of office and went into a downward
spiral personally. Eventually he asked her to leave and she
moved with her children into an empty house. Her lawyer informed
her that under Nisga'a law she had no right to any support or
compensation. She received notice she was being terminated in
her teaching position. Non-Nisga'a did not qualify for tenure.
The Nisga'a administration building was blown up soon after. A
group of disaffected, displaced, residents calling themselves
Canadians Against Racism claimed responsibility. As a result,
all whites on Nisga'a land were told their movements would be
severely restricted. Given the sudden instability, the Nisga'a
deal with the Japanese oil developers fell through. She took her
children and headed north and east, perhaps to Ontario or
Nunavut, where she'd heard that a non-aboriginal still had
rights.
1330
Though this story may appear to be fiction to many readers, the
conditions making it possible have already been created within
the Nisga'a treaty operating in concert with recent supreme court
decisions. We can prevent such an outcome by replacing the
Nisga'a treaty with one that allows compensation without
segregation, settlement without disenfranchisement. Canadians
must act on the courage of their convictions if they believe that
an egalitarian, non-conflictual vision of Canada should exist.
Those were the words that were presented. This is a very
troubling vision but also one that he points out could come into
reality because the conditions necessary are now being put in
place by the government.
I would like to close with two points of my own because I
mentioned the Gitanyow being concerned about a conflict with
land. When the all party committee held its meeting in Smithers
members of the Bloc Quebecois stated to the Gitanyow that they
were interested in supporting an amendment to the treaty which
would take the disputed lands out of the treaty at this time and
hold them apart. I have yet to see that amendment come forth
from them.
The government has told us that the people of B.C. will have a
vote. We have called for a referendum. Government members state
that the residents of British Columbia will have a vote through
B.C. members of parliament. B.C. members of parliament,
represented largely by the Reform Party, in consultation with
their constituents are voting against this treaty.
I hope the government will honour its own words and allow B.C.
MPs to represent their constituents, recognize that it is a B.C.
treaty and withdraw this legislation. At the very minimum the
government should give them a vote. If it will not allow their
MPs to direct the government then those people should be allowed
to vote themselves. It is a troubling word to the party on the
other side but that is democracy.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this debate. It has been
distressing for me to hear government members talk about how
strongly B.C. supports the bill. In fact I would not be here if
that were the case.
What is even more distressing is that members do not speak for
native Indian people as they claim. I would like to read into
the record part of a paper presented by Wendy Lundberg at the
Reform hearings in Vancouver last Friday. If I do not finish and
people would like to know where to reference this paper, they can
do so on the Internet at www.reform.ca/scott and click on the
Nisga'a link there. The text of the hearings last week in
Vancouver are in their entirety. I would like to add that my
colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands quoted previously from
this paper and I will continue. Miss Lundberg said:
Native leaders say that the federal government has a fiduciary
responsibility to protect their interests and their rights, but
in a treaty of collectivity, how are the rights of the individual
going to be protected? As a native woman, as a status member of
the Squamish Indian Band, I can tell you that individual rights
will not be protected. I know, because as recently as June 1999,
my individual rights were not protected by the federal government
that allowed Squamish Band Council to falsely represent me and
enter into an agreement under Bill C-49, the First Nations Land
Management Act.
1335
I was legislated even without a treaty on to the path of
self-government, whether or not I wanted to be there. My rights
and freedoms are supposed to be protected under the charter, but
native women in Canada know even without the ratification of any
treaty, that the charter does not apply to them. In fact, after
the passing of Bill C-49, the Native Women's Association of
Canada had to resort to the filing of a lawsuit to bring forward
the total failure of the federal government to provide any
protection for native women's property rights. These rights
which are protected for non-native women in Canada include the
rights to an equal division of property on marriage breakdown,
inheritance and expropriation on reserve lands. The rights of
all aboriginal peoples, including aboriginal women, are supposed
to be protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
And the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, native and non-native,
are supposed to be guaranteed equally to male and female persons
under section 28 of the charter. Already, though, we have seen
that this is just not the case. The individual rights of my
mother, Nona Lockhart, a native woman born on reserve, have not
been protected. In 1947 she was stripped of her native status
and Squamish Band membership because she married a non-native
man. This discriminating rule of the Indian Act did not apply to
native men, who could marry whomever they pleased without
punishment or loss of their identity.
When her father died, my
mother could not even live in the house where she was raised or
inherit his two properties on reserve lands, despite the
existence of an Indian Affairs approved will. My mother was
theoretically reinstated pursuant to Bill C-31 in 1988, but
Squamish Band Council has not returned her property to her,
thereby denying my mother her rightful inheritance.
While thousands of native women in Canada suffer similar injustices at
the discretion of their own band councils, the federal government
ignores its fiduciary responsibility to them. My mother is a
Canadian citizen, she should be protected by section 28 of the
charter, which guarantees rights and freedoms equally to men and
women and by section 15 which says that every individual is equal
before and under the law without discrimination based on race,
ethnic origin or sex. And although my mother's story is
documented in my testimony before the standing Senate committee
on aboriginal peoples in a hearing in May 1999, the federal
government still has not exercised its fiduciary responsibility
to her and litigation is not an accessible option to native
women.
In debates on Bill C-49, some female members of
parliament, non-native women, whose rights are enshrined in the
charter said that each native band would determine these issues
in their communities, based on unique native cultures. History
will show that in 1999, the Canadian government allowed the
perpetuation of discrimination, alienation and injustice of
native women under the guise of cultural freedom, unique rights
and unique cultural identity. Clearly, treaties and
self-government issues have personal significance to me.
And in preparation for debate with my own band, I have studied Nisga'a
treaty documents, the most comprehensive being the agreements
between Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Nation.
Although the Nisga'a constitution makes reference to the charter,
it is the wording of the proviso: “Bearing in mind the free and
democratic nature of Nisga'a government” under section 6(2),
which is the most disconcerting to me. The Nisga'a treaty is not
just about a northern territory of British Columbia, it's about
the future of Canada as a whole, and how peoples and communities,
native and non-native will co-exist. While the chiefs will argue
that all treaties will be different and unique to each native
band, ultimately it will be the same leaders who will have the
resources to protect their interests and take their cases to the
courts seeking interpretation of the precedent setting words in
the Nisga'a Treaty.
Native women, powerless, penniless and
unable to access the courts for their individual rights will be
at home, if they have a home, anxiously awaiting the court's
decision. And I'd just like to add a couple of footnotes to that.
The properties on reserve lands under claim by inheritance
belonged to my grandfather, the legendary lacrosse goalie, Henry
Hawkeye Baker, who was inducted into the Canadian Lacrosse Hall
of Fame in 1966, and the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame in 1999.
Hawkeye, a Squamish born native man, also played for Canada with
honour, pride and dignity in the 1932 Olympic Games in Los
Angeles, where the team won a bronze medal.
1340
And my second footnote, I would like to say that my mother, Nona
Lockhart, lives in Richmond, B.C. and is a constituent of the
Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific. I would like to comment on
something I saw on CPAC last week. It involved Question Period
on November 22, 1999, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development was commenting on the protest against the
Nisga'a treaty in Vancouver last Friday. He said, and I quote
from Hansard: “Mr. Speaker, I just got back from visiting
British Columbia on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. One of the
things I noted was that 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 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”. Well, I would like to suggest to the minister of
Indian affairs that the reason there were so few native women out
in Vancouver last Friday demonstrating their opposition to the
treaty is because they did not know about the hearings taking
place and they have probably not had the benefit of reading the
treaty documents, and even if they did know about the hearings,
they...could not afford even the bus fare to get there. The
Native Women's Association of Canada receives nowhere near the
amount of funding that the Assembly of First Nations does.
And lastly, I would also like to table to the committee and these
proceedings a copy of a letter dated November 1, 1999, that I
received from the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, in
which she acknowledges the legislative gap of native women's
property rights, and in which she supports the government's
position and belief that native women's rights will be addressed
by First Nations communities. In other words, her
acknowledgement that her rights as a non-native Canadian woman
are protected and guaranteed under the charter, while I, my aunt
and other native women have to fight for our rights. And I would
just like to table that document to this hearing please. Thank
you—
Then in a footnote she said:
I would say that the ministers and the government are totally
ignoring the issues. They are not listening to the grassroots
people and they are not exercising their fiduciary responsibility
to us. They only speak and deal with the chiefs and councils,
and I have documented in black and white...many of the problems
and issues that we face. I am not making problems come out of
the air. These are evidentiary matters documented and presented
to the government and still they ignore the native women and the
grassroots members.
This paper was presented by Wendy Lundberg last Friday, a native
Indian woman and member of the Squamish band.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to join in this debate. Primarily this
morning and this afternoon speakers from our side have been from
British Columbia, and rightly so. The Nisga'a agreement is first
and foremost of concern to British Columbians but that is not
exclusive.
Some two years ago the former minister of Indian affairs landed
in my riding and reopened one of the traditional treaties, Treaty
No. 8, for renegotiation and what is termed modernization of the
treaty. The Nisga'a agreement gives us a glimpse of what the
government's concept of a modern day treaty will be and
entrenches that concept in the constitution of Canada.
I think that my constituents and those in other parts of Canada
should pay attention and have a vested interest because the whole
movement to entrench self-government in modern day treaties will
at some point in time affect them just as it is now affecting
British Columbia. On that basis I am pleased to raise my
concerns on the Nisga'a deal.
In a Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Lord Elgin Hotel
case the court says that the constitution of Canada does not
belong to parliament. Nor does it belong to the provincial
legislatures. It belongs to the people of Canada. What we are
talking about here is modifying the constitution without due
consideration by all involved members.
1345
This is primarily a constitutional change by the government
without due consideration for the others involved, namely the
Nisga'a people, British Columbians and Canadians. I do not
believe that this piece of legislation acts in the best interests
of any of the involved parties. Although it claims to present
the Nisga'a with greater freedoms, it will in fact entrench
greater controls on their society as a whole.
The legislation will act as a template for up to 50 other treaty
negotiations within British Columbia. As I said, after British
Columbia it may very well be the template for modernizing the
traditional treaties that have existing for 100 years in this
country.
To ignore the needs of the Nisga'a could result in numerous
other treaties that drastically diminish the rights of other
bands across the country. For the sake of the Nisga'a and for
other bands who entering into negotiations, this cannot happen.
It behoves us to get this first treaty right so that it deals
fairly with everybody involved.
Currently within the Nisga'a final agreement, the rights of the
Nisga'a people granted under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms may be substantially diminished. I would refer the
House to the fact that the treaty grants supreme legislative
authority in at least 14 areas, so parliament or the provincial
legislature cannot ever override Nisga'a law in these areas.
Quite frankly, that makes me nervous and should make others in
this country nervous.
As well, section 3 of the treaty expressly states that the
entire agreement, including the self-government powers that I
just mentioned, are to be defined as aboriginal and treaty rights
within the meaning of section 35 of the constitution. As our
critic pointed out this morning, that is one of the major
concerns we have with this treaty.
Section 25 of the constitution requires courts to give higher
weighting to these section 35 aboriginal rights, which are of
course collective rights over their charter rights. What this
means in simple terms is that the collective rights of the
Nisga'a government, including its vast legislative powers, can
most definitely be used to overpower the individual charter
rights of rank and file Nisga'a members.
Ideally, such a situation would never be of concern, and we want
to believe that the individual rights of Nisga'a people will
never be in jeopardy or compromised, but is it really wise to
pass legislation that is based on the mere assumption of fair
treatment. History would say otherwise.
Can the government absolutely guarantee that at no time in the
future will the individual rights of members of the Nisga'a band
come into conflict with the collective rights of the Nisga'a
government. I do not believe that such a promise can possibly be
made and, because of this, section 3 of Bill C-9 must not go
forward in its present form. The rights of present and future
Nisga'a are far too important to disregard them on a wish and a
prayer.
If this treaty is enacted, effectively a third level of
government will be formed that is created exclusively along
ethnic lines. It seems to me that this is another dangerous
precedent that this legislation will set. The Nisga'a government
will hold absolute control in 14 areas and share jurisdiction in
16 fields. Because these powers will be entrenched in a treaty,
it will amount to a third order of government in Canada.
Members from other parties in the House have claimed that the
Nisga'a government would be municipal in nature and that it
conforms to the constitution. In at least 14 specific areas of
the treaty, the treaty reads “in the event of an inconsistency
or conflict between a Nisga'a law under this paragraph and a
federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent
of the inconsistency or conflict.”
When this ruling applies to areas such as health services,
chapter 11, paragraph 84, page 174 of the agreement; child and
family services, chapter 11, paragraph 89, page 174; and
adoption, chapter 11, paragraph 96, page 175, the ramifications
are staggering. It is obvious that under these arrangements the
federal and provincial governments are proposing to permanently
cede legislative authority. No municipal government in this
country has the powers that even approach the levels of the
Nisga'a government.
The creation of a third order of government also raises
constitutional questions, for what this treaty proposes is to
amend the constitution without due process or regard.
Section 91 and 92 of our constitution thoroughly divides
legislative powers in Canada between the federal and provincial
governments.
Without amending the constitution, the federal government and
B.C. do not have the right to cede legislative authority to the
Nisga'a government. In order to amend the constitution, a
referendum would automatically occur in British Columbia which,
as we have heard, has not happened and will not likely happen.
1350
I mentioned at the beginning of my comments that our
constitution does not belong to parliament or the law makers. It
belongs to the people of Canada. Only with the consent of
Canadians can legislative authority be changed or ceded. However,
the government is completely ignoring the constitution in its
rush to approve this treaty. In doing so, it is doing a great
disservice to all Canadians.
Until this point in my comments, I have focused primarily on how
Bill C-9 is an irresponsible piece of legislation due to how it
will impact on the Nisga'a people. However, Canada is an
interconnected nation and what affects one group of people
inevitably and strongly impacts on us all.
The reality is that in its present state, the Nisga'a treaty
will grant the Nisga'a band collective ownership of 1,992 square
kilometres of land in the Nass Valley. An additional 10,000
square kilometre area is designated as the Nisga'a wildlife
management area, and access by forestry and mining concerns to
this area may be seriously restricted or cut off. The Nisga'a
will also be granted a priority commercial fishing allocation on
the Nass River. If future negotiations take the same path as the
Nisga'a treaty, it could result in 50 or more governments in
British Columbia. This is an area that would also transfer
certainly with concerns to my part of Canada, the northern part
of Alberta, and how such an agreement would impact on the
provincial ownership and management of resources.
In recent weeks, months and years efforts have been made by the
aboriginal groups in my area to gain exactly this same kind of
control over what they term as traditional territory and will
have huge impacts on natural resource management and development
in that area.
This lack of consistency that we see in this particular section
in how the province is governed will have ramifications for
economic development not only in British Columbia but also in
Alberta and other provinces in Canada. Long term development of
natural resources may be impeded, causing long range impacts that
will affect all British Columbians and Canadians from coast to
coast in the country.
Canadians as a whole also face serious impacts should this
treaty go through as it presently exists. The federal government
has estimated the total cost of the Nisga'a deal at around $490
million. This includes $312 million in cash costs and $178
million in land and other costs. In addition, the Nisga'a
government will receive $32.1 million annually in perpetuity
under the deal. These are federal figures but, as we have seen
time and time again in the House, the real figures are generally
much higher. Many experts estimate that the cost will be much
higher and possibly well over $1 billion.
I have several more points to make but I will have other
opportunities in other groupings of amendments and I will
continue my comments at that point.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to comment pretty well exclusively on what other people have said
about the Nisga'a treaty. Some people have said “The only
people who are opposed to this treaty are people in the Reform
Party”. I want to make it abundantly clear that that is not so.
I want to refer to two major documents. The first one has to do
with the transcript of the record of the presentations that were
made to the committee in Vancouver last Friday. I also want to
refer to one of the senior columnists with the National
Post and then refer further again to one of the transcripts
from the committee in Vancouver.
I will begin by referring to the comments that were made by Mr.
Plant who accompanied Mr. deJong, the MLA from the British
Columbia legislature. He reviewed very briefly the three
arguments that were presented in the court case that the
opposition in British Columbia has given to the courts.
Here are the three arguments to why the Nisga'a final agreement
is unconstitutional. First, that it is not open to the federal
and provincial governments within the existing constitution of
Canada to create a new freestanding third order of government.
The question is: Does the government even have the authority to
do that?
1355
Second, that it is not open to the federal and provincial
governments by negotiation with the Nisga'a or in any other way
short of a constitutional amendment to confer upon a new order of
government paramount legislative power. This is what the Nisga'a
treaty does in at least 14 areas.
Third, that the Nisga'a final agreement violates the charter
because it denies non-Nisga'a the right to vote for a government
which will have the power to make decisions that affect their
lives. As the House knows, the charter guarantees every citizen
of Canada the right to vote. That is being denied to the people
of Canada.
Those are the three arguments that have been presented to the
court that is currently examining this particular treaty.
I will refer to an article in The National Post dated
November 20. It was written by Diane Francis. The headline
reads “Land claims will be the next big crisis: Political
correctness is costing Canadians a bundle.” The article
states:
This country's next crisis will be about aboriginal claims.
Already, aboriginals have taken the law into their hands and
seized private property belonging to others involved in the
fishing and forestry sectors. These actions should be met with
the full force of the law, in my opinion, and have nothing to do
with promises by the British Crown decades ago that aboriginals
could fish the waters and hunt in the forests they traditionally
used only for their own consumption. Anything more than
subsistence rights may be upheld by some courts but these
decisions should be immediately struck down with new legislation
limiting aboriginal claims.
But we ain't seen nothin' yet.
A precedent-setting treaty in British Columbia negotiated by the
feds and province behind closed doors is about to become law. The
NDP in B.C. has approved it already and the Liberals want to ram
it through by Christmas. The treaty gives the Nisga'a band some
2,000 square kilometres of land, $253 million in cash and
self-government powers.
And that is just the beginning.
That is a handout of $101,200 in tax dollars to every one of the
2,500 members of the band and title to a land mass just slightly
smaller than the country of Luxembourg.
Not only does this constitute a hideous giveaway—
The Speaker: My colleague, I think this would be a good
place to break up the speech. The hon. member still has six
minutes left and he will have the floor when we resume on this
matter.
As it is almost 2 p.m., we will go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EDMONTON BALL HOCKEY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to pay tribute to a championship ball hockey team.
The team members epitomize determination, good character,
perseverance and exemplify the best of team effort.
The team members grew up in Edmonton's inner city. They faced
poverty's challenges straight on. They have practised together
at sport, not crime, and brought honour to the community of
McCauley with their championship win.
They won the right to take great pride in their achievements.
They won the respect and admiration of their community's youth
which is so very important to encourage the young away from inner
city ills. They have become inner city role models.
They won the right to represent McCauley in the January Florida
World Championship. Unfortunately, they won the right and not
the funds.
Hats off to Raeo Dempsey and the boys of the Skidrow Dog'z for a
job well done. First rate, I say. Edmonton, truly the city of
champions.
* * *
JUDSON SIMPSON
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I bring to the attention of the House the recent honour bestowed
upon the executive chef of the House of Commons, Mr. Judson
Simpson.
Last week he was appointed to the position of manager for the
Culinary Team Canada, which will compete in the Culinary Olympics
in 2004 in Berlin.
Mr. Simpson was part of a team from Toronto which won gold in the
1988 culinary olympics.
1400
Over the next year he will travel the country to put together a
team of 10, which will represent the culinary excellence and
variety of Canada. Canadian teams have captured overall gold in
1984 and 1992 and ranked in the top five since 1984. I am sure
Mr. Simpson and his team will live up to this high honour and
make us all proud.
I ask all my colleagues in the House to join with me in wishing
Mr. Simpson the best of luck and congratulating him on receiving
this great honour.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the International Year of Older Persons draws to a
close, I would like to pay tribute to the seniors in my riding
who have become involved through their organizations, some
thirty of them, in activities I have proposed for them.
Our program concluded with a round table where our seniors
prepared the following message. First, they consider themselves
and want to be considered full fledged citizens, with all the
ensuing rights, obligations and responsibilities.
While they are not a homogenous group, seniors demand respect
first and foremost. This means access to quality, humane and
appropriate health care, a contribution to society, the
opportunity to live among family and friends so long as their
health permits, access to appropriate social, cultural and
physical activities, reasonable incomes and information on
services available. They also want the attention they deserve
from the next generations.
In short, seniors are now looking for quality of life and not
just an extension of it. On the other side of the coin, the
government has a responsibility to make the means available and,
in particular, to support those of our seniors who are most
vulnerable.
* * *
WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday on the occasion of World AIDS Day, the Government of
Canada announced $50 million in aid to fight AIDS and HIV in
Africa. This money will be paid out in amounts of $10 million
annually over five years.
In some African countries, AIDS has already killed half the
labour force. Over 11 million Africans have died, and over 22
million adults and children are infected with the disease.
In addition to what it is doing here in Canada through research
and development, the Government of Canada intends to play its
role fully internationally through CIDA. In this regard, it
will be hosting an international conference on HIV and AIDS in 2000.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has promised over and over that it will make the
reduction of international agricultural subsidies a top priority.
For six years farmers have been waiting for the government to act
and nothing has happened. Even if subsidies are reduced by the
WTO, and it is a real possibility that they will not be, it will
take years before the result is felt at the family farm.
Time has run out. Farmers need a government prepared for what
is happening today, not 10 years from now. The Prime Minister
must immediately lead a Team Canada trade mission to the U.S. and
European Union to demand an end to their protectionist
agricultural policies that are contrary to the letter and spirit
of the international free trade agreements and are killing our
farmers.
