36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 35
CONTENTS
Monday, December 6, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Bill C-237. Second reading
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. John Maloney |
1125
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1130
1135
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1140
1145
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1150
1155
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1200
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1205
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Bill C-9—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1215
1300
(Division 61)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Report stage
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1305
1310
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1315
1320
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1325
1330
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1335
1340
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1345
1350
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1355
| CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| DIABETES
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1400
| VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| THE LATE CLAUDE HARDY
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| FARÈS BOUEZ
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| AMATEUR BOXING
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1405
| VIOLENCE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| VIOLENCE
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY IN QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1410
| DRINKING AND DRIVING
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1415
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE CONSTITUTION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1430
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1435
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| GLOBALIZATION
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1440
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1445
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| VIOLENCE
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
|
1455
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1500
| CHIAPAS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TRAGEDY AT ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1505
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1510
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| Cultural Industries
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Child Custody
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1520
| Manitoba Waterways
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Report stage
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1535
1540
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1545
1550
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1555
1600
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1605
1610
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1615
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1620
1625
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1630
1635
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1640
1645
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1650
1655
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1700
1705
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1710
1715
| Mr. John Bryden |
1720
1725
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1730
1735
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1740
1745
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1750
1755
| Mr. David Iftody |
1800
1805
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1810
1815
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1820
1825
| (Divisions deemed requested and deferred)
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 31
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 34
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 35
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 36
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 37
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 38
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 39
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Motion No. 40
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Motion No. 42
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 43
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion No. 44
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 45
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 46
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 47
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 48
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 49
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 50
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 51
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 52
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 53
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motions Nos. 54 and 55
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 56
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 57
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 58
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 59
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 60
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 61
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 62
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 63
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 64
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 65
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 66
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 67
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 68
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 69
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 70
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 71
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 72
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 73
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 74
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 75
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 76
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 77
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 78
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 79
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 80
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 81
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 82
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 83
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 84
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 85
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 86
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 87
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 88
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 89
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 90
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 91
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 92
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 93
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 94
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 95
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 96
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 97
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 98
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 99
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 100
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 101
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 102
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 103
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 104
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 105
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 106
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 107
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motions Nos. 108 and 109
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 110
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 111
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 112
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 113
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 114
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 115
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 116
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 117
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 118
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 119
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 120
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 121
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 122
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 123
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 124 and 125
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 126
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 127
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 128
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 129
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 130
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motions Nos. 131 and 132
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Motion No. 133
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 134
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 135
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 136
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 137
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 138
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 139
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 140
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 141
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 142
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 143
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Motion No. 144
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 145
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 146
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 147
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 148
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 149
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Motion No. 150
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 151
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 152
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Motion No. 153
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 154
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Motion No. 155
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Motion No. 156
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 157
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 158
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 159
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Motions Nos. 160 and 161
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 162
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 163
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 164
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 165
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 166
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 167
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motions Nos. 168 and 169
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Motion No. 170
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 171
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Motion No. 172
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion No. 173
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Motion No. 174
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion No. 175
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Motion No. 176
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion No. 177
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion No. 178
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Motion No. 179
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Motion No. 180
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Motion No. 181
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 182
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Motion No. 183
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Motion No. 184
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 185
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 186
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Motion No. 187
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 188
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Motion No. 189
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Motion No. 190
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 191
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 192
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 193
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 194
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 195
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 196
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 197
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 198
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motions Nos. 199, 200 and 201
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 202
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion No. 203
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 204 and 205
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 206
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 207
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 208
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 209
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 210
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 211, 212 and 213
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 214, 215 and 216
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motions Nos. 217 and 218
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 219
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 220
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 221
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 222
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 223
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Motion No. 224
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 225
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 226, 227, 228 and 229
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 230 and 231
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motions Nos. 232, 233 and 234
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 235
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 236
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 237
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motions Nos. 238 and 239
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 240
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 241 and 242
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 243
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 244 and 245
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 246
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 247
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 248
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 249, 250 and 251
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion 252
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 253
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 254, 255 and 256
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 257
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 258
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Motion No. 259
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motions Nos. 260 and 261
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 262
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motions Nos. 263 and 264
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 265 and 266
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 267
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 268
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 269
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 270
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motions Nos. 271 and 272
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 273
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 274
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 275
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 276
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 277
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 278
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 279
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 280
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 281
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 282
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 283
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motions Nos. 284 and 285
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 286
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 287
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 288
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 289
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 290
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 291
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 292
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 293
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 294
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 295
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Motion No. 296
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 297
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Motion No. 298
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 299
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Motion No. 300
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 301
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Motion No. 302
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Motion No. 303
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Motion No. 304
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 305
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 306
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 307
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 308
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 309
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 310
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 311
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 312
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 313
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 314
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 315
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motion No. 316
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 317
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 318
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 319
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 320
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 321
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 322
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 323
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 324
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 325
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 326
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 327
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 328
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 329
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motion No. 330
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 331
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 332
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 333
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 334
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 335
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 336
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 337
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 338
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 339
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 340
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 341
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 342
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motion No. 343
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 344
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 345
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 346
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 347
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 348
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 349
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 350
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 351
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 352
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 353
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 354
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 355
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 356
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 357
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 358
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 359
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 360
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 361
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 362
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 363
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 364
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 365
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 366
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 367
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 368
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 369
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motion No. 370
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 371
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 372
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 373
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Motion No. 374
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motion No. 375
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motion No. 376
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motion No. 377
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motion No. 378
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motion No. 379
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motion No. 380
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion No. 381
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion No. 382
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motion No. 383
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motion No. 384
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motion No. 385
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motion No. 386
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Motion No. 387
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Motions Nos. 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393 and 394
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motions Nos. 395, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Motions Nos. 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406 and 407
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Motions Nos. 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 and 416
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Motions Nos. 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423 and 424
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Motions Nos. 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431 and 432
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Motions Nos. 433, 434, 435, 436, 437 and 438
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Motions Nos. 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444 and 445
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Motions Nos. 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451 and 452
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motions Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 and 462
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Motions Nos. 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 470
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion No. 471
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1830
| Mr. John Cannis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 35
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, December 6, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
AN ACT FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-237, an act to amend an act for the recognition and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend
the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
1105
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time since I became a
member of parliament that my property rights bill has been denied
enough time for full debate. This is the third time that MPs
have been denied the opportunity to vote for or against
strengthening property rights in federal law. It is also three
slaps in the face for each of the thousands of Canadians who have
signed petitions supporting my bill. So far I have personally
received 578 pages of petitions signed by 13,729 Canadians from
all across Canada who support the bill.
It is also an insult to another major supporter of the
legislation, the Canadian Real Estate Association, an association
that represents more than 200 real estate boards in every
province of the country.
I repeat for the third time in the House that it is time for us
to make this bill, and all Private Members' Business that comes
before the House, votable.
I will start the debate by asking a few questions. I know they
will be difficult questions for many Liberals to answer and
almost impossible for the socialists in the House to understand
but I am going to ask them anyway.
What does anyone own that the Government of Canada cannot take
away from them? The answer is nothing.
Does anyone think they have any right to own the satellite dish
they bought, paid duties and taxes on, and enjoy the programs
they pay for and watch on their TV? Does anyone think they have
the right to own the gun that they legally bought to go target
shooting or hunting with? Does anyone think they have the right
to own the money they paid into their own government pension
fund? Does anyone think they have the right to own and sell the
crops they grow on their own land? Does anyone think they have
any right in Canadian federal law to be compensated for any
property that the government takes away from them, including
their own land?
If anyone was thinking that as a Canadian citizen they had any
of these rights or that somehow these rights were protected in
Canadian law, I am sad to inform them that they are wrong. The
federal government can take anything anyone owns, anytime it
wants, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it. Only we
in the House can do something about it.
Let us look at the government's track record at taking the
property from Canadians. Over the years, an estimated 700,000
Canadians have purchased direct-to-home satellite equipment,
services and programs from the United States because the
equipment, services and programs were not available to them in
Canada. This was a legal product that the Government of Canada
collected both duty and taxes on. The government then
unilaterally passed a law that declared the equipment, services
and programming people watched using their own satellite dish,
their own decoder and their own television illegal.
In May of this year, the RCMP announced a crackdown on these
made in Ottawa criminals. My colleague, the member for Calgary
Centre, made the directive public. The RCMP directive states:
Although any such device or equipment brought into Canada may
have had duty and taxes paid, the provisions of the
Radiocommunication Act remain in effect. The possession, use,
sale, etc. of any such equipment is therefore illegal.
Watching television illegally in Canada can result in a fine of
up to $5,000 and/or up to 12 months in prison. So much for the
right to own and enjoy property in Canada.
In 1994 a farmer with a firearms licence issued by the federal
government went out and bought a gopher gun, a firearm commonly
used for hunting and sporting purposes, from a government
licensed firearms dealer. In 1995 the government passed Bill
C-68 giving it the absolute power to prohibit any firearms if, in
the opinion of the governor in council, really the Minister of
Justice, he or she does not think the firearm should or could be
used for hunting and sporting purposes.
I can hear by the noise in the background that the Liberals do
not like this, but I think it is time they paid attention. If
the bureaucrats in the justice department think a gun looks
dangerous and can convince the justice minister that it is
dangerous, the minister can ban the gun by order in council.
Section 117.15(2) of the criminal code gives the government such
sweeping authority that it can ban any gopher gun without
producing a shred of evidence that the firearm it is banning is
dangerous.
The government can ban any gopher gun even while ignoring factual
evidence that the firearm is “commonly used for hunting and
sporting” purposes.
1110
The government can ban any gopher gun without any debate in
parliament. Nor is there any means of getting the prohibition
reconsidered by parliament. The government can ban any gopher
gun without any statutory right of appeal for individual owners
of these firearms because the criminal code does not contain any
such rights of appeal.
The government can ban any gopher gun and declare the owners do
not have any right to be compensated for the loss in value
resulting from the government's arbitrary prohibition order and
no right to be compensated even if the government confiscates the
firearm from its lawful owner.
Finally, not even the Supreme Court of Canada could overturn the
arbitrary prohibition order because it would be virtually
impossible for any court to substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the governor in council. In fact, lawyers from the
Library of Parliament confirmed this when they wrote, “courts
would be loathe to find the governor in council acted in bad
faith”.
The punishment for possession of a prohibited firearm is
imprisonment for up to five years. So much for the right to own
and enjoy property in Canada.
For years, 670,000 federal public servants paid too much of
their own salaries into their own government administered pension
plans. In May of this year, the government passed Bill C-78
which declared that the surplus money these employees paid into
their own pension plan was not theirs any more. It was the
government's. The money the government stole was the property of
its own employees.
Do employees not have the right to own the portion of money they
pay into their own pension fund? Not if they work for the
federal government. If these contributions individuals made to
their own public service pensions are not safe from the
plundering by the federal government, what makes anyone think
that the contributions they make to their RRSPs are safe? So
much for property rights in Canada.
A Saskatchewan farmer, David Bryan, grew a crop of wheat on his
own land. He got into trouble when he tried to sell his wheat
for a better price than the Canadian Wheat Board would pay him.
The federal government charged Mr. Bryan with exporting his own
grain to the United States without getting an export licence from
the monopolistic dictatorial wheat board.
For violating this Soviet style decree, Mr. Bryan spent a week
in jail, was fined $9,000 and received a two year suspended
sentence. Mr. Bryan, with the help of the National Citizen's
Coalition, appealed his conviction on the grounds that it
violated his property right as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of
Rights and passed by parliament in 1960.
On February 4, 1999, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled against
David Bryan's right to sell his own grain that he grew on his own
land. On page 14 of the ruling of the Manitoba Court of Appeal
it states:
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects
property rights through a “due process” clause, was not
replicated in the Charter, and the right to “enjoyment of
property” is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part
of Canadian society.
Can anyone who is listening to this debate or who reads the
record of this debate believe these words came out of the
Canadian court of law?
This ruling confirmed what constitutional expert Peter Hogg
wrote in his book Constitutional Law of Canada, Third
Edition. It states:
The omission of property rights from s. 7 (of the Charter)
greatly reduces its scope. It means that s. 7 affords no
guarantee of compensation or even of a fair procedure for the
taking of property by the government. It means that s. 7 affords
no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials
with power over the purely economic interests of individuals or
corporations.
That is citation 44.9, page 1030. Professor Hogg also wrote:
The product is a s. 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not
including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in
short, as not including economic liberty.
That is citation 44.7(b), page 1028.
1115
Therefore, without any protection of property rights and freedom
of contract in the charter of rights and freedoms and with the
courts ruling that the Canadian bill of rights does not provide
any protection whatsoever from the federal government's arbitrary
taking of property or infringing on our fundamental economic
liberty, I decided it was time to do something about it.
Amending the charter is a hugely complicated task because it
requires a resolution to be passed in the House of Commons and in
seven provincial legislatures, comprising about 50% of the
population. I decided to draft a bill to strengthen the
protection of property rights in the Canadian bill of rights.
Consequently, this would only strengthen the protection of
property rights in federal law.
In past debates the government has argued poorly that there is
no need to strengthen property rights in federal law, that the
Canadian bill of rights provides adequate protection of property
rights. The Bryan case proves that it is totally wrong on this
count. The bill of rights provides absolutely no protection of
property rights. Even if the government ignores the Bryan
judgment, these rights can be overridden by just saying so in any
piece of legislation passed by the House.
My bill proposes to make it more difficult to override the
property rights of Canadian citizens by requiring a two-thirds
majority of the House. My amendments would not tie the
government's hands to legislate, but would send a clear signal
that members of parliament think that adequate protection of
property rights is so important that an override clause should
pass a higher test in the House.
Even if the government agreed to abide by the so-called
guarantees in the Canadian bill of rights, as currently worded,
it would only protect three things: the right to the enjoyment
of property, the right not to be deprived of property except by
due process, and the right to a fair hearing. Unfortunately the
bill of rights does not prevent the arbitrary taking of property
by the federal government. The bill of rights does not provide
any protection of our right to be paid any compensation, let
alone fair compensation. The bill of rights does not provide any
protection of our right to have compensation fixed impartially.
The bill of rights does not provide any protection of our right
to receive timely compensation. Finally, the bill of rights does
not provide any protection of our right to apply to the courts to
obtain justice.
Bill C-237, my property rights bill, would provide this
protection. I offer the government this opportunity to take
corrective action by voting to strengthen property rights in the
Canadian bill of rights. When passed by the House we could then
work toward amending the charter of rights and freedoms, which is
a much more complex process.
I would like to mention a couple of things in summation. Why
are property rights good? There are three key reasons for which
property rights are good and necessary. First, they make society
richer. Second, they protect the freedom of individuals. Third,
they protect the environment. Theoretically the protection of
property rights makes society richer because those rights spur,
through creative effort, the improvement of one's circumstances.
Second, property rights protect the freedom of individuals
because they allow people to make their own decisions about how
to best use their existing possessions, including labour.
Finally, property rights protect the environment because the
problem of pollution is not that people pollute their own
surroundings but that they pollute other people's surroundings.
I would like to briefly talk about the Magna Carta and the English
bill of rights; however, I see that my time is up, Mr.
Speaker, and I will have to do that another time.
These property rights have been around for a long time. It is
only recently that we have neglected them and failed to put them
in our charter of rights and freedoms.
I respectfully request the unanimous consent of the House to
make Bill C-237 a votable item. I have given all the arguments
for it. I think there is much sympathy in the House for it. In
fact, many years ago it was passed and I think it is time we did
it again.
1120
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
bill be made a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill
C-237, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection
of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the
Constitution Act, 1867.
In brief terms this bill would amend the Canadian bill of
rights. The Minister of Justice feels strongly about the
important role of property rights in our society. Property
rights represent one of the fundamental pillars of our legal
system and our democratic society. Indeed, our legal system is
replete with protection for property rights. However, the
Minister of Justice cannot support the bill because it raises
some very important concerns.
The Canadian bill of rights already contains provisions for
property rights in paragraph 1(a). Bill C-237 would remove these
provisions and would enact new and broader provisions dealing
with property rights. These broader provisions would have untold
implications for federal laws. For example, they could affect
everything from federal laws dealing with pollution to
shareholder rights to divorce laws making provision for the
division of property.
One only has to look at the American experience with
constitutional property rights to understand the implications of
extending property rights. In the United States property rights
have been extended in ways that no one could have anticipated.
This has led to huge amounts of litigation and has complicated
and burdened the process of lawmaking.
Early on in the history of the United States important social
reforms were struck down by the courts in the name of property
rights. I am not saying that this kind of unfortunate judicial
intervention would necessarily happen here, but to date no proper
consideration has been given to this possibility. One has to
think very carefully before importing this kind of law into the
Canadian context.
[Translation]
The protection of property rights is, of course, an important
principle in Canadian society. No one in this Chamber would
dispute that. While agreeing with the principle of protecting
property rights, we must be careful to have a clear
understanding of the impact that the kind of legislation being
proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will have.
[English]
In any event, as I have indicated, I think it is very important
to remember that our legal system presently and appropriately
acknowledges property rights. The concept of property rights is
fundamental to our legal system. It is the basis of the
operation of our economy. This is reflected in the legal
framework that governs our economy. Every day property rights
guide our actions in the way we do business. Contract law, real
property law, personal property law and so on are built on the
concept of property rights.
Our legal system could not function without it. As such, our
legal system provides, as a matter of the common law that has
been built over hundreds of years through court decisions, basic
protections for property owners. Hundreds of years of
jurisprudence must not be lightly disregarded.
[Translation]
The common law provides basic protections for individuals
regarding state action that affects their property, and statute
law is also filled with protections for property rights.
Whether we are looking at shareholder laws, banking laws,
criminal laws or otherwise, these laws contain a wide variety of
provisions that are designed to ensure fair dealing with
property.
[English]
Let us not forget that the Canadian bill of rights already
provides protection for property rights. As the member has
pointed out, section 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights provides
for “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of
the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be
deprived thereof except by due process of law”.
The hon. member's bill would also amend the Canadian bill of
rights in a way that is not consistent with the treatment of
other rights in the Canadian bill of rights. The bill would add
charter-like provisions to the Canadian bill of rights that would
be applicable only to property rights and not to the other human
rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Canadian bill of
rights. This would include new provisions dealing with imposing
limits on rights, overriding rights, and obtaining judicial
remedies.
I am not certain why property rights are treated differently. I
am not certain what the logic or rationale, if any, is for this.