The government is relying on a risky, long term plan with no
guarantee of success to address immediate problems and our
farmers are paying the price.
The government has let Canadian farmers down far too often. The
bleeding must stop before our farmers are bled dry.
* * *
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to pay
tribute to one of Canada's cultural cornerstones, the Stratford
Festival. Now ranked among the great classical theatres like the
Royal Shakespearean Company, the Stratford Festival has clearly
become one of Canada's premier theatrical centres. What started
out as a small theatre festival in 1953 is now responsible for a
full 12% of southwestern Ontario tourism, drawing over 590,000
visitors this year alone.
This remarkable festival contributes over $185 million in
economic benefit to the province of Ontario, generates $71
million in tax revenues and creates over 6,000 jobs for the
regional economy. The Stratford Festival is beyond any doubt an
economic and cultural powerhouse for the whole of Canada.
I would like to congratulate the festival staff for their hard
work and to wish them continued success in the new millennium.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
several days now, the Prime Minister has taken a veritable
delight in quoting from the bylaws of organizations such as the
CSN or the constitutions of political parties such as the Reform
Party. With respect, we would like to remind the Prime Minister that
there is a big difference between the constitution of a
government and the constitution of an organization or a company,
such as the Grand-Mère golf club, to take an example. Perhaps he
did not know this.
1405
The Prime Minister should know, and if he does not, we are
reminding him, that the only justification for departing from
the 50% plus one rule is when the vote is by elected
representatives of the public, rather than the public itself.
When the public is consulted, here as elsewhere, the rule of 50%
plus one applies. That is democracy.
* * *
[English]
CULTURE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to see the new English Translation
of Governor General award winner Michel Tremblay's
play, “For the Pleasure of Seeing Her Again”, at the National
Arts Centres.
This production represents the first collaboration between the
Canadian Stage Company of Ontario and the Centaur Theatre Company
of Quebec, to produce a truly national tour.
Directed by Montreal's Gordon McCall, starring Vancouver's
Nicola Cavendish, and Parkdale—High Park's Dennis O'Connor, this
Canadian masterpiece speaks of the relationship between a mother
and her son and the nurturing of that relationship through the
good times and trying times. This play focuses on who we are and
what influences contribute to the formation of our identity as
individuals and as Canadians.
The Ottawa portion of the tour winds up on December 4 and will
then move on to Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. I encourage
everyone to see this uniquely Canadian production and experience
the wonder of Michel Tremblay.
* * *
HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, almost
all the provinces have raised college and university tuition fees
in recent years. Some provinces have greatly increased those
fees. This is one of the causes of student debt. Tuition fees
have now become so high that they are a serious barrier to
students from lower income families.
I realize that the federal government has taken some steps to
alleviate this, for example, the millennium scholarships and
improvements to the Canada student loans program. But I believe
that much more must be done. We cannot stand by while provinces
such as Ontario place barriers between Canadian children and a
good education. We need to harness every ounce of talent in
Canada and our children deserve every opportunity.
I urge the government to give even more priority to the growing
problem of limited access to higher education.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he steps up
to the contestant's chair. It is the finance minister. Who
wants to be a billionaire? “I do”, said the finance minister.
Is it (a) grab the money from taxpayers using bracket creep for
$40 billion? Is it (b) grab the money from the civil servants
getting $30 billion from their pension fund? Is it (c) grab the
money from the EI fund getting a cool $26 billion or so? Is it
(d) all of the above?
The finance minister holds his glasses in his hand, thinks and
says, “(d) all of the above”. Is that your final answer?
“Yes.” says the finance minister, “It's my final answer”.
He wins. He grabs it all, billions and billions taken from
Canada's poor, beleaguered taxpayers. The finance minister walks
away from the podium, a slight glint in his eyes. He has
billions of dollars to spend any way he wants. The only problem
is he does not realize he has killed all of his lifelines.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
are watershed events in the history of every nation, events that
both challenge and build national character. December 6, 1989,
was the date of such an event for Canadians, the tragic killing
of 14 young women at L'École polytechnique in Montreal.
It was an unparalleled act of violence, terrible to contemplate
and difficult to comprehend. It shocked the nation and burned
its way into the hearts and minds of Canadian women and men. It was the
turning point, a wake up call. The silence on violence against
women was forever broken and the pervasive scope of the problem
revealed.
The public will to change our social environment was galvanized.
On Monday, women, men and children across Canada will join
together on this national day of remembrance on action against
violence against women. It is a day for sober reflection and a
day to renew our commitment to ending violence.
The government stands with our partners in civil society and
individual Canadians across the country in pledging ourselves to
ending violence against women.
* * *
DISABILITY TAX CREDIT
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is on record as saying Canadians with
disabilities must rank very high on everybody's priority list.
However, he sets policy on the disability tax credit, which is
so narrowly defined that persons with schizophrenia do not
qualify, even though 1 in 100 Canadian families have a member
with schizophrenia.
Furthermore, a doctor has told me that patients with cystic
fibrosis, who spend a good deal of their day just trying to
breathe, are also disabled from the current policy.
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities who
desperately need financial support to deal with the crushing
costs which stem from their disabilities find it easier to get
through the eye of a needle than to get help from the government.
If the minister is truly committed to assisting disabled people
to become fully functional citizens, he must broaden his rules
around the disability tax credits and the medical and the infirm
dependent tax credits so that they will provide real refundable
benefits for all disabled Canadians.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
downright shocking the way certain Liberal members from Quebec
in this House never miss an opportunity to run down the services
available to Quebec's anglophone community, when they know very
well that these services are in fact far superior to anything
available to francophone and Acadian communities in Canada.
The Government of Quebec decided to go it alone with respect to
funding health and social services in English for the anglophone
community, and accordingly terminated an agreement with Canada.
The Government of Quebec announced that it was making no changes
to existing programs and budgets.
What was disgraceful yesterday was not the behaviour of the
Government of Quebec, but the cries of indignation from the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
JOB CREATION
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the Canada Jobs Fund, more than 80 jobs will
be created in six businesses in the riding of Rimouski—Mitis with
projects totalling $720,000. There are apparently four more
projects being examined, representing over $250,000 in funding
and 30 more jobs.
In order for a project to qualify for this funding from Human
Resources Development Canada, it must create a minimum of three
sustainable full time jobs lasting at least six months of the
year.
This is a concrete initiative of the Canadian government to
encourage regional development and job creation, even in ridings
represented by members of the opposition.
* * *
CHILD LABOUR
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the ministers
of 135 countries have been meeting in Seattle to prepare the
agenda for the next round of negotiations of the World Trade
Organization.
The Canadian Minister of International Trade has already
indicated that the meeting would be addressing a number of
controversial issues. In his exchanges with his counterparts
from other countries, I would encourage the minister to keep in
mind the child workers of the world.
According to the International Labour Organization, there are
close to 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14
working today, half of these full time. It is unacceptable that
some of the goods involved in commercial exchanges are produced
by children.
I call upon the federal government to ensure that this issue is
indeed on the agenda of the next round of WTO negotiations.
* * *
[English]
FIREARMS CONTROL
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
December marks the first anniversary of the Liberal government's
firearms control program, a new system already paying dividends
for public safety.
Last year 462 firearms licences were revoked for public safety
reasons and 578 license applications were refused by provincial
chief firearms officers.
The government is getting guns out of the hands of people who
should not have them. In west Quebec a number of valid firearms
license holders were linked to local police records for domestic
violence. Provincial authorities were notified and licences were
revoked.
This is one example that demonstrates the efficacy and
importance of the registration system. It also makes me wonder,
if the members opposite refuse to face the facts and prevent
crime, are there grounds for a united alternative? Maybe the PCs
and Reform can join the flat earth society together.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the health minister brought American Hollywood to the
Canadian House of Commons.
After watching the movie The Insider, the health minister
became star struck. The minister hired American Jeffrey Wigand
whose life the movie is based on. Let us review Mr. Wigand's
resume: refused to pay child support; a huge arsenal of
handguns, gun powder and ammunition; charged with spousal abuse.
Why does the health minister have a double standard when it
comes to gun owners? The health minister hired an American with
enough artillery to stand an army when Canadians farmers and
hunters are made criminals for legally owning shotguns and 22s.
The health minister has euthanized our health system by slashing
$21 billion from medicare. Has the minister hired Dr. Jack
Kevorkian as a special adviser as well?
1415
Instead of hiring Hollywood stars to fix his tattered and torn
image, the health minister should allow the Alberta government to
restore the shambles largely caused by the Liberal government.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to Mary in Halifax the government is forcing her small
business to pay $869 in GST quarterly tax payments for business
she has not been paid for yet. Who is the creditor? None other
than the federal government.
This is standard Revenue Canada policy set by the finance
minister. Could he explain to Mary why he is forcing her to pay
taxes on income she has not yet received?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under most income tax regimes one pays tax on an
instalment basis which anticipates income that comes in. This is
pretty standard practice in all tax jurisdictions in the country
and throughout most of the western world.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister completely misunderstands so I will say it again. This
is money that Mary has not yet received. They are receivables.
Very interestingly a lot of the money that she is owed is owed by
the federal government.
My question is again for the minister. The situation is that
Mary has a small business and is being forced to pay GST on
income she has not yet received. This is standard practice by
the federal government. Mary is in a tax crunch right now. Will
the minister quit this unfair practice of taxing Canadians for
income they have not yet received?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite obviously I do not have the details of this case.
As I have explained to the hon. member, the fact is that
businesses pay tax on the instalment basis. I am very interested
in Mary's case and would be delighted to look into it.
I am also interested in Doreen and all the other people whom the
hon. member raised last week. The real issue they would like to
know is why Reform members are standing in the House and talking
about cutting taxes when their own party program said they would
not have cut taxes until January of next year.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish the minister would get control of himself and take the issue
seriously. It is a serious issue.
This is one business in hundreds of thousands. It is not just
an isolated case. All businesses in Canada are in the same boat.
They are forced to pay taxes on income they have not yet
received.
The minister does not have to wait for a letter from me. He
simply has to consult with his own officials. He knows very well
this is the case.
My question is straightforward. Does the minister think it is
fair that Canadians should have to pay taxes on income they have
not yet received?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made it very clear. Businesses pay tax on the
instalment basis, but I would be delighted to look into that
issue along with the Minister of National Revenue.
The real question is: Do members of the Reform Party think it is
fair that they would have delayed any tax reductions for three
years after we had eliminated the deficit?
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's high tax policies are not only driving talent south.
They are driving jobs south as well. Executives fed up with
their tax bills are taking entire departments or companies with
them.
Canada is sitting next to the biggest industrial country in the
world, which also happens to have a much lower tax rate. Yet the
government keeps on hiking taxes. Why is it the policy of the
finance minister to drive Canadian jobs south of the border?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not only is that not our policy but, if we take a look
at what our policies have done since we have taken office, there
have been 1.7 million new jobs created in the country, 700,000
jobs created in the last year alone.
When we look at all the projections that came out this week in
terms of the increase in our gross domestic product, in terms of
job creation and in terms of business profits, it is very clear
that the Canadian economy is firing on all cylinders. We now
have the best record of any of the major industrial countries.
Those are the facts.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
is perfectly clear is that the government's policies are causing
this great country to become a farm team supplying talent to the
United States.
1420
Young professionals are leaving Canada to find work in the
United States with American companies. The Prime Minister says
good riddance to them if they do not like to pay taxes in Canada.
Can the finance minister not see the long term harm his policies
are causing for Canada and Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are entitled to more enlightened debate in the
House than the Reform Party is prepared to put out.
The fact is that the Reform Party's program would not have cut
taxes until the year 2000. The Reform Party would not have cut
EI premiums for workers. The real fact of the matter is that the
Reform Party would not have eliminated the deficit until the year
2000.
We did it two years earlier than it would have. It would not
have cut taxes until the year 2000. We began to do it two and a
half years before it would have. The real problem with the
Reform Party is that it has—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
learned this morning in the National Post that the bill the
Prime Minister is preparing in order to oversee the next
referendum in Quebec is apparently totally biased.
The federal government, it seems, is preparing legislation to
suit itself in order to make its own interpretation of the
referendum result legal.
How can the Prime Minister think that anyone will put their
faith in his interpretation of the next referendum when they
know that, throughout his career, he has continually attacked
Quebec, even going so far as to deny the existence of the Quebec
people?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government intends to introduce an initiative in the House
of Commons, and it is the House of Commons that will reach a
decision. All members will have the opportunity to speak out.
Once again, however, I would prefer not to have to introduce a
bill or a resolution, because, again yesterday, Mario Dumont
said that Mr. Bouchard should accept the proposal I made Sunday
that we stop talking referendums, as 72% of Quebecers do not
want one. If they do not want to listen to me, let them listen
to Mario Dumont at least.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
rejecting the democratic rule of 50% plus one and by refusing to
set another, because there is none set apparently, is the Prime
Minister not in the process of telling us ahead of time that,
whatever the outcome of the next referendum, it will never be
enough to satisfy this Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the contrary. I am saying that they must be very clear with
the people: ask a question on the separation of Quebec, the
desire to form an independent country and no longer be a
province of Canada. That is the plan.
They are uncomfortable about telling Quebecers the truth, while
I want them to know exactly what is involved.
If the vast majority of Quebecers support separation, if there
is a broad consensus, then I would recognize it, but not at 50%
plus one. We have to be reasonable.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
strongest proof that the Prime Minister does not have Quebec's
interests at heart is his handling of the issue of young
offenders.
The National Assembly of Quebec, in a unanimous motion, and all
of those in Quebec who work with youth, are calling on the
federal government to backtrack but it is turning a deaf ear.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If the distinct society
resolution the Prime Minister keeps throwing in our face so
often in the House meant anything for Quebec, would the
government not respond positively and immediately to the
national assembly's unanimous motion?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed very important to have a flexible
federation, capable of taking into account the interests of all
provinces, including Quebec as a society with its own unique
character.
That is why the minister is completely open to the desired
flexibility in her bill.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, the Prime Minister's handling of the issue of
young offenders shows once again how he is ignoring the
consensus of Quebec in order to keep the rest of Canada happy.
This is not surprising—he has been doing it for 35 years.
When all is said and done, is the Prime Minister's tack not to
introduce legislation with respect to the rules of the
referendum that will be to the liking of the rest of Canada,
just as he intends to jeopardize the distinct way in which
Quebec enforces the Young Offenders Act, once again to keep the
rest of Canada happy, at the expense of Quebec?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that somewhere there are Bloc Quebecois
members capable of seeing the big picture.
We are trying to improve the situation of young offenders in
Canada with legislation that will be flexible enough to serve
everyone's interests.
On a completely different note, as a Quebecer, I say that
we are just as Canadian as other Canadians and that we cannot
break up our country because of an unclear procedure that would
force us to answer an unclear question, that would take us
somewhere we do not want to go.
That is something Bloc Quebecois members have to understand,
because the interests of Quebecers are at stake.
* * *
[English]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, based on
the NAFTA experience it is no wonder Canadians are uneasy about
the government actually getting enforceable labour and
environmental commitments at the WTO.
Enforcement provisions of NAFTA do not apply to labour standards
or to the environment, and the Prime Minister knows that. In
fact labour and the environment are not even in the agreement.
They are relegated to side deals that have no teeth.
Why should Canadians expect that the government would seek at
the WTO what it has abandoned in NAFTA?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know, if she has read the standing committee report in
this regard, that the standing committee wanted the federal
government to make sure there was more co-operation between the
WTO and the International Labour Organization and, in terms of
the environment, to make sure that environmental standards were
high on our list.
The Government of Canada has certainly done that. It has
brought forward these issues and has supported the idea at the
WTO that there be a working group on labour so that we can talk
about these issues and make them a priority in the WTO.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at the
WTO the government has been weak-kneed wimps. Yesterday the
Prime Minister told the House that they insisted before they
agreed to NAFTA that labour and environment conditions be in the
agreement. This is dead wrong.
There are no labour and environmental standards in NAFTA, even
to this day. It is the difference between enforcement and no
enforcement, the difference between teeth and no teeth. When it
comes to labour and the environment why does the PM think only of
PR?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parliamentary secretary gave a very good answer. We
are very preoccupied with the environment, labour conditions and
so on. It is a wide negotiation.
I know the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is not
weak-kneed at all. Yesterday she took eight days to have a
position on the big question on the referendum.
Yesterday she made a big statement, not in the House, in which
she claimed that all New Democratic Party governments were on her
side in that regard. Perhaps she should call Manitoba and
Saskatchewan before getting up next time.
* * *
[Translation]
EDUCATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, since
1992 there has been a 44% reduction in transfer payments to the
provinces for post-secondary education. The student debtload
has increased 130% since 1982 and tuition fees have gone up 126%.
Can the minister tell us when post-secondary education is going
to be accessible to all Canadians, rich and poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must be aware that in the 1998 budget, the
opportunities budget, the government spent in excess of $7
billion to guarantee access to knowledge, including the
millennium scholarships, the 17% credit on student loans, and
the $3,000 grant to single parents to enable them to go back to
school.
It is our intention in future budgets to assist students, to
assist—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
young Canadians often find themselves in a catch-22 situation at
the beginning of their careers with no experience, no jobs; no
jobs, no experience.
1430
Older Canadians could be in the same position at the end of
their careers if they have not kept up with new technologies. We
cannot stress enough the importance of having training available
for both groups. The average monthly number of beneficiaries for
training fell from 68,000 in 1995 to 31,000 in 1999.
Can the minister tell us why this is happening, doing less for
youth and doing less for older workers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. What we
understand on this side is that when it comes to ensuring that
Canadians have jobs, it takes more than just employment insurance
benefits.
That is why we are investing in Youth Service Canada. That is
why we are investing in youth internships. That is why we are
investing in the permanent youth employment strategy and the
Canada opportunities strategy. That is why we have an agreement
with the provinces to focus on the issues facing older workers.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Reform Party once again laid out clear rules for any
future referendum and the consequences of a yes vote. We also
laid out a clear and comprehensive plan to make the federation
work better on behalf of all Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party laid out
a clear plan for a referendum and the consequences of a yes vote,
but we also laid out a clear and comprehensive plan to make the
federation work better on behalf of all Canadians. We believe
the government should be spending more of its time and more of
its energy on more creativity and positive solutions that would
make the federation work better on behalf of all Canadians.
This morning we once again put forward a clear, comprehensive
plan which we think would make Canada work better. We have
tabled our plan. Would the Prime Minister table his?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I smile today when I see the Reform Party. Last week
they were giving me hell because I stood for Canada. After that
they saw a poll in western Canada, and suddenly there was a big
flip-flop. How can we take them seriously?
Of course we will have a plan, but at least our plan has been
studied. We are moving and there are a lot of people coming on
side. For example, a great parliamentarian in St. John's,
Newfoundland, John Crosbie, said “I agree entirely with Jean
Chrétien”.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure what he said, but I am quite sure that he did not
bring any clarity to the question, which is what we are trying to
get at today.
Again today the Prime Minister says that he does not know what a
clear question should be on a referendum. He does not know what
a clear majority should be. He is not too sure about the timing
of any future legislation. If he is trying to bring clarity to
the situation, the Prime Minister is doing a very poor job.
If he wants to bring forward something called, say, a new Canada
act, something to make Canada work better, I can send him a copy.
It is available any time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been working since 1993. In our red book we
said that the best way to have the federation working well is to
have good government, government that deals with the problems of
all citizens. We have balanced the books. We are cutting taxes.
We are putting money toward research and development, for
innovation, for medical research. We have given money to the
students. Now we are working on a children's agenda. This is
the type of government and programs that the people of Canada are
looking for, not a phony program like the one of the Reform
Party.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
up until August 13, when the Minister of Transport made a
commitment to the Onex bid to acquire Canadian International
Airlines and Air Canada, InterCanadian was completely
profitable. Since that time, there has been a dramatic 20% drop
in reservations with InterCanadian.
Is the minister not demonstrating a considerable lack of
knowledge of the issues when he tells this House that
InterCanadian's difficulties are linked to its acquisition of
Air Atlantic?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the hon. member is in error in his question
when he refers to the profitability of InterCanadian.
The Government of Canada is, however, keeping close tabs on the
InterCanadian situation, and we are aware that the company is
trying to make arrangements with its creditors, which might
enable it to resume operations next week.
1435
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the problems of InterCanadian are directly related to his
mishandling of the Onex bid to acquire Air Canada and Canadian
Airlines, does the Minister of Transport not have a
responsibility to step in now in order to save the 900 jobs his
incompetence has jeopardized?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I find amusing in all of this, is that the Bloc
Quebecois has been systematically against any form of assistance
to Canadian Airlines right from the start, but now this same
party is demanding that the government step in to deal with the
InterCanadian situation. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, instead
of going to bat for our beleaguered Canadian farmers, the
international trade minister, to the applause of the Prime
Minister, is now spending his time chairing the working group on
developing countries. Other countries have made it crystal clear
that the reduction of agricultural subsidies is their primary
goal and are insisting that they be on the table. Instead of the
trade minister spending his time promoting his personal agenda,
why is the Prime Minister not insisting that he show some
intestinal fortitude and fight for our farmers?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat
surprising that the hon. member's question is inconsistent with
his party's position. How can he on the one hand say that the
Government of Canada should be giving more aid to western
Canadian farmers when on the other hand his party is asking us to
let go of all the barriers that protect some of the farmers in
eastern Canada?
This party stands for all Canadian farmers and we will continue
to do that around the international trade table.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
party's aid package to western Canadian farmers is working so
well that its agriculture minister said he would have 100% of the
money to Canadian farmers by Christmas, but only 17% of that
money has been delivered. Canadian farmers in western Canada are
hurting, and they are hurting bad. That kind of answer is
irresponsible. Where is the Prime Minister when my question was
directed to him?