It seems to me that the bill is so focused on one issue that it
does not recognize that the Canadian bill of rights contains
other rights and freedoms, that the proposed changes do not fit
in and that they do not treat all rights and freedoms on a
consistent basis.
1125
My reaction is that when we are dealing with something as
fundamental as basic Canadian legal instruments for the
protection of human rights, we need to examine all of the
implications. Let me be clear, property rights are fundamental
to our legal system and society. We will continue to support
property rights and to promote respect for these and all rights
of Canadians, but we cannot support a bill that unwittingly would
put into jeopardy social and economic laws and policies that are
important to the people of Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speeches
of my colleagues on this private member's bill today and I found
their arguments to be interesting.
I appreciate that there are two points of view on this issue,
but I want to add another voice to the discussion this morning
regarding property rights, which refers quite directly to the
recent talks of the World Trade Organization in Seattle.
It seems to me that we have gone out of our way in providing
property rights to certain kinds of corporations. Under the
NAFTA and the provisions of the WTO, in the future more rights
will be given to corporations to overrule the decisions of duly
elected representatives of parliaments and legislatures.
At the top of the list is the present initiative of Sun Belt
Water Inc. of California, which wants to export fresh water from
Canada to California. Because the provincial government of
British Columbia passed legislation which prohibited that
particular initiative from proceeding, Sun Belt is suing the
federal government, on behalf of the British Columbian
government, under the provisions of the NAFTA for what it says
could be as much as $10 billion in lost profits.
This is the ultimate in property rights being represented. A
company is saying that because elected Canadians, in their
wisdom, chose legislation, in their judgment, to protect the
welfare of future generations and the health of Canadians, it has
property rights and it will sue for lost revenues that it would
accrue in the future. This is the ultimate in handing over
rights to private corporations which will clearly, in many cases,
go against the decisions of duly elected representatives of the
people of Canada.
Let us be more specific. I could mention the legislation that
we were driven into to protect patent rights for multinational
drug companies. We were under incredible pressure to regulate
and to legislate in favour of multinational drug companies to
give them a 20 year monopoly on any new drug. We could debate
whether 20 years is reasonable or whether it should be 2, 10, 50
or whatever, but there was absolutely no choice that the
intellectual property rights of international drug companies
required us to pass legislation guaranteeing them monopoly rights
on new drugs for 20 years. One has to admit that is a very good
deal.
I think you will remember those days, Mr. Speaker. The feeling
was that we had no choice. We were driven into legislating in
favour of protecting intellectual property rights that would
benefit multinational drug companies against the best interests
of the consuming public. When there is a monopoly drug
situation, obviously there is not going to be any competition in
the marketplace and people will be gouged. I do not think the
evidence has ever been refuted. It is clear that because of the
lack of competition by generic drug companies the prices for our
drugs in this country are significantly higher than they normally
would be or than they need be, which causes incredible pressure
on our health care system, to say nothing of the consuming public
in general.
When we talk about property rights, particularly as they focus
on the corporate sector, this is getting close to Mecca. This is
as close to corporate heaven as one could possibly get.
I could read all sorts of examples other than all the national
drug companies that have been handed this incredible property
right.
1130
There was a controversy over some of the big forest companies
and their forest practices. People were saying that the
legislation needed to be changed to stop the abuses of various
forestry codes. The American companies said they would sue us for
their lost profits if we imposed legislation to protect Canada's
forests and stopped them from their cutting rights as they
understood them.
Clearly, American corporations have great property rights, much
greater than Canadian corporations. I could throw in Mexico as
well. We have not been challenged by many Mexican companies but
we have been by American companies.
Let me be more specific. In an article a little while back Time
Canada Ltd. said that it would not have to make good on a threat
to sue Canada for its pending magazine legislation. We can
debate magazine legislation and cultural legislation, but the
reality is we have been interested over the years in
strengthening our cultural sector through legislation to give
Canada's cultural industries a bit of a hand up and assistance to
enable them to get under way to compete in the international
markets. However, we have been reminded time and time again that
if we assist our corporate sector particularly when it comes to
culture, that they will sue. They have the right now under NAFTA
to do just that, and they want to expand that to include all 134
countries under the WTO. So there is time.
I want to quote my friend Dalton Camp.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I have lots of friends outside the realm
of the New Democratic Party. He wrote a very interesting article
in which he said: “Parliament approved Bill C-29. It was a lot
like motherhood. MMT, a product of Ethyl Corporation of
Virginia, has been banned in Europe and in California. Almost
every major U.S. petroleum producer, the minister said, had
indicated support for the decision by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to forbid MMT being marketed as a gasoline
additive”. He went on to point out that one-third of the
American market, because of acute air pollution problems,
prohibits MMT in these particular areas.
In other words, Europe does it. The state of California does
it. One-third of the American market does it. And so Canada
said that we would also do the same thing, which we attempted to
do in Bill C-29. However, along came Ethyl Corporation which
launched a $347 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada.
These lawsuits by Sun Belt Inc. and Ethyl Corporation against
the Government of Canada, were not against the Prime Minister and
a handful of people sitting in some office. Actually, the
Government of Canada is the people of Canada, the taxpayers of
Canada. The Government of Canada is all of us, all 30 million
people. We represent those people in this place. When Ethyl
Corporation sues the Government of Canada, it is suing the people
of Canada. Men, women and children from coast to coast to coast
are being sued by Ethyl Corporation over the MMT issue.
We all know what happened. The government said to Ethyl
Corporation that it was sorry, that it would back off and pull
the legislation, that it would settle out of court for $20
million and that it would also provide a written letter of
apology. That is what we did.
Talk about property rights. Talk about corporate property
rights. One could not get a better provision than what we call
chapter 11 under NAFTA which essentially guarantees the ultimate
in corporate property rights.
I know my friend who sponsored this legislation has done it in
the best interests of the constituents he represents as he sees
it. I do not think it is the right course when it comes to
property rights in our country. I am not a lawyer but lawyers
have told me that about 90% of the cases in a law office are case
law when it comes to property and that about 10% of cases refer
to people. In terms of property being protected, the track
record is very very good.
My colleagues elsewhere will articulate other reasons that this
legislation ought not to proceed. I could talk about the
provision of assets during divorce settlements as an initiative.
If one of the spouses has property rights guaranteed and he or
she owns 99% of the assets, how will that affect divorce
proceedings in their settlements? These are all arguments we
have heard many times before.
1135
I want to throw in as part of today's discussion the fact that
under chapter 11 of NAFTA we have legislated property rights to
the largest and most powerful corporations in the country,
particularly in the countries of the United States and Mexico.
Now they want to expand that through the WTO into virtually all
of the nations of the world that we trade with. That would be
nothing short of catastrophic.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-237, which is an act
for the recognition and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
Strengthening property rights is a sentiment that we in the
Conservative Party embrace wholeheartedly. The party has a long
history in this regard. This legislation would afford greater
protection in the bill of rights for property rights for both
individuals and corporations.
The bill was last before the House on October 1998. I
congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing
the issue of property rights back to the House of Commons. He
has been very dogged in his pursuit of this issue and his
perseverance is duly noted.
It is unfortunate in a way because if the bill of rights was
properly respected to the letter, this type of amendment would
not be necessary. Once again, it is to underscore or strengthen
existing law to co-opt a good idea, so I think it is somewhat a
statement of the obvious in some areas. The Progressive
Conservative Party has always been a proponent of the rights of
Canadians and in particular the rights to own and enjoy property.
Fully and unconditionally we support this concept.
The Canadian bill of rights itself was enacted in 1960 by the
Progressive Conservative prime minister of the day, John
Diefenbaker. It extended protection for the right to enjoy
property, the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process, and obviously the right to a fair hearing.
In my previous comments at second reading I noted that in 1995
the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada approved a new
constitution which lists one of the four principles as the
following:
A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and the
well-being of the people of Canada are:
1. the freedom of the individual Canadian to pursue their
enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive
economy;
2. the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of
their labour to the greatest possible extent; and
3. the right to own property.
That is in the Conservative constitution.
The protection of property rights has long been recognized as a
fundamental aspect of social and economic justice in this
country. From the first settlers to those who faced the most
overwhelming challenges of the size of this country, property was
an immediate challenge. Yet there are inconsistencies within the
laws concerning property rights today.
Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads as
follows:
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his property.
Canada ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights over 50 years
ago. It underscores again the importance of these rights.
Through the costly and discriminatory Firearms Act, the
government is depriving law-abiding Canadian citizens of their
property. Let us not beat around the bush, this is what is at the
principle of this bill. I am referring specifically but not
exclusively to rural Canadians who rely on the use of long guns
for hunting, and farmers who use them for the protection of their
livestock, for the elimination of predators. It is viewed more
as a tool and a farm implement.
It is incumbent upon me at this point to say that on the 10th
anniversary of the Montreal massacre it is perhaps ill-timed that
we find ourselves debating this issue. Anyone on either side of
this gun registration debate I think would agree that we should
be focusing on mourning the loss of the 14 bright young future
leaders of our country who were gunned down in Montreal. Yet the
debate is here, it is before the House.
It must be noted that even with the current Firearms Act,
nothing could have been done to prevent the psychopathic killer
Marc Lépine from engaging in his shooting rampage. Criminals
simply do not register guns. The Liberals' gun registry will do
nothing to prevent gun related crime, but will impose
increasingly expensive and discriminatory regulations upon
law-abiding citizens. Criminals will not participate in any form
of legitimate gun registry. The Conservative Party would repeal
that element of the gun registry system.
This is a narrowly focused law. Other existing safety provisions
introduced by the Conservative Party would be left in place, but
the gun registry system would be gone.
1140
Bill C-237 is not of great concern to many Liberals because most
of their support comes from urban Canada. Only approximately 10%
of the Canadian population would be immediately affected by this
law. Most Canadians do not register their firearms. They do not
have firearms to register. The perpetual costs and inconvenience
of this law is affecting mostly rural gun owning Canadians who
live outside of city centres.
Issues like gun registry are a concern everywhere. Guns are
property. Law-abiding gun owners in rural Canada have a right to
have guns.
The recent amendments to the Firearms Act unleash a
discriminatory system on law-abiding property owners. The act was
designed to put pressure on legitimate gun owners who have
consistently demonstrated until now that they favour reasonable
gun control and desire to live within the law. It targets the
wrong group. The criminal code is being used to run roughshod
over property rights in this regard.
Gun registry has been a complete failure, facing massive
non-compliance by the over three million gun owners in Canada
with seven million guns yet to be registered. Provincial
challenges at the supreme court level are indicative of broad
disagreement about the approach the government has taken.
With the costs now spiralling into the area of $300 million, one
has to question the priorities of the government with respect to
crime in Canada. As an example, $206 million has been set aside
for the new youth criminal justice act over the next three years.
This particular initiative has already cost Canadian taxpayers
close to $300 million with very little impact, if any, on crime.
Even if registration could be processed on time, the cost is
unreasonable to keep a farmer or a hunter from engaging in a very
legitimate, legal exercise. Because the process has failed, many
people will not register. The government will be confiscating
property which legally belongs to the person in question without
compensation. Many may face arrest as a result of this criminal
code amendment.
To recap, big brother can take our property without compensation
and then throw us in jail. This will commence an unchecked growth
in illegal gun sales around the country, encouraging sales on the
black market. A panel of Liberal experts told the justice
minister this would happen but she did not listen to that advice.
The bill denies and drives more legitimate owners into selling
their guns or giving them up. This will put more guns, illegal
and otherwise, on the black market.
We know that our prison system is suffering problems from
funding and overcrowding. We know that our police agencies are
breaking down as a result of underfunding. But the government is
spending millions of dollars seizing law-abiding citizens'
property.
Will the government spend more money on organized crime? Not
likely. Will it set a greater priority for where the money
should actually be spent? It does not appear so. There is a
lack of consistency on the part of the government. It is
refusing to act on constitutional grounds with respect to this
bill. It, among other groups, will oppose it. But the
Progressive Conservative Party is going to support this bill for
the reasons I have referred to.
The Liberals rejected a truly effective DNA data bank system for
similar reasons. They said they were afraid of the legal
consequences. Yet they are going to keep a law that barely
survived the Alberta Court of Appeal and is now going before the
Supreme Court of Canada which we hope will succeed.
Governments have a duty to taxpayers to wait until the supreme
court settles issues of constitutionality. They should not be
deterred or afraid by it. The government suffers perpetually
from charter constipation. It has already spent close to $300
million and counting. This will be followed by confiscation and
lengthy court battles as a result.
The government argues that property rights are already
adequately protected under the Canadian bill of rights. If it
cannot continue, this will violate article 17 of the UN
Declaration of Human Rights by arbitrarily taking property from
Canadian citizens.
The PC Party does not want to limit the government's ability to
legislate. It needs to be constantly reminded that its powers to
override property rights go against individual rights in this
country. There is a delicate balance that must be respected.
The issue of property rights in our constitution is also very
problematic. The omission of property rights from section 7 of
the charter greatly reduces the scope of the charter in this
regard. It means that section 7 affords no guarantee of
compensation or a fair procedure for the taking of property by
the government. It also means that section 7 affords no guarantee
of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with powers
over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.
1145
Thus section 7 “liberty must be interpreted as not including
property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as
not including economic liberty”.
Bill C-237 will help enhance the protection that most people
thought they already had under the constitution. It does not try
to change or challenge the charter because this is a complicated
process. Rather, it tries to strengthen property rights and
provisions of the bill of rights.
Section 237 would also accord greater strength to the charter of
rights and for Canadians to enjoy property. It would also
enhance the right to be paid fair compensation, to have fixed
compensation, to have timely compensation and to apply to the
courts to obtain real justice.
Bill C-237 recognizes that the gun registry system has not been
working. The protests and legal challenges continue to mount
against the existing Firearms Act, but the Liberal government is
not using its good discretion. It is abusing its authority. We
need legislation such as Bill C-237 more than ever.
In conclusion, I want to send a message to those who do oppose
gun registration. Today is the day to remember the 14 women who
died at École Polytechnique. It is a day to remember that
violence against women still exists. The PC Party feels that
this particular bill is worthy of support. We want to send our
condolences to those affected by this massacre.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join my hon. colleague for
Yorkton—Melville who has led the way in the House on the issue
of property rights.
It is exciting to be part of a debate in the House that gets
right to the heart of important philosophical questions about the
scope of government and the importance of individual freedom. I
applaud my colleague for his integrity and his perseverance in
the campaign to awaken Canadians to the frightening realization
that property ownership is not a right in this country but a
so-called privilege that the government grants and can take away
at its whim.
What is so special about property rights? Nobel laureate
Frederick Hayek wrote “Private property is the most important
guarantee of freedom”. More than any other social or political
institution, the institution of private property is the primary
mechanism by which we separate those activities and those choices
which properly belong to government and those activities and
choices which should be left within the jurisdiction and control
of private citizens.
We will never limit the size and scope of government without
clearly defined private property rights. Even the NDP wants to
limit the size and scope of government. Nobody wants to live in
a country in which the government has no limits on its power to
intrude into our lives. The solution to intrusive government
should be simple, but Canadians have no legal right to own
property. The institution of private property does not exist in
Canada.
In case any member of the House is unaware of the lack of
constitutional protection for private property, I will
provide some statements to my colleagues of various expert
opinions on property rights in Canada:
The arbitrary taking of private property by the government without
compensation would not seem to be justified. However, the law
clearly gives the government the right to pass legislation that
takes private property without providing compensation, if the law
so states. In Canada there is no constitutional guarantee for
compensation and the power of the government in this area is
unlimited.
This was written by Gerald Lafreniere, Law and Government
Division, Research Branch, Library of Parliament.
Here is another quote:
Several things are clear. The Charter has never before and still
does not protect economic liberty or property rights. A
deliberate choice was made to exclude them from the
document...Those who assert that the Charter guarantees Canadians
freedom to deal with their own property as they wish are flying
in the face of unvarnished truth that the Charter does not even
contain a freedom from State confiscation of Canadians' property.
This statement was made by Justice F. C. Muldoon in the judgment in
Archibald v the Canadian Wheat Board case of April 11, 1997.
Here is another quote:
The product is a s. 7 in which liberty must be interpreted
as not including property, as not including freedom of contract,
and, in short, as not including economic liberty.
This was written by Professor Hogg. I think it speaks to the
essential connection between economic liberty and property.
I could go on. There are many more legal scholars who repeat
the same fact that Canadians lack the constitutional protection
against the violation of their right to own property.
1150
I will give some examples of property rights violations or
potential violations in the country. I want to give the House a
taste of the scope of the problem.
In 1996, farmer Andy McMechan was shackled, strip searched and
imprisoned for five months for selling his grain, his property,
without the approval of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was allowed
to go home for Christmas only after surrendering his tractor to
Canada Customs.
After January 1, 2001, 555,000 short-barrelled handguns will
forcibly be confiscated as a result of an arbitrary government
prohibition of these firearms. Law-abiding gun owners have been
told to turn in an estimated $280 million worth of property for
destruction or disposal and will not be compensated.
I will also share a personal example on the issue of private
property, which I have spoken about before in the House. My
family came here as refugees, as millions of other Canadians who
have been in similar circumstances. When we had to leave the
country of Uganda our property was completely confiscated. My
parents lost everything they had worked for.
Granted, when we come to this country there is a respect of law
and order and that gives people a great sense of hope and belief
in the country. Why not strengthen that element of property
rights, as being proposed in this bill by my colleague for
Yorkton—Melville? It would put the hearts and minds of people,
who have been through the terrible experience, as was my family,
of losing everything due to the lack of concern for property, at
rest.
I have another example of an organization that has worked hard
to promote the idea of property rights, which was given the
runaround by the Department of Revenue's charities division with
a complete runaround. I bring up the case because it relates
directly to property rights and to the Canadian Property Rights
Research Institute.
The National Post nominated the charities division of
Revenue Canada as the slowest moving department in Ottawa. I
wish to also nominate the bureaucrat in charge of the department,
Mr. Neil Barclay, for the dubious honour of being the laziest
civil servant in the federal government today.
In processing the application for charitable registration by the
Canadian Property Rights Research Institute, Mr. Barclay received over 20
phone calls and letters from opposition and government
parliamentarians alike. After two and a half years of broken
promises and delays, CanPRRI has been denied its application.
While Mr. Barclay was busy approving the applications of various
other groups, the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute has
been ignored and mistreated by a bureaucrat with an ideological
bone to pick.