Other countries have made it crystal clear that they are going
to stand for their farmers. Why is our trade minister not doing
it for our guys?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government and the Minister for International Trade are in the
forefront on this issue in trying to get the Europeans and the
Americans to get rid of their export subsidies. It is those
export subsidies which are hurting Canadian farmers.
Why is it that his party is the only party not supporting the
united front of all farmers across this country which supports
the position of the Canadian government at the WTO? Why is his
party the only party not supporting that united front?
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in connection with the very serious allegations against the
Minister for International Trade, the chief electoral officer
responded, on the content of his election report, that the time
frame was prescribed and that he could not act on the complaint
lodged with him.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, does the Prime
Minister plan to hide behind this restrictive interpretation of
the Canada Elections Act in order to keep his Minister for
International Trade?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the interpretation is
restrictive. I think the chief electoral officer has the
confidence of the House as to his work practices. I hope the
member is not saying otherwise.
In the meantime, the member knows as I do that this is an
allegation by one individual against another in a divorce case.
The minister is not accused.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this looks oddly like the principle of no evil seen, no evil
done.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he referred to his
ethics counsellor in making his decision to keep his Minister
for International Trade on, since the minister would not have
been caught in time under the time frame set out in the Canada
Elections Act?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has just made a
rather serious accusation. He has said the minister was “not
caught in time”, intimating that the minister was already
guilty.
1440
This is a gratuitous allegation against an hon. member of this
House and cabinet minister, and I do not think the member
opposite should make allegations and especially accusations of
this nature against one of his colleagues.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every day in my office we receive many letters from
Canadians who are suffering and on waiting lists. One man wrote
about his father, who had cancer and waited six weeks for
radiation therapy. For six weeks he waited in agony, lying on
the floor, because he could not get the therapy he needed.
What guarantee will the Minister of Health give to cancer
patients that they will not have to wait six weeks for the cancer
therapy they need?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
part of resolving the issues facing medicare is more money. That
is the reason we significantly increased transfers to the
provinces some months ago, only after they promised to use it all
for health.
Another important part of resolving problems like the one
described by the hon. member is better organizing and delivering
services. That is why I am working my with provincial partners
to make the changes needed in the health care system for the 21st
century, and we will continue with that work.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is nothing new. Since this government came to
power waiting lists have increased 10% per year. There are over
200,000 people on waiting lists. In the province of Quebec there
are cancer patients who have to wait two months for radiation
therapy and they are being sent to the United States.
What would the Minister of Health say to the patients in Quebec
who have to wait two months and are being sent to the United
States to get the cancer therapy they require? Will he guarantee
that these people can get their cancer therapy in Quebec and not
in the United States?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already answered that we need changes in the system, which
I am working on with the provinces.
I can tell the House one thing, the answer does not lie in the
approach which this member and his party favour. This is the man
who said that a two tiered health care system would strengthen
health care in Canada. He said that we need a private system.
This man would have us take the American style two tiered system
of health care and leave people out in the cold. That is not the
kind of approach this government will ever take.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned that André Juneau, of the National Battlefields
Commission, received compensation from that organization for a
donation he made to the Liberal Party of Canada at a fundraising
cocktail.
In an attempt to defend himself, he said that he was not the
only one to have done so, and that he was not worried about the
morality of spending taxpayers' dollars this way.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she
intends to put a stop to this unacceptable practice for once and
for all, or must we continue to bring all the cases to light one
by one?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in this specific instance, as soon as I became aware
of the allegations, I asked that the matter be referred directly
to the ethics counsellor.
As for the general practice, the Treasury Board issued a
directive a number of weeks ago.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
In light of the social housing agreement which the federal
government signed with the province of Ontario and our current
problems associated with affordable housing and homelessness,
could the minister comment on instructions given by Ontario's
minister of municipal housing affairs to the Ontario Housing
Corporation to reduce spending?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario
minister of housing gave instructions to the Ontario Housing
Corporation has nothing to do with the social housing transfer
agreement we made a few weeks ago.
The social housing transfer agreement is very clear. The
province of Ontario cannot change any condition unilaterally. All
of the existing contracts have to be respected until they expire.
I can give some examples of what the agreement says: all
federal moneys received must be used for housing; funding
targeted to low income people must remain targeted; the CMHC set
income limits; the agreement requires an annual performance
report—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
* * *
1445
FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
dairy manufacturer, Parmalat, was to be inspected by Canada's
food safety watchdog after 800 children got sick with salmonella
poisoning last year. But the watchdog was told to sit on it
after Parmalat complained to its local MP. Guess who? The
agriculture minister.
Ian Ferguson, president of Parmalat, also wrote to the health
minister over there.
Why is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency subject to political
interference by the agriculture minister?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The food
inspection agency is not being influenced by the minister. It
carried out its inspection in the way that it should and the case
was handled appropriately.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the hon. member should consult the auditor general on
this.
It is not good enough to tell Canadians “Your food is safe as
long as it wasn't produced in the agriculture minister's
riding”. Canadians should have complete confidence in the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's ability to test the food
supply. They cannot when ministers are able to block
inspections.
Why were 800 sick children not enough to convince this
agriculture minister to let the inspectors do their job?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the
inspections were carried out and the process did take place. If
the member would read the full auditor general's report, the
auditor general said clearly that the food inspection agency had
a very different recollection of the events that occurred, and
the auditor general put that right in the report.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): My question
is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
The six big Canadian banks have now announced profits of some $9
billion for the last year, up 30% over last year, an all time
record. At the same time, they are now planning to eliminate
some 20,000 jobs and close hundreds of branches.
Will the Minister of Finance screw up his courage and use the
authority that he has to protect these jobs and empower
communities to block the closure of branches in their own areas?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is exactly
what we have proposed and the legislation will be coming forth
very soon. We have proposed, as the member very well knows, that
for any closure of a branch it will require four months notice.
Where that branch is the only one left in a community, it will
require six months notice. This is so the community can have time
to react and alternative banking relationships can be
established.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Notice is
not exactly power, Mr. Speaker.
These same CEOs, who are eliminating some 20,000, are boosting
their own incomes through exorbitant stock options. In fact, the
top 24 CEOs, because of these options, will be making in excess
of $250 million next year, in excess of the income of 12,000 bank
tellers.
Will the minister look at the effect of these obscene stock
options on the ability CEOs to balance their own personal
interest with the interest of the community from which they have
drawn an income in the first place?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
minister's response to the task force on the future of Canada's
financial services sector, there is a provision that banks will
have to account on an annual basis for the services that they
provide and the relations that they have had with their various
communities.
We have also opened up, in a very big way, the financial
services sector to new entrants. We have decreased the amount of
money that has to be paid for a bank to set up in Canada. We
have allowed the foreign banks to come into Canada through
branches to create greater competition.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
I gave the Minister of Human Resources Development the
opportunity to condemn the practice of those companies receiving
funds from the TJF and then making donations to political
parties, but he refused to say that the practice was even
inappropriate or that a problem even existed.
I will give the minister a second chance to say that this is
wrong for companies that have accepted money from the Canada jobs
fund and then give money to political parties and government.
Will the minister stand in the House today and say that this is
wrong?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this party
seems to be following the approach of their kissing cousins, the
Reform, in using shoddy research to make inappropriate
accusations in the House.
1450
If she has real proof of wrongdoing, she should register it with
the appropriate authorities. Otherwise, this party should be
very careful about the companies and the names it draws attention
to. Yesterday, it mentioned a company named Rougier Inc.
Despite its shoddy research, I confirm to the House that no
transitional jobs fund money was received by that company.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
changes to the Employment Insurance Act by the government have
created more problems than they have solved.
There is inflexibility in the act that does not take into
account the special needs of women. Because of the new system,
less women qualify for EI. This has had an negative impact on
their families.
Will the minister initiate a full scale review of this
legislation and commit to make the changes required to correct
the injustices against women and their families?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has
been because part of the 1996 amendments included a monitoring
and assessment report that looks at the impact of the legislation
every single year.
I am looking forward to receiving the next report to see if the
trend of changes and the data supporting evidence about women
being excluded in the process are confirmed. As I have said in
the House on a number of occasions, we will act on it.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
week, the countries of La Francophonie met in Paris for a
ministerial conference chaired by the Secretary of State for La
Francophonie.
Can the secretary of state share with the House the impact of
the decisions taken at that conference?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when they
were in Moncton, the member countries of La Francophonie set out
the main thrusts for such themes as youth, women, cultural
diversity and economic development in developing countries.
Later, in Paris, they gave concrete expression to youth
programs. For instance, one third of the committed amounts will
go to youth. Decisions were also made regarding the women,
democracy and cultural diversity programs.
The meeting in Paris gave me an opportunity to see that Canada,
its government, its Prime Minister, and his entire party are
highly respected by their partners when it comes to democracy
and to the other issues discussed.
* * *
[English]
CSIS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the solicitor general told Canadians that CSIS always
investigates any people who enter this country.
When Corporal Read took his Hong Kong visa scam investigation to
a CSIS China specialist in early 1997, his allegations were not
of any interest to CSIS. Does the House know why? It was
because CSIS was already aware that Canada had lost control of
its foreign missions around the world. It was old news and it
was not prepared to investigate.
Can the solicitor general understand that we need a special
investigator on this case?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by reminding my colleague that the RCMP has
a mobile three-person investigative team available to investigate
Canadian offices abroad.
Second, as far as Hong Kong is concerned, I want to remind my
colleague that there are two investigations under way at the
present time. The first is a criminal one on which I cannot
comment, and the second is an internal one, ordered by the RCMP
Commissioner. The high-ranking officers responsible for that
investigation are completely excluded from the list of those
mentioned in the allegations of problems.
I think it is high time that the Reform Party took more care
with the questions it asked so as not to mislead the Canadian
public.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
May 1, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development recommended the government declare a moratorium as
of January 1, 2000 on live firing by the Canadian forces at Lake
Saint-Pierre.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does the
government intend to accept the committee's recommendation and
prohibit the use of shells and artillery at Lake Saint-Pierre to
give the lake back to the people living on its shores?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows,
the matter has been under study for a number of years and
remains so. Once a report has been prepared, we will release
it.
* * *
1455
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1986, the
auditor general requested the unemployment insurance account be
integrated with the government's general fund.
On Tuesday, the auditor general criticized the size of the
surplus in the employment assurance fund and said it should be
kept to a maximum of $15 billion instead of the current
$25 billion.
Is this government going to listen to the auditor general as it
did in 1986 and reduce the surplus by increasing the number of
unemployed eligible?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the outset, we have
continually reduced employment insurance contributions. Today,
they stand at $2.40, down from $3.07 in 1993. This is progress,
and we will continue.
* * *
RCMP
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
consulted an official RCMP report entitled “Proposed
reorganization of operating structure—C Division”.
This report, which was submitted to the solicitor general,
recommends the closing of seven RCMP detachments in Quebec:
Granby, Saint-Hyacinthe, Valleyfield, Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Roberval, Baie-Comeau and Joliette.
Will the solicitor general be following up on this report and,
if so, is closing RCMP detachments the government's new strategy
for combating organized crime?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member, as
well as the members for Beauce and Brome—Missisquoi, for their
work on this issue.
One point is in order. The document referred to is a working
document and in no way a report to the solicitor general. The
solicitor general has seen no report in this regard, and no
decision has been taken on this matter.
I want to make this extremely clear. As I said yesterday,
during the debate on organized crime, no decision has been
taken.
* * *
NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
It appears that after decades of sectarian strife in Northern
Ireland, the two sides of this historical conflict are finally
moving toward a lasting peace.
What role has the Canadian government played in the peaceful
political resolution of this conflict?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will want to join
me in congratulating both parties in Northern Ireland for their
historic sharing of power agreement.
In terms of Canadian involvement, as we all know the Prime
Minister paid a very important visit to Northern Ireland a few
months ago at a strategic time. At that time, he announced a
major contribution to the Ireland fund to help with the peace
process.
There is also the magnificent work being done by John de
Chastelain on the decommissioning environment, Professor Shearing
on the crime commission and other Canadians who are making a
major contribution in bringing peace to that country at long
last.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Corporal Read went to CSIS twice. First, when he discovered the
evidence of the loss of control in Hong Kong, and second, when he
concluded that a cover-up had been put in place above him in the
RCMP.
His allegations of cover-up and obstruction of justice pointed
to specific superiors to him in his chain of command.
How can Corporal Read, how can Canadians, how can anyone have
confidence that this will be uncovered without the appointment of
a special prosecutor?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself clear, but
apparently I did not, so I will say it again.
The internal investigation now under way was not launched at
because the member opposite caused it to happen. It was
launched at the instigation of the RCMP commissioner, who
appointed senior officers in no way associated with the
allegations to conduct the investigation and submit a report.
This brings up a fundamental problem I think bears looking at.
Every time the Reform Party wants to go after a specific issue,
it attacks the institutions in question.
* * *
HAITI
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Americans have already announced their intention to withdraw
their troops stationed in Haiti by the end of this month. This
decision may result in the withdrawal of members of the UN peace
forces.
1500
This is truly a policy of abandonment that would further
jeopardize the fragile peace in that country and could lead to a
situation worse than the one that prevailed before 1994.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on the
peacekeeping operations in Haiti and indicate whether he intends
to ask the security council to extend—
The Speaker: The Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the United Nations we have been part of a group
that has put together a resolution which will be put to the
general assembly that will extend a new mission into Haiti. Our
primary role will be to support the development of police
activities. CIDA is providing major support in developing the
police capacity of Haiti. We will continue to be engaged in
other major developments in that country.
I can assure the hon. member that Canada is still directly and
clearly committed to maintaining the peace and building the peace
in that country.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Considering that women have borne so much of the brunt of
changes to the EI program and she has initiated extended
maternity benefits, there are so many women who are now on
benefits who would love to stay home with their children. Would
the minister extend those benefits and make an early intervention
so that they can stay home with their children now?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member
and her party are supportive of our approach of extending
parental benefits to a year. We are looking forward to having
this implemented, as the Prime Minister has indicated, before the
beginning of 2001. I am glad to see that they will be supportive
as we proceed with that initiative through the House.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, when I hear
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans saying consultation
involving all stakeholders is required to find a solution to the
east coast fishing crisis, I ask myself: if this is true, why did
DFO purposely ignore non-native fishers' participation in
Wednesday's meetings in Halifax where a recent controversy over
the Acadia band's decision to withdraw from an agreement with
non-native fishers was being discussed?
Is this consultation process an indication of things to come?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House
that our officials are working with the Acadia band. We are also
keeping the commercial fishermen involved. I think it is
important to bring the parties together. That is exactly what
DFO officials are doing. I am confident we will have a
resolution to this problem very quickly.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order arising from question period. I believe
you would find that the parliamentary secretary, in answering my
question, accused the Reform Party of misleading Canadians. I
believe that word is unparliamentary. I would ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to have him withdraw it.
The Speaker: My colleague, I will check the blues and I
will see what was said during the course of debate. If
necessary, I will come back to the House.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is our favourite time of the week, the Thursday question. I
know the government House leader is going to enlighten us very
shortly as to the nature of the business for this week and the
week following.
I was wondering if he might also be able to inform the House
whether or not the government would see fit, in its wisdom, to
allow several days of debate on the very important piece of
legislation which affects all British Columbians and Canadians,
that being Bill C-9, the Nisga'a legislation.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the
last question first.
I am pleased to inform the House that by the end of the day
today the Nisga'a agreement, Bill C-9, will have been debated in
the House and committee for no less than 61 hours and 40 minutes.
This shows the tremendous openness of this government. I thank
the hon. member for having given me the occasion to state that.
[Translation]
This afternoon, we will continue the debate on Bill C-9, the
Nisga'a Final Agreement Act. Tomorrow, we will consider second
reading of Bill C-17 dealing with amending the Criminal Code.
[English]
In the unlikely event that we do not complete the Nisga'a bill
today, after 61 hours and 40 minutes of debate, we would then
return, as unlikely as that is, to the report stage of Bill C-9
on Monday. When this is complete on Monday, we will then turn to
the report stage of Bill C-2, the Elections Act.
On Tuesday, I would offer to the House Bill C-2, the Elections
Act, again.
The back-up bill on Wednesday, if we have completed Bill C-2
by then, would then be Bill C-15.
Thursday, December 9, shall be an allotted day and the last day
in the supply cycle.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion respecting amendments to 16 acts: the Excise Tax
Act and a related act; the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; the
Budget Implementation Act, 1997; the Budget Implementation Act,
1998; the Budget Implementation Act, 1999; the Canada Pension
Plan; the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act; the Cultural
Property Export and Import Act; the Customs Act; the Customs
Tariff; the Employment Insurance Act; the Excise Act; the Income
Tax Act; the Tax Court of Canada Act; and the Unemployment
Insurance Act, as well as explanatory notes. The enormous
breadth and scope of these legislative changes bear testimony to
the progressive, forward looking approach of Canada's beloved
finance department.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of this motion.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following consultations of the House
leaders, I think you would find unanimous consent for adoption of
the two following motions.
The first deals with the existing mandate of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The
motions reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be
designated as the committee for the purposes of section 233 of
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have
the consent of the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1510
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second item involves the previously tabled report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the televising
of our standing committees. I move:
That the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs in the First Session of the Thirty-sixth
Parliament, be deemed to have been laid upon the table in the
present Session and concurred in, provided that, for the purposes
of this Order, the date “June 30, 1999” in the said Report
shall be read as “June 30, 2000”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, an act to give
effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 to 30.
The Speaker: When I interrupted the hon. member for
Kelowna just before Statements by Members, he had six minutes
left. The hon. member for Kelowna now has the floor.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
continue with my presentation, in particular with the reference
to the Diane Francis column of November 20 in the National
Post on the Nisga'a treaty:
Not only does this constitute a hideous giveaway based on
unproven claims that their ancestors roamed around the area, but
there are overlapping claims by neighbouring bands that also
claim their ancestors roamed around there too. Some are
threatening violence.
Counter-claims are hardly surprising given the flimsy
“evidence” behind the exercise...
My ancestors roamed around the United States for a couple of
centuries and Europe for millennia but that doesn't give me any
claim to a piece of Dublin or Chicago.
What we have now is a questionable collective memory of
entitlement, and governments that fail to meet their
responsibilities to the public interest.
Simply put, the Nisga'a treaty is the beginning of turning much
of Canada into a series of “balkan” principalities often run by
feudal chieftains.
Worse yet, the Nisga'a claim is one of 30 being cobbled together
in British Columbia—
Other authorities would say more like 50:
But this type of ad hoc treatism is dangerous because it also
abrogates the basic values of this society. Its only result will
be to create privileged franchises for self-defined ethnic groups
with questionable provenance, who already get excessive and
unjustifiable special entitlements out of the public purse such
as tax-free status.
Nisga'a ignores the rule of law.
Nisga'a ignores democratic rights.
Nisga'a disdains transparency of process.
She is speaking of the treaty:
Unfortunately, political correctness has set in on this one. The
Canadian establishment has ganged up against the public just as
it did behind the attempt by Ottawa to railroad Canadians into
voting for the Meech and Charlottetown accords. The only ally
the public has federally is the Reform party, which is clearly
aligned with the public interest on this one.
Unlike those sweeping accords, Canadians will not get a chance to
vote on the matter in a referendum, nor will British Columbians.
This is because the rest of the federal parties—Liberals,
Tories, NDP and Bloc Quebecois—are in favour of the treaty.
Most worrisome is the support for this treaty by the Bloc
Quebecois. It means the Liberal government is being led into an
ambush by Quebec secessionists who support passage of the Nisga'a
deal because it circumvents the Constitution and gives an ethnic
group self-government and vast lands.
To ram through the Nisga'a treaty in Parliament may be to unravel
the Supreme Court of Canada initiative undertaken by the federal
government in the case of Quebec secession.
It is a serious allegation that Ms. Francis states here. She
goes on to say:
The court ruled that any referendum on self-government by
Quebecers would have to be passed by a clear majority responding
to a clear question and involving all parties pertinent to the
issue.
Nisga'a is not being offered up to the public for its approval
and therefore all parties pertinent to the issue are not being
involved, except indirectly through the Liberals in Ottawa and
the NDP in Victoria.
Plenty of constitutional experts maintain, as does the Reform
Party and the B.C. Liberal Party, that the people of British
Columbia have a right to vote on this matter in a referendum.
Some 78% of the people of British Columbia oppose Nisga'a.
Without a doubt, most Canadians oppose any special deals for
anyone. Privileges already exist and should be dispensed
universally on the basis of need, and not on race—
1515
That almost brings to a conclusion her statement except that she
ends with this sentence:
Instead, we have the Liberals and NDP heaping more unnecessary
burdens on to taxpayers in order to unfairly reward a few vocal,
politically correct and taxpayer supported ethnic organizations.
So much for what Ms. Francis had to say about the Nisga'a
treaty.
I will continue to reference Squamish women and their concern
about the provisions of the Nisga'a treaty. I have the verbatim
report of what was heard by the committee on Friday of last week.
A Ms. Baker said:
I am Maisie Baker from the Squamish Nation, and I'm one that
don't just sit back and let everybody else do the work for me, I
got to get up and do my own fighting. I fight my chief and
council every day, and when they see me coming, they say, oh, no,
is that Maisie coming after who, and I said well, if you're on my
way, look out. But I'd like to say that the Squamish nation is
so corrupt, it's unbelievable. The money that comes from the
government gets stuck in our band office and it stays there. We
never see it, and I am very angry at my Squamish Nation's
so-called chiefs and councillors for putting me into this Bill
C-49. Not only our chiefs and council, but I'm angry at the
government for putting me in this position, because it doesn't
give us any rights at all. We can't fight them, we have no
money, we have nothing but I'm really angry at government for not
listening to the grassroots, when we are the most important
people.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise again
today on one of those occasions when I wish I could say I am
pleased to rise in this debate. However I have to be blushingly
cautious in that statement because I am not really very happy to
be standing here under these circumstances.
I have observed over the years how different people fall out of
sorts with each other. We call them human relationships. I have
noticed people fall apart even in their marriages. A couple of
things lead up to that, according to the reading I have done, but
one of them is that there is an indifference to the other
partner. The partner starts thinking “I just don't matter. I
just don't care”.
In Canada these days we are once again consumed with the
question of national unity. I would simply put forward the
notion that national unity, the unity of our citizens, is not
being served by Bill C-9 at all. That is because of the
indifference the government is showing toward people who are so
greatly affected by the bill.
I cannot help but observe that even right now not a single
member of the government is paying attention to what I am saying.
Not one.
Mr. Peter Adams: I am.
Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, there is one back there. He happens to
be reading his book but he says he is listening to me. There is
another one back there who is actually listening. I cannot
mention his name. That is great. There are two of them. That
is wonderful.
Out of 301 members of parliament, the Reform Party is trying to
put forward some debate. We are trying to persuade some empty
seats to come to a different point of view. What a shame.
I will say a bit about the process that is involved. We have a
very strange anomaly with respect to the democratic process. It
is a matter of record that the majority of seats in western
Canada, the majority of seats in British Columbia, are held by
Reform Party members.
We in the Reform Party have undertaken a very creative initiative
in politics in Canada by representing in the House of Commons the
wishes of the people who elected us.
1520
A majority of members of parliament from British Columbia are
Reformers who are listening not just to the chiefs but to the
grassroots people. They are getting the message both from
grassroots natives and from grassroots non-natives that there are
serious flaws in this process and in what is being jammed down
their throats.
The democratic system is failing because of the way democracy
does not work in Canada. Most Liberals on the other side of the
House, most of whom are represented by green foreheads again
today, do not live in British Columbia. They will rise on
command and vote the way they are told to jam the legislation
through even though they do not represent, by any stretch of the
imagination, the people who are most vitally affected by it. I
am speaking of the people of British Columbia.
I should also hasten to add that inasmuch as every deal like
this one creates a precedence and a pattern for future
agreements, it affects every Canadian. However the Liberals are
not listening to that. They say they do not need to listen to
that. They have a majority and can do whatever they want. They
just thumb their noses at us and do whatever they wish.
Even though the New Democratic Party government in British
Columbia held a majority of seats in that house, it obtained a
lesser percentage of the votes in British Columbia than did the
Liberal Party. It is intriguing the Liberal Party of British
Columbia, a party with the same name as the governing party here,
came to the conclusion after studying the bill and consulting
with the people involved that it was not a very good bill and
should be amended, changed, fixed or defeated.
Admittedly the New Democratic Party government gave it a lot
more debate time in its house than we are getting here. I guess
we can give the NDP a back-handed compliment for at least
permitting that. However just permitting debate is meaningless.
I know my party is saying that we ought to be able to debate
this bill. I am not content with that. I am not content with
just standing here and talking. I would like to change the minds
of the people on the other side. What can I do to force them to
actually listen to me? I do not know what I can do.
Maybe we should change the rules of the House. Maybe our
salaries should be contingent on us actually physically being
present in the House when debates are being held. Maybe that
should happen. Maybe we should do something that forces members
to participate in a debate like this one.
How many speeches have we had from the disinterested green
foreheads over there today? I believe we had one or two. I was
at finance committee for a while so I may have missed one of
those important speeches, but there is mostly indifference.
I remember reading a long time ago that the opposite of love was
not hate, that the opposite of love was indifference. Members
opposite are totally indifferent. They do not care. They do not
raise their heads to speak. They do not talk to the people in
any meaningful way. When the time comes for voting they will
indifferently rise on command, collect their salaries and go
home.
I am not in a position to prognosticate and predict what will
happen, but I would be very surprised if the number of Liberal
members from B.C. in the next election was not cut by one-half,
one-third or one-fourth. I do not think that they will carry the
support of the people because it is evident that they are not
being represented here by those Liberal members.
1525
We have evidence that between 60% and 90% of people in different
ridings are opposed to the agreement. I will ask a simple,
reasonable question. If there is such opposition to it, why can
government members not exercise a shade of humility and say that
perhaps they are not perfect? Just imagine if they would confess
that and admit that perhaps they are not 100% perfect.
We are dealing with Bill C-9. I know I cannot use props, but I
was trying to guess how thick the books were. I just felt them
and they are thick, the two books we are talking about today.
Surely in there somewhere we could have made a few little
amendments to satisfy the deeply held concerns of British
Columbians and other Canadians in this regard.
What we have is a government that says it is 100% right and
there is no room for change. It feels that it does not need to
consider any amendments. In fact the bill has come to the House
without the possibility of amendment. We are not doing our jobs
as parliamentarians if we just simply rubber stamp a flawed
document. Also, the ramifications of this decision will be with
us, our children and our children's children for generations.
Therefore it is important that it is done correctly.
I remember one of my bosses at the Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology who had a parchment in his office. Every time I went
to see him I would see that parchment which contained a very
fitting statement: “If you don't have time to do it right, when
will you find time to do it again?” That is a very good
principle for how we do things. We need to do it right. In this
instance it is doubly and triply important because the ability to
change the agreement once it has been enacted is not very hopeful
at all. It will be virtually impossible to do so.
We are rushing into it. We are not doing it well enough as
parliamentarians. I should be explicit. The Liberals and other
opposition parties that are standing with them in jamming the
bill through are failing the Canadian people. They are failing
the people of British Columbia. They are failing the natives,
because even they are telling us that they have serious concerns
about the legislation. They are not well served. They are not
at all happy with what is happening.
In conclusion, I urge members opposite to use their own brains
and their own conscience and do what is right and what is
necessary in terms of the bill. For once they should use the
clout available to them. They are so close to being able to put
the government in a position of having to deal with it, why do
they not do it? Let them show some integrity and do it.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, B.C., I am pleased to join
in the debate. The Nisga'a treaty offers the opportunity to
begin the process of reinvigorating economic growth in the
province of B.C. through an agreement that will provide certainty
for the benefit of British Columbians.
The amendments to Bill C-9 proposed by members of the Reform
Party are puzzling because they would defeat the certainty we
worked so hard to achieve. Those amendments would lead to
uncertainty because they would make Bill C-9 inconsistent with
the Nisga'a treaty.
The amendments will lead to further uncertainty by making Bill
C-9 inconsistent with key aspects of the provincial legislation
which gives effect to the Nisga'a treaty. The amendment proposed
by the Reform Party would eliminate or impair the ability of
third parties to benefit from terms of the Nisga'a treaty which
were carefully negotiated for their benefit. The Reform Party
has called for consultation but does not seem to realize that its
amendment would defeat the result of consultations held with
third parties.
1530
Members of the Reform Party will have to explain why they are
choosing to ignore the views of British Columbians who were
consulted during the treaty negotiations.
The Nisga'a treaty contains key certainty provisions which
provide for the modification of Nisga'a aboriginal rights and
title. Reform Party suggestions that those provisions be deleted
or changed would defeat those certainty provisions. The members
opposite must not realize or care about the impact of those
proposed amendments which would leave the Nisga'a with the same
aboriginal rights and title they may currently have under
Canadian law. Members of the Reform Party must not realize that
the certainty approach was developed with extensive consultation
in British Columbia and modifies Nisga'a rights. This is the key
part of the certainty approach. The amendments proposed by the
Reform Party would make the certainty provisions inconsistent
with the treaty and with the language that third parties expect
based on our consultations in B.C.
Members of the Reform Party have proposed amendments which could
defeat the transfer of lands and lead to uncertainty of title.
Members of the Reform Party do not seem to realize that third
parties have made it clear many times that a key goal of treaty
negotiations is to create certainty as to ownership of lands.
Once again, members of the Reform Party have proposed amendments
which are directly contrary to the advice our negotiators
received during consultations. We value the advice and
assistance we received from knowledgeable third parties during
negotiation of the Nisga'a treaty obviously much more than the
Reform Party.
Let me remind members of the Reform Party how Bill C-9 and the
Nisga'a treaty provide certainty. Let us talk about full
settlement. The Nisga'a treaty is a full and final settlement of
Nisga'a claims to aboriginal rights and title and through this
agreement those rights will be known with certainty. In future
we will all be able to use the treaty for a precise description
of Nisga'a rights. All of us will be able to use the treaty
because the treaty says that it can be relied on not just by
government and the Nisga'a, but by other persons.
Let us talk about future development. The Nisga'a will be able
to develop Nisga'a lands. Businesses that are interested in
economic development opportunities on Nisga'a lands will know
from the treaty that the Nisga'a own those lands. Outside
Nisga'a lands, the province of B.C. will be able to develop lands
and know precisely the scope of Nisga'a rights and the procedures
to follow to develop lands. Businesses that are interested in
development opportunities outside Nisga'a lands will similarly
benefit from knowing the province's authority to develop those
lands.
1535
Those who oppose the Nisga'a treaty risk losing, for all of us,
this opportunity.
As in other areas of B.C., without the Nisga'a treaty there
would be considerable uncertainty in the Nass Valley as to the
scope and location of aboriginal rights and title. Section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982 says “the existing aboriginal and
treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby
recognized and affirmed”. Section 35 does not define the scope,
content or location of any existing aboriginal rights.
In the case of many first nations in B.C. like the Nisga'a,
there is uncertainty as to where aboriginal title applies. Apart
from the uncertainty as to aboriginal title, there is also
uncertainty as to where aboriginal rights to harvest resources
such as fish and wildlife apply. There is also uncertainty as to
where an aboriginal right of self-government might apply.
Apart from all of this uncertainty as to the location of
aboriginal rights and title, there is uncertainty as to the scope
of aboriginal rights for any particular group like the Nisga'a.
In a particular location a first nation might claim aboriginal
rights, such as the right to harvest wildlife, to gather
medicinal plants, to carry out traditional religious practices or
to carry out a variety of other activities.
Speaking of negotiation and litigation, it would be costly and
time consuming to use the courts to examine each claim of an
aboriginal right for each location in B.C.
In the Delgamuukw case the Supreme Court of Canada commented on
the disadvantages of litigation and encouraged negotiation as the
best way to resolve these issues. Some members might remember
that the Delgamuukw case took more than 10 years to go through
the courts and in the end the supreme court ordered a new trial.
There is still uncertainty as to the aboriginal rights of the
Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en who were involved in that case. The
Nisga'a treaty shows the advantages of negotiating those issues
instead of going to court.
The Nisga'a treaty negotiations were not an attempt to define
Nisga'a aboriginal rights, but instead to address uncertainty by
exhaustively setting out and defining, with as much clarity and
precision as possible, all the section 35 rights which the
Nisga'a can exercise after the Nisga'a treaty is concluded.
In the past Canada has achieved certainty through an exchange of
undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights, using the
language of cede, release and surrender. Objections by first
nations to this surrender technique have been a fundamental
obstacle to completing modern treaties. The Nisga'a treaty
provides for a modified rights approach.
Using the modified aboriginal rights approach, Nisga'a
aboriginal rights, including title, continue to exist, although
only as modified to have the attributes and geographic extent set
out in the Nisga'a treaty.
The approach to certainty is primarily set out in the general
provisions chapter, which contains its basic elements. However,
certainty is also achieved by the precise description of rights
throughout the text of the Nisga'a treaty.
1540
I urge Reform members opposite to come to their senses and to
recognize that the amendments they propose would defeat the goal
of certainty—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time
has expired.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know what the member thinks consultation means, but
consultation does not mean taking the industrial parties which
were involved in chasing the treaty negotiators out of the
picture in the last two weeks of the negotiations so that the
treaty could be completed without their input. That is the kind
of consultation Liberals believe in.
The other part of consultation they do not believe in is the
committee process of the House. We ended up last week, a week
ago tomorrow, having to go to Vancouver to permit people who have
qualified opinions on this topic to put their thoughts on the
record.
Because the government chose to exclude some very important
people in British Columbia who had valid opinions from the
committee process, I will put on the record some of the comments
these people made at the hearing which we conducted last week. I
will be quoting two people.
The first person is Mr. deJong. Mr. deJong is the aboriginal
affairs critic for the Liberal Party in the province of British
Columbia. The second person whom I will be quoting is Mr. Geoff
Plant, who is the attorney general critic for the Liberals in
British Columbia.
It is unusual that persons belonging to the party of that name
in this place have so little in common with the Liberals of
British Columbia.
Mr. deJong said:
I guess the first thing that needs to be said is it is
unfortunate in my view that this hearing was necessary. But it
is, because of what has transpired, not just over the past couple
of weeks, but what has transpired over the past couple of months,
a process that has been designed from the outset, Mr. Chairman,
to cut people off from these negotiations. And you didn't need
to look much further than the hearings that several of you were
involved with, just last week, the federal standing committee
that travelled to this province, largely because I think of the
efforts of several of your caucus members.
But when you are a
British Columbian and hear the kind of comments that we heard
from certain members of that committee, representing the federal
government, it was difficult not to get angry. When members of
the federal government are quoted as saying that this is a dog
and pony show that will have no impact and is a waste of time and
money, you really begin to wonder about whether or not people in
Ottawa care about the views of British Columbians about a topic
that is going to profoundly impact the way we live and are
governed in this province.
This is a process that, beginning
back in the 1980s, has been designed to cut people off, to
restrict their access, to restrict their input. Previous
governments, and I think you heard from a former premier earlier
today, set in motion a process, a closed process. That was
designed, I think, from the outset to guarantee failure, and it
has.
I remind the House that this is the Liberal aboriginal affairs
critic of the province of British Columbia speaking:
So here's what we would like to do today, Mr. Chairman. We would
like to comment on that process. We would like to outline for
you quickly what our main concerns with this document, this
Nisga'a treaty is, and Mr. Plant will provide you with a brief
summary of the court case that has been commenced by Gordon
Campbell, Geoff Plant and myself in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia questioning the constitutionality of the deal, and then
we have some thoughts about how this process can be made better
because, make no mistake about it, we do have to settle this
issue. We do have to settle these negotiations.
But you don't do
it by employing the kinds of tactics that we have seen by the
government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. The
invoking of closure, time allocation by both governments cutting
off the ability of elected representatives, Mr. Chair, to
scrutinize this all-important document, is the single most
pathetic excuse for the democratic process I have seen in the
time that I have been involved in elected life.
1545
We were told, all of us as British Columbians, that we would have
an opportunity to question, critique, profess support or
non-support for each and every clause of this agreement. The
government of British Columbia, the NDP government, broke that
promise. Mr. Chair, I was in Ottawa when the federal government
prevented more than half of the members of parliament from this
province from even speaking to this document, from even
indicating what areas, what clauses, what principles, they
believed this treaty should reflect and doesn't reflect. How can
British Columbians have any confidence in any exercise that
muzzles their elected officials, and it did just that, Mr. Chair.
So when we get to discuss the substantive provisions of this
agreement and we are met by a wall of silence from the two levels
of government, you are compelled to ask yourselves this question,
Mr. Chairman, what is it that the federal and provincial
government is afraid of in allowing this debate to go forward?
They either don't have the answers to the fundamental questions
that people are asking, or they do and they don't want people to
know what those answers are. In either case, it is in my view a
recipe for disaster.
We have commenced a court action. We have concerns about what
is in this treaty, we have concerns about the self-government
provisions, we have concerns about a treaty that would purport to
limit your ability to vote for a government that has a
responsibility over you and limit that right to vote on the basis
of your ethnicity. We think that's wrong. We think a fishery, a
commercial fishery, based on an allocation that is tied to
ethnicity is wrong, and we think there are alternatives. And we
have, as you know, Mr. Chair, members of your panel, taken the
matter to the Supreme Court, so if I can defer to my colleague,
Mr. Plant, he will provide you with a summary of the basis for
those submissions and that argument to the court.
We then hear from Mr. Plant who is the Liberal attorney general
critic in the province of British Columbia.
Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity, Mr.
Chairman, to speak to you and the other members this morning. The
lawsuit is an action commenced in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. It's commenced in the name of three members of the
official opposition, who are Mr. Campbell, Mr. deJong and
myself, as representatives of the official opposition. The
lawsuit is what lawyers will call a declaratory action. We're
asking the court to declare that the Nisga'a final agreement is
unconstitutional. There are three basic pillars of the argument.
The first is an argument that is not open to the federal and
provincial governments within the existing constitution of Canada
to create a new freestanding third order of government.
The
second argument is that it is not open to the federal and
provincial governments by negotiation with the Nisga'a or in any
other way, short of constitutional amendment, to confer upon a
new order of government paramount legislative power. And as I'm
sure you are aware, the Nisga'a final agreement does expressly
purport to confer upon Nisga'a government legislative power in 14
separate areas of lawmaking that is paramount to federal and
provincial legislative power.
The third argument is that the Nisga'a final agreement violates
the charter because it denies non-Nisga'a the right to vote for a
government which will have the power to make decisions that
affect their lives and as you know, the charter guarantees
everyone, every citizen of Canada, the right to vote. Those are
the three arguments that are the basis of the lawsuit. We are
asking the court to rule, as I said, that the treaty, the Nisga'a
final agreement, is unconstitutional on each of those grounds. So
the question is what is the significance of that. If we're right
on any of those points, then what has happened is that the
governments have tried to negotiate a document which is outside
their constitutional authority to do so.
In effect, they will
have tried to amend the constitution of Canada by the back door,
and in British Columbia, and I think it's important that people
in other parts of Canada understand this: we have in British
Columbia a made in B.C. process for ensuring that if you want to
amend the Constitution of Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Winnipeg North—St. Paul on a point of order.
1550
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member while he is
speaking but, on a friendly note, I would seek your opinion, Mr.
Speaker. If we are debating a lawsuit that is before a court, is
this proper or not?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member was reading
from various proceedings. I do not know that there is actually a
debate going on in the House about a lawsuit. In any event,
unless I knew more of the existence of the lawsuit, and I have
heard nothing of that except for the casual mention in debate, I
do not think it is something that cannot be discussed here.
The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia has the floor with one
minute remaining in his time.
Mr. Jim Abbott: I might clarify
for the benefit of the member and the House that this lawsuit has
been set aside temporarily until the treaty comes into effect. I
am simply reciting the points of the lawsuit that are being put
forward by the B.C. Liberal Party. It is the plaintiff in this
case.
What I have basically done, and I have just started to scratch
the surface, is bring to the table, to this debate, to
Hansard and to the record of this debate, the arguments
being put forward by the B.C. Liberal members of parliament,
people in responsible positions, people who are the aboriginal
affairs critic and people who are the critics for the attorney
general of the province of B.C., the B.C. Liberal members who
form the opposition in British Columbia. They were excluded from
representing themselves and getting their points of view on to
the record in the committee process. I think more is the shame
for this Liberal government.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we go again with such a far-reaching bill before the House.
It is probably the most important bill perhaps in this century,
certainly during my time here in the House of Commons, and there are
hardly any members in the House.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I thought it was the custom of the House not to refer to the fact
that members are or are not here. It seems to me there is a
comfortable quorum here. Is the hon. member objecting?
The Deputy Speaker: Whether or not the quorum is
comfortable, there does seem to be a quorum. I know that the
hon. member would not want to go beyond that.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
understanding.
Here we are again with the governing Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc
and the fifth party all supporting the bill and the Reform Party
standing alone in opposition to this bill. It reminds me
somewhat of the Charlottetown accord when Reform stood alone. We
were the only national party in the country that stood alone
against the Charlottetown accord. Yes, we were on the side of
Canadians from coast to coast, including many natives.
We have the rest of the parties extolling the Nisga'a treaty,
which is a template for many settlements to follow. It is a
tragedy that the Nisga'a treaty is cast from the same mould as
most other treaties that have formed the reservation system in
the country.
The reserve system must be a shining light, just an extolling
example of how well the system works. Let us have a short look
at one of the wealthiest reserves and bands in the country, which
is in my home province of Alberta at Hobbema. It is one of the
four bands in my riding. It is the Samson Band. It has lived
under a treaty for over 100. I believe it was Treaty No. 7 that
that created this particular reserve system.
We should look at this to understand a modern reserve to see
whether a reserve system is a good example to follow, to
perpetuate. This should be a model reserve, a shining example.
1555
There was a recent study of the Samson band which really
shatters any notion that the reserve system is a shining light.
We should examine whether the reserve system has worked in the
past, whether it is currently working and whether it has the
potential to work in the future.
The Samson band receives millions of taxpayers' dollars in
addition to the millions from their oil and gas revenues. In
1996, the Samson band had an income of about $100 million for
just over 5,000 people. However, most of the members live in
wretched poverty in one of the wealthiest bands in the country.
Let us talk a little about their leaders. They jet off to
Paris, London and Geneva. They hold council meetings in Las
Vegas with all expenses paid while 80% of the members of the band
are on welfare and 85% are unemployed. This was in 1996, just a
few years ago. The majority live in shacks, many without windows
and many without any form of heat whatsoever.
How did it come about that we are perpetuating the reserve
system in the Nisga'a treaty, because we are forming another
reserve in British Columbia, or at least verifying the reserve
system through a treaty? I will comment on the framework of how
this bill has come about and on how other legislation comes about
in the House.