I hope the revenue minister will address this problem in the
charities division and will insist on a departmental review of
this application for charitable status. We know how important
property rights are in the country and we need to continue to
promote institutions that are willing to fight for them.
I have spoken today about a number of cases. My colleague for
Yorkton—Melville spoke about the importance of property rights.
We have a chance to make a decision today and work toward
strengthening private property rights in the charter of rights
and freedoms. I also call on my constituents and indeed all
Canadians, who believe in the freedom of limited government, to
demand that the government protect their fundamental rights to
keep the products of their labour.
Property rights might seem abstract but the simple act of
locking one's door at night is an exercise of private property.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the campaign to end slavery in
the United States was based on the principle of self-ownership,
an idea that was advanced centuries earlier by philosopher John
Locke. John Locke believed that the right to self-ownership is a
foundation of the right to material property. I stress this
point to assure my colleagues that the private property debate is
not just about land and wealthy landowners; it is a debate that
affects us all.
Unfortunately, many Canadians take property rights for granted
and do not understand that real individual rights begin with the
right to own and to control private property.
The members of the House can do something that would strengthen
the institution of private property and guarantee that Canada
remains a free and prosperous nation. They can work together to
demand that the charter of rights and freedoms no longer excludes
the protection for the fundamental right to own, use and enjoy
private property.
1155
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was home recently and the issue of property rights
became a very important issue as I moved about my constituency
and held five town hall meetings.
When I visited one of the farms, I was quite taken with a rifle
that was hanging above the fireplace. The gentleman explained to
me that this particular French rifle was now in his hands after
five generations. He does not know if it works but it is a very
precious commodity. Of all the things he could trace from his
ancestors, who came from France to Quebec, later emigrating to
Michigan and then to Saskatchewan, this was the family's pride.
This was also the pride of my 10 year old grandson. However,
because we do not have the right in this country to own property,
potentially that family heirloom could be seized without any
recourse in law at all.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Nonsense.
Mr. Roy Bailey: No, it is not nonsense. It is absolutely
true.
In my own area, I could drive on a back road and see four or
five signs pointing out endangered species. Nobody protects
endangered species like the people in rural Saskatchewan. Do
members know what they genuinely fear? They fear that all of
these signs could be taken down. If the government sees these
endangered species signs, and the species the farmer is
attempting to protect, it could, under new legislation coming and
because there is no right to own property, confiscate any portion
of that land. This is not just dreaming, this is actual fact.
Pierre Trudeau's name came over the radio last night because it seems
that he will be named the parliamentarian or the politician of
the century. Who was it who argued vigorously and repeatedly
for the inclusion of property rights in the charter of rights and
freedoms? He went to great lengths to guarantee Canadians the
right to own property.
Resolutions were passed in the legislatures of British Columbia,
Ontario and New Brunswick supporting inclusions of property
rights in the charter but we do not have them.
Legal support is needed for the protection of property rights.
The government knows this is a good bill. My colleague has taken
it to the committee and has argued three times to have the bill
become votable, but for no clear, enunciated reason, can anyone
on that side of the House offer a reason why that cannot be done.
The way things are going in Canada, as we are moving from a
democracy to a jurocracy, Canadians need to be worried. We in
the Reform Party are worried about what is happening to the
democratic principles in Canada. We are worried that more and
more legal decisions and more and more legislations are being
passed outside of these chambers.
I tell the hon. members opposite that the fear they have about
giving Canadians the right to own property will come back to
haunt them. By denying my colleague's bill, not once but three
times, it will indeed come back to haunt them in the near future.
1200
The Deputy Speaker: I have to interrupt the hon. member
to allow the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville to have his five
minute opportunity for reply. I should advise the House that
when the hon. member speaks, he will close the debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank all those members who spoke in
support of my bill, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and my own Reform Party
colleagues.
Bill C-237 would amend the bill of rights to provide added
protection for Canadian citizens from the arbitrary decisions
made by the federal government to take their property.
I listened to the arguments the Liberals put forward. They all
stem from the fact that it would limit them in their ability to
legislate and override the rights of citizens to own property.
They fear that their power as government would be undermined.
They point to the bill of rights as enough support. The courts
have clearly demonstrated that it was because it was not included
in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it is not
constitutionally protected.
The Liberals point out that there have been hundreds of years of
jurisprudence to support property rights. However, in a few
court decisions now, our courts in Canada have overridden all of
that jurisprudence which stems back to 1215 and the Magna Carta.
I think it is time we fixed that in the House.
I listened to the NDP members. They tried to spin my bill as
protecting the corporations. Only corporations can challenge the
legislation or can afford to challenge it I suppose. However from
the speech by the hon. member of the NDP it became clear that
corporations are better protected in Canada through NAFTA than
are individuals. His arguments were really a support for what I
am trying to do today and indicated the need for property rights
within our Canadian context.
Article 17(2) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states: “No
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. Voters in
this country have to know that the federal government by its own
legislation, legislation that government members have supported,
condones the arbitrary taking of property in direct contravention
of article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Let us be honest and up front and not be hypocritical in our
debate today. Members of the Liberal government should hang
their heads in shame rather than parade around the world claiming
to be defenders of fundamental human rights. What a sham.
In 1903 Pope Pius X wrote to his bishops:
The right of private property, the fruit of labour or industry,
or of concession or donation by others, is an incontrovertible
natural right; and everybody can dispose reasonably of such
property as he thinks fit.
Today we have heard the proof that our fundamental property
rights are under attack. Are we just going to ignore it? Just
because a bill is passed in parliament does not make the use and
abuse of government force to violate fundamental property rights
and freedom of contract of its citizens a good thing.
In her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand
wrote:
The concept of a right pertains only to action—specifically to
freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion,
coercion or interference by others. The right to life is the
source of all rights—and the right to property is their only
implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are
possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort,
the man who has not right to the product of his effort has no
means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others
dispose of his product, is a slave.
Czech President Vaclav Havel also hit the nail on the head when
he said: “Human rights rank above state rights because people
are the creation of God”.
Are the Liberals listening? My colleagues, property rights are
our most important human right because they are fundamental to
our right to life. This is a very serious matter that I fear
many in the House, especially those on the government side, are
taking far too lightly.
My bill strengthens property rights in federal law. It does not
tie the hands of government.
1205
I talked about the Magna Carta. It is a very important
document. Since that time we have had hundreds of years of
jurisprudence. Our Canadian courts have done away with that. It
is time we sent the signal to them that this is not acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard all the arguments. I think it needs
to be studied further. I would like to respectfully request the
House to do something else. I would like the unanimous consent
of the House to refer Bill C-237 to the subcommittee on human
rights for further study. I do not think anybody can reasonably
deny that, so I would like to make that request at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to refer
the bill for further study?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business is now expired and the order
is dropped from the order paper.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-9—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on
a point of order raised by the House leader for the official
opposition on Thursday, December 2, 1999 concerning the
acceptability of report stage motions related to Bill C-9, an act
to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, which were
refused.
The first motion that the hon. member submitted sought to append
the Nisga'a Final Agreement and Appendices as a schedule to Bill
C-9. The member was informed by the Journals Branch that his
motion was not in order and could therefore not be placed,
pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), on the Notice Paper. A second
motion seeking to add the Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement as a
schedule was also refused for the same reasons. The member argued
that the Speaker or the staff of the Journals Branch could have
made the necessary corrections to ensure that his amendments were
in order.
Before proceeding to the substantive issues raised, let me state
that the onus has always been on members submitting amendments to
ensure that they are in order. There were however, more
substantive reasons for ruling these motions out of order.
The member for Langley—Abbotsford made reference in his
presentation to a ruling delivered by Speaker Beaudoin on May 17,
1956 and found on pages 567-569 of the Journals. I have
read the ruling and was struck by what was said by my
predecessor. At that time, in dealing with an issue having some
similarities to the present case, the Speaker stated:
He further drew members' attention to chapter 71 of the Statutes
of 1948 in which are found an act to provide for carrying into
effect treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Romania,
Hungary and Finland, in which none of the agreements were
included.
[Translation]
A more recent example of this practice can be found in the James
Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, which was
assented to on July 14, 1977. Members consulting that statute
will find that the agreement that is referred to throughout the
act has not been appended to it as a schedule.
[English]
Nonetheless, the member is quite right in stating that a
schedule containing an agreement or treaty has often been
included in bills. Where agreements or treaties have not been
tabled in the House, this may be a convenient way of providing
information for the use of parliament.
[Translation]
I would now like to turn to the citations in Beauchesne's that
the opposition House leader made reference to in his arguments.
One of them—citation 704—makes it abundantly clear that the
addition of a schedule of this type to a bill is not necessary.
[English]
In another section of Beauchesne's sixth edition, a criterion is
provided under which the Speaker will not permit an amendment to
be proceeded with. In particular, an amendment is not acceptable
as stated in subsection 3 of citation 699 if it is deemed that it
would have no effect or was unnecessary. This principle is found
as well on page 526 of the 19th edition of Erskine May. One
reason behind this rule is simply to prevent the House from
voting needlessly.
1210
At the same time, this particular question is not one with
respect to which an established practice or clear procedure
exists. In trying to address this point of order, I have looked
back to my predecessors and I find that they have not had to
directly address this specific issue. Despite what might be
regarded as a principle precluding such proposed amendments in
Beauchesne's citations 699 and 704, I am prepared to grant the
benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford
in this instance. I am willing to allow the proposed motions to
be considered by the House, albeit in a slightly altered form.
I stress that this is not a matter of technical detail. Since
the agreements have previously been tabled in this House, the
motions in amendment should refer specifically to the tabled
documents. This will ensure that the text inserted in the bill
pursuant to these motions is consistent with the documents
already laid before the House. Accordingly, the form of the
motions which will be proposed to the House will read as follows:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10,
Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-2, The Nisga'a Final Agreement
and related Appendices, as Schedule 1.
[Translation]
And second:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10,
Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-3, The Nisga'a Nation Taxation
agreement, as Schedule 2.
[English]
Accordingly, these new motions will be numbered 470 and 471,
will be grouped for debate in Group No. 5 and voted on
separately.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford
for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
BILL C-9—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, in relation to
Bill C-9, An Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement,
not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the Bill and one sitting day
shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill;
and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the
report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage
of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
1215
[English]
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1300
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 126
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Dockrill
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
| Price
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 81
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Asselin
| Bakopanos
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Cauchon
| Collenette
|
Crête
| Desrochers
| Folco
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Harvard
| Marchand
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Venne
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from December 2 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 the motions in
Group No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all party whips
and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, I believe you would find
consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on report stage of Bill
C-9 all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the
said bill be deemed put, a recorded division requested and
deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, December
7, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. chief government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been said that this treaty, this agreement, is a matter
introduced overnight. I would simply remind this House that in
the three year run-up to the signing of the treaty no less than
500 public meetings and consultations were held, 296 of them in
the Nass Valley and 13, no less, in a row, with a group of
non-aboriginal residents. If we compare this to city
constituencies, it is an astonishing degree of public
consultation.
In approaching this agreement we must remember that it becomes
law as far as the federal government is concerned, as far as
federal constitutional law is concerned, with this enabling law.
The enabling law is the product of considerable discussion
between members of parliament and the former minister of Indian
affairs, the hon. member for Brant, who is now in another
portfolio, but it does contain one very important factor which
has been addressed by some people from outside and was the
subject of representations which I made to the minister. It
includes an express legal stipulation that the treaty is subject
to the constitution and the charter of rights. That is in the
treaty itself, but to make assurance doubly sure I asked the
minister to include this in the federal enabling legislation. It
is there.
1305
Further, I advised the minister that I and other members would
be stating that our vote is cast on that basis. We would have
the third assurance, les travaux préparatoires, of which the
courts must take notice of the parliamentary intent that the
treaty, as enacted by parliament, is subject to the charter and
to the constitution. It means that there can be no provincial
status, no third order of government unless it goes through the
amending procedures, part V, sections 38 to 49 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
I think these corrections were necessary because of doubts that
I had in relation to section 35(3) of the charter of rights which
was not in the original charter but added in 1983, 12 months
after its adoption. It applied to future treaties what was
clearly applied in section 35(1), the original draft to existing
treaties. Those existing treaties, all of them, were a known
quantity, and we had all studied them, and they were clearly
within the constitution and the charter that was being adopted.
To remove uncertainty I suggested at that time to the new
minister of justice, one of our most distinguished jurists, Mark
MacGuigan, the need for clarification. He thought, I think
correctly, that it would be an extreme interpretation to say that
this was a back door way of changing the constitution, that it
could be settled in the future. In my view it has been done
adequately and completely with the federal enabling legislation,
the federal enacting law.
Let me get back to some other points on which the minister gave
assurances to members of parliament that the treaty would not be
a template for the remaining 50 treaties. It rests on its own
special facts, among which is the fact that the Nisga'a leaders
and the federal negotiators were superbly informed, they
negotiated in good faith and with restraint. These conditions
might or might not be replicated in future treaties because
different federal teams take part. Every future treaty will have
to be defended and supported on its own special sociological
facts. Nisga'a stands alone. It is not a template.
I think when we get to the cities and municipal areas where
conflicts of interest might reasonably be expected between
different categories of rights, such as fee simple rights and
claimed historic rights, that perhaps we need different and more
advanced machinery, and I will come to that in a moment.
In recommendations to the Ministry of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development as to future treaties, I have made these
suggestions. In respect of all future treaties, the same
principles and terms should be applied and the federal enabling
legislation should cite that it is subject to the supremacy of
the constitution and the charter of rights. In fact, this
means that the principles of procedural due process of law,
judicial review and, among other things, the principle of
equality before the law and equal protection of the law are
applicable. They are the supreme law of the land and in cases of
conflict can be raised before the courts.
In respect of future treaty negotiations we also suggested that
it be understood that the parties be required to undertake
negotiations in good faith, which is a legal principle in
international and constitutional law. They must also apply the
principle of good neighbourliness, which is one of the oldest
principles of civil law. It is part of the common law. In cases
of breakdown there should be resort to the principle of
arbitration and third party settlement.
We need improvement of facilities for judicial review. One of
the problems we have had with cognate cases, not connected with
the Nisga'a but the subject of some representations in the last
few days to the parliamentary committee, is with the Federal
Court of Canada. As an ambulatory federal court, it is not
perhaps as fully seized of local social economic facts as local
courts. It may be that there should be consideration given to
establishing a mixed claims tribunal with developed expertise in
economic issues, or else to investing provincial supreme courts,
which after all are permanent courts in the locality, with
competence to adjudicate economic evidence on reference.
I simply say that these are suggestions for the future treaties
still remaining.
1310
One very useful suggestion is to include representatives of
municipal and other elected governments in the negotiation
processes for future treaties. The Union of British Columbia
Municipalities has established a list of five principles. I
think it makes sense because the local bodies have special
expertise in relation to local water and power supply, as well as
property title issues, and their expertise can be brought to
bear.
I mention all this simply to say that Bill C-9 has been
adequately considered and discussed. There have been three years
of public consultation. It was open at all times to the
parliamentary committee, if it wished, which is an all party
committee. It has a single member majority on the government
side. The opposition had only to ask for more detailed hearings.
There was a strange silence in some areas of the opposition over
those three or four years when jurisdiction could have been
exercised in relation to the treaty.
I found this again in relation to a matter to which we gave some
attention, Bill C-49, the native lands administration bill. It
was reported by the committee with only one minor amendment,
which had the unanimous endorsement of the committee. It was
only at the last minute that we realized there were problems that
should be addressed. With the co-operation of members of the
House and the Senate, both Conservative and government members of
the Senate, changes were made to Bill C-49, the native lands
administration bill, which incorporated the principles of due
process and similar guarantees that are certainly part of the
federal enabling law in relation to the Nisga'a treaty.
I put out four newsletters to my constituents after the signing
of the treaty, perhaps about 6,000 words of detailed legal
material, and asked for comments. The comments came back. They
were passed on to the minister. The changes the minister of
Indian affairs made to the federal enabling law, in the text of
the law, were as a result of representations made by
constituents.
I think this is participatory democracy in action. I think it
is the way to proceed with legislation. It is the best way to
ensure that in the run-up to the 50 remaining treaties in British
Columbia we can produce agreements without discord. We do not
want 19 long summers of discontent in British Columbia. Our
economy needs help. There are other matters to attend to. In
good will and in good faith I think we can proceed with the
further treaties. I recommend adoption of the federal enabling
law.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken said that this is
not a template of settlements to come. If he would travel across
Canada, as I did this past week, travelling across my
constituency, he would not adhere to that particular hope or wish
because it is already being stated across Canada by leaders of
other Indian peoples that it will be a template. It was stated
in my province about four days ago that it will be a template.
To say that this will not be followed across Canada is sheer
nonsense.
During this past week I had the privilege of travelling across
my constituency where there are six native reserves. They are
all fine people and we get along well, but the point I want to
make is that they are waiting. They are waiting because there
are some land claims to be settled. By that time, with the
government's help, the Nisga'a treaty will become a reality, and
they will follow it all the way through. It is what they will
use in all future negotiations concerning land settlements.
A tract of land in northern Saskatchewan last week, as big as
the entire Prince Albert National Park, was allotted to the Lac
La Ronge band. They themselves say “Wait until the Nisga'a
treaty comes down and we will see what happens”.
1315
One of the myths that came out of this whole thing was that it
was just another type of municipal government. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I served in local governments for a total
of 21 years. I served in the provincial legislature for a term
and now I am here. A municipal government anywhere in Canada is
nothing but a creation of the provincial government in the
province in which it is located.
This is what happens under a provincial government. The province
states that municipalities must have regular elections. The
provincial government spells out the electoral process. I do not
see that. After the electoral process is spelled out, then what?
The municipality must have a bonded administrator. That is a
requirement of the provincial government. On top of that it must
prepare a budget statement that must be forwarded to the
province. At the end of the fiscal year it must then have a
bonded chartered accountant to make sure the books are in order.
When that takes place, it is printed and distributed among the
citizens of the municipality.
The government has created the myth that it is just another
municipal government. It is a brand new level of sovereignty
created in the province.
Last week in Prince Albert the native workers at the casino
decided they would unionize. With the help of the Canadian
automobile workers, a union was created. There was going to be
an argument but the three or four chiefs stepped back until the
next day. They said that the building will soon be sitting on
reserve land and when they get sovereignty like there is under
the Nisga'a treaty the chiefs said they will not have to adhere
to the labour regulation board in Saskatchewan and will not have
to listen to the labour regulations of the Government of Canada
because they will be a sovereign state. I wonder why they are
talking that way already before using Nisga'a as a template. Why
are they saying it is nothing but a municipal type of government?