One of the country's most alarming attributes is the expanding
gulf between the views of the Ottawa establishment, the
bureaucracy and some politicians, in other words the Ottawa court
party, and the views of the average taxpaying Canadian who lives
out there in the general populace.
This gulf is discernible in many areas of government, from the
state of government wasteful spending to the state of the huge
debt that Canadians are facing. Nowhere is this huge expansive
gulf more evident than on the whole issue of native affairs.
Hence, we get Bill C-9, the provisions of which are entirely
divergent, completely out of sync and out of step with the views
of the average Canadian.
If average Canadians were familiar with the provisions in Bill
C-9, they would think that these provisions came straight out of
coo-coo land. Let us look at some of the most basic provisions
in Bill C-9.
The treaty calls for a a big injection of cash of almost half a
million dollars to be handed over directly to the Nisga'a in the
Nass Valley. It does not stop there. There is an annual
payment, which goes on for years and years, that could well bring
the total cash injection by Canadian taxpayers to around $1
billion. That is a huge cash injection.
The other issue is the land mass. What about the land mass, the
kind of reserve that is being set up? It is approximately 2,000
square kilometres. To put that a little more in tune with the
way people can understand it, that is almost a half a million
acres. That is the size of the reserve. In addition to that there are
10,000 square kilometres that are given over for the Nisga'a to
control: the resources, forestry, timber, fisheries, whatever
resources there are. That is given to the Nisga'a to control.
1600
Those 10,000 square kilometres are two and a half million acres.
Put it together it is three million acres, a big percentage of
B.C.'s land mass that is turned over in just one settlement, one
treaty. There are between 50 or 60 more that are to be settled
in the province of British Columbia alone. As is well known, the
claims call for over 100% of the total land mass of British
Columbia.
I want to read into the record comments of submissions made to
our own Reform Party hearing in Vancouver last Friday. This is
from a former premier of British Columbia. In his submission he
states:
That natives have been discriminated against is self-evident.
Entrenchment of the reserves, which have kept natives apart from
the rest of us has clearly been a disaster. The reason many have
had to live in third world conditions in the midst of a land of
prosperity is that they have been demoralized by a welfare state
which has denied them the same opportunities as everyone else,
and by essentially making many of them prisoners to remote,
isolated reserves with little economic opportunity and even fewer
business opportunities. Native people have been forced to live
in poverty, whether they want to or not. The Nisga'a Treaty will
entrench the situation even more deeply than it is now. It will
Balkanize our province into groups of people based on the colour
of their skin.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I want to ask one question
of the government opposite. If any member can show me one
reserve in this country that has at least the average living
conditions of a non-native community, I would like to see it.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, many
times have I walked arm in arm with my colleagues, even last
night on some of the amendments to Bill C-2, the elections act,
which I think is an onerous bill. Many times have I warmed the
cockles of my heart by their fire, but this is not one of those
times.
I see by my watch and by the clock on the wall that it is time
for a change and change we shall have. I should go so far as to
say I think we should damn this agreement. More than that, I
think we should damn those who do not damn this agreement. More
than that, I think we should damn those who do not sit up at
night not damning those who do not damn this agreement.
If I had but one reason why Nisga'a was a failure that would be
a mighty one indeed. If I had two, then certainly people would
say there was a case to be made. If I had three, the government
would seriously have to reconsider its intentions. If I had
four, the government members should put their tail in between
their legs and run from this place with the agreement in their
hands, never to bring it forward again. But I have more than
five. I have far more than five reasons why Nisga'a is a
failure.
One, Nisga'a does not recognize private property rights. The
whole idea of wealth, of progress, of ownership is negated in the
Nisga'a agreement.
It does not recognize, it does not respect the idea of private
property rights, something people have fought for over thousands
of years, to maintain, to gain the idea of private property
rights. Nisga'a abrogates, undercuts and instead puts forward
collective group rights, rather than the rights of individuals,
rather than the rights of individuals to own property. Shame.
That is the first point.
1605
Point two, the Nisga'a final agreement permanently entrenches
the same essential elements as the reserve system of the modern
day. The reserve system of the current day has numerous
problems. Part of the problems that it has is that rather than
trying to address the aspirations of individuals toward creating
better lives for themselves and their families, instead it hives
people together on reserves and gives them collective ownership
of land, negates their ability to do something with it of their
own creative abilities individually.
Indeed, every time that the natives have come to the government
asking for some sort of redress to these problems, instead the
crown, the federal government, has doled out money instead,
rather than solving the fundamental problems. Every time there
has been a knock on the door, the cash infusions have come out.
Instead of helping the situation, it has helped to undermine the
sense of self-reliance that individuals within that community
could develop. That is point number two.
Point three is the idea of taxation without representation.
Revolutions and civil wars have been fought over these very
ideas. Whether we go back to the idea of Magna Carta and King
John, whether we go back to the idea of the American
revolutionary war, the idea of taxation without representation is
what representative democracy and indeed this very institution
that we stand in today is about. It is the cornerstone.
I represent taxpayers. I come here on their behalf to argue
their concerns and to try to keep government within its rightful
boundaries which, I would like to add, currently is not within
those boundaries and has trampled upon the good intentions of the
people who have helped to set it up and is taking far more out of
their wallets and out of the blood and sweat and tears of their
labour than it should.
The whole idea that the Nisga'a agreement will not be a truly
representative government but instead be taxation without
representation is a shame. I know that as people have fought
over centuries and over a millennium to go ahead and achieve a
form of taxation with representation, so indeed the seeds that
Nisga'a sows are bad seeds. The fruit that it will reap is that
of despair. It will eventually lead to natives themselves rising
up in terms of these very issues. That is the third reason.
The fourth reason is that we already have too much government in
the country. We have two levels of government that are
recognized in the British North America Act as of 1982 in the
patriation. Some may question how it was done. Nonetheless
there were two levels of government that were laid out in the
constitution act. The provinces created a third: municipal
government in the country.
We have now the creation of what amounts to a third, if we look
at the constitution act or if we look at the totality, a fourth,
level of government in the country. That in itself is a problem
but it ties into another. That was my fourth problem with
Nisga'a.
My fifth problem with Nisga'a is that this issue has been put to
the people. It was called Charlottetown and it failed. At the
time all the parties in this place got their ducks in a row and
put Charlottetown to the people and said “It is good. Vote for
it”.
They outspent their opposition 13 to 1 in order to propagandize
their aims, but at the end of the day they were not victorious.
They lost, and rightly so, because the constitution should and
does belong to the people. They rightfully said that they did
not want to see these types of provisions in law and entrenched
for time to come.
1610
What has the government done? It has gone against the very
explicitly expressed will of the people. It has gone against
what people across the country said they did not want to see
constitutionalized and put into law. The government is going
ahead and doing it instead through a step by step piecemeal
process through the back door. That is what this is about, a
government overriding the will of the people who have already
expressed it on a constitutional referendum. That is the fifth
reason why I have problems with the Nisga'a treaty.
The sixth reason why I have problems with the Nisga'a treaty is
because it hinders future economic development. It helps to
deter and it hinders future economic development in British
Columbia. There are mining companies and forestry companies.
Indeed, when we look around the House we see murals depicting
miners and foresters in the committee rooms. They are some of
the foundations upon which the country was built, the main
industries that helped give Canada its start. Those very
companies and industries are pulling up shop in the province of
British Columbia because of the uncertainty over land claim
agreements such as this. Rather than go ahead and help to access
the resources of the country and to help build it, they are
taking their skill, equipment and ingenuity to other countries in
South America and other places around the world. I know some of
these companies even in my own backyard that have reservations
with regard to what is going on with these developing issues.
They are leaving Canada, and so go the jobs. Shame.
Point number seven is that not only will it deter economic
development but there are huge costs that are directly implicit
with the agreement. The massive payouts, millions of dollars
just for this individual claim, never mind the hundreds of
others, are simply unaffordable. The Nisga'a treaty is an
unaffordable and untenable situation. If the government sets it
up as a precedent for future land claims, woe the country.
Point number eight is that the Nisga'a treaty helps to build
barriers. I only have but a minute of time, yet there are so
many problems with this bill.
Point number nine is that the government knows it is a flawed
bill. It would not, and will not, give consent to put this bill
to the people of British Columbia because it knows it will fail.
The government knows that as it put this question in
Charlottetown and it failed, if it put this question in the
province of British Columbia the people would once again turn it
down. Shame on the government when it knows that what it does is
wrong, the people would not support it and it would not carry the
will of the land.
Point number ten is the idea of an inherent right to
self-government. I believe in self-determination, however, think
not of a municipal level of government but instead something that
would help to set up hundreds of separate nation states. Lord
Durham wrote of Canada that it was two nations warring within the
bosom of a single state. Imagine a country that was hundreds of
nations warring within the bosom of a single state. I put to the
House that such a nation would have a very difficult time
surviving indeed.
Those are just ten reasons and I could go on, but I leave it at
that. I put to the government, if it knows the Nisga'a treaty
will not pass the test of the people, and it knows it already
failed the test of the people, leave it be and pull the bill from
the House.
1615
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, essentially my remarks today will be on the fisheries
component of the Nisga'a treaty. Fisheries issues have been of
some concern to Canadians from coast to coast in the last little
while, and for good reason. On the east coast with the Marshall
decision the supreme court has acknowledged or put in place a
process similar to what is government policy on the west coast
with separate native commercial fisheries.
The substance of my address today will be to point out, by
quoting from documents I received under access to information,
that back in 1987 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was
arguing against the policy the government has put into place in
the Nisga'a treaty with a separate native commercial fishery. The
department was effectively arguing against the same policy the
Supreme Court of Canada imposed on the east coast with the
Marshall decision.
The first document I would like to bring to the attention of the
House is a March 6, 1987 letter sent by Mr. Laurie Gordon, who at
the time was assistant district supervisor in district 8 in
Prince Rupert, to Mr. Paul Sprout, who was assistant area manager
in the north coast division of Canada's Pacific coast.
Before I refer to the letter, the point I must make is that back
in the mid-eighties the treaty negotiators had proposed a
fisheries component for the Nisga'a treaty that was under
negotiation at that time. It was similar to the treaty we ended
up with just a couple of years ago. It is the treaty we are
arguing before the House. This proposal was made by the treaty
negotiators at that time and the department was effectively
speaking out against it.
These are some of the reasons the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans was opposed to the Nisga'a treaty back in 1987. It said
that if it proceeded there would be no area 3 fishery for
non-Nisga'a in poor areas and only moderate fisheries in good
years. The letter goes on to state:
We are concerned that this will be an incentive to have fish
caught in the Nisga'a fishery recorded as having been caught in
the all citizen's fishery.
There was concern about the transfer of fish from a separate
native commercial fishery to the all-Canadian commercial fishery.
In talking specifically about sockeye it stated:
In some years of low returns there would be no all citizens
fishery for sockeye...Depending on migration routes and timing we
would therefore likely have to adjust our fisheries, particularly
Area 4 and the outside of Area 3, to allow more sockeye into 3Z.
That is the zone the Nisga'a would be fishing in. It continued:
In most years the first few weeks fishing, mid-June to mid-July,
would have to be Nisga'a only. There would thus likely mean no
commercial net fisheries in the north coast prior to the second
week of July.
That is the impact the treaty will have on the commercial
fishery in the future if it is passed by the House. That is what
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was saying in 1987. In
all likelihood that is what the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans concluded in the secret report in which it talked about
replicating the Nisga'a treaty coastwide. With regard to pink
salmon Mr. Gordon's letter continued:
We have no quantitative method of determining Nass pink strength
in season and therefore it would be very difficult to accurately
adjust the allocation in season. The Nass run will be masked by
large numbers of Alaskan and area 4 pinks.
Even post season we cannot estimate total Nass pink runs without
making dubious assumptions about the portion of catch which was
of LCA, land claim area, origin.
We have a huge problem making estimates or guestimates of the
fish returning to the Nass River, even post season.
1620
With regard to coho it states:
We know very little about stock strength of Nass coho, and have
absolutely no way of determining it in or post season.
Coho are in serious decline and could probably be considered an
endangered species in some areas of the north coast. It is
interesting when Mr. Gordon talked about Chinook salmon. Let me
read his letter and be very clear about it:
This was the view of Laurie Gordon back in 1987, that is if we
went through with the treaty now before us. If that is the case
there will be many lodge owners on the north coast of British
Columbia who will be very upset.
The other letter I want to quote from is from Pat Chamut,
director general of the Pacific region back in 1987. He is now
an assistant deputy minister. His letter was to A.
Lefebvre-Anglin, assistant deputy minister, Pacific and
freshwater fisheries. The date of the letter is March 16, 1987.
Essentially Mr. Chamut repeated the concerns expressed in the
previous letter. He wrote:
The formulas to determine species mix are unmanageable...In order
to ensure the sockeye fishery proposed, in most years the first
few weeks of fishing, mid-June to mid-July, would have to be
Nisga'a only.
He went on to write:
This would likely mean no commercial net fisheries in the north
coast prior to the second week of July.
He referred to the difficulty with properly managing fish if we
proceeded with the treaty. It is horrendous that the man who is
now assistant deputy minister of fisheries and promoting this
treaty would have changed his tune since 1987. As I said earlier
we are talking about essentially the same agreement being in
place as the one that was discussed in 1987. Mr. Chamut's letter
started off by stating:
The following comments are in response to the Chief Federal
Negotiator's letters of February 13 and March 5, which
respectfully outline the Nisga'a proposal on species mix and the
Chief Negotiator's intentions with regard to a new federal offer
in this area.
It specifically concerns the treaty and bodes ill for the
future.
The next letter was from Marion Lefebvre, chief claims
negotiator, native affairs division. It was to Mr. Fred Walchli,
chief interim negotiator, Nisga'a claim, comprehensive claims. In
that letter she made the following case:
The formulas to determine species mix are unmanageable...In order
to ensure the sockeye fishery proposed, in most years the first
few weeks of fishing, mid-June to mid-July, would have to be
Nisga'a only. This would likely mean no commercial net fisheries
in the north coast prior to the second week of July.
I cannot emphasize that enough. If the treaty goes through
there will be no commercial net fisheries on the north coast
prior to the second week of July. That is the time of the most
effective fishing on the north coast. It is those first couple
of weeks in July that make it all pay. That is when the fish are
caught.
On June 25, 1987 a letter from Michelle James, acting chief,
fisheries negotiator, was addressed to Mr. Fred Walchli. Ms.
James assured him that the department's advice on this matter was
that he should not pursue the notion of using area 2Z catch as
the basis for determining the Nisga'a fishery. She wrote that
this was most important and that it would be impossible to
replicate the treaty coastwide. That was the intention of the
government.
1625
The evidence is there in the access to information documents,
that if the treaty goes ahead there will be no commercial fishing
on the north coast prior to the middle of July, which will put
serious restrictions, if not eliminate, the sport fishing for
chinook on the north coast.
Those are facts that were stated by the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans back in 1987 when the proposal before the government
was similar to the current fisheries component of the Nisga'a
treaty.
An hon. member: It was different.
Mr. John Cummins: It is not different. That is a tragedy
and it will have serious implications for a fishery that is
already suffering from mismanagement by the government.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure today to speak to this very important issue. I
want to start by emphasizing one word in Group No. 1, as well as
in the entire group of amendments that will be presented over the
next few hours and day, that the government does not seem to
understand.
Auditor general reports have constantly called for more
accountability, particularly from the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development but especially accountability
for the billions of dollars that are sent to the reserves to try
to help these people. Why does that word not exist in the
government's vocabulary? It does not exist in the vocabularies
of most dictators who say “Do as I say and shut up”.
One of the opposition parties is the NDP. It does not know the
meaning of the word accountability. Its members simply insist
that we throw more money at this problem, but we do not hear that
word in their vocabularies. It is the same with the Conservative
Party, another opposition party that is supposed to help us in
making sure good legislation goes out of this building. Liberal,
Tory, same old story. There is nothing new there.
Bloc members have one thing on the agenda. They want to leave
the country so their importance involving this legislation is
meaningless. They only have one thing on their minds. They want
to form a country of their own.
In the meantime my colleagues formed a committee and went to
visit some people in the Vancouver area, including my colleague
from Okanagan—Shuswap who was on the committee. We listened to
such things as what I will read right now. An elderly lady
appeared before the committee and said:
I see my people struggling day to day, picking up bottles, lining
up in cigarette line-ups to make $15 to feed their kids for the
rest of the month and here our councillors are sitting pretty in
a nice office. They spend $28,000 on their coffee room and it is
just for the chiefs and council while our kids go to school
hungry. I said they wonder why they are getting angry. I said I
can't take it any longer, I am so fed up with them. We tried to
do a non-confidence on them Sunday but we got overpowered with
their people. We have no accountability for what they do for the
people and I said I hope somebody out there will help us to get
where we need to get in order to have an audit done for our
people and find out where is all the money going. What is
happening? Why are we having in this country so many individuals
crying out to this government for help and what they are crying
for is not more money. They are crying for accountability. You
are sending money to our chiefs and council and we are living in
squalor.
There is a difference between members of my party and the
Liberals. I asked every reserve I visited if they had ever seen
a member of parliament in their homes or on their reserves other
than in the council chambers or the chief's home. The answer was
“You are the first, sir”. My wife went with me on many of
these ventures. We were told we were the first political MP to
ever visit their homes on reserves, which could be a broken down
bus with no wheels, no windows, no heat and no water.
We went to other homes where there was no furniture. They sit on
stumps. They are very hospitable with what little they have.
They are great people to get to know.
1630
The example of this story that my colleague heard is only one of
thousands that are being expressed across this country to a group
of people who finally came together and said they want to be a
coalition. They are asking the government for accountability and
help. What does the government say? “Go to your chiefs and
council”. The chiefs and council are the problem.
They run to Indian affairs and are are told: “Wait a minute,
this is an internal problem. You people go to your chiefs and
council”. But they are the problem. Nobody is listening to the
cry of the grassroots people on the reserves.
I had hopes that we would have people in this building who would
have a little compassion for the way conditions are on the
reserves so that we could come together and have two or three
people from each party form a task force to go out and see these
horrible conditions, come back here and collectively recommend
some things we could do that would at least make these lives a
little more compatible with some sort of a standard of living,
instead of the third world conditions that the United Nations
says exist in the land of Canada.
Lo and behold, we are having Bill C-9. These grassroots people
from this coalition are calling me and expressing their concerns.
The government in this treaty is going to give these people
nearly $1 billion as part of the deal. Where is this $1 billion
going? It is going into the hands of a very few. Therefore, the
very rich will continue to become very rich and the very poor
will be no better off.
These people are being given power that they have never
experienced before in their lives, more greedy power where they
will be able to control things in their area beyond belief,
beyond what they do now. We have members sitting opposite who
claim to be compassionate, caring about individuals who are
living in these conditions. However, they are doing absolutely
nothing except making sure that it happens without building into
any agreement that one word, accountability. Where is it? Why
is it being allowed to happen? Why is the government allowing
that kind of thing to begin to happen?
Auditor general reports year after year say do something about
the accountability factor, particularly on the reserves,
particularly with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. He is simply ignored. I just looked at the most
recent report which says the same thing, that there are still too
many great difficulties in the lives of ordinary people on the
reserves.
We brought these grassroots people together in a place in the
middle of Winnipeg in a place called Birds Hill. These are
grassroots people who cannot afford a big convention hall. They
could not go to a place where the Liberal Party would support a
big convention of native leaders, where it would cost thousands
of dollars to rent a hall with fine food and fair drink. They
were in Birds Hill trying to pitch tents, if they had one,
finding a shrub bush, if they could find one. They were lying
all over the park.
I was there for three days with them waiting for some of the
invited Liberals who live very close to Birds Hill park to show
up and show a little compassion to these people who were crying
out for help. Not one of them showed up and did not care.
But, boy, they are wonderful. They are creating this marvellous
deal in British Columbia without the consent of the people,
without the care of the grassroots natives throughout British
Columbia.
Oh yes, they held a referendum in the Nisga'a area. I believe it
was somewhere around 65% to 35%. It does not matter. They
ignored the call and the cry of the people who were against it
because they wanted one thing to happen. They liked the idea of
moving in this direction. They were thrilled about it. They
said to me, “Are you sure the billion dollars or whatever is
paid in is going to be shared? Am I going to be able to own
property? Is there any accountability?” The answer is no
because accountability does not come from dictators. That is
what this government is and it ought to hang its head in shame.
One day it will answer for that.
1635
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
imagine you and I are across a railway track with me on one side
and you on the other side. We know there is a train coming down
the track and we know there is a bridge out ahead. I think you
and I would find a way to solve the problem to see if we could
get the bridge fixed or the trestle back in place so that the
train coming down the track would be able to continue on. I do
not think we would stop to argue, complain or even debate about
who is on the train or how fast it is coming and those kind of
things. We would do our job and we would try to save the
approaching train from being wrecked.
The minister of Indian affairs asked two questions earlier in
this place. He asked what the Reform Party would do about
Nisga'a and what about the details within the treaty. We have
talked a lot about the details within the treaty and about the
concerns we have with it. The bigger principle involved is
stepping back and taking a look at the principle in agreement and
the problems with it. Just as you and I would not argue about
the individuals and the details about the train and we would try
to fix the bridge, we would like to focus our attention on the
bigger picture of what is wrong with this agreement. I will
answer the two questions put by the minister of Indian affairs in
a few minutes.
The Liberal government has demonstrated by its actions that it
cares very little for the people of British Columbia. The
Liberals have demonstrated their lack of care in their approach
to Bill C-9. They limited debate to four and a half hours for
members of the opposition at second reading. They voted against
giving all British Columbians the right to vote for or against
this treaty by way of a referendum and they have given notice of
closure once again on this bill. Actions speak louder than words
and the Liberal government has spoken loud and clear about how it
views Bill C-9.
Let us take a look at our role as legislators. It is our duty
to scrutinize and examine legislation that will have a profound
effect on people's lives. That is our job. That is the job of
the government and that is the job of the opposition, to
scrutinize legislation and make sure it meets the test not just
for this time but for future days as well, and this bill falls
short of that test.
The Liberal government is more committed to getting speedy
passage of this bill through the House than it is to actually
doing its job of examining the fundamental principles of this
bill and how it will affect British Columbians and Canadians in
the future. Its actions demonstrate that it is more concerned
about photo opportunities than it is about the hard work of
objectively examining the legislation or about how this treaty
will impact British Columbians and all Canadians. It is a shame
that seems to be what the actions of the government are
indicating quite clearly to British Columbians.
1640
If the government truly cared about making sure this legislation
was examined and scrutinized, it would dedicate the time to do
so. It has not done that. It has closed off debate at different
stages. It does not want a full airing and hearing of this
treaty. It has a huge effect on British Columbians and will for
future generations. That is why the members of the opposition
are speaking loudly on this and trying to get the government to
pay attention to it. It is not simply another piece of
legislation that we deal with in one afternoon in this place and
treat it like many others that may come up. It is not simply a
piece of legislation that we can just look at and not pay
attention to.
We have concerns that that is exactly what the government and
members from other parties are doing. They are sleeping at the
wheel. This is a piece of legislation that is going to have a
profound impact in British Columbia and across the country for
now and for future generations. If we do not do due diligence in
this place while we have the opportunity, the government will be
recorded as the one that failed to do its job. The members of
the opposition will not include themselves in that category. We
will point out, piece by piece, our concerns with this
legislation because it is flawed and needs to be dealt with more
thoroughly.
This legislation fails to give British Columbians the right to
vote through a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty. That is
something the Reform Party would do. The Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development asked that question earlier.
This legislation does not include a constitutional exclusion of
this treaty in the areas of self-government and fishing. In
other words, if this treaty is passed it will be protected by
section 35 of the constitution. Forever entrenching this treaty
by protection of the constitution, it will not be able to be
changed. We have serious difficulties with that.
The treaty and the government do not acknowledge the overlapping
claim of these Nisga'a lands by other aboriginal groups such as
the Gitksan and the Gitanyow. Those are basic fundamental flaws
with this piece of legislation that the government is continuing
to ignore. That is why we must urge the government to stop this
approach of ramming this piece of legislation through so that it
can have some kind of photo opportunity or be able to say that it
was the group that brought this great legislation through. For
future generations, what the test of time will tell is that this
is the group that did not do its job. It is the group that
failed when it had an opportunity to examine this legislation and
put a good framework in place.
There will be other treaties coming. If that group there is not
committed to making the changes necessary, then this group will
do everything within our power to form government, to go to that
side, to put some common sense and balance back into this place
and into legal processes in this country.
We see through its actions that the government does not seem
concerned about this. In fact, it is treating this as another
piece of housekeeping legislation. That is all I can say because
of the actions that go along with the words it is attaching.
I have questions for the government. I have questions as to
where are the members from British Columbia on this issue? What
are they saying? What do they think about this legislation? Are
they standing in support of it? Are they going to stand in their
places in the House and defend this agreement? Are they going to
ignore the will of British Columbians, the people who elected
them? There is silence from the Liberal members from British
Columbia coming back from the other side.
Mr. John Duncan: The silent seven.
Mr. Grant McNally: The silent seven as my colleague
remarks.
Opposition to this bill has been put forward by many different
people. I think the government would like to compartmentalize
the opposition as being just the Reform Party so it can ignore
us. Well, it is not just the Reform Party that opposes this
agreement.
There are many different voices that oppose this agreement,
including the Liberal Party of British Columbia. The leader of
the official opposition in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberal
leader, opposes this treaty. In fact, he said some things that
are pretty harsh about the group over there. He said “Nothing
will do more to erode public trust and confidence in this most
important endeavour than to sidestep and short-circuit public
debate. A government under my leadership will not accept this
Nisga'a treaty as a template for future settlements”.
1645
The B.C. Liberal leader is opposed to this piece of legislation.
I believe the B.C. Liberal Party has even brought a case before
the courts to determine some very serious questions about the
treaty.
Once again, we urge members of the Liberal government, the
members from British Columbia who represent the government, to do
their job, to examine the legislation and to do everything in
their power to stop it from going forward in its current package
because it does not meet the test. Their names will be recorded
as the ones in history who had an opportunity to put in place a
positive framework but failed. Woe to them.
We will continue to stand in this place and work to make
positive changes to avoid the kind of train wreck approach on
which the Liberal government is continuing.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
throughout the day we have quoted a number of people from British
Columbia who appeared at the hearings last Friday. They did not
have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee
because, as we are all aware, it was stacked unfavourably. There
was no neutrality. The witnesses who wished to appear who were
against the Nisga'a deal did not get much of a hearing.
I would like to quote Mr. Harry Bell-Irving, who is a director
of the Citizen's Voice. I have taken a few of his thoughts,
because I do not have the time to go through them all, but there
are some excellent points that I would like to put on the record.
He stated:
The Government of Canada was represented by the Department of
Indian and Northern Affairs, which stood in a position of trust
with respect to the Nisga'a, and accordingly, was in a position
of conflict with respect to all other Canadians. In support of
this statement, it is interesting to note that the Canadians who
take this position most strongly are aboriginal Canadians living
in the Nisga'a area, who claim that significant rights belonging
to them have been given to the Nisga'a and are protesting.
These aboriginal Canadians are not Nisga'a and they are having
their lands taken away.
Mr. Bell-Irving continued:
These protesting aboriginals have already launched court
proceedings to try and regain their rights. I submit that the
people of Canada have had no true representation at the federal
level....With one important exception, mainly amendments
introduced dealing with questions as to the certainty of future
benefits, the final agreement passed in the British Columbia
legislature contained no significant amendment to the agreement
in principle tabled in 1996.
Basically it was the original document. Does that sound
familiar? It is the same story.
The NDP also resorted to a form of closure and rammed the bill
through the legislature with great haste and in contempt of
democratic process. The NDP never consulted the people at large
as to the parameters of the agreement, and have refused to let
the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to vote on a
referendum to approve or disapprove the agreement.
The Liberals last week did exactly the same thing in the House.
We put forward a motion that the Liberal federal government hold
a referendum in British Columbia, and it refused.
I contend that if it were in Ontario or Quebec it would have
been an entirely different story. The government simply does not
care about the west.
Mr. Bell-Irving continued:
If you are to ask me what is wrong with the Nisga'a agreement, my
answer, unfortunately, would be to say a very great deal.
It is badly drawn and ambiguous in many places. There are many
sub-agreements yet to be finalized. The Nisga'a agreement will
create a right to fish based on race. It grants the right to the
Nisga'a to make laws which in certain circumstances will be
superior to the laws of Canada and British Columbia.
1650
I will repeat that because it is important. It grants the right
to the Nisga'a to make laws which in certain circumstances will
be superior to the laws of Canada and British Columbia. Is that
what Canadians want in a modern treaty?
It provides for Nisga'a citizenship and that only Nisga'a
citizens can vote for the Nisga'a government. Think of it; a
state within Canada with a separate citizenship in which Canadian
citizens cannot vote. Are there to be 60 or more such states
within British Columbia? What a disaster for British Columbia,
what a disaster for Canada. The federal and provincial
governments have said many misleading things in support of the
agreement. One of them is that it will create certainty,
implying that we should not nitpick about small details and get
on with it. I submit that the only certainty the Nisga'a
agreement will create is that for years to come there will be
uncertainty because various aspects of the agreement will be
before the courts.
Already a number of court actions have been
commenced....The most serious flaw in the Nisga'a agreement is
with respect to the self-government rights granted to the
Nisga'a. These rights have been deceitfully described by the
federal and British Columbia governments as being similar to
local or municipal rights. Yet in 14 different instances, the
self-government rights provide and I quote: “In the event of an
inconsistency or conflict between the Nisga'a law and a federal
or provincial law, the Nisga'a law will prevail to the extent of
the inconsistency or conflict”.
Again, is this what we want? I thought we were looking for one
law and one country. This adds another layer of government which
in my mind and from what I am hearing from the people in my
riding is not wanted.
He continued:
The implications to me are very frightening....No business,
profession or trade can carry on except under Nisga'a law. As is
the case in a number of places in the act, there is the pap that
accreditation must be in accordance with the law of the rest of
the country, or the law of British Columbia, but that really
isn't of significance, (because) the self-government rights are
contained in land claims treaty, they will be constitutionalized
and can only be amended according to the constitutional process,
and it is my understanding that they cannot be amended without
the consent of the Nisga'a.
Therefore, it is a closed door. Why would the government set
these powers in constitutional concrete without first having a
trial period to see if they are working out?
There have been other treaties before the House. For example,
the Yukon treaty was before the House in the last parliament and
it was not constitutionalized. It was a separate bill. I have
to ask why the government is taking this route when the Yukon
bill of a few years ago, which was a separate bill, was not
constitutionalized. Why would it constitutionalize rights in
this treaty? It makes me wonder. I have to ask what is the
agenda of the government. Where is it going?
Mr. Bell-Irving continued:
I recommend that the Nisga'a agreement be amended so as to remove
self-government rights from the agreement, placing them in a
separate agreement, which may be amended from time to time—
I think that is very sound advice. We have done that before in
the House. I spent a year going through the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. The old bill stated that it would
return to the House every five years. What is wrong with that?
That is good legislation. Where is the government going?
Exactly in the opposite direction. It is constitutionalizing
this. It is closing the door. It will be there forever. We
will not be able to amend it.
Another point of great concern are the resources, forestry and
fisheries. For example, it was stated by Skeena Cellulose Inc.
in the Nisga'a area that should the treaty go forward Skeena
Cellulose would sue for $75 million in lost timber resources.
Guess what? The province bought Skeena Cellulose. That gets rid
of that issue, I suppose, but I am not sure it was a wise use of
tax dollars. The fishery is of more concern because the fishery
is tied to race. Remember, this is the first of 60 such
agreements.
In my view, if we carry this forward to 60 agreements there will
not be a commercial fishery in Canada. There will not be any
fish left to divide. There will be a native commercial fishery,
but what about the non-native commercial fishery? We only have
so much of the pie to cut up.
1655
There was the Marshall decision which concerned the fishery on
the east coast. I am a member of the fisheries committee which
was holding hearings last week on the east coast. The Marshall
decision, which was clarified by the supreme court, is finally
getting through the fog and coming to the middle ground. What is
finally coming through with the number of cases that have been
before the supreme court is that if we err too far on one side
treaty rights will be violated. However, if we err too far on
the other side and affect the rights of the people already in the
fishery, that will not work either.
The people who are already in fisheries, forestry and other
areas who are being pushed out because of these treaties will go
to the supreme court, and so they should. We will have years and
years of litigation because of this treaty. Again, why? Why
could we not start with an open process? There was clearly no
open process in British Columbia. It was all closed.
We should have a process that all or most people agree with,
have a referendum at the end of it, and then we would have what
people want. We are not going in that direction at all. We are
going in exactly the opposite direction, creating another layer
of government that we do not need. At the end of the day we want
laws and rights that apply to each and every one of us,
regardless of where we come from.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member of parliament for Edmonton East I am pleased to
participate in the debate at report stage of Bill C-9, an act to
give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement. My objective is to
place on the permanent Hansard record my concern that the
implementation of this agreement amounts to indirectly effecting
a permanent constitutional amendment, and I believe that is
wrong. I also wish to use this opportunity to raise concerns
about any course of action in the House that would bind future
generations of legislators.
Since no decision or action in the House should ever be
considered to be infallible and since our history has shown us
time and again that courses of action must change as
circumstances change, we should not set a template with the
Nisga'a agreement that cannot later be reshaped.
It is generally accepted that the Nisga'a agreement may well
serve as a model for future agreements with other aboriginal
groups, particularly in British Columbia. Should we as
legislators not be concerned that the implementation of this
agreement may enshrine in stone a model that would be better
subject to later reconsideration and refinement?
I therefore believe that the bill under discussion should have
the following qualification: that this agreement is not intended
to be and is not in fact, in substance or in form a
constitutional amendment and that, accordingly, the agreement may
be subject to later reconsideration, revision or amendment by
parliament.
With the controversies and court clarifications surrounding the
Marshall case, it becomes clear that even justices of the Supreme
Court of Canada are fallible. Governments and government
policies are similarly fallible. One of the important benefits
of any democracy is that governments can be changed, which
provides a check against errors being perpetrated. A new
government may assess the policies of its predecessor and declare
them to be wrong, redundant or badly thought out. The courage
and self-confidence of a government in significantly altering or
abandoning an entrenched course of action is very important to
Canada's future welfare, in aboriginal matters or otherwise.
In short, no government should act in a way such as to
permanently bind its successors, unless specifically intending to
do so by way of constitutional amendment.
1700
In aboriginal treaty matters, this becomes particularly
important given that much of the evidence that formed the basis
of current decision making and treaty interpretation is far from
being indisputable. Historical renderings of oral traditions are
full of nuance, significant differences in interpretation and not
easily verified independently. These evidentiary weaknesses
become quite evident in the Marshall case. Any discussion based
on oral tradition must, by its very nature, be considered to be
interpretative rather than grounded on objective fact.
Remembrance Day has recently passed. At this time and in years
prior, people were reminded of past prejudices toward aboriginal
veterans that give to current grievances. After the second world
war, aboriginal veterans had to choose between renouncing their
aboriginal status and receiving post-war benefits available to
all veterans. Understandably, most were reluctant to give up
their birthright. They believed then and believe now that it was
unjust to discriminate in post-war veterans benefits based on
race. I agree with them and have consistently advocated their
position in my capacity as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition critic
for veterans affairs.
On September 25, 1998 my colleague from North Vancouver
introduced a motion that added clarity to my position with
respect to aboriginal veterans. In the context of the current
debate, it is very important to remind the House that differences
of opinion concerning the Nisga'a agreement do not impede the
recognition of general injustices that must be addressed.
We might question how this veteran inequality came about.
Simply, it is due to a government trying to balance, many would
say juggle, the special rights of some with equal rights of all
and then deciding to favour the few, in this case at the cost of
aboriginal war veterans rights. Seeing how the federal
government absolutely fumbled the play toward handling war
veterans rights, it boggles the mind to think how the government
will ever decide on the rights of equality for all Canadians.
Looking at the Nisga'a agreement, there is an entrenchment of
refusal to permit all Canadians on Nisga'a lands to have the same
voting rights. What sort of equality is this?
The Bloc Quebecois on my left are salivating over the
implications of the ever more special status of government by and
for the people of Nisga'a. It is salivating at the opportunity
to see these rights enshrined and then interpreted for its own
purposes.
With a government so devoid of solutions that it could not
resolve the aboriginal war veterans' concerns in 55 years, what
chance do we have that it will not interpret the Nisga'a
agreement as constitutionally carved in stone, thus becoming
precedent setting for separatist purposes.
Advocating a just cause on behalf of the aboriginal community
should not blind a parliamentarian to the fact that all such
claims are not equally just. A major consequence of the Nisga'a
agreement will be the creation of a self-governing community
based on race, notwithstanding the fact that non-aboriginals and
non-Nisga'a aboriginals have lived and worked in this area of
British Columbia for many years. The nature of the franchise of
the non-Nisga'a to democratically influence the future of the
area is far from certain.
It is also important to remember that the majority of the
positions favouring aboriginal self-government do not involve
economic self-sufficiency as a precondition to such
self-government. The Nisga'a agreement is no different and, in
this respect, quite comparable to the creation of Nunavut:
self-government which is not preceded by economical
self-sufficiency; and self-government funded by settlement
payments, which does little to eliminate dependency.
With the 1992 rejection of the Charlottetown accord by the
Canadian people, the notion of any distinct society was soundly
rejected. We should remember that the distinct aboriginal
society component of the Charlottetown accord was similarly
rejected.
While non-aboriginal Canadians appear prepared to acknowledge
that degrees of redress are required to correct past injustices,
few are prepared to advocate the creation of third world
republics. Few are prepared to advocate the balkanization of
Canada through the implementation of hundreds of similar
agreements. Few are prepared to support the dedication of
taxpayer revenues to fund such balkanization or the
self-government falsehoods associated with continuing
dependencies. Dependency on public funds, however caused, comes
with an obligation to use one's best efforts to end such
dependency. A perpetual victim attitude is far from being
currently defensible as a means to justify such dependency.
1705
Let me refer once again to my current involvement with the
grievances of aboriginal veterans. They are not victims; they
cannot be. They are defenders of Canada, all of whom volunteered
to defend Canada. They have been subject to an injustice for over
half a century. Their current state in life, for better or for
worse, is not blamed on this injustice. Perhaps this is because,
based on their military background, aboriginal veterans
appreciate that individual strength and initiative is necessary
to overcome any adversity. In the heat of battle, putting on the
victim cloak and blaming others simply increases the likelihood
of the battle being lost. The focus must be the larger
collective good and one's individual contribution to that good.
In this debate, I hope that the focus will similarly be on the
larger collective good, particularly in the longer term, and how
our actions here may contribute to that collective good.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise this afternoon and add my voice to the long
list of voices that have expressed concern over the Nisga'a
treaty when it comes to our particular party, and particularly to
those voices out in the province of British Columbia. Being from
the adjacent province, my riding of Calgary Northeast, I also
recognize the concerns expressed by my colleagues, especially
those from British Columbia.
There cannot be a good, valid or an arguable reason for passing
the Nisga'a treaty without further debate on these much needed
amendments that the Reform Party is encouraging today. In so
doing, the Liberal government is again resorting to an arrogant
tactic that has marked its tenure and power and which has
characterized so many Liberal governments of the past that have
tried to ramrod dangerous and divisive social change through
parliament.
Why is the government so afraid to debate this issue? Why is
the government so nervous about discussing the particulars of
this treaty? Why does the government label all opponents of this
treaty in the cowardly manner that it does? Why does the
government constantly seek to invoke closure, an undemocratic,
cowardly and desperate act that attempts to smother free speech
in the House? In its actions, the government is no different
than the NDP government in B.C. which has also ramrodded the
Nisga'a treaty through the provincial legislature against huge
opposition.
What is most disturbing about the attitude of both governments
is the dismissal of that opposition and the dismissal of the
democratic consultation and open debate process. Despite deep
and disturbing concerns about this treaty, critics are ignored
and uncertainty is chided. The fact of the matter is that these
concerns have to be addressed. This uncertainty must be
acknowledged. This is a controversial treaty that threatens to
change the shape of the Canadian nation. It will cost taxpayers
billions of dollars. It will rework the justice system and
entrench a cast system in our society.
1710
Every day more Canadians are realizing that this treaty will be
a catalyst for racial intolerance and not a cure.
Canadians are getting angry that they were not consulted about
this deal and were not told all the facts. Now they want to be
consulted. They want the facts now. They will get the facts
sooner or later. We will not let this legislation pass without
opposition. We will not sit back and watch the government ignore
the will of the people.
The Nisga'a treaty is a fatally flawed treaty that is bad for
natives and non-natives. The Prime Minister was effusive in his
praise of this treaty today, but 30 years ago he recognized the
need to integrate natives into Canadian society when, as the
Indian affairs minister, he advocated that policy. I suppose he
still had a sense of individual rights in those days and of all
Canadians being equal under the law.
The Nisga'a treaty is a giant step backward into a world where
status and power is defined by one's race and position and where
national unity is divided into fiefdoms of privilege. With the
passage of the Nisga'a treaty, we are embracing a regressive
social system that could easily have been designed in the middle
ages. To begin with, all the residents on Nisga'a land will not
have the right to vote for their local governments under the
Nisga'a treaty. Only the Nisga'a peoples will be allowed to
vote. Non-Nisga'a residents are excluded on the basis of race.
This is not only immoral but unconstitutional.
How could any Canadian agree to a treaty with this kind of a
provision? There is one reason why the B.C. Liberal Party
opposed the Nisga'a treaty, and in a B.C. Liberal Party guide to
the Nisga'a treaty, this objection and others were outlined for
B.C. voters to see. It is a pity that the federal Liberals were
not affected by the same degree of common sense that seems to
prevail at the provincial level. It was heartening to hear the
B.C. Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, condemn this act, condemn
the closure that was attempted to be foisted upon this parliament
and condemn the process that was pushed upon the people in
British Columbia.
It is this creation of a two race system that we in the Reform
Party find most disgusting in the Nisga'a treaty. Can we think
for a moment about what we are saying in this document? Can we
consider for a moment what the consequences of this treaty will
be? Where has the passion for democracy, for individual freedom
and for equality under the law gone in this country and in this
parliament? Is a race based society justifiable if those judged
to possess special status just happen to be non-white?
Other countries have attempted to define their rights and
freedoms on the basis of race. We have condemned their
philosophy. This House has condemned their philosophy. We have
opposed their tyranny and have died fighting in the belief that
all people are created equal, as my colleague from Edmonton
pointed out.
Can members imagine the reaction if we denied rights and
freedoms to a specific race in the rest of Canada? Yet we are
prepared to grant one race status over another because it
involves native land claims. This represents a perilous
disconnection of thought and judgment, and one that we ought to
oppose at every opportunity.