Each province has a right to establish certain laws. The
province in which I live has a highway traffic act. The
municipalities within the province of Saskatchewan cannot create
their own highway traffic act. The province of Saskatchewan also
has the right to contain within legislation hunting rules and
regulations. A municipality cannot do that. The province of
Saskatchewan has the right to have a labour relations board. The
municipalities cannot do that.
Why is the federal government trying to tell Canadians that this
treaty is just another form of a municipality? That is simply
false.
I worked with the Nisga'a people for one full year. I taught
there for a year. I have many friends who live there. Let me
say, they are afraid of the bill because of the various things I
have just mentioned. They want to enjoy the clear-cut
accountability the rest of us have. They do not want to be
subject to a rollover to the same type of government which gives
them more power but less accountability.
The provinces do not have a right to control trade. That is not
within their jurisdiction. That is the federal government's. Yet
enshrined in this new type of municipality is a right to trade.
That is fine but do not come out and tell the people that it is
just another municipality.
The danger is that we are creating, and could create very
quickly in 10 years, 100 Nisga'a type treaties all across Canada,
all a separate legal entity unto themselves.
Can we see the map of Canada being drawn up with 100 different
principalities, each creating their own labour laws, each
creating all of those things that we give to the province and the
federal government? What are we doing? We are dividing Canada
into principalities and we are not doing anything to improve the
overall governance level among our native people. That is wrong.
1320
The Indian Act was wrong. The accountability today is wrong.
It needs to be improved but this bill simply does not do it.
I attended five town hall meetings last week dealing with a very
serious issue in agriculture. At each meeting the participants
voluntarily got into this topic. They are concerned. They are
very intelligent people. We cannot tell the people that this is
just another form of municipal government because it is not. We
are granting sovereign power. In many cases it is sovereign
power that the province does not have. In many cases it is equal
to and can challenge the federal legislation.
Why not just admit it? Why does the government continue to
propagate this myth that it is just another type of government?
I want my grandchildren to have the same right that I have today
and that is to go down to my school division—and I sign 21 of
those—and ask for an audited financial statement. It must be
due at a certain time every year. Why is the government saying
that this is another municipal government?
I want the right to vote at a specific, regular time for the
people who serve in my town or in my school division. I want to
know that all of the moneys are being handled in accordance with
the law of the province in which we live.
This is a very serious thing. We are not doing our native
people any service or any value unless we instil within the bill
the municipal type of accountability on a regular basis. Ask the
young people, ask the women and ask in many cases the chiefs.
That is what they want and it is not in the bill.
The government is going to proceed with this legislation. It
will be to the detriment not just of the natives of the country
but it very definitely is going to be to the detriment of all
Canadians.
I beg hon. members to stop spreading the myth that it is just
another municipal type of government. That indeed is a myth.
That myth is not selling in my province one iota.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this very important Nisga'a treaty. It
is historic and one that all Canadians will benefit from as a
result of the movement of this government and I believe
rightfully so.
Because the Nisga'a agreement is an important page in Canada's
history, I would like to take this opportunity to set out some of
the facts surrounding this very important legislation. Perhaps
even in the process I will correct some of the myths perpetuated
by the Reform Party, including the member for Souris—Moose
Mountain.
First and foremost I must stress that the Nisga'a treaty was
negotiated within the constitutional framework of Canada.
Everything done in the treaty was done in keeping with the
constitution just as it is.
For example, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes
and affirms the existing aboriginal treaty rights of the
aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, we do not know precisely
the nature, scope or extent of these rights. In many
circumstances unresolved claims of aboriginal rights have
hindered economic development. Accordingly a number of cases have
been brought before the courts in Canada in an effort to define
aboriginal rights.
1325
Through these court decisions we have learned a great deal about
aboriginal rights but not enough to resolve once and for all the
disputes arising from continuing claims of aboriginal people. In
the most recent cases for example dealing with the existence and
nature of aboriginal rights in British Columbia, the Supreme
Court of Canada found that in the absence of treaties, lands in
that province may be subject to aboriginal title.
Most important is the fact that the courts have told us that
aboriginal rights are group and site specific. That means that
wherever the courts consider issues concerning aboriginal rights,
the courts do so in the context of the particular facts presented
and in consideration of the particular group before them.
Accordingly, while some general principles can be drawn from
current case law, we cannot yet rely upon court decisions to make
conclusions about aboriginal rights that would apply to all
locations in Canada or in British Columbia.
Given that some court cases on aboriginal rights might take as
many as 10 years to resolve and that they may not resolve issues
in all locations, imagine how long it would take and how
expensive it would be to resolve all outstanding aboriginal
issues in British Columbia in this manner. It is unthinkable
quite frankly. We must all keep in mind that in all these
instances, these court outcomes might not be palatable to
everyone or for that matter, to anyone.
The government agrees with the courts that negotiation rather
than litigation is a better way to resolve outstanding aboriginal
rights issues. Besides, while litigation is adversarial and may
not lead to good relationships, negotiations do lead to mutually
agreeable solutions and better relationships. That is the
Canadian way. Unfortunately that is something the Reform Party
has yet not understood.
In Canada the historic practice of negotiation and resolution of
outstanding aboriginal rights issues is called treaty making. As
in the case of existing aboriginal rights, the rights contained
in treaties are also recognized and affirmed under section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982.
Although treaties covering much of Canada were concluded prior
to 1927, in British Columbia this process was never completed.
The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern treaty to be concluded in
British Columbia. It resolves once and for all the Nisga'a
outstanding claims of aboriginal rights including land and
resources and self-government. This is something we truly can
and will celebrate.
In 1995, Hon. Ronald Irwin made public the Government of
Canada's approach to the implementation of the inherent right and
the negotiation of aboriginal self-government. The approach he
presented reflects an evolution in thinking that stretches over a
long period of time.
For decades the citizens of Canada have been trying to find ways
to reconcile the prior occupation of the country by aboriginal
people with the sovereignty of the crown. Long before the
arrival of Europeans, aboriginal people lived in this country and
looked after their own affairs. First nations in British
Columbia and elsewhere enjoyed existing governance and social
systems.
Existing aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed under
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1995 federal
inherent right policy recognizes that those section 35 rights
include a right to self-government and that Canada is prepared to
negotiate workable and practical self-government agreements and
include them in treaties. There are different views about the
scope and content of the inherent right, as in the case of other
aboriginal rights, but this government has chosen to resolve
self-government issues through the negotiation of practical
arrangements within the context of our constitutional framework
and legal framework.
Allow me to explain briefly how a negotiated resolution of
claimed aboriginal rights to self-government works within the
current constitutional context.
The Constitution Act, 1867 defines the lawmaking powers of
federal and provincial governments. These are set out primarily
in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The scope
of any aboriginal right in self-government may vary from
community to community and accordingly to the circumstances of
the various first nations. Consequently the aboriginal right of
self-government under section 35 must be considered on a case by
case basis.
That is what happened in the case of the Nisga'a. The Nisga'a
final agreement does not only set out all the land and resource
related rights that the Nisga'a will have under section 35 of the
constitution act, it also identifies the self-government rights
the Nisga'a will have under the same section of the constitution.
The Nisga'a treaty will not alter the federal and provincial
heads of power as set out in sections 91 and 92 of the
Constitution Act, 1867.
1330
Some have charged that the Nisga'a final agreement creates a de
facto third order of government that requires a constitutional
amendment. The meaning of third order of government is not
clear. What is clear, however, is that the Nisga'a final
agreement works and that it works within the current
constitutional framework.
The protection of section 35 rights under our constitution does
not mean those rights are set out in constitutional concrete as
some critics claim. Although section 35 rights are protected,
they are not absolute. A number of Supreme Court of Canada
decisions have confirmed that governments still retain an overall
authority but must justify any interference with aboriginal or
treaty rights.
The Nisga'a government will clearly operate within the Canadian
constitutional framework. Anyone who has read the Nisga'a final
agreement knows that the charter of rights and freedoms will
apply to Nisga'a government. This means the Nisga'a laws will be
subject to the charter as will Nisga'a government decisions, for
example, in issuing permits or selling land. The Nisga'a
government will be subject to the charter just as all other
governments are as well.
At the risk of repeating what has been said many times before,
federal and provincial laws such as the criminal code will apply
on Nisga'a lands once the treaty comes into effect. While in
certain limited circumstances Nisga'a laws may prevail, there
will be no exclusive Nisga'a law-making powers. This is a
current model of law-making and important to note.
Nisga'a laws will only prevail for matters internal to the
Nisga'a themselves, for example, laws relating to their culture,
their language, the management of their land and their assets. In
all other cases either federal and provincial laws prevail or the
Nisga'a law must meet or exceed existing federal or provincial
standards in order to be valid. It would be clear to anyone who
closely examines it that the Nisga'a treaty works within the
current framework of the Canadian constitution.
Perhaps those who argue that the Nisga'a final agreement cannot
be given full effect without first amending the Constitution of
Canada just do not understand the process and do not understand
the value of a negotiated reconciliation of aboriginal rights
within the Canadian federation. Perhaps they wish they could
unilaterally impose their own arbitrary solutions. We on the
government side prefer negotiation and reconciliation. After
all, this is the Canadian way.
We all know where unilateral decisions would lead us. We have
seen solutions imposed by one group on to another throughout
history. Where possible lasting arrangements are best achieved
when they are negotiated by all those who live by them. The
Nisga'a treaty is one of these negotiated settlements.
I would urge all members of the House to leave the spurious,
mean-spirited arguments behind, especially those of the Reform
Party. I just do not understand why Reform insists on pitting
people against people, group against group, region against
region. It is not in keeping with the Canadian way. It is not
what Canadians want.
I would ask that all members of the House move very
expeditiously to pass this very important and historic treaty. I
know that good judgment will prevail and that we will ensure the
right thing is done. That is after all in keeping with what
Canadians want, with what is good for Canada, and we will prevail
in this matter.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very glad to have an opportunity one last time to put out points
of view regarding what I think is history in the making. I
believe the passing of the Nisga'a deal is a monumental, pivotal
point in Canadian history as we watch this group of aboriginal
people take its first courageous steps toward true
self-government. I hope we are seeing the beginning of the end of
130 years of absolute social tragedy: the Indian Act.
Like the member who just spoke, I too am shocked and appalled at
some of the tone and the content of the arguments I have heard in
the House of Commons as the bill is debated. I have watched as
the Reform Party has systematically tried to discredit aboriginal
people and tried to make the argument that somehow the Nisga'a
are not ready for this move. It keeps threading together
isolated incidents of misuse of funds from reserves across the
country. It tries to thread that together into some argument
that self-government is a bad thing or that aboriginal people are
not ready or mature or competent enough.
1335
I have even heard Reformers stoop so low as to compare the
Nisga'a deal to apartheid. That is an injustice on many levels
because it trivializes the struggle of black South Africans.
Frankly, I do not think the people who said that even know what
true apartheid is. It is shocking to me that they would make
that kind of comparison.
For their benefit I did some research on what the apartheid
regime really was. I went to the Library of Parliament and
obtained the legislation that actually made up the apartheid
system in South Africa.
I would like the House to hear some of what is in the
legislation, compare it to what we know about the Nisga'a deal
and if we think there is any comparison or relationship
whatsoever.
One element of the apartheid regime was the Masters and Servants
Act which made it a criminal offence to breach any contract of
employment. Insolence, drunkenness, negligence and strikes would
be considered criminal offences under the Masters and Servants
Act.
Extra-marital intercourse between whites and blacks was outlawed
by law. That became a crime.
The Native (Black) Affairs Administrative Act contained the pass
laws. A black person had to carry a permit to enter a white
neighbourhood. One could be charged with promoting feelings of
hostility. In other words, if anything was said to anybody that
may have promoted hostility, one could be arrested.
This is what black South African people went through under the
apartheid regime. For the Reform Party to even compare the
Nisga'a deal to apartheid, someone had to blow the whistle on
that kind of ridiculous statement. In trying to stop the Nisga'a
deal the Reform Party has also stooped so low during the debate
as to spread myths that simply are not true. Reformers have said
things about the Nisga'a deal that they know in their heart if
they had ever read the deal are simply not true.
One of the things the Reform Party talks about is whether there
should be a referendum on the agreement in the province of
British Columbia. It knows full well that there is no precedence
for a referendum. We did not have a referendum on NAFTA, or on
the GST. We do not have referendums on these matters. We have a
government that can decide these issues in the House of Commons
or in the provincial legislatures. The reason there had to be a
referendum vote among the Nisga'a people is that they did not
have a structure of government which was binding on all of the
people there or they would have been able to do that by a more
conventional means, as well.
Should parliament not be able to change the treaty or alter it
at this point to be able to make amendments to the deal? This is
a three party agreement. Should any one party be able to impose
their points of view on the other two?
An hon. member: Everybody in B.C. is against this deal.
Mr. Pat Martin: One of the members is saying that
everybody in B.C.is against this deal. They are obviously wrong.
This went to 46 communities in British Columbia. They toured the
province. There was broad consultation. It was the longest
debate ever in the history of the provincial legislature. It was
ratified and passed and approved in its current form.
I heard the Reform Party say that this deal somehow denies
women's rights. There is absolutely no basis for this claim. It
is a myth. It is trying to do anything to undermine the
legitimacy of the Nisga'a deal.
Does this treaty protect property rights? Reformers were trying
to say that property rights were at risk. The treaty transfers
ownership of the land back to the Nisga'a people collectively.
The treaty allows for various ways for people to then privately
own the land that they live on.
All these things were brought up during the 100 years of
negotiation. They were carefully contemplated. They were
debated and the issues are addressed within the text of the
actual deal.
I have raised this in the House before. What is really galling
is to see the Reformers trying to sell themselves as the
champions of aboriginal people. If we scratch the surface just a
little, go back a year or so, we can see in Hansard what
Reformers were saying about aboriginal issues; things like “Just
because we did not kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that
does not mean we did not conquer these people. Is that not why
they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the
most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?”
This is a Reform MP's comments on aboriginal people.
1340
There is another which I like even better. I am talking about a
man by the name of Herb Grubel who now works for the Fraser
Institute. When he was a member of parliament he likened Indians
on reserves to people living on a south sea island courtesy of
their rich uncle. This is the attitude of a man like Herb Grubel.
If he is teaching school or university somewhere, he should be
muzzled. He should have a muzzle on with attitudes like this. It
is absolutely scandalous.
One of the advisers to the aboriginal task force of the Reform
Party is a man named Mel Smith, a self-professed pundit. Mr.
Smith wrote a book called Our Home or Native Land, a clever
play on words, criticizing any concept of aboriginal
self-government. Obviously this is the true attitude of the
Reform Party toward aboriginal people. Look at the company it
keeps, look at things the party says, look at quotes like I have
mentioned which would make any decent person in this day and age
shudder.
One of Reform's past advisers, Tom Flanagan, whom I think at the
present time is a college professor at the University of Calgary,
wrote a paper asking why Indians do not drive taxis? He
proceeded to go on a diatribe about every other group of
immigrants who come to Canada start at low paying jobs such as
driving taxis and eventually work their way up the economic
ladder. He was making the point that he felt these lazy people
would not take low paying jobs and get into the workforce. This
was from Tom Flanagan, another Reform adviser. This is truly
horrifying and I could circulate copies of the article to members
for their own information.
In the next day or so we will see the last little bit of
political mischief on the part of the Reform Party. We will see
those members go to the wall to do all they can to stop the
Nisga'a deal. They are forcing 450 and some odd votes tomorrow
night and will make us stand up for every vote. I liken it to
Custer's last stand. These great Indian fighters are going to
have one last stand. But let us look at history and what
happened at Custer's last stand. The Indian people won and they
will win tomorrow even if we have to stand up 500 times. I will
stand up 500 times. I do not care.
It has been very hard for me to sit in such close physical
proximity to the Reform Party members and hear them and their
outrageous comments for these past many months. As a member of
parliament from a riding with a huge aboriginal population, I for
one am sick of hearing it. The sooner this deal gets ratified,
voted on and implemented the better it will be for Canada and the
better it will be for all of us.
There is the myth that this particular deal will form the
template for all other subsequent land claim settlements. Again,
this is absolutely untrue. The Government of Canada has the
mandate under the constitution to enter into treaties of this
nature. The government is charged with that mandate. It
negotiates each individual contract based on the merits of the
claim.
The only thing I would criticize about the Nisga'a process is
that it took 100 years. There was nothing wrong with the
process. It was just spread out over too great a length of time.
If we could somehow compress that to a reasonable length of time
and keep that model of true negotiation and reaching a settlement
in an amicable, that is the most civilized way of doing business.
When we compare it to the alternative, which is violent struggle,
the most civilized way for resolving issues of this nature is at
the table, through collective bargaining and negotiation which is
really what occurred in this matter.
It is now up to us. We in the House have the privilege to vote
on this deal. I am very glad that I have the opportunity to vote
on this deal. This is the most significant thing I have been
asked to do since becoming an elected member of parliament. I
will be proud to stand up tomorrow and vote in favour of the
Nisga'a treaty.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very honoured to be speaking to Bill C-9, the Nisga'a
treaty. I would like to give the hon. members a description of
who the Nisga'a people are, where they live and how their land
claims agreement and the bill giving it effect have arrived here
for the consideration of the House.
The Nisga'a live along the Nass River in a relatively remote
area of northwestern British Columbia, 100 kilometres north of
Terrace and Prince Rupert.
1345
Other than the 2,500 Nisga'a who live in four villages along the
river and at its mouth, approximately 125 other permanent
residents occupy the 24,000 square kilometres of this valley. The
only communities in the Nass Valley are Nisga'a communities.
Like many other similar northern British Columbia rural areas,
forestry is by far the most important economic activity, although
fishing, ecotourism, pine mushroom harvesting and a few service
industries also contribute to employment. There are no mines or
mineral claims, nor other major industries on the proposed
Nisga'a land.
The Nisga'a who live in the Nass Valley are one cultural group
based among the northwest coast aboriginal people. They have a
complex culture based on the rich resources of the sea.
Historically, like other northwest coast people, the Nisga'a were
great artists, builders and crafts people. They still are and
their art graces the exteriors and interiors of many of the
buildings in their villages.
Salmon and the other resources of the Nass provide both food and
the raw material for Nisga'a architectural, artistic and social
achievements.
The Nisga'a live in large and beautifully built cedar post and
beam houses located in the permanent villages. They have built
ocean-going canoes, great totems, masks, horn spoons and many of
the implements of everyday life.
Here on the banks of the Ottawa River, Nisga'a artistic and
cultural achievements are on view in the Grand Hall of the Museum
of Civilization and in the recently mounted “Common Bowl”
exhibit. They can also be found in many of the world's museums.
Nisga'a artists are also well represented in the world's art
galleries.
Today about 2,500 of the 5,500 Nisga'a live in four villages:
Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon City and New Aiyansh. Most of the
other Nisga'a live in Terrace, Prince Rupert or Vancouver. Many
Nisga'a still speak their traditional language, although everyone
also speaks English.
Nisga'a villages have modern housing and infrastructure. The
schools and community buildings are in constant use to hold
Nisga'a social, cultural and ceremonial activities.
Although some of the Nisga'a share the difficulties common to
all aboriginal communities, such as high unemployment and family
breakdown, the Nisga'a have worked very hard to improve their
circumstances. A high value is placed on schooling and
post-secondary education. The Nisga'a operate their own
provincial school district, school district No. 92. It offers
kindergarten to grade 12 for both Nisga'a and other residents of
the Nass Valley. One seat on the elected school board is
reserved for a non-Nisga'a resident.
The Nisga'a also operate a post-secondary college in conjunction
with the University of Northern British Columbia. It offers
degree programs, life skills training, culture and language
programs.
They also operate their own health board and again provide for
non-Nisga'a representation.
Like other aboriginal people in Canada, the Nisga'a have
struggled with the effects of the reserve and Indian Act system,
residential schools and the lack of opportunities. However, they
have taken up every available opportunity to take over education,
health care, social and family services and other government
programs seeking wherever they could to strengthen their families
and communities.
They have also worked co-operatively with their neighbours. They
participate in regional district government where a Nisga'a
elder, Harry Nyce, who visited the House on the day this
legislation was introduced, sits on the board. They also have
for a number of years played a role in the Pacific Salmon
Commission and its northern panel.
The Nisga'a have pursued a settlement of what they describe as
the land question since at least 1887 when, as members of this
place have heard, Nisga'a chiefs first travelled to the
legislature in British Columbia to seek recognition of the
aboriginal title, a treaty settlement and a measure of
self-government. Their trip to Victoria was unsuccessful. In
1890 they established their first land committee and in 1913 that
committee sent a petition to the privy council in England seeking
to resolve the land question. Again, they were unsuccessful.
From the 1920s to the 1950s, the Nisga'a and other first
nations' efforts to have their rights recognized and practise
their culture were restricted.
Legislation outlawed traditional practices such as the potlatch
and made it illegal to raise money to advance land claims.
1350
Following repeal of this legislation in 1955, the Nisga'a
re-established their land committee. Under the leadership of Mr.
Frank Calder, the tribal council took the land question to the
courts. This was a bold decision and a mark of the Nisga'a
commitment to seek a resolution of their rights. Many other
first nations were concerned that this court case might be
unsuccessful, but in the face of unfavourable lower court
decisions, the Nisga'a pursued their case to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
In 1973, the supreme court issued the Calder decision. Although
the court split evenly on whether the Nisga'a continued to hold
aboriginal title, it recognized the possibility of aboriginal
rights and title continuing to exist in Canada. This decision was
a major factor in prompting the government of the day to adopt a
policy of negotiating land claims where they had not already been
settled in Canada.
The Nisga'a were one of earliest groups to take up negotiations
as part of this new process. They commenced in 1976. However,
without the participation of the Government of British Columbia,
progress on issues related to land could not be made. In 1990,
the provincial government joined the process, and after that the
pace of the negotiations began pick up.
Five years after signing an agreement on how to proceed with
negotiations, the two governments and the Nisga'a signed an
agreement in principle, which set out the main elements of the
agreement which is before us today. Two and a half years later,
the parties initialled the final agreement, a great achievement
and culmination of over 100 years of perseverance by the Nisga'a.
The members of the House have heard a good deal about the
consultations by the governments which accompanied the
negotiations, consultations which included resource and other
business interests, labour, local government and many interested
Canadians. What has not been said is how the Nisga'a consulted
with their own people throughout the negotiations. Every year
the Nisga'a negotiating team met with a special assembly of all
their members. These special assemblies were well attended and
included information sessions on every aspect of negotiations.
Strategies were reviewed and directions given to the negotiators.
Not only that, the Nisga'a brought many of their people, elders,
band councillors and others to observe negotiations and report
back to their communities. Prior to ratifying the final
agreement, they conducted extensive briefings in every one of
their communities and their Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver
urban locals, and they have also maintained an excellent website.
In these and many other ways, the Nisga'a negotiators have
provided detailed information to every interested Nisga'a person
on this proposed treaty.
In the face of this history, it is disturbing to hear from the
official opposition members that Nisga'a cannot know for
themselves whether this final agreement is good for them or not.
I think the history of the negotiations of the Nisga'a land
question shows very clearly that the Nisga'a are quite capable of
making up their own minds, as they have.
I will end by pointing out to all members of the House that in
the process of negotiating the land question, the Nisga'a
developed a philosophy they call the “common bowl”. The common
bowl is their pledge to work in concert to settle their claim and
to share among all their people the benefits of that settlement.
It is time the House moved forward in the ratification of the
final agreement. It is time for the Nisga'a to finally benefit
from their common bowl.
I am very honoured to be able to speak to the Nisga'a treaty. I
certainly urge all members to vote on the agreement because we
all know that the Nisga'a have decided that it is good for their
people.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1355
[English]
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was born, raised and still live on the family farm and, along
with my constituents, feel strongly about cruelty to animals.
Canadians across the country have joined animal welfare
organizations in condemning incidents of mistreatment of pets and
other animals. People are making it clear that they expect the
government to respond to the seriousness of this cruelty. Early
intervention is imperative.
Police studies confirm that the motivating factors of animal
abuse are related to anger, control and power. This is totally
unacceptable.
Therefore, specific changes to the criminal code should ensure
that we make it illegal to brutally treat or viciously kill an
animal, raise the maximum penalty for intentional cruelty, give
judges the authority to order anyone convicted of cruelty to
animals to pay restitution for shelter and veterinarian costs,
and finally, prohibit anyone convicted of cruelty to animals from
owning another animal.
We must and we will protect our animals from such heinous acts.
People all across Canada have indicated that they will not
tolerate cruelty to animals. Accordingly, the government will
act decisively in this matter.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general's report on the west coast fishery makes it
clear that the fishery is headed for disaster unless DFO makes
significant changes to improve the management and conservation of
Pacific salmon.
The auditor general raises serious concerns regarding DFO's
strategic planning record and calls for salmon management based
on sound science. He calls for improved data quality and changes
in reporting on the status of stock and habitat, and catch
reporting. He also calls for mandatory recovery plans on
threatened stocks and an independent allocation board for fish.
The situation is critical. The auditor general says that it may
be necessary for the fishery to close for five years to recoup
stocks unless immediate change is implemented.
Last week the fisheries minister denied the auditor general's
criticism. It is time for the minister to read the report and
face the facts. The minister must take control before Pacific
salmon disappear, much like the Atlantic cod.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
although all of us were affected by the tragedy at École
Polytechnique de Montréal, the real pain was, and always will be,
that felt by the families and friends of the victims.
We must salute the courage of all the men and women who are
working to break down the wall of indifference to violence.
This includes the courageous Heidi Rathjen, Wendy Cukier and
Suzanne Laplante-Edward who, through the Coalition for Gun
Control, made a major contribution to the passage of an act in
Canada aimed at doing away with violence.
Our appreciation goes out also to the Fondation de
Polytechnique, which offers help to those who have lost loved
ones and who would otherwise be left to cope alone with their
despair.
All of us can make a contribution to making our society a
healthier one by supporting activities in our community that are
focused on doing away with violence.
* * *
[English]
DIABETES
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
between one million and two million Canadians are affected by
diabetes and it exacts a serious toll on them and their families.
I know because it has had an impact on my family.
I applaud the Minister of Health's recent announcement that
funding to the Canadian diabetes strategy be increased by $60
million to $115 million over five years. These funds will help
inform Canadians, help prevent diabetes where possible and help
people better manage the disease and its complications.
There are approximately 60,000 new cases of diabetes diagnosed
in Canada each and every year. Approximately one-third of
persons with diabetes are undiagnosed.
There are two major types diabetes. Approximately 90% of people
with diabetes have type II diabetes which usually occurs after
age 40. Two major risk factors for type t are obesity and
inactivity, which are modifiable. The strategy will link with
healthy eating, nutrition and active living programs to deliver
messages and education to target audiences on how to eat better
and become more active. A sustained national focus on prevention
and public education will aim to reduce the costs and harm
associated with type II diabetes.
Congratulations to the minister for his foresight and strategy
of prevention.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
day after day the solicitor general gives us shallow,
unbelievable assurances that there is an internal investigation
by RCMP top brass into allegations of cover-up and criminal
misconduct in the Hong Kong visa scam, allegations levelled by
Corporal Read.
I have in hand a letter to Commissioner Murray dated February
11, 1998 from the RCMP Public Complaints Commission that details
Read's allegations. So we know that he has it.
Unfortunately, however, the only action since then has been an
attempt by Read's superiors to discredit him.
1400
The issue is the infiltration of organized crime into Canadian
society. The allegations include visas and citizenship for sale,
including the compromise of Canada's security system.
Read's allegations do not stand alone. There are binders full
of documents that cry out for an aggressive, independent
investigation, not just into the original Hong Kong complaint,
but the allegations of cover up in both the RCMP and CSIS.
The solicitor general must appoint a special prosecutor to
investigate these allegations.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago,
a woman-hating killer took the lives of 13 students and one
secretary at the École Polytechnique. Since then, the 13
have become the symbols of violence against women.
The President of the December 6 Victims Foundation Against
Violence, Claire Roberge, described the deaths of these women as
occurring on a battlefield they did not know existed, the
battlefield of equal opportunity. At that time, we thought that
battle had long been won, but it appears that nothing has been
gained.
It is a mistake to believe that the battle to combat violence
against women is over. Across this country, women and children
are still being killed by men.
In memory of these young victims, including Annie Turcotte, who
was from my riding, and of all women victims of violence, we
must not forget this tragedy. It must make us think about the
ways we can improve male-female relations.
* * *
[English]
ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 6, 1989, 14 women at École Polytechnique
were killed on a battlefield they did not know existed. They
were killed solely because they were women.
On the 10th anniversary of this tragedy each and every one of us
should recommit to work to end sexism and violence against women
and to effect real change.
The government has begun to work for change. We now have one of
the toughest gun control laws in the world. Intoxication as a
defence for violent crime has been eliminated, and this year we
have passed three key laws improving the rights of victims of
violent crimes, promoting personal security of women and children
and making the justice system more responsive to the needs of
those who experience violence.
This day gives us the opportunity to stop and think about those
14 young women as well as all women who live daily with the
threat of violence or have lost their lives as a result of
deliberate acts of violence. There is no way to make sense of
their deaths. Our duty is to make sure that these women did not
die in vain. The work to prevent another tragedy must continue.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE CLAUDE HARDY
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the world of sports in Quebec has just lost one of its foremost
representatives. Claude Hardy passed away yesterday as the
result of an illness he had fought valiantly to the end.
For 45 years, Claude Hardy worked in amateur sport. He was
first a national and international athlete in weightlifting, he
then became a trainer and later on he became a sport adviser.
He was formerly the head of the Quebec delegation to the Canada
Games. He was also a member of the Commonwealth Games
Association and of the Canadian Olympic Association, from which
he resigned following the delay in the decision on Quebec City's
application for the 2010 Olympics.
The Bloc Quebecois shares in the sadness of the family and
friends of Mr. Hardy and offers to them its sincere condolences.
* * *
FARÈS BOUEZ
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada-Lebanon parliamentary friendship group is
honoured to welcome to Ottawa and to parliament the new chair of
the Canada-Lebanon parliamentary group, Farès Bouez, a member of
the Lebanon national assembly representing Kesrouan.
Having spent a number of years as his country's minister of
foreign affairs, Mr. Bouez has solid political experience in his
own country and internationally.
In his meetings with our Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the
members of our friendship group and with the Canadian Lebanese
community, Mr. Bouez will stress the importance of strengthening
co-operation between our two countries, the importance of finding
a longstanding and fair solution to the situation in the middle
east and the importance of implementing UN resolution 425 on
Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon.
We welcome Mr. Bouez and wish him much success in this mission.
* * *
[English]
AMATEUR BOXING
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a serious injustice has occurred in this
great nation of ours which traditionally values the principle of
freedom of religion.
Pardeep Nagra, who is deeply involved in many community
associations, has had his liberty suppressed.
The Ontario and British Columbia Human Rights Commissions and
the Ontario superior court all agree that Pardeep has the right
to box in the national competition and should not be prevented
from doing so just because he is a bearded Sikh.
1405
I request that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport withhold
any funding to the Canadian Amateur Boxing Association
immediately as its rules are contrary to Canadian fundamental
freedoms.
* * *
VIOLENCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this 10th anniversary of the horrible and tragic murder of 14
young women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal compels all of
us again to work toward ending violence against each other.
Life is indeed our most precious gift from our Creator. What a
tragic thing it is whenever someone is out to get somebody else.
It might be inconceivable hatred against women or men. It might
be violence in our homes against moms, dads, spouses or our
children. It might be gang violence against young people in our
schools or parks. It might be criminal acts against our police
officers serving on our streets. Whenever the evil of violence
rears its ugly head we must repel it will all our might.
In memory of all those who have fallen as a result of violence
or who continue to live daily in its dark shadow, let each of us
rededicate ourselves today to attitudes and actions that will end
this curse and allow us to live free from evil.
* * *
VIOLENCE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is a day for Canadians to reflect on the pervasive problem
of violence against women in our society. There is a probability
that we each know someone who has either committed an act of
violence or is its victim.
Today we can ask ourselves: Have we identified this person or
persons in our lives? Have we taken the time to become aware of
violence, to recognize it when we see it? Have we listened to
what others say? Have we heard when they ask for help? Have we
acted to end violence? Have we changed our own ideas and
behaviours in ways that prevent violence and promote safety?
Each of us must take personal inventory of how we have
contributed to the public campaign to end violence against women
and to make the commitment to change our attitudes and actions in
the coming year. We must stand up to sexist and violent
behaviour.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre the local community will be
participating in a memorial to commemorate the 14 Canadian women
who lost their lives 10 years ago today. We must not forget this
anniversary and, as a society, we must take responsibility to
eliminate violence.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today all parties of the House stand in solidarity in
the fight to end male violence against women. Today we remember
the 14 people who were killed for being women. We also remember
the hundreds of women, young and old alike, across Canada who
have been hurt or killed.
Violence against women knows no boundaries. It affects women of
all regions of the country, of all cultures and all ages. Too
many women in this country live with some degree of fear in their
daily lives. Until women can live without fearing violence at
home and in our communities we have not achieved equality.
Yesterday in Montreal a monument was unveiled in memory of the
14 women killed at the École Polytechnique. The monument is
designed to present a shock wave to those who see it because
there are those who fear we are forgetting.
Today all of us in the House and all Canadians need to feel that
shock wave because 10 years after that violent tragedy violence
against women still exists. We must all renew the pledge made
eight years ago to remember and to act in solidarity and create
policies in the House that work toward ending the root causes of
violence against women.
* * *
[Translation]
ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY IN QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, the member for Rimouski—Mitis referred to
certain remarks I made as disgraceful.
What is disgraceful is the manner in which the PQ government has
always treated the anglophone community in Quebec. What is
disgraceful is that the PQ government has driven almost
one-quarter of the anglophone population out of the province.
Members of the BQ and the PQ are forever talking about
assimilation, but we have them to thank for a shameful example
of forced exodus.
Was Lucien Bouchard acting in good faith in 1988 when he
proposed the first Canada-Quebec agreement? Was he really acting
in good faith in his so-called reconciliation speech on March 11, 1996?
If so, it is never too late to keep his promise and to say yes
to anglophones and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Longueuil.
* * *
VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, December 6,
1989, is a date now engraved in our collective memory.
Ten years ago today, just after 5 p.m., a seriously disturbed
individual entered the École polytechnique and took the lives of
14 young women.
1410
Never before had Quebec witnessed such carnage and the reaction
to the killer's reasons, when they became known, was complete
shock. The only thing he held against these 14 victims was that
they were women seeking to practise a non-traditional profession.
One result of this terrible tragedy has clearly been that
society as a whole has taken a closer look at violence against
women. Unfortunately, violence still persists, but it is my
belief that awareness, education and law enforcement will help
reverse the trend. We must continue to repeat that violence is
unacceptable.
May the 14 victims of the tragedy at the Polytechnique never let
us forget.
Together, let us remember Geneviève, Annie, Hélène, Barbara,
Anne-Marie, Maud, Maryse, Annie, Sonia, Barbara, Anne-Marie,
Michèle, Maryse and Nathalie.
Today, let us take a moment to give special thought to all
victims of violence.
* * *
[English]
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, I remind Canadians
to be responsible and not to drink and drive this holiday season.
In Canada impaired driving is still the single largest criminal
cause of death and injury. Over 83,000 charges of impaired
driving are made each year in the country. On average, 4.5
Canadians are killed and over 125 injured daily in alcohol
related crashes.
Approximately 40% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
This is simply not acceptable in modern society. The price tag
for alcohol related accidents is estimated to be $7.2 billion
each year. This year I implore Canadians to step back and think
about the devastating consequences if they take the wheel under
the influence.
As we celebrate the holiday season, let us adopt MADD's
philosophies, adopt its ribbon campaign and tie one on for
safety.
* * *
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, congratulations to the University of Waterloo and its
co-op education program.
According to this year's Maclean's university issue, in
Canada the University of Waterloo pioneered experiential
learning. It developed the country's first co-op program in 1957
and has now become an innovative and global leader, with 9,000
students in 80 co-op programs in partnership with 2,500
employers.
Co-op education is the educational model that combines and
alternates formal academic learning in the classroom with
practical learning received on the job. This type of program has
nothing but winners. The students win since they get related
work experience and the employer gets an enthusiastic and
educated employee full of new ideas and a tremendous willingness
to work.
University of Waterloo co-op students are placed in each and
every province in the country and over 200 of them are employed
internationally each year. Co-op education has been adopted by
other Canadian universities and most high schools.
To all of the people involved in co-operative education in
Canada, I say “well done”.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 26 Mr. Dan
Edwards, a Ucluelet west coast fisherman, began a hunger strike
to protest the unwillingness of the federal government to
negotiate a fair and transparent process to deal with the 1999
Fraser River sockeye crisis.
This desperate action was initiated after two months of due
process when one of the largest alliances in the B.C. fishing
community tried to move the federal government to establish a
proper consultative process to deal with the disaster surrounding
the worst collapse of the Fraser River sockeye in its 100 years
of recorded history.
Mr. Edwards' concerns are consistent with the recent report of
the auditor general and they are consistent with native and
non-native fishermen in Nova Scotia. His concerns are founded on
the fundamental struggle to achieve a fair, inclusive and
accountable process for multi-stakeholder decision making.
The people in the communities he represents are already
suffering from massive unemployment, almost total
disenfranchisement from the nearby resources, and social and
economic infrastructure collapse. Much of it is caused by—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
suspension of WTO talks in Seattle represents a severe blow to
Canadian farmers demanding the elimination of export and domestic
subsidies.
Subsidies by countries like France, Korea and Japan have
dramatically lowered the world price of grain and devastated our
farmers. The U.S. anti-dumping laws also remain a crucial
barrier to farmers in western Canada. Talks scheduled to resume
at WTO headquarters in Geneva this January give our negotiators
one more chance to end the log jam. However, there is little
evidence to believe that anything immediate will occur.
It is time for Canada to take a leading role on this issue and
enter into tough bilateral negotiations with the United States
and partners in the Cairns group to force France, Korea and Japan
to open up their markets. The time has come for the government
to play hardball on behalf of Canadian farmers.
1415
The Speaker: We are going to do things a little
differently today because of the statements that will be made
after question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of a group of very talented
Canadians. They are the members of the world renowned National
Arts Centre Orchestra, under the leadership of Mr. Zucherman.
They are celebrating their 30th anniversary and we invited them
here to be with us today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Members wishing to meet with our guests
are invited to join us
in Room 216 after Oral Question Period.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently received a letter from a man whose family
immigrated to Canada many years ago. He wrote to object to the
Liberal government's high tax policies, which have confiscated
over a third of his income over the last 10 years despite the
fact that he is not in a high income bracket. He said that
before coming to Canada he lived under an oppressive communist
regime, but then he said—and these are his words, not
mine—“These days I am living under an oppressive Liberal tax
burden and at times I find it difficult to differentiate between
the two”.
Does the government not think it has gone too far when getting a
tax bill reminds immigrants of the wealth confiscating regimes
they have fled?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a result of Friday's numbers I will provide some
further quotes. A headline in the Globe and Mail of
December 4 read: “Good fiscal policy is now starting to pay for
all Canadians”. The Toronto-Dominion Bank was quoted as saying:
“The headline increase in new jobs conceals an even stronger
picture below the surface”. “All signs point to a further
decline in the unemployment rate”.
I am sure I will have the occasion to provide more citations in
the questions to follow.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister quotes newspapers and the banks. Why does
he not listen to what the taxpayers are saying?
Here is a letter from an oil patch worker in Alberta who said:
“I am working very long days away from my family just trying to
get a bit ahead while not seeing my four-year old baby girl or
wife for extended periods of time. I don't mind working hard or
the sacrifices for now, but I would like to keep more of my hard
earned money. My money is being stolen from me twice a month and
wasted on Liberal”—
The Speaker: Order, please. Notwithstanding the fact
that the word “stolen” is no doubt in the letter, I would
prefer that members not use words like that.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, that is the taxpayer's
sentiment.
Why does the government continue to hurt families by
confiscating so much of their hard earned income every month?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason the leader of the Reform Party quotes
Canadian taxpayers is because last month 60,000 new taxpayers
were created. In the last three months over 200,000 new
taxpayers were created. Since this government has taken office
close to two million new taxpayers have been created. That is
what is happening in this economy and we are going to keep on
doing it because they have jobs.
1420
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, now the finance minister is taking credit for creating
taxpayers.
I have another tax statement from a pensioner in Ontario. He
sent in his pension pay stub dated September 30, 1999. The total
federal tax he paid was $4,434. Last year for the same period he
paid $3,465. That is a $1,000 increase. His pension stayed the
same but his tax bill rose by that amount.
Why does the government hurt pensioners by clawing back so much
of their income each year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is ridiculous for the Reform Party to quote
pensioners because the fact is at the time that we were cutting
the deficit, the Reform Party said we were not cutting it early
enough. The Reform Party recommended that Canadian pensions be
cut. For the member to stand up now and talk about that is
simply nonsense.
We did not cut pensions. We will not cut pensions. That is the
basic difference between us and the Reform Party.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they have been cut already.
Bernard is another dissatisfied customer. He wrote, “Along
with my letter to the finance minister and the Prime Minister, I
enclosed a copy of our family budget to show exactly how
difficult it is. The response I got from the government was a
list of the dollars the Liberals have given to low income
families. I do not want charity. I do not want government
programs. I just want my money so I can choose what is best for
my family”.
Why does the finance minister hurt Bernard's family by
confiscating so much of his hard-earned money?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party knows that not only did we eliminate
the deficit two years before Reform said it would, but we cut
taxes three years before the Reform Party said it would cut
taxes. Those are the facts. I understand why Reform members want
to quote pay stubs. The reason is after the next election there
will be a lot less of them collecting paycheques.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at least we are not collecting pensions like some others.
The government's taxation tentacles are unable to reach the
finance minister in Liberia but by Jove, they are reaching John
in Oshawa. Fifty-three per cent of John's income was gobbled up
by the tax man. To put that another way, the government made more
from John's work than he did. Let me quote John and ask, “Why is
the government entitled to more of my money than I am?” How
could that be?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Reform Party just cannot live with good
news. The fact is that taxes are going down. The national debt
is going down. Taxes are going down and the national
unemployment rate is at its lowest level in the last 18 or 19
years. The real problem is they just cannot stand good news.
And there is a lot more of it coming.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the papers, the government will be going ahead with
a constitutional amendment with the province of Newfoundland to
change the name of the province to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Will the Prime Minister confirm in this House his government's
intention to make this constitutional change?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
April the Newfoundland House of Assembly sent to us here in
parliament a resolution it had approved unanimously, asking us
to make a constitutional change, which requires that a
resolution be introduced in the House of Commons.
The government has not yet found the time to do so, but I know
that we will do it one day, just as we changed the constitution
to help the education system in Quebec and as we changed the
constitution recently in connection with the school system in
Newfoundland.
When the changes are bilateral, the government usually acts, but
it is not a priority at the moment.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
question arises after last week's announcement by the Prime
Minister of his intention to control the rules of another
referendum in Quebec by questioning the rule of 50% plus one.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why he is going after Quebec so
deliberately at the end of this session?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some like to be victims.
I have just said the Newfoundland House of Assembly has asked us
to act. We are not talking about the federal government. We
acted a few months ago for the Government of Quebec when we
resolved a constitutional problem that had existed, I believe,
for 50 years. We do this from time to time.
The Premier of Quebec was advised by Mr. Tobin a few months ago.
In the documents that Quebec and Newfoundland have signed in
recent years, Premier Tobin has always insisted on having
Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Bouchard has always signed
the documents.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
stirring things up by threatening Quebec with changing the 50%
plus one vote rule, the Prime Minister is adding fuel to the
fire by bringing up the issue of Labrador, knowing full well the
political dispute that exists between Quebec and Newfoundland.
Is the Prime Minister not once again indicating that the true
objective of his actions is to stir up confrontation and discord
with Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the astonishment of the Premier of Quebec is a source
of astonishment to us.
As the Premier of Newfoundland has confirmed in a statement, he
has kept the Premier of Quebec informed throughout the entire
process, which began last April.
What is astonishing is why the Premier of Quebec yesterday
complained of provocation and why he is making a huge fuss about
something he was already totally aware of. That is what is
astonishing.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
is astonishing is that this resolution was passed April 27, not
referred to in the throne speech, and now turns up in this House
when there is a dispute over the referendum.
With his desire to stir up confrontation and discord, is the
Prime Minister not showing that he plans to win the next
election at the expense of Quebec, by winning over votes in the
west, and now in the east as well?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the resolution is not before the House. They are the
ones bringing this up. It is not before the House at this time.
The Prime Minister has said that we have other priorities for
the moment.
Why then all these theatrics? And, an even more fundamental
question, why are they always looking for trouble? Why are they
always questioning motives—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Why are they always questioning motives?
Could not the request made by the Government of Newfoundland and
the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, unanimously, be judged on
its merits, without attempting to stir up trouble between the
two provinces?
This is an internal Newfoundland matter. It should not be
perceived as a threat by anyone.
This could be discussed calmly, it seems to me.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
I would like to welcome him back from the battle in Seattle. I
hope that the only walls he has to climb from now on are the
walls he has erected in his own mind preventing him from being
more critical of the WTO.
In that respect, I want to ask him why it was, in respect of the
text that was being developed on services—of course, there was
no final text—but in the text that was being developed before
the meeting, we now have proof that Canada was asking for shorter
and less precise language and wanting to suppress certain
language because of the sensitivities of cultural industries at
home. Why was Canada, given the rhetoric on transparency,
conspiring to hide its position?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my thanks
to the Canadian delegation for its extraordinary contribution at
the WTO ministerial conference last week. I want to thank my
provincial colleagues who accompanied us.
We benefited a great deal from their advice. I was extremely
pleased that the Canadian delegation engaged in a very healthy
dialogue with the NGOs.
1430
As for the question on services, Canada did exactly what it said
it would do, it did not take up on health and education.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a memo from David Hartridge, the director of WTO
services, in which he refers to the fact that Canada along with
the EU asked for the suppression of certain language and for
shorter and less precise language in order to respond to cultural
sensitivities at home.
Perhaps the minister could explain what these cultural
sensitivities were. Why, given all the rhetoric about
transparency, was Canada attempting to suppress the reality of
what was being agreed to in this text?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what memo the member is
referring to.
I can say that Canada stands for transparency. We believe in
transparency. Of the 135 delegations in Seattle, the one that
most engaged in a dialogue with the NGOs was the Canadian one.
We engaged in a dialogue with the provincial ministers.
On services we will fight for a bottom up approach as we said.
The services we do not want to take we will not take up. That is
what Canada did. I am extremely proud of Canada's engagement in
Seattle last week.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, France
has been granted drilling rights on the Laurentian sub-basin,
costing jobs and benefits for Atlantic Canadians. This occurred
because the Liberal government poured cold water on the
negotiation of an interim arrangement between the provinces of
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to allow drilling in Canadian
territory.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources assure this House that he
will allow an interim arrangement to be negotiated between Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland so that the benefits of this resource go
to Canadians first?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the dispute that exists with respect to the offshore
boundary between two particular Atlantic provinces is a matter
that is entirely within the control of those two provinces to
resolve.
It has become evident over the last number of months that they
are not in a position to resolve that matter. Accordingly, I
have appointed my own official agent to work with them to see if
there is a way to resolve this matter. Failing that, the
Government of Canada will put the matter to arbitration in order
to ensure that Canadians can enjoy the benefits of those
resources at the earliest possible time.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
federal negotiator needs to work harder.
On September 3 the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Minister
of Natural Resources to express his disappointment with the
federal government's decision on this issue. Last year the
premier of Newfoundland and Labrador expressed his willingness to
co-operate. Everyone wants to co-operate except the federal
Liberals.
How many jobs and economic benefits need to go to France before
the minister drops this Ottawa knows best attitude and allows an
interim arrangement to proceed?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the questioner refers to the rhetorical positions that
have been taken by certain provincial governments indicating a
willingness to resolve all matters. Quite frankly, if that
willingness were there, they would have resolved it a long time
ago.
It is because the provinces have not been able to resolve their
differences that the Government of Canada has become involved in
order to find a settlement so that this matter can be resolved at
the earliest possible date. The Government of Canada is not
delaying this matter. The delay rests with the provinces
involved.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian farmers' worst fears were realized at the WTO
talks in Seattle. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
failed to get any movement on foreign subsidies. Even the
Minister for International Trade has been quoted as saying that
there was a lack of leadership at those talks.
Now that the minister has failed at the WTO, what is he going to
do to help farmers suffering from foreign subsidies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his
presence in Seattle last week and for his input in discussions,
along with those of a number of other MPs, members of provincial
legislatures, and the farm and industry organization
representatives that were there.
I am sure the hon. member has seen the text and if not, it is
available to him, where it was frozen when the talks were
suspended.
There was a clear reference in that to the elimination of export
subsidies. Unfortunately some of the countries could not agree
to that and we did not get it. But it certainly was not because
Canada was not pushing for it.
1435
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government seems to be saying “We tried. Better
luck next time”. This does not help farmers who cannot afford
to wait for the deadlocked WTO talks to succeed.
Given the failure in Seattle, Canada must pursue bilateral
agreements on agriculture and provide urgently needed short term
assistance. Will the Prime Minister immediately enter into
negotiations with the members of the Cairns group and the U.S. to
create a trading zone free of agriculture subsidies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member does not
understand what happened last week.
It was very clear last week that the Cairns group, of which
Canada is a very important and key member, and the United States
stood firm and stood together in the six hour marathon
negotiations on agriculture. Unfortunately the European Union
could not agree after it went back to consult with its member
states. It was not because we caved in. It was because they
could not and refused to come our way.
* * *
[Translation]
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I tabled
in this House a motion calling for the creation of a special
committee to look into the effects of globalization on social
cohesiveness.
My question, which involves a number of departments, will
therefore be directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime
Minister not believe that he must set an example and establish
this parliamentary committee as quickly as possible?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
consideration of private members' business in the House of
Commons is decided by a free vote in this House. This position
was adopted by our government in 1993.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so long
as parliament does not play its democratic role, more and more
people will be trying to debate the issue in any way possible,
including in the streets.
Why is the Prime Minister not assuming leadership, calling on
parliamentarians and establishing a dialogue with the public to
permit a debate on the social impact of globalization?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean for his considerable concern about globalization
and its effect on social cohesiveness.
I can tell him that we are very attuned to these concerns and
that, last week in Seattle, Canada strongly supported a concept
of cohesiveness so that trade policies would reflect labour
standards and environmental issues and so that they would all be
more closely related.
I can tell him that, as far as Canada is concerned, we will
continue to work very closely with the NGOs and with the
business community to make sure we humanize globalization. We
will also continue to support cultural diversity, which is very
important.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general has assured the House that the RCMP are
looking into allegations of corruption in the Hong Kong visa
office and allegations of cover-up in the RCMP investigation.
I have an RCMP briefing note which says the investigation was to
be concluded in October. This being December 6, I would like to
know what is the truth. Is the solicitor general being kept in
the dark by his officials again? Is he sitting on the report? Or
did the police get results they did not like?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two investigations taking
place. There is a criminal investigation taking place on which I
will not receive a report. There is an internal investigation on
which I will receive a report.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a question of confidence on the part of Canadians. I read
from the briefing note “With respect to the other allegations
pertaining to CAIPS and corruption, our investigation is in its
final stages and is expected to be concluded this October”.
I repeat my question. This being December 6, the RCMP said it
would be reporting on this in October. Has the minister received
the report, yes or no? What is holding things up? How can we
have any confidence in this minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I have to wait for the
report. The report has not been sent to me. The RCMP has senior
members of the force conducting the investigation. When they
complete the investigation, I will receive a report.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general is asking the government to increase the transparency of
the criteria used for determining contribution rates and that of
the surplus in the employment insurance fund as well.
1440
My question is for the Minister of Finance. In response to
the repeated requests from the auditor general, what does the
minister intend to do with respect to the employment insurance
criteria, since the lack of transparency has reduced parliament
and the public to having to speculate on what factors lie behind
decisions made relating to the employment insurance program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
method used is totally transparent. In fact, this year, like
last year, the commission has made recommendations, which the
Minister of Human Resources Development and myself have followed
to the letter.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
process is all that transparent, why is the auditor general
repeating year after year that it lacks transparency?
Can the minister confirm, as I think he just has, that he has
decided to ignore the auditor general's recommendations and to
continue to accumulate surpluses in the fund, without being
accountable for its administration?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are following the recommendations of the auditor general.
In 1986, the auditor general asked the previous government to
put these funds in the government's consolidated revenue fund,
and that is exactly what we are doing.
* * *
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or his
parliamentary secretary.
Last night on national TV the minister stated that he would be
proposing more regulations to govern the monopoly airline.
Rather than more regulations, why will the transport minister not
protect consumers by opening up the industry to more competition?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a clear
image of the kind of proposal that the Minister of Transport has
made, that is, the five principles of the policy framework that
were introduced here October 26, the very same principles that
you and I and other hon. members have been dealing with on the
transport committee ever since.
The Speaker: I remind members to please address their
answers to the Chair.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night, also on television, the transport
minister was proposing a watchdog group or watchdog agency to
oversee this new monopoly airline.
The minister should know that consumers make the best watchdogs.
Why does the minister not create an environment for competition
in the airlines instead and we would have better service and
lower prices?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as competition is
concerned, the guidelines that have been followed by the
transport committee are being adhered to.
We will see legislation early in the new year. The five
principles of the policy framework will be adhered to.
Competition is a very key factor. We have the Competition
Bureau, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the House of Commons
and all the members who will address some of these issues.
* * *
[Translation]
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
June, the Minister of Finance responded to the MacKay report on
the reform of financial institutions by promising a series of
bills to strengthen his positions in the fall.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether these bills will
address the issue of the ownership of small and medium cap
banks, and when he intends to introduce them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
answer to the first question is yes, with respect to chartered
banks, and to the second, as soon as possible.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
any given night between 800 and 1,100 people seek shelter in my
riding of Scarborough East because they are homeless.
Approximately 400 are refugee claimants.
There is an enormous burden on my community, the food banks, the
shelters, the schools and churches. Frankly, my community is
suffering from compassion fatigue. After 10 years of coping, my
community is turning to the federal government.
Can the minister of immigration tell the House about any new
initiatives which will help with the number of refugee claimants
relying on municipal health and housing services?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member's interest and
advocacy on behalf of his riding.
1445
The government is committed to ensuring that newcomers have the
access to the essential services that they need as quickly as
possible. As a result, a pilot project in Ontario has been
started.
As of December 1, all refugee claimants will receive
documentation at the ports of entry. This should ensure and
speed access to the important public services that they need, be
they the federal interim health plan, rental housing or other
social services.
This is good for refugee claimants. It is also good for the
people in our municipalities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is a template for all future
settlements in British Columbia. That is a quote from the then
premier of British Columbia who signed on behalf of the NDP
government.
Recently, at a standing committee on aboriginal affairs meeting,
the minister admitted that there are flaws in the agreement but
that he will not accept amendments.
Why is the minister allowing this precedent setting treaty to go
through unamended when he acknowledges there are problems with
it?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged no such
thing and it is not a template.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, those are the words of the premier of British Columbia.
Let us go to the words of Liberal cabinet ministers. The
Secretary of State for the Status of Women acknowledged that
there are in fact problems in the Nisga'a treaty regarding the
absence of rights for women. On Friday, the minister also agreed
with her that the rights of women are left out of the agreement.
Why is he in such a rush to shut down debate on a treaty that
does not ensure the rights of Nisga'a women?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there he goes
again. If he had read the agreement he would know that I did not
say that.
I said that the Nisga'a agreement is outside the Indian Act
and therefore the provincial law as it relates to women applies
in the same way as it does to other women in British Columbia.
What I also said was that the Indian Act is silent on women's
rights and it is an issue we will be dealing with. I wish the
member would get his facts right.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the thalidomide situation in Canada brought to our
attention in tragic terms the inadequacy of our health protection
system.
In order that the experience never be repeated again, the health
protection branch was set up under the auspices of the Food and
Drugs Act to ensure that only drugs that have been proven safe and
effective could be sold in Canada.
Now we learn that the government has not only shut down its drug
research lab but it is allowing drugs on to the market that do not
meet the basic standards of safety and efficacy.
Can the minister assure Canadians that any new drugs allowed
on to the market will not be approved at the expense of—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in May 1998 Health Canada approved a new policy for approving
drugs for the treatment of serious, life threatening diseases
where there is promising evidence that the potential benefits of
the drug outweigh its risks, where the risks can be monitored and
where the company agrees to continue to study the drug.
This policy was developed to help those who are seriously ill
and dying. It is about compassion, and we make no apologies for
that. I observe as well that the drug referred to in the report
today has already been approved in 30 countries around the world.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the issue we are raising today is not compassion. The
minister already has the ability to allow drugs for emergency
access relief or to speed up his own drug approval process and
still operate within the law and according to safety standards.
The question is, why does the minister proceed with a policy
without any basis in law and without meeting safety standards?
Where are the regulations that he promised in April 1998 when he
unilaterally and arbitrarily changed the law or, in the words of
his own staff, where is the legal opinion to show that this
government is operating according to the spirit and the letter of
the Food and Drugs Act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it sometimes occurs that there are new drugs under consideration
that might help those who are dying or are very seriously ill.
If the conclusion is reached that the benefits of those drugs
outweigh their risks, where the company that is proposing it
agrees to continue studying it and we monitor the performance of
that drug, then is the member saying that she would deny access
to that drug to those who might otherwise die? Would she turn
them down when these drugs might improve their condition or
indeed even save their lives?
That is at the basis of this policy.
* * *
1450
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
well over a year ago, the Minister of Public Works knew that four
out of five untendered government contracts failed to meet the
criteria for sole sourcing. This year the auditor general said
that over 90% of untendered contracts do not meet the
government's own rules and will not even stand up to public
scrutiny.
My question is very simple. Why did the minister not fix the
problem?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the
hon. member said, if he reads the auditor general's report he
will see that the auditor general congratulated us for the way in
which we handle publicly tendered contracts. For example, we
handled a major publicly tendered contract for maintenance. All
federally owned buildings are now being maintained by the private
sector. This was done with absolute transparency. The member
should read the auditor general's report.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general congratulated the government for one contract
out of four. The auditor general said that over $1 billion in
contracts are handed out each year without tender and with no
justification. In the 1993 red book the Liberals promised to cut
sole source contracts, but instead they are skyrocketing.
When will the minister follow his own department's rules and put
an end to this abuse of the public purse?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we have been
in government the number of contracts given by public tender
have increased drastically. Over 80% of the contracts have been
given through the public tender system.
Because of decentralization, some of the smaller contracts in a
department are direct and some may be given on a sole source
basis or call-up source. However, the policy is there and we are
definitely implementing it.
* * *
VIOLENCE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was 10 years ago that Canada was stunned by the senseless,
violent murder of 14 of our most promising young women.
My question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women. What has the government done since then to prevent
tragedies such as the Montreal massacre and the ongoing violence
in women's daily lives here in Canada?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that was an extremely good
question and I want to thank the hon. member.
[Translation]
The government has taken a number of initiatives specifically
targeting violence against women. These include many important
criminal law reforms.
[English]
These include the gun control act, the witness protection
program, the SIN de-linking and the laws that strengthen
anti-stalking initiatives.
[Translation]
We know that legislation alone will not change society.
[English]
We have a $32 million initiative each year for crime prevention
that specifically targets women and girls.
* * *
GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Christmas season is coming a little early in the Prime Minister's
riding this year. Old Saint Nick has dropped another $2.28
million in grants and no interest loans into the riding of
Saint-Maurice. It reminds us of the headline in the Montreal
Gazette during the 1993 campaign that said “I'm Santa
Claus, promises the Prime Minister”.
Does the Prime Minister even check out who is naughty and
who is nice or do the grants just go to his riding because
it is in his riding?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, I am very happy
that the entrepreneurs in the riding are putting forward programs
that qualify and that unemployment is going down. It is an area
where unemployment is very high, well above others. As the
member of parliament, I am happy when entrepreneurs in my riding
take initiatives for which the federal, provincial and municipal
governments can help them.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is major concern in several areas of Quebec following the
suspension of InterCanadian's operations. Stakeholders are
worried about the potential negative effects on regional
carriers and the economic impact Air Canada's monopoly will have
on fares, and on frequency and quality of service.
My question is for the secretary of state responsible for the
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the region of Quebec.
Can he reassure the House that he will do everything in his
power to ensure that Air Canada signs agreements with all the
regional carriers, including InterCanadian, so that regional air
transportation continues to be competitive?
1455
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be very
pleased to know that yesterday, Sunday, while many of us were
lulling around, our Minister of Transport and the Quebec minister
of transportation were seriously discussing the situation
regarding regional carriers in Quebec, especially InterCanadian.
I am letting the opposition know that our minister has
reiterated his commitment to assist the InterCanadian employees
by asking the Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general
who will be aware that two constituents in British Columbia were
recently swindled out of $700,000 in a very clear stock market
scam.
The spokesperson for the RCMP in E Division, Peter Montague,
wrote to my constituents saying “You have a valid complaint but
due to the shortage of resources in the RCMP, we regret we are
unable to continue with your investigation”. That was followed
up by a letter from Phil Murray, the commissioner of the RCMP,
who essentially agrees by saying “The current RCMP's position
workload makes it difficult to investigate your complaint
further”.
My question is—
The Speaker: I think the solicitor general has the idea,
if he would like to address the preamble.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought this
information forward before. He is well aware that the RCMP
investigates those situations.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, at
the dawn of the third millennium immigrants and refugees still
pay a head tax of close to $1,000. In 1997, the now Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, a seemingly more compassionate and
understanding man back then, put forth a private member's bill to
eliminate this financial burden on destitute refugees.
Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with the
support of the fisheries minister, been able to convince cabinet
to remove this unnecessary debt on newcomers to Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no head tax in Canada today.
What the member is referring to was a dark day in Canadian
history when there was a head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants
to this country. That has long since been gone.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many Canadians are very concerned about the protection of our
children. Canadians want strong, no tolerance laws against child
pornography and we want proactive safety checks for those who
teach, care for and lead our children.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
please explain what is being to make sure our children are safe?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is committed to our children. When this
horrendous decision came down we quickly sought intervener status
to go before the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court of Canada.
This has limited application. It applies only in one province.
In nine provinces and three territories, the law is fully
enforced. Investigations and prosecutions go on.
I also point out that the other provisions of child pornography,
such as production, distribution, importation and sale are still
illegal in all provinces of Canada. The government stands firmly
against child pornography.
* * *
GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a follow up question for the member for St. Nick or
Saint-Maurice.
He says that he really is not Santa Claus, although he said as
much in the 1993 campaign. Maybe he will remember this quote.
When the Prime Minister was campaigning at that time he said
“When a dossier from Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet minister's
desk, need I say any more?”
It appears to be working. I wonder though, instead of just
looking after the unemployment in his riding, why does he not
give tax breaks so that all Canadians can get back to work and
get a tax break this Christmas.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are doing that and at the same time unemployment is
going down. It is at its lowest since 1981. Two million jobs
have been created since we formed the government just six years
ago. At the same time, the people of Saint-Maurice are very
happy with their member of parliament.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
CHIAPAS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
international civilian commission observing human rights reminds
the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the situation in Chiapas is
deteriorating increasingly.
The Mexican government is continuing, according to foreign
observers, to seriously infringe on human rights and manifestly
lacks the political will to reach a peaceful solution.
Can the minister tell us what specific action he intends to take
to bring Mexico, one of Canada's principal trading partners,
back in line?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon I will be meeting with a civic group
from Quebec on this subject, and I would like to get a
commitment, particularly from this group. After the meeting, I
will share the information I receive with members.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TRAGEDY AT ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are gathered here today in the memory of 14 young women who
should be getting ready to celebrate a new millennium with us.
They should be feeling the pride of building promising careers.
They should be starting new families. But they will be enjoying
none of these personal milestones.
Why? Because fate, tragically, chose otherwise. Because they
were women, and because they were in the wrong place on December
6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal.
Time stood still in Canada on that day. For the families and
friends of the 14 who were taken by this act of insane rage it
has never fully started again.
[English]
It is true that we learned something from this horror. We had
to acknowledge that these murders revealed, as never before in
Canada, the terrible reality of violence against women. And we
took action with one of the toughest gun control laws in the
world and by making the justice system more responsive to the
needs of women who experience violence.
But the cold fact is that nothing we have done, or will do, can
ever bring back those young lives. That is why my thoughts today
are first and foremost with their families and loved ones who
have graciously allowed us to share in their private grief in
this very public way. Today we join them in reflecting what
might have been but never will be.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to join with the Prime Minister and other members
to remember the victims of that tragic day 10 years ago.
On that day 14 promising young women lost their lives in a
malevolent outburst of violence by a man with a gun.
[Translation]
I offer my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of these
young women and to the young women who were wounded in this
tragedy.
I do so on behalf of all the members of the official opposition.
1505
[English]
My wife Sandra and I have raised five children in our home.
They are now young adults, two young men and three young women.
On the day this tragedy occurred two of our daughters were
attending classes at the University of Alberta. As a parent,
your heart sinks when you even hear about things like this and
your mind races to two questions: How safe are our daughters,
any of our daughters, from similar acts of violence? And, what
can we do as parents, what in particular should we be teaching or
providing at home in order to protect our children from violence,
in particular violence directed toward women?
Later the news came out concerning the young man who had
perpetrated these terrible acts, of the troubled life and
background from which grew his pathological hatred of women. I
found myself asking a third question of particular relevance to
parents with boys at home: What can we do as parents, what in
particular should we be teaching or providing our young men at
home in order to deal with attitudes or conditions that might
lead them to disrespect or discriminate against or to verbally or
physically abuse anyone, but in particular those of the opposite
sex?
All three of those questions are as relevant today as they were
on this day 10 years ago. They demand responses particularly in
our homes and personal relations where the attitudes of young men
toward women and vice versa are shaped far more than they are by
public policy.
Perhaps today the greatest tribute we can pay to those victims
whom we remember and honour today would be to rededicate
ourselves not just as legislators but as parents, grandparents,
aunts and uncles to the prevention of violence in our society and
in our homes, in particular the violence of men toward women
epitomized by the tragedy of December 6, 1989.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 10
years ago, 14 young women paid with their lives for the
frustrations of a mad gunman.
Quebec society had considered itself sheltered from such things,
but it learned to its sorrow that the culture of violence was
still far too present in our everyday lives. Unfortunately,
that lesson was learned at the cost of 14 innocent lives.
Lessons have been learned, yes, but the situation is still very
precarious. Since December 6, 1989, 858 women have fallen
victim to family violence in Quebec and Canada. In 1998 alone,
there were 67 such tragic deaths.
Although the homicide figures may now be dropping, the number of
women using shelters for abused women is constantly on the rise.
This is proof that we, as a society and as individuals, must
continue to fight against violence, particularly violence
against women.
But what have we done to make violence toward women
unacceptable? Not enough. We obviously still have a long way
to go.
We must keep up the fight so that women will be able to feel
secure and no longer afraid. We must stop seeing violence as
commonplace.
Sadly, December 6, 1989 was not an isolated example. Every day,
women are being battered, being hurt by partners, other family
members, or people they work with.
Let us, as a society, examine our consciences and take action
against the violence we see on our television screens every day.
Let us denounce violence in our schools, in our media, in our
day-to-day lives. Let us condemn violence. Let us act to teach
respect, tolerance and fairness.
I call upon the federal government to organize a violence
awareness campaign. The cuts it has imposed on women's groups
are aberrant, when one considers that this affects the safety of
the women of Quebec and of Canada. These decisions must be
re-examined for the safety of societies in Quebec and in Canada.
To the parents and friends of the 14 women killed at École
Polytechnique, I express my sympathies, and those of all members
of the Bloc Quebecois. We share the memory of that terrible
day, and it will remain with us for a long time.
Let us ensure that the 14 did not die in vain. Let us keep
their memory fresh to galvanize our actions.
1510
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, following the unthinkable tragedy in Montreal 10 years
ago today, Dawn Black, then NDP member of parliament for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby dedicated her energy to the
passing of the bill that would ensure that the people of Canada
would never forget and would be active in any violence against
women.
Women who are victims of violence are left with lifelong
physical and emotional scars. The remembrance ceremonies in
communities across the country serve to highlight the fact that
for some women the physical scars may heal while the emotional
scars that violence leaves on these women will take a lifetime to
mend and will require change in our society.
The tragedy in Montreal only heightened our fear. Women's
groups today have called again for a funding commitment to the
women of Canada aimed at curbing violence against women. A
commitment from the government would be a fitting memorial to all
of the women of Canada who have been victims of violence and it
would be a promise for change.
Today we must reaffirm and recommit ourselves to the essence of
Dawn Black's private member's bill that named December 6 as the
day of remembrance and action on violence against women. We
cannot stop now. We must counteract the feeling of vulnerability
and insecurity that women face which hit the Canadian public like
a shock wave 10 years ago today. As a society, we must not only
be intolerant but stand united in addressing the causes of
violence against women so that women feel safe in their daily
lives.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today with tears in my eyes and a heavy heart, as I am sure many
of our colleagues in the House also do today, for 10 years ago
Canada was changed. We in this country have always been blessed
with the ability to say that we live in a nation better than all
others.
Ten years ago one man armed with his hatred forced us to view a
darker version of ourselves, a Canada no different than the
foreign societies we fear. He did this by taking from us the
lives of 14 young beautiful women in their prime from our own
backyard. It defined us as a country that no longer has to look
outside its borders to find an example of malicious and senseless
violence.
It changed us as a people. We could no longer say that horrors
such as these did not happen in our Canada. Although I did not
know these brave little souls, I came to know of their innocence
and their courage. We as a country came to know them to be no
different from our daughters, our sisters, our neighbours and our
friends.
We remember them not only as the only victims of violence
against women, but as those whose story was so tragic that it
forced the nation to turn its attention to the violent cruelty
faced by women across the land at the hands of others.
It is not enough to merely remember these brave women and mourn
their loss, without taking the steps necessary to ensure that a
horror of this kind does not take place again.
Today across the country the spirit of these young women will
serve as a call to action. Whether from Saint John, Saskatoon,
Medicine Hat or Montreal, Canadians will stand together and
condemn violence against women. They will gather to pray and to
comfort. They will gather to harness strength and initiative.
They will acknowledge the good that has been done in the name of
those slain and focus on the challenges that lie before us.
On behalf of the Right Hon. Joe Clark, our leader of the PC
Party of Canada, and all of our colleagues in the House, we wish
to convey our deepest, heartfelt sympathies, unchanged by the
passage of time to the families and loved ones of the 14 women.
They will, as will their families, remain in our hearts, our
thoughts and our prayers always, en souvenir de leurs vies.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in memory of the 14 young
Canadian women who were murdered, would you please stand with me
for one minute's silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
signed by tens of thousands of Canadians.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to take
appropriate steps to enhance the cultural industries of Canada,
particularly the growing film industry. They lay out a number of
recommendations for the government to consider. The petitioners
are calling upon the government to take appropriate action to
give strength to our dynamic cultural sector.
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today I take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by
many concerned Canadians mostly from the province of Quebec.
These petitioners ask for the 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 the government to enact only legislation that affirms the
equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.
CHILD CUSTODY
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to
present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents as well
as people from Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Zehner, Saskatchewan, Lake
Lenore, Moose Jaw, Sintaluta, Saskatoon, Green Lake, La Loche,
Prince Albert, Kelowna, Yorkton and other parts of the country.
These people are very concerned. They are asking the House of
Commons on behalf of children of separation and divorce that no
parent should ever lose legal custody of their child or children,
or by legal process be denied equal time shared parenting to
maintain a meaningful relationship with their child or children
unless found by due process to be unfit under the laws of Canada.
1520
The petitioners also believe that no parent should be allowed to
obstruct the child's relationship with the other parent or with
other close family members, unless that other parent or family
member has been found by due process to be unfit under the laws
of Canada.
Finally, they believe that adversarial procedures should be
avoided in favour of more co-operative approaches to divorce,
such as mediation and education on co-parenting.
They are asking the House of Commons to pass legislation
incorporating these rights of children and principles of equity
between and among parents.
MANITOBA WATERWAYS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from residents of my
riding of Selkirk—Interlake.
They are concerned that the dredging that has been discontinued
by the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard and public
works on our navigable waters of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg
is seriously hampering both commercial fishing and pleasure
boating. As a result, these 900 plus petitioners would like the
federal government to reinstate dredging on the Red River and
Lake Winnipeg and the harbours associated with these waterways,
which will help Manitobans to a great extent.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 22 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 22—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
For each of the fiscal years from 1994 to 1998 inclusively, and
with respect to French language broadcasting stations operating
outside Quebec and English language broadcasting stations
operating within Quebec, what has the government determined to
be: (a) the total amount of federal tax dollars spent in each
province to provide these services; and (b) the total amount of
advertising revenue generated by each of these stations?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): The government provides the CBC with a
parliamentary appropriation to provide a national public
television and radio broadcasting service for all Canadians in
both official languages. This service is primarily Canadian in
content and character.
As a crown corporation operating independently from government,
the CBC is not required to provide details of its annual revenues
and expenditures beyond those which are contained in its audited
financial statements of its annual reports.
The following financial information on expenditures and revenues
for fiscal years 1994-95 to 1998-99 is contained in the CBC's
annual report.
Annex A describes total expenditures for CBC English and French
services before taxes and Annex B describes revenues.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I wish to inform the
House that because of the ministerial statement, Government
Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
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 the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise again today. It is
probably the lowest point in parliament so far.
We are talking about the Nisga'a agreement and the amendments to
it at report stage. The NDP and the Liberals would like to
muzzle Reform. They have said so previously in the debate. The
Liberals used the phrase “the Canadian way” and it became
obvious as we listened that it is really the Liberal way that
they were talking about.
I cannot figure out why closure is being invoked on this bill.
Is it because the public might raise concerns, or that the
concerns with the bill might become more public and opposition to
it would continue to grow across Canada, the same kind of
opposition that is now present within B.C. among the majority of
the people there?
All the people of B.C. have not had input. I have heard one of
the members from Vancouver talk about all the consultation and
meetings that have been held. The problem is the people of B.C.
in their majority have not been allowed to address all of the
concerns they have.
One of the Liberals who spoke said he voted but with an
expressed caveat. He had reservations about this. What a joke.
What a joke to say, “I am going to vote yes to this agreement”.
Does that member think that the minister of Indian affairs will
listen once the vote is over, that anybody will take into account
any of the concerns he expressed? No, because once it is passed,
it is a done deal. People will just laugh at him when he says,
“I raised this and I voted yes, but I want to have it understood
that I have these concerns”.
Does that member think any court will listen to him after this is
implemented because he made a speech here raising some of these
concerns?
1525
The Liberal member is playing pure politics if he is afraid to
stand up now and be counted. It will be too late after this bill
is implemented. Mark my words, this sets a precedent for which
there will be no turning back. The courts will take this and run
with it.
I just finished a speech a couple of hours ago on property
rights. The Liberals claim that the charter will protect the
aboriginal people and all Canadians. In my speech on a bill
which the Liberals did not even allow to be votable, I said that
there is no protection in the charter for property rights. The
court has said so itself. Their appeal to the charter to protect
aboriginal property rights is not based on any fact. As my
colleague said, it is valueless. It is useless.
We have not had time to debate some of these things. I have
raised this issue but it will not be dealt with here. Yet the
Liberals claim that the charter will protect them. I have
pointed out areas where the charter cannot protect them and the
court has said so.
The process has been flawed from the beginning. The
negotiations were secret for many years. When other Reformers
and I became aware of this in 1994 and 1995 there was a refusal
on the part of the government to even have any public disclosure
as to what was happening. Any objections we raised were
belittled. We were portrayed as being evil people. Nothing could
be further from the truth. We are the only political party right
now that is standing up and asking the serious questions about
this treaty. None of the other opposition parties are doing
that, nor are any of the backbench Liberals doing this in any
serious way.
In B.C. the debate was cut off even before half of the treaty
was debated. The consultation is not just with four or five
chiefs. I have heard the government say that there were three
parties involved in the agreement, but they were all the tops. It
was a top heavy thing. The rank and file people have basically
been shut out of this whole process and that is really a concern.
Opposition parties should express the concern of all Canadians
and only Reform is doing that.
This is a change in the social contract. We are not focusing
upon the cost. We realize the cost could be unbelievable. Some
estimates run as high as $30 billion or $40 billion. We have to
look at how this is going to change the dynamics within Canada.
The democratic rights of all B.C. are being thumbed by not having
it fully debated and a referendum held.
One of the points that has been raised is that we do not hold
referendums on this kind of thing because there is no precedent.
How ridiculous an argument can one have? If it is this important
and if it is going to involve a change that is this fundamental,
we have to have input by all people.
What about the Charlottetown accord? The people spoke very
clearly on the relationship of aboriginals to the rest of the
country. We are ignoring that and we are going ahead with this
without having another referendum.
I do not know what excuse one could come up with for not having
a process that includes everybody. The government ministers talk
about listening to all sides but they have created the sides in
this. They have created the divisions that will get even wider
as we continue along. If it is so good, as the government claims
it is, why not put it to all the people of B.C.?
One person has asked, is there any place on reserve where the
conditions are as good as off reserve? The government has not
answered that question. People have said that they want to get
out from under the Indian Act. With this thing they are ending
up with the very same thing. They are not getting out from under
the oppression that they are feeling at this time.
Canadians are concerned that the courts are going to be
dictating this legislation.
Do the courts have the right to tell members of parliament how
they should speak? That is what one Liberal asked. I would like
to ask that question.
1530
With respect to aboriginals before the law, a former minister of
justice stated clearly “We have one law for all, but it is
flexible in its application”. Only a Liberal could come up with
that forked tongue type of speaking.
One hon. member said there are no legitimate concerns being
voiced by grassroots people in B.C. I would beg to differ.
There are major concerns being voiced by grassroots people.
It has been said that this is a template for scores of other
treaties. Does this not warrant more careful scrutiny?
Unfortunately, we are standing alone in asking for this.
Quite some time ago when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples brought in its report I made a speech. In the context of
the Nisga'a agreement, I would like to bring up some of the key
points that were raised at that time, which are still valid
today.
At that point an editorial in the Globe and Mail stated
that if those recommendations were to be implemented, and they
are being implemented today, they would lead to separation, both
political and economic.
We have said that we need to move toward equality. Here are
some of the key, crucial steps that we need to take to move
toward the goal of equality. The Indian Act must be repealed and
replaced with legislation that will move closer to true equality.
This bill does not do that.
We need to agree on a definition of self-government. I believe
that the majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian
people, would support aboriginal self-government as long as the
federal government's relationship with Indian reserves was
similar to that of the relationship between provinces and
municipalities.
Most of Canada's aboriginal people, and there are about 500,000,
already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000
people.
For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the charter
of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to all aboriginal
people. Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic
or financially accountable until and unless a normal local
government to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal
government must make treaty entitlements payable, in part at
least, directly to individual treaty Indians living on reserve.
I emphasize that. They should have the same rights as the rest
of us. They will not get that through this agreement and they
should have that. We need to move toward equality that will be
of benefit to all.
Every treaty Indian is entitled to compensation benefits or
services promised by the treaty and they should have a choice of
receiving those benefits directly from the federal government or
through their local Indian government. They should be able to
exercise that option at any time.
Land claims settlements should be negotiated publicly, not
behind closed doors, and they should outline all of these things.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising today to participate in
the debate on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a treaty.
I could not help but reflect on the mood of the House and how it
changed from the very partisan thrust of question period to just
a few minutes ago when we took a few moments to remember the
terrible tragedy which happened at the École Polytechnique 10
years ago. I think that says something about us as Canadians and
as parliamentarians, how our moods change, how we understand, how
we can be tolerant and of course how we remember.
That brings me to today's debate. The first and most important
thing to say is that we acknowledge and appreciate the
overwhelming support for the Nisga'a treaty from members of three
of the four opposition parties represented in the House of
Commons.
We have heard criticism often repeated by the official
opposition. Now we see hundreds of amendments aimed at
dismantling, undermining and changing this agreement, which has
been entered into honourably by different parties.
We have to be very clear that Reform amendments seek to tear up
the Nisga'a final agreement. In this effort Reform members stand
alone. They are isolated. They are wrong.
1535
Support from political parties as diverse in their views as the
Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party vindicates our view that the Nisga'a treaty is
truly a non-partisan issue. What the Nisga'a treaty demonstrates
is the government's commitment to aboriginal peoples in this
country.
Just this past weekend there was an agreement signed in my
riding of Burin—St. George's among the Miawpukek First Nation,
the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Human Resources
Development Canada for some $12.3 million, which will enable
those people to address the needs of youth and equal access for
people with disabilities, as well as the child care initiative
that has been built into the Conne River agreement. That
demonstrates very clearly this government's commitment to the
aboriginal peoples of this great country.
The Nisga'a treaty, as with other modern treaties, should rise
above the ordinary back and forth and thrust of partisan debate.
The amendments which have been proposed by the Reform Party
relate more to its make believe treaty than to the bill before
the House and to what the treaty would give effect. In many
cases, as we shall see during the course of the debate, the
amendments do not relate to the actual document that has been
negotiated among the parties. Additionally, they do not relate
to the specific provisions of the final agreement which have been
restated in Bill C-9.
The first treaty, the real treaty that was negotiated, has been
ratified by the Nisga'a and Her Majesty in right of British
Columbia. It is this treaty that has been tabled before
parliament, which will be ratified with the passage of Bill C-9.
It is the treaty referred to by the government and the three
opposition parties other than the official opposition.
The official opposition is trying to impress its make believe
treaty upon members of the House. The official opposition, the
Liberal Party of British Columbia and a minority of editorialists
seem determined to misrepresent the real treaty's elements.
Among the many myths the official opposition seems bent on
perpetrating are that the treaty undermines the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and that it creates uncertainty. Of
course, that could not be further from the truth.
Let me start by debunking the first myth. Since 1982 the
Nisga'a have agreed that their treaty would be subject to the
charter. Accordingly, the treaty clearly states that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a
government in respect of all matters within its authority.
Still the Reform Party attempts to tinker with the wording of
this bill which reflects the final agreement. Its Motion No. 25
would delete the reference to the charter of rights and freedoms
from the preamble of Bill C-9. It is not its objective to make
constructive amendments, but rather to tear them down and raise
contradictions between the bill before the House and the Nisga'a
final agreement.
What we are seeing here once again, and what I have observed in
the House of Commons since I have been here, is more of the same
old Reform Party that Canadians have come to know. The same old
divisive nature and the same old obstructionist tactics and
manoeuvres are being used by this official opposition known as
the Reform Party. Canadians are finally starting to see what
really is behind the motives of the Reform Party. Polling
results across the country are starting to show that.
The end result of its tactics, if accepted, would be a bill of
contradictions, surprises, misstatements and errors. Rather than
building upon certainty and understanding, lawyers would have a
field day trying to comprehend how the Reform bill would actually
accord with the final agreement. I ask once again, does the
Reform Party want a final agreement with the Nisga'a nation or
not? Is there something it does not want to be final?
I think all members of the House, after being engaged in this
debate for a period of time, know the answer to these questions.
The answer is no.
1540
Being the kind of people we are in Canada, being
parliamentarians in the House of Commons representing Canadians,
I wonder what the true motives of the official opposition are.
We are a country of tolerance. We are a country of goodwill. We
want to rectify injustices in the country. One of the reasons we
were sent to parliament was to deal with these issues. What
better opportunity to rectify some of the injustices of the past,
to correct some of the wrongs of the past, to show compassion and
to lend support where it is so badly needed than the Nisga'a
treaty, Bill C-9?
There is overwhelming support across Canada to ratify this
agreement. Why is the official opposition being obstructionist
in its tactics? That party will try to keep us in the House for
the next 48 or 72 hours, with amendment after amendment, trying
to obstruct and delay the implementation and approval of an
agreement which will benefit many people in this country.
I would ask members of the Reform Party—and I see there are a
couple present—if any of them see the inherent contradictions in
some of the amendments they have proposed. There are some
startling contradictions in the amendments.
The best way to learn about the Nisga'a treaty is to understand
it. In addition, numerous summaries and academic articles are
available which support the treaty. The Reform Party's arguments
and amendments ignore hours of very valuable testimony setting
out how this final agreement operates, the meaning of the final
agreement and its constitutional status. As the House carries on
with its deliberations it will be necessary for all members to
consider whether members of the official opposition are
describing the actual Nisga'a treaty or their own make believe
treaty.
The Nisga'a have bargained with the federal and provincial
governments peacefully and in good faith. They have every right
to expect that the treaty will be upheld and the agreement will
come to fruition. All Canadians can be proud that the Nisga'a
final agreement is a fair, affordable and honourable settlement
which puts to rest historic frustrations that have divided
British Columbians for more than 100 years. I say that the
amendments proposed by the Reform Party, in motion after motion
before us today, undermine that very objective. The consequence
is to separate Canadians, to deny what the Nisga'a have
honourably negotiated and to weaken the treaty process in British
Columbia.
The Nisga'a treaty should be celebrated as a national
achievement, proof that people working in good faith can resolve
their differences without confrontation or litigation. The
Nisga'a have waited long enough. This agreement has been studied
and debated extensively and it must be ratified. Then and only
then can we go forward into the next millennium ready to face the
challenges of the future.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
there is one very simple reason for which members of the official
opposition oppose this treaty, which is that we are representing
the views of the vast majority of our constituents in British
Columbia.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments
proposed in Group No. 1 concerning Bill C-9, an act to give
effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.
The government calls this a debate, but we all know that it has
no intention of listening. We all know of the government's
commitment to pass the Nisga'a final agreement before we break
for Christmas. We all know that the government has made a
commitment to refuse to even entertain any amendment to the
Nisga'a final agreement. In effect, the government is making
parliament superfluous. In this instance parliament no longer
has power over its own legislation. The government in power is
forcing the passage of an agreement over which this place has
absolutely no input or control. It is indeed unfortunate that
the other opposition parties are permitting this action to occur
without a whisper of condemnation.
1545
All members of this place must at many times wonder whether we
have become redundant when we continually witness the Prime
Minister, his office and the Privy Council office dictate what
legislation passes through this place and in what manner.
Bill C-9 is a prime example of the complete abdication of
democratic principles. Sure, we are being provided with the
opportunity to speak, the opportunity to challenge the actions of
the government and the opportunity even to vote on this
legislation, but the government members are given their marching
orders and the government is not open to any alteration of the
bill. It is all just a charade. There is no democracy in the
legislation.
The minister has been put in a position of accepting an
agreement entered into by his predecessor and he has been told to
get it through parliament without any changes. It is a tough job
because he has been given a Volkswagen and has been told to sell
a Cadillac, with all due respect to the folks at Volkswagen.
He has an agreement that creates a third order of government and
he tries to suggest that the constitution is not being thwarted.
He has an agreement that creates inequalities and he tries to
suggest that equality of all citizens is being upheld. He has a
clause in the legislation that clearly states that if there is a
conflict between provincial and federal laws and the agreement,
then the agreement reigns supreme, but he argues that this is not
the case.
I would certainly like somebody to explain to me paragraph 13 of
the general provisions of the agreement. It states:
In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this
Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law,
this Agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or
conflict.
That quotation certainly appears to state that the agreement is
paramount even to federal and provincial laws. In fact, it
sounds suspiciously like a constitutional document, but it has
not been added to our constitution through the amending formula.
It has been undertaken by the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and we are merely rubber stamping it.
I received quite an extensive e-mail from one of my
constituents. She is a 17 year old student who has taken the
initiative to study the Nisga'a final agreement. She is strongly
opposed to the treaty.
She is concerned about the land of the agreement being handed
over to the Nisga'a people when the Gitksan and Gitanyow people
also have claims to some of the same parcels of land. What does
the minister say about this issue and the concern? He maintains
that he is working on it and these other bands will be looked
after in future negotiations and agreements.
I have great difficulty in accepting these proposals. First, if
the land is already allotted to the Nisga'a and it actually
belongs to these other bands, how can justice really be done to
rectify the situation in the future? Second, will Canadians have
to pay a premium to these other bands should it be determined
that they have been deprived of ancestral lands? While I
certainly do not suggest civil disobedience or illegal activity,
my 17 year old constituent is certainly concerned that these
other native bands might be forced to take the law into their own
hands in order to obtain their rightful lands. Is this what we
are bringing forth with this legislation?
I have expressed my displeasure and disappointment over the
complete disregard for democracy with Bill C-9. I would now like
to discuss a recent poll taken from the citizens of my home
province of British Columbia. It significantly supports the
amendments as proposed by Group No. 1 in the report stage of this
legislation. The poll also strongly supports my claims in regard
to the failure of the democratic principles to be respected.
Citizens of British Columbia were asked if they had had adequate
opportunity to provide input to the Nisga'a treaty. Of no
surprise the results were much the same as they are for this
place. They have been given a fait accompli and have been told
to live with it. The deal is done. The treaty and the
legislation will pass unchanged.
Some 91% of the citizens polled from the riding of the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans did not feel that they had been provided
with adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a
treaty. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stick up for
his constituents? I think we all know the answer to that
question.
The citizens of British Columbia were asked if they believed the
people of British Columbia should have the right to vote on the
principles of the Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum. Some
94% of the constituents of the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and Status of Women stated that they believed
that they should have the right to vote in a provincial
referendum. What does the government say? It states that the
members of this place represent their constituents and vote for
them, but that obviously fails to work democratically in
situations such as this when members of parliament vote against
the wishes of their constituents.
The poll also asked how the people of British Columbia wanted
their federal member of parliament to vote on this treaty.
Of those polled, 94% wanted the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to vote against this treaty. Do
we really think this member will vote in compliance with the
wishes of his constituents? No, he will vote as he is told by
the powers to be here in Ottawa. It is a shame: 82% of the
constituents of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and
Status of Women want her to vote against this legislation but she
will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans want him to vote against this legislation
but he will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the member for
Richmond want him to vote against the legislation, but he will
not do so; and 91% of the constituents of Vancouver Quadra want
him to vote against this legislation. I will not say that he will
not listen to his constituents as he has been known to buck the
powers to be in the past. I can only hope that again he will see
the light.
1550
I would just like to conclude with a quote from Professor Ehor
Boyanowsky who appeared before the panel of my colleagues in
Vancouver. Professor Boyanowsky is a professor of criminal
psychology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British
Columbia. His area of expertise is individual and group violence
and inter-group violence and conflict.
Professor Boyanowsky told a compelling story based on an
extrapolation into the future of the conditions being set up
today under the Nisga'a agreement. I will not go into his story
but suggest that members read it for themselves. There is one
thing he did say which bears repeating. He stated:
The psychological literature is very clear. Where you draw a
line around people, where you can take an underclass and make
them into an overclass, very quickly they become the object of
enmity. Where you form the basis of difference between people on
an ethnic basis or genealogical basis, you create hatred. This
was true in eastern Europe, it is still true in the Balkan
countries. We are re-creating, reimposing because our English
predecessors who came here knew no better, so they reimposed a
British model on Canada. I