The Nisga'a treaty has been identified as the balkanization of
Canada. We need only to look to the Balkans to see how tragic
this transformation can be. Today, over 4,000 Canadian military
personnel are in the Balkans struggling to maintain a peace after
years of brutal civil war. The region has divided into nation
states based on religion and ethnicity and subdivided again into
warring factions.
The Canadian lesson has been that there is strength in unity and
integration. We cannot have two political systems, two styles of
government and two justice systems.
1715
It is the awesome potential for a national tragedy that makes
the acceptance of the Nisga'a treaty so fraught with
difficulties, for truly this agreement has been hailed as a
template for other native land claims across B.C., and indeed
across Canada.
Are we to deliberate on this form of self-government, one based
on race and consider it positive for Canada? Is that what we
have to deliberate upon? And, at what cost? The Nisga'a treaty
will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $490 million
according to the B.C. government, the treaty's most earnest
supporter. It could well be more.
When this treaty, which is a template for all other land claims
agreements, is applied to other negotiations the cost will be
much more, perhaps in the tens of billions of dollars, and the
cost will keep climbing. The government in passing this
legislation is serving a writ of sentence to upcoming generations
in the country, a sentence of taxation to pay for inequality for
non-Indians and special status for Indians under Canadian law. It
is also establishing a tragic political legacy.
The government has made an art out of its catering to special
interest groups. It cannot even think in terms of individual
Canadians who hold inalienable rights. It thinks only in terms
of competing groups and of pitting these groups against each
other for the sake of political expediency. The country will pay
dearly for this slavish devotion to special interests.
The Liberals have not dealt very well with this crisis. Instead
they have planted the seeds for an even greater crisis with the
Nisga'a treaty. Overnight they have significantly raised the
spectre of racial unrest in the country and they do not even seem
to care.
They care so little that they have avoided any sort of
comprehensive debate as to how the Nisga'a treaty will affect the
future and impact upon all our lives.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wished I did not have to speak on a topic like this today because
it would really never have come this far if we had had true
democratic debate across the country. If there had been a
referendum in B.C. I dare say that this would not be in this
place today.
With some regret I speak on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final
agreement act. I share with my colleagues on this side of the
House, the official opposition party, some of the concerns with
this implementation legislation that would be brought to the
province of British Columbia. I do not believe it will be good
for the native people in that province, nor the non-native people
there and across the rest of the country, especially if it is the
template pattern for what occurs in my own province, my backyard
and throughout the rest of Canada.
I reiterate some of my concerns with some that have been
expressed by my colleagues, about the implications this treaty
would have for how the Canadian constitution functions. The
position of the Reform Party, and I read it for the record,
states that:
In other words, like unto a municipal form of government.
In chapters 2 and 11 of the treaty, the provisions for
self-government undermine this common sense understanding of how
Indian governments must operate in conformity with Canadian laws.
In the treaty, Nisga'a governance powers are considered an
aboriginal treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the
Canadian constitution.
Entrenching of Nisga'a powers in a treaty will in effect create
a third order of government in Canada. In concrete terms the
treaty grants the Nisga'a government paramount power in 14
different areas and shared jurisdiction in another 16 fields.
That is a constitutional change.
It is irresponsible on the part of the Liberal government to
bring about such a fundamental change to our country, to the
constitutional structure of Canada and to do it in such an
undemocratic manner as it has been. It is incredible when one
thinks of it that a de facto constitutional change would be made
without input.
1720
Too much of that agreement was hammered out in secrecy behind
closed doors. Even certain members of the government of the
province of British Columbia were unable to receive information
with respect to the details of it. It was hidden from them.
When all was done, a fait accompli, it was brought to the
government by the NDP in British Columbia and it was rammed
through. Closure was invoked there as well. It was invoked
halfway through the debate in that province.
At the federal level the official opposition represents 24 of
the 34 seats in the province of British Columbia, the largest
number of course. Again we see democracy being trampled on.
If this bill before us becomes law there is a clause in the
agreement that will cripple the official opposition federally and
provincially. That clause will ensure that no party to this
agreement may challenge it once it is ratified. It is a very
important clause because it will completely hobble the government
in waiting once it becomes the government. Simply, many of those
issues have not been addressed.
One of the major problems is that at least in a modern world
power resides here with native government in a collective sense
and not with native individuals.
I am also saddened to see the way this Nisga'a treaty conforms
to the Liberal pattern of showing only respect, if one can even
call it that, only to aboriginal band leadership and not showing
the same respect for the ordinary person on the street, the
grassroots, the ordinary band member in those communities. The
treaty bypasses the individual and instead concentrates the
economic and political power in the hands of the Nisga'a
government, a collective sense. Individual Nisga'a people have
no reason to be excited about this treaty and they are not. They
do not have property rights in this treaty. Nor are their
individual freedoms protected in the way that other Canadians
have their freedoms protected.
It is unclear whether all the rights in the charter will even
apply to the Nisga'a people. Under the terms of section 25 of
the charter the courts must defer to collective aboriginal rights
if they are deemed to conflict with charter rights. This places
collective rights over individual rights and that means
aboriginal government rights over the rights of individuals.
Also it was brought to our attention out there when hearing
individuals that there are conflicting claims on the same land
from other bands. The federal government must reach agreement
with surrounding bands, including the Gitksan and the Gitanyow.
We have overlapping claims against land proposed to be conveyed
now under this Nisga'a treaty. Such agreement must be an
accommodation satisfactory to the Gitksan and the Gitanyow
leadership.
Briefing notes from the B.C. minister of agriculture show what
state of anarchy it could create in terms of the whole of
agriculture in the province of British Columbia. If it is used
as a template for future land claims, it will cause significant
disruptions to individuals ranchers, orchardists and farmers
throughout the Okanagan. Over 1,000 farms in the Okanagan
Valley, represented by my colleagues here, will be greatly
affected by this. Not only does it threaten the commercial
interests of those ranchers, orchardists and farmers, but it
threatens the whole B.C. agricultural land reserve.
The NDP briefing note went on to say that the majority of a
crown agricultural land reserve would likely be consumed by land
claims for a total of approximately 2.5 million hectares. Using
Nisga'a as a template, and God forbid, it will not only create
economic uncertainty in certain parts adjoining there, but
throughout the rest of the province as well. They know this. The
Liberals, the NDP and the Tories know this, but they insist that
their extreme measures are best. They know what is best for
British Columbians and have not even given them a referendum to
indicate it themselves.
If the Nisga'a treaty were to be a template, and we believe
there is every possibility that it will be and in fact it is
already becoming that for some, it is the first of 50 or more
treaties in British Columbia. There is no clear way to know
exactly how much these treaties will cost.
One 1999 study by R.M. Richardson and Associates estimates that
the total cost of these treaties could be as high as $40 billion.
That is a pretty powerful big sum of money.
As I said, the Nisga'a treaty is already serving as a precedent
in other treaty negotiations in B.C. where other people are not
being consulted about these very sweeping changes by way of
referendum. In fact B.C. law does require that a referendum be
held to approve constitutional changes. There are lawsuits
presently pending before the courts on this issue. With the
creation of 50 or more governments in B.C., economic development
in much of the province will be severely restricted, hamstrung.
It will be economic anarchy. Long term economic development will
take a pretty heavy hit.
1725
The Nisga'a treaty has also served as a model for the Inuit
agreement in principle, negotiated in Labrador and some of the
provisions in that agreement, which covers more than a quarter of
Labrador, mirror unfortunately those found in the Nisga'a
agreement.
The fact that it will be a model for treaties yet to be
negotiated as a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court in the
Delgamuukw case in 1997, existing treaties in the rest of Canada
may also be reopened to renewed negotiations. They will be
opening probably the Treaty 8 in Alberta. I understand that has
already begun. The Nisga'a treaty will certainly be an important
model for other bands, reopening negotiations since their own
settlements of a century ago are very modest by comparison.
I want to state some of the Reform Party's policy for the record
again. It has perhaps been heard but needs to be said again. The
Nisga'a final agreement strongly contradicts one of the key
founding principles of the Reform Party, namely that we believe
in true equality of Canadian citizens with equal rights and
responsibilities for all.
Another Reform Party policy found in the blue book states that
the Reform Party's ultimate goal in aboriginal matters is that
all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in Canadian
citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other
Canadians.
Householders and 10 percenters have been sent to 534,000
households in British Columbia. Thus far, about 10,000 have been
returned, which is a very good response rate. Of the results
tabulated 89% of the respondents do not believe that the public
has had adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a
treaty; 92% believe the people of B.C. should have the right to
vote on the principles of the treaty; 91.5% want their member of
parliament to vote against the Nisga'a treaty.
I could go through Liberal members' ridings which indicate a
very high percentage, upper 80% and 90%, who want their member to
vote against the treaty. Poll information tends to support the
fact that a majority of British Columbians oppose the Nisga'a
treaty. Surveys done by our own members corroborate that. All
around we are very clear on that.
In closing, I want to indicate some of the important principles
as far as Reform is concerned here. We believe that the Indian
Act discriminates against aboriginal people. It sets them apart
from other Canadians. We recommend the Indian Act be abolished,
that a new relationship between aboriginals and governments be
established so that we encourage less dependency on the federal
government and more control by aboriginals over their own
affairs, but under a municipal level, a delegated level of
government.
Reform calls for open negotiations, public, unlike the secret
negotiations that happened with respect to the Nisga'a treaty.
With regard to self-government, as I said, it needs to be a
delegated level of government. It needs to be democratic,
accountable and subject to the laws of Canada.
With regard to self-reliance Reform believes that the
improvement in the standard of living of aboriginal people can be
achieved by removing the barriers to full and equal participation
in Canada's economic life. Too many impediments over the years
have been imposed on the creativity and the diligence of native
people. They should have the option of receiving government
benefits directly. They should have access to the auditor
general to make sure that local governments are accountable for
management of their finances.
I believe we will rue the day that we allowed this bill to go
through. Of course, we as the opposition have done everything we
could to stall this bill so that we would get a better deal for
native people, for Indian people, across the country of Canada.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Earlier today the House gave its unanimous consent to concurrence
in a report of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee dealing
with the televising of the standing committees of the House. In
that motion the report referred to was the fourth report, and
inadvertently that report should have been described as the 48th
report of the procedure and House affairs committee.
I am asking for the consent of the House now to modify that
motion to refer to the 48th report of that particular committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the motion be
amended as suggested by the hon. parliamentary secretary?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-209, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual
acts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to seek
the support of the House for my private member's bill, Bill
C-209, which will raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years.
As there has been much talk of late about issues of consent and
sexual predators and their attack on our young, I believe this is
a timely presentation.
Bill C-209 would therefore amend those sections of the Criminal
Code dealing with prohibited sexual acts committed with children
who are under the age of 14 years or in the presence of other
children under the age of 14 years. In effect, the bill would
allow for criminal charges to be brought against any adult who
engages in sexual relations with a person younger than the age of
16.
I first introduced this bill in the House in 1996 in the wake of
reports that a 14 year old Edmonton girl was having sex with her
father's AIDS infected lover; a repugnant offence. As repugnant
as the situation was, the police were powerless to charge the
man. The question, of course, that would come to mind would be
why. The law determines the age of consent to be 14 years.
Unfortunately, as a result of this sexual encounter, it was a
life sentence for the young lady. Nothing came out of it as far
as protection for her or anybody else of her age found in a
similar circumstance.
Three years later, I believe there are even more reasons to
introduce this bill and to change the criminal code. Ever since
the B.C. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting child
pornography, we have heard arguments that if children can engage
in sex, why should they not appear in pornographic pictures. This
sort of twisted reasoning, one that points logic on its head and
seeks to avoid any moral accountability, is exactly why we need
to amend the criminal code in this area and in many others when
it comes to sex acts against children.
We live in an age where perverts proudly display their deviant
behaviour as a badge of honour. Societal constraint no longer
seems to serve as a means of preserving moral order. Sexual
predators need to be controlled by specific constraints that are
codified in law.
I can think of a couple of situations that arose in this
province alone that required substantial police investigation
over many months and substantial court action accumulating
evidence and building a case to convict numerous predators who
had preyed on numerous young people, most under the age of 16.
It is a telling affair when we look at those charged and who
they represent. They were people in authority.
They were street people who were part of a gang or a loosely
organized group with one common purpose, to pick on our young
children.
1735
The argument used, in many of those cases, by those who
performed such acts against young people, was that they had done
many of those kids a favour by taking them off the street and
giving them a comfortable place to stay. Is that an argument? I
do not believe it is an argument. It is rationalization beyond
even reason.
There has been some criticism over the timing of this bill. One
hon. member insisted that although this bill is sound, that it
would be inappropriate for the Reform Party to introduce it at
this time given the events of the last few weeks which involved a
former justice critic of the official opposition. I do not wish
to confuse the specifics of this bill with those of a legal case,
but the issue has been raised and I believe it must be faced.
To suggest that this party has lost its moral right to defend
those social issues that it holds dear because of the actions of
one of its members is an argument without reason. It is an
attack upon the man and not the idea. The hon. member who
mentioned this so-called contradiction is aware of that. There
is human frailty in every party caucus but it does not destroy
the principles for which that party stands. We as a party have
condemned such actions in the past and we will condemn such
actions in the future.
Now is the time to pass this legislation. We need to do it now
so children will be allowed to be children and not forced into
early sexual activity by some with other desires. We need to
protect our children from sexual predators who are using Canadian
law as a shield, using coercion to gain consent.
The unfortunate part with a predator is that he is probably one
of the most manipulative of all criminals. Over time, he will
place himself in a position where he will have access to
youngsters. I have seen it and, as a former police officer, I
have investigated such complaints. It is very tragic to see
where the tentacles of this type of criminal activity have
reached. It is in our churches, our governments, our schools,
our society, on our streets and on the blocks where we live. It
is very pervasive.
The criminal code does not criminalize sexual activity with or
between persons 14 years old or over unless it takes place in a
relationship of trust or authority over the young person. This
is another stipulation.
It is shocking that in Canada the voting age is 18. In
provinces such as British Columbia, the legal drinking age is 19
and the legal age for obtaining a learner's permit for driving is
16, yet the age of sexual consent remains at 14.
I am well aware that many other groups, lobbyists and concerned
individuals are also pushing to see the legislation changed.
Some would like to see it as high as 18, and I really have no
objection to that. There is good sound reason for it.
One of the rationales expressed by the Calgary Local Council of
Women was that this subject had become prominent in the last
year. Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute of
Colorado Springs, Colorado said that research has found that
there is a clear relationship between intergenerational sexual
activity and promiscuity in later life, both homosexual and
heterosexual.
1740
Further, they have found that pernicious sex tends to produce
promiscuity. They found that the promiscuous tend to make poor
marriage partners and poor marriage partners make poor parents.
They say that this is a fact with medical, social and political
implications. I think this has some good, sound, scientific
basis.
We are not the same society that we were in 1882 when the
criminal code was created and the age of consent was established
as 14. Child pornography or child prostitution was little known
a century ago and most people would never have imagined the
possibility of such things occurring. Today, in the wake of the
sexual revolution, we face a barrage of sexual marketing, much of
it concerning children. The proliferation of the Internet, while
increasing society's potential for education, growth and
improvement, has also radically heightened the production and
distribution of obscenity, filth and vice. Hence, children are
more at risk now, in this multimedia society, then they ever have
been before.
As legislators, I believe we have a moral obligation to protect
the young and vulnerable in our society. We can start by making
it more difficult for sexual predators to prey upon our
children's innocence by raising the age of consent and, with that
law well-established, using the law to its fullest if need be and
enforcing it.
We as legislators have a moral obligation, yet some in the
government would have us abdicate that moral responsibility to
the courts. They would sit idly by while unelected judges make
the moral decisions for us, as these detached individuals make
decisions that will affect the lives of Canadians everywhere.
We have to choose the direction of the course of law and not
have the direction charted for us. We need to set the moral
agenda and not have that agenda set for us. We need to take back
our responsibility for the moral climate in the country and stop
insisting that we are powerless to affect the edicts of the
supreme court.
I would reiterate that our children are our most precious
resource. They are also one of the most vulnerable groups in our
society. They are likely to be manipulated or coerced into a
sexual relationship with an adult for any number of reasons, a
relationship that may, on the periphery, appear consensual. What
a child anticipates to be loving and caring is ultimately nothing
less than exploitation if used in that fashion.
Some may argue that 14-year-olds are not ignorant about sex.
This may be true, as it is hard to be ignorant about sex in a
society that is quite clearly deluged with the subject. However,
we must ask ourselves if at that age children have the experience
and the maturity to make decisions about their own sexuality
regardless of whether they consent.
Setting an age under which individuals can legally consent is
not necessarily an arbitrary one. However, someone has to decide
and better that we, as elected parliamentarians, through our
constituents who are our mums, our dads and our grandparents,
ultimately have the say. We should have the final say, not the
courts. It should be decided here in the House and not by an
unelected body such as the supreme court.
It is unfortunate my bill is not a votable one because I think
it should be a time for accountability.
The government side is raising the spectre of this issue after
Reform has delivered for a number of years some strong messages
in reference to the particular issue of sexual consent and
predators of youngsters.
1745
We should have unanimous consent to make this bill votable. It
is not a partisan issue. It should not be a politically
motivated issue. Surely we can agree on the basic moral agenda
that is being outlined.
Over the past year I have been approached by members of the
House from all parties. We have encouraged a non-partisan
approach to issues such as this one. We all agree on the need
for an active legislative approach that will define Canadian
society rather than a reactive posture that allows others to
define society for us.
Let us make no mistake. We cannot stand still. If we do not
make the decisions other people will make them for us. I do not
believe that is acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to our parents,
grandparents, constituents or our children. We have been elected
to do the right thing. Voting for this bill would be the right
thing.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but his time expired some time ago. I have been trying to
signal to him. I understand it is 15 minutes since this is a
non-votable item and the 15 minutes expired some time ago.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Consultations permit me to rise again
on the matter that I raised a little earlier about the numbering
of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs which was concurred in earlier this day.
The report dealt with the televising of standing committees of
the House and should have been referred to as the 48th report. I
seek consent of the House to amend the motion to read the 48th
report.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the Parliamentary Secretary have
unanimous consent of the House to amend the motion accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-209,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am please to rise to speak to Bill C-209, an act to amend the
criminal code, prohibited sexual acts, introduced by the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast. The Minister of Justice cannot
support Bill C-209 at this time for three very compelling
reasons.
First, on November 29, 1999, the Department of Justice released
a consultation document entitled “Child Victims in the Criminal
Justice System”. The document examines possible changes to the
criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act to improve protection
for children from extreme harm by adults. The paper examines
some of the most pressing issues and sets out options for change.
More specifically, areas being considered include the creation
of further specific offences that may be committed against
children, sentencing to protect children from those who might
reoffend, and facilitating of children's testimony.
The release of the document is actually another step toward a
broader and needed public consultation with all Canadians. The
justice department is concerned with the breadth of possible
implications of any change to the criminal code on young persons.
It considers legislation of this nature to be premature. By
undertaking very full consultations the department is taking
these concerns to all Canadians interested in the welfare of
young children. This process already began through early
consultations with provincial and territorial officials.
Recently the department convened a conference on working
together to protect children in late September of this year, a
two day conference which I attended. The conference brought
together provincial and territorial stakeholders, as well as
professionals, non-governmental organizations and others working
with children, in order to examine the issues of prevention and
protection of children from harm.
At the conference the minister announced the release of the
consultation paper, “Child Victims in the Criminal Justice
System”. Responses are being sought from all Canadians
concerned with the welfare of children. The paper also seeks the
opinions of government officials, interested organizations,
individuals and professionals dealing with children. Extra
copies are available upon request at the Department of Justice
Canadian Internet site or by calling the Department of Justice.
Interested Canadians may also obtain a copy by writing to child
victim consultation, family, children and youth section,
Department of Justice, Ottawa.
1750
[Translation]
Canadians who take an interest in the well-being of children are
encouraged to take part in the consultation. The Department of
Justice is also asking public servants, stakeholders, private
individuals and professionals working with children to
participate.
A copy of the consultation paper can be obtained by visiting the
Internet site of the Department of Justice, or by writing to the
Minister of Justice.
[English]
Bill C-209 proposes to amend several sections of the criminal
code where the general minimum age of consent is part of the
definition of sexual offences involving a child victim. The
current age of consent to most forms of sexual activity is 14.
There is an exception for consensual sexual activity between
young people close in age and under 16.
Bill C-209 proposes to increase the general age of consent to
sexual activity from 14 to 16. The age of the complainant in the
existing exception would also be raised to 16. The proposed bill
would also substitute under 16 for under 14 in connection with
the powers of the court to make prohibition orders against
offenders who are convicted, or who are discharged on conditions
in a probation order, of certain sexual offences against a person
under 14.
Bill C-209 raises valid concerns about the current protection
provided to young people. For example, it has been argued that
the present general age of consent, which is 14, is too low to
provide effective protection from sexual exploitation by adults.
The relatively low age may allow pimps, for example, to seduce
young girls with the intention of luring them into prostitution
without fear of prosecution. However the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast seems to think that all that is involved in addressing
the complex issue of age of consent is simply to change the age.
That is not the case.
Protecting our children goes beyond a simple and arbitrary
increase of the age of consent to sexual activity. It means
addressing the broader issue of the safety and well-being of our
children. Our objective is to develop and maintain effective
comprehensive measures to protect children from serious injury
and death at the hands of adults. The achievement of this
objective rests with an essential collaborative effort of the
provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada.
While the provision of services to children who are in need of
protection is the responsibility of the provinces and
territories, the assurance that appropriate offences and
penalties are available for serious harm done to children is the
responsibility of the Government of Canada. By targeting extreme
forms of harm through the criminal code, the Government of Canada
would provide strong support for provincial and territorial
initiatives to protect children.
Second, the bill does not address the criminal code consequences
of raising the general age at which sexual activity with young
people would be criminalized. Bill C-209 proposes an amendment
that is inconsistent with other relevant sections of the criminal
code. For example, even though the complainant's age would be
raised to 16 there is no consequential change to the age of the
accused in the exception that prevents criminalizing consensual
sexual activity between young people close in age and under 16.
The result is that a teenager over 16 who has consensual sex
with a person under 16 but who is close in age would be engaging
in criminal conduct. At the same time a younger teenager would
be able to consent to sexual activity with a person close in age.
This outcome would appear to be not only discriminatory but also
contrary to common sense. Consequently Bill C-209 would not
address the issue but rather would create confusion.
Third, the bill does not address the broader implications that
arise from an amendment to the general age of consent. Since
legislative changes do not take place in a vacuum, we must be
aware that a change in the age of consent may have an impact on
other legislation. For example, such changes may impact on the
age 14 for providing assistance to child witnesses and for
competency to testify in the criminal code and the Canada
Evidence Act.
The question is whether an amendment to the age of consent to
sexual activity would require amendments to other age related
provisions of the criminal code. Furthermore, any arbitrary
changes in the criminal code would be inconsistent with the
government's commitment to consult with the provinces and
territories before introducing amendments intended to support
their efforts to protect children from abuse, neglect and
exploitation.
In fact the justice minister is meeting with her provincial and
territorial counterparts today and tomorrow on
federal-provincial-territorial issues.
In conclusion, the need to review the issue of age of consent is
a real concern. Children deserve to live in a safe society and
to be protected from any forms of serious harm caused by adults.
1755
To be effective, everyone in the community and every level of
government must work together because we all have an important
role to play. We believe all Canadians should be given an
opportunity to express their views on this issue. We also
believe that the age of consent should be dealt within the
broader context of other age related issues in the criminal code.
That is why the Department of Justice issued its consultation
paper and looks forward to learning from Canadians on this topic
with sound and reasoned action to follow.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-209 which is
before the House. It is unfortunate in many ways that we have to
face very troubling and very shameful issues which come forward,
but if we do not I am afraid the effect of not acting and not
becoming proactive and involved is negligence on our part and
will result in further harm.
I begin my remarks by congratulating the member for Calgary
Northeast for bringing the matter before the House. Bill C-209
at second reading stage is a very positive attempt by the member
to bring forward the matter. As I said at the outset it is
shameful that we are discussing despicable behaviour which deals
with children and their loss of innocence.
There are many outside the inner workings of our justice system,
many outside this place, perhaps only those who have felt the
sting of sexual intrusion, who can appreciate how serious an
issue it truly is. There is a need for us to deal with it and
not turn a blind eye, not be caught up in the rhetoric and the
paternalistic and sometimes platitudinal approach often taken to
serious issues of this nature.
Sadly sexual predators exist. They exist in every community. We
know this from high profile cases such as the Mount Cashel
incident in the seventies in Newfoundland and more recently in
Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. Instances of child abuse are
presented to us through the media in a barrage, which sometimes
leads me to fear that a degree of insensitivity or
desensitization occurs in today's society. It is laudable that
we should be bringing these matters before the House of Commons,
the people's place, for discussion.
Canadians hear daily accounts of the damage being done to other
human beings, almost to the point where we are becoming
thick-skinned. Abuse of positions of trust are particularly
disturbing when the person in charge is the perpetrator and the
person they should have been relying upon for protection.
The bill in many ways is an attempt to expand the envelope of
protection, to broaden the range for which the sections of the
criminal code as they currently apply would protect individuals
in the age group of 14 to 16.
Recent legislation that we have seen before the House is also
laudable in its attempts to notify individuals, particularly
those in positions of trust who are entrusted to protect
children. I am talking about parents and groups such as Scouts,
police and child protection agencies. I am referring to Bill C-7
which will be back before the House of Commons in fairly short
order. It would call upon the solicitor general's department to
make public information about pardoned sex offenders who remain
in the RCMP database and can be released upon request to these
types of interested parties.
Since the government took office much of the problem with social
services is that they have been cut and underfunded. As the
parliamentary secretary said in his remarks, it is not enough to
say that we can simply pass legislation which will fix these
social problems, these social sores which exist in the area of
sexual predators. It is the government's responsibility to put
proper funding into these areas.
We have seen this most recently with other legislation, like the
new youth criminal justice act which will replace the Young
Offenders Act. It is fine for the government to say it is going
to front end efforts for rehabilitation or efforts to identify
youth at risk, yet it is not putting proper funding into these
areas.
1800
Some may argue that the criminal code already protects children,
that general provisions of the criminal code list the fundamental
purposes and principles of sentencing and that sections 718 and
718.1 are definitely there for the protection of children. I
would suggest that this bill furthers the envelope. I do not
think that anyone should be apologetic for making efforts in this
regard.
On the issue of disclosure, making information known to those
who need the information, we should have a national registry for
sex offenders similar to that of the United States.
As members of parliament, we need to focus clearly on the need
to protect society from sexual predators. Sexual assault is not
an issue of sex, it is an issue of power and control, oppression
and dominance over children. It is a very weak and gutless act
which is hard for many individuals to even imagine. It is very
true that when it comes to the disclosure of information to
protect those in our society who are most vulnerable, we have to
do everything we can. We must be vigilant in every way to ensure
the safety of children and to protect them when they are in this
most vulnerable state.
There is a very high rate of recidivism when it comes to sexual
offenders. This is extremely troubling, knowing that there is
the potential for parents to leave children in the trust of an
individual who may have a past that is unknown to the parents.
The law was put in place to prohibit access to children and is
very much there to say that children in a certain age group are
at a certain maturity level.
Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has suggested, I do
not think that is confusing at all. With maturity comes
responsibility. We are more than aware that in some instances a
12 year old may be more streetwise than a 16 year old. There is
discretion built into the criminal code that allows a judge, a
prosecutor or a lawyer to make that judgment call on the facts
before them. This particular change would simply expand the
envelope and give the greater discretion that may be required as
the circumstances might dictate. There are different
circumstances that obviously need to be envisioned, and this
legislative change would allow that.
There is certainly a consensus that the intent of this bill is
aimed strictly at not confusion, but putting in place a system
that would allow a 16 year old who is not of a mature state to be
under a greater protective umbrella under the criminal code. The
change envisions that.
The sections that are affected could be changed by the justice
committee. If this bill were allowed to proceed through the
House in the manner which is dictated by procedure, it would be
brought to committee. There could be corresponding changes made
to other sections of the code of which the hon. member from the
government side spoke.
My colleague from Shefford has been very vocal on issues
involving the protection of children and our party has been
consistent in its demands of the government to protect children
in matters that involve sexual predators. There is no question
that we need to do more to ensure that individual cases, like the
one we saw recently in Toronto involving 11 year Allison Parrot,
who was raped and killed by Francis Carl Roy, do not happen.
These types of cases are a shock to the sensibilities of every
Canadian.
I do not take any issue whatsoever with what the hon. member is
trying to do with this legislation. We need to dwell on this, to
think more and to face the cold hard truth about what is
happening in some Canadian communities. Sadly, we have seen time
and time again these types of cases come before us. Frankly, I am
disappointed with the government's response. Studies are simply
not enough. We can do studies time and time again and gather
information. Unfortunately, there is a phrase used in this place
too often, which comes from the Department of Justice and is
mouthed by the justice minister, that it will come in a timely
fashion. As time goes on more children are vulnerable and more
children can be harmed.
Individuals who are released into the community and are
permitted to return to the place where they perpetrated these
acts are a threat.
1805
I personally introduced Bill C-242, a bill to amend the code
with respect to the dispositions that judges may give, and it
speaks specifically of a dwelling house, which is where many of
these prohibited sexual acts occur. The impetus for the bill was
a young woman in the province of Nova Scotia by the name of Donna
Goler who suffered unimaginable abuse at the hands of family
members in a dwelling house.
I am pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member. I
suggest that his efforts in this regard are very sincere and well
intended. This particular piece of legislation, as indicated,
would expand the umbrella. It would provide further protection
to the agencies that need it and it would provide further
protection to the children who are most vulnerable. I look
forward to seeing this matter proceed through the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have read Bill C-209 with a great deal of care. I looked at it
from the point of view of the times we are living in.
Hon. members will understand that a bill must be looked at in
relation to current practices, where our society is at, what is
tolerated and what is not. Bills are not initiated solely out
of personal convictions, although having such convictions helps.
Their purpose is not self-gratification. They are made to be
implemented and properly implemented in society.
I asked myself whether, generally speaking, society had changed
its opinion on the approach to be used with young people aged 14
or 16. It depends on what legislation we are looking at. The
existing legislation sets the age at 14 years, while the one
proposed by the hon. member sets it at 16.
I think society has evolved from where it was five, ten or
fifteen years ago. The changes proposed are not in the
direction of a change in society. On the contrary, they are a
backward step, a regression in what is tolerated, and I wonder
about the justification.
It is certainly not desirable for young people aged 14 or 15 to
engage in sexual acts or to be in the presence of such acts.
But when the legislator drafted these clauses, I imagine he was
listening carefully to what the public wanted.
The legislator paid careful attention to what the people in the
various ridings were prepared to tolerate.
I cannot see how we could say today “What was true 10 or 15
years ago is no longer true, and the Criminal Code must be
amended to increase the age from 14 to 16”.
What I find most surprising is that this is a bill to change
age on the grounds that an adolescent 14 years of age cannot
validly give consent, and the age must be increased to 16, and
that it is a member of the Reform Party speaking, when in the
debate on young offenders these same people said the age should
be lowered to 14 or 15 because they are responsible.
There is something wrong with these two sorts of thinking.
Either they are responsible or they are not. A person cannot be
responsible for a delinquent act and not be responsible for an
act of a sexual nature. A person is responsible in all matters,
not just when it suits the Reform member.
I have two children, a 7-year old and a 10-year old. I know
very well that today's children are much more mature than those
of 30 years ago when I was their age. My children have much more
mature discussions. They are much more aware of what is going
on than were children of the same age 10 or 15 years ago.
I do not excuse people wanting to have sexual relations with
someone aged 15. I cannot excuse it, but I think there are
children 15 years of age who are sufficiently mature to give
their consent.
1810
It would be an infringement of certain rights not to allow a man
or a woman—because we are talking about both sexes—to invoke the
consent of his or her partner. This is precisely what Bill
C-209 introduced by the member would do.
Now I have the attention of Reformers. This does not surprise
me. Quebec and western Canada are worlds apart legally. I
think you are great folks but we will never agree on how this
country should be run. Let us go when we call the next
referendum. Let us go and you can do what you want in your
wonderful country and we will do what we want in the country of
Quebec.
In the meantime, we are still in Canada and I still have a
mandate from my constituents to say what I think and to express
their views as well. In all honesty, my constituents will not
be able to support such a bill once they know what it is all
about. For those reasons, I cannot support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I speak to this honourable bill brought
forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast. I want to
thank the Conservative Party for having the common sense to
support good solid legislation.
It is an absolute, deplorable shame that the Liberal member,
whom I do not blame because he got a canned speech that was
developed in Annie Fanny's department, or whatever we want to
call it, along with all its glossy—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose knows
that he cannot refer to a member of the House by other than the
member's title. I am not sure whom he meant, but I can guess. I
think he is stepping over the line a little. I think he meant
the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Myron Thompson: You could be right, Mr. Speaker. I
am not sure where the canned speech came from, but I know where
the glossy print came from. That came from the office of the
Minister of Justice.
That is what we have managed to get out of this minister for a
number of years, glossy print, more print, more studies, more of
this and more of that. Then we get to hear some real common
sense speeches, such as “By golly, when I was 15 I had a lot of
sense. I could make good decisions about whether I should have
sex or not. Things are different now and we live in a different
age”. I find this whole thing disgusting.
Mr. Speaker, put down your paper. I am going to tell you a
story and I am sure you will like it.
Once upon a time there was a fellow who was a principal of a
school. Early one morning in 1990 the principal got a call from
a parent, saying “My 15 year old daughter did not come home all
weekend. We are worried sick. We would like to know where she
is. We have asked the police to do something. They won't do
anything. They have no power to do anything because there is no
evidence that there was any wrongdoing. They say that she has
probably just run away from home and will return later. Not to
worry, not to fret”. There was no action they could take.
The parents were quite concerned. Friday night had gone by.
Saturday night had gone by. Sunday night had gone by and the 15
year old girl had not come home. They phoned the principal to
ask if he would check the school to see if she had shown up for
school. The principal checked and she had not shown up for
school.
The principal was a very intelligent man and in his wisdom he
called together all of the classmates of this 15 year old girl
and asked if any of them knew where she might be. The children
said no, they did not know.
The principal felt that they knew more than they were telling
him and he said “Look, folks, her parents are worried sick.
There is nothing we can do except try to find this girl. If you
have any idea where she is, please let me know so we can inform
the parents and at least they will know she is safe and not
hurt”.
They broke down and told the principal that she was in a
condominium down the road and if he went there he would find the
15 year old girl.
There were three fellows aged 22, 24 and 28 sharing this
condominium. The principal asked the police to go to the
condominium to remove the girl. He said that he was sure she was
there. The police said that they could not because she was 15
and she had the authority to go there. The principal said that
her parents wanted her home because they were worried about her.
Nevertheless the police said that they could not do it because
they did not have the authority. The principal said that he
would go over and do it. The officer told him that he had better
not do that unless the officer went along with him because there
could be trouble.
1815
The officer jumped in the car with the principal and they drove
over to number 12. The principal knocked on the door. One of
the fellows came to the door and the principal asked if the said
girl was present. The answer was no. The principal in his usual
forwardness said: “I'll just have a look and I'd suggest you
don't bother stopping me”. That is what he said.
He shoved his way through the door and walked in, as it was
described, in the midst of beer, whiskey, booze all over the
place and the smell of good old pot, the happy wacky tabaccy that
everybody says is so wonderful nowadays. In this deplorable
situation he wandered around and he could not find her until he
went into the basement. He found the girl lying in a bed in an
almost passed out, nearly sleeping state. In the principal's
efforts to wake her, she awoke and recognized him evidently. He
told her that she had exactly three minutes to get up and get her
clothes on, that she was coming with him. In her shocked state,
that the principal would dare do this kind of a thing, she asked
the principal to leave the room and said that she would be up in
a very short time. He went back upstairs and waited by the door
for her to come out of the basement.
While he was standing there the other two fellows insisted that
he should leave because he had no permission to be there. The
principal said that he was staying until the girl would come with
him. He suggested strongly that they not try to interfere with
this until it was done.
She came up, he grabbed her by the arm, led her out the door,
put her in the back seat of his car and with he and the officer in
the front they drove off. He proceeded to take her home because
she was in no state to go to school. She did not want to go
home. She screamed and yelled at the principal not to take her
home. The principal told her to be quiet and said that was where
she was going.
Her parents greeted the car at the entrance and were overjoyed
that the girl was at least safe. They asked her to come in and
she told her parents there was no way she was coming into that
place, that she did not have to come in. The father grabbed the
girl and said “Yes, you're coming in here. You're going to
come into this house”. Then the fight was on and there was
yelling and screaming. The principal wished the parents good
luck and told them when they got the girl straightened up to
please bring her back to school, that he would have a talk with
her along with some counselling and she could get some help.
When the principal drove away from the school, the officer who
had been keeping notes informed the principal that there could be
11 charges laid in this incident. Ten of them would be against
the principal and the other would be against the parent. The
principal asked, “What about these loco yokels who had a young
girl in their place and were feeding her booze? Isn't there
anything like contributing any more? Doesn't that happen? Is
that supposed to be okay?” The police officer told the
principal, believe it or not, that under the charter of rights and
freedoms all of these things are possible because it has been
declared in some court.
The principal became outraged. He said that one day, if he could
do it, he would go to the House of Commons, become a member and
try to put an end to those kinds of situations. Why are they
happening? Mr. Speaker, you are looking at that principal today.
1820
That was a personal experience that I went through. The members
can laugh. The member from the Bloc can laugh because he thinks
it is funny that three 20 some year old people molested this 15
year old girl and it is all okay because she gave her consent.
Only brainless people would laugh. Let us make that perfectly
clear. Only a gutless government would allow these kinds of
things to continue in our society for years and years without
trying to do something about it.
I have grandchildren growing up. I do not want my grandchildren
to grow up in a society with such flowery attitudes that
everything is okay. Give some authority back to the parents.
Give some authority back to the schools. Let these kids be well
looked after and make it perfectly clear that their lives are in
the hands of their parents and give the parents the authority to
do it. Stop this silly idea that the wonderful charter of rights
can allow it to happen.
I have a message for the member for Mississauga West. This is
for him. You are right, sir. I have asked for amendments to the
charter, to do something with a charter that allows this kind of
thing to go on and on until it is worse and worse, where we have
11 and 12 year old kids being picked up on the streets because of
prostitution. It has to stop.
If this government has any gumption, if those members over there
have any good sense in their brains at all, they will accept what
I am about to propose.
I ask for unanimous consent immediately—and the member can
laugh his heart out and I will make sure he has a real good
laugh—because I ask for unanimous consent, if anyone has the
courage, that we make this bill votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
bill be votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is tragic that we did not get unanimous consent to make this bill
votable.
I think we will make a note of the fact that the government
specifically would not agree to a simple suggestion to make this
bill that would protect 14 year olds and those under 16 a votable
bill.
I know I only have a few minutes to speak because I want to
leave time for the mover of the motion to be able to conclude.
It strikes me as amazing that in a day and age when we are so
aware of the health risks that are associated with sexual
activity, it is like Russian roulette. We had here on the Hill a
few days ago a big display on the impact of AIDS and sexual
diseases and how they are killing millions of people in Africa
and around the world.
We insist that our youth take driver education before they can
drive a car. We do not let them vote until they are 18. Yet we
will let them play Russian roulette with older men that would
entice a 14 or 15 year old girl into sexual activity. It is
unbelievable.
Here we have a bill on the floor. It is a horrendous gauntlet
that a private member's bill has to run to even get to the floor.
I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for bringing it
forward.
We just had an impassioned speech about a life that was being
destroyed and was saved by a principal who was courageous enough
to get the girl out of that.
Let us make the change. Let us at least vote on it. The
government says no. That is unbelievable. That is what we are
faced with here in the House. That is why this party is here.
We have been so frustrated with that kind of garbage that people
left their normal work life and said, “Let's go down there and
see what we can do about it”, as my hon. colleague just said.
Perhaps the government members have reconsidered. Perhaps it is
time to think about it again.
Let us try it again.
1825
I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to make this
bill votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make
the bill votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: When the hon. member for Calgary Northeast
speaks he will close the debate.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to thank the members of this House who support
this bill, that have a concern for the future of many young
people, who made it very clear that they have strong desires to
see some changes in the law which would enable the protection of
our children, or our youngsters.
I would like to thank the member for Wild Rose for having the
courage to stand up and actually make it an important issue,
supporting the parents in his area where he was the principal of
a school and who brought a youngster—I do not know the outcome
of that particular story—into the fold of their home where there
was protection and not in the home of some sexual predator that
wanted to prey on her because of her age.
I would also like to thank the member for Calgary Centre who has
had concerns about our youngsters in this country for a long
time, which is one of the reasons he sits in parliament. I
remember the day he was elected. He was elected because he had
these concerns about how our laws were impacting on the family
and family issues, and children are part of the family.
I want to thank those members and the member from Nova Scotia
for supporting this endeavour, Bill C-209.
Unfortunately, on the government side a lot of red herrings were
thrown out saying that it is going to be difficult to pass this
kind of legislation because so many other things will impact on
it in such a way that it is going to be more negative than it is
positive. That is a defeatist attitude from the very beginning.
It is unfortunate the parliamentary secretary had to make such
comments because those are in fact red herrings. All one has to
do is ask any parent in this country whether they would want some
good sound legislation to protect their children and they would
say yes.
Who else should you consult other than the parents or
grandparents of those children? I do not know of anybody else.
Social services? The Elizabeth Fry Society? Who? No, it has to
come back to the family, to the parents. They are the most
concerned. They give the reasons why their children should be
protected and it is up to us as legislators to make sure that
does happen.
For three years I have fought for the bill and for those it
would affect most, the police. It would have a direct affect on
how the police handle situations. They need more authority as
the member for Wild Rose clearly pointed out. They need the
authority to walk into a place and take children out who are
being sexually abused.
I ran across the same thing when I was a police officer. As a
police officer I stuck my neck out way beyond probably where it
should have been to do the very same thing that the member for
Wild Rose spoke of because all of a sudden the charter, a
wonderful charter, protects those who are being abusers. It
should it be the other way around.
Certainly, there would be an impact on the courts. I think the
courts should be able to decree that we will place that child
back in the home. That is where he or she belongs and it should
be enforced. The unfortunate part of it is the opposite is
actually happening. Nobody wants to get involved. Nobody wants
to stick their neck out to protect somebody that is innocent. It
is very unfortunate.
I believe our laws on sexual consent must be strengthened so
that the police no longer are powerless to take action against
those who exploit our children for their own sexual
gratification.
For the sake of these children, I appeal to the members of the
House to really give the bill another look. It will come up
again and when it does I ask members to give it their full
consent so that ultimately we can protect the young and
vulnerable in our society from the predators in our society.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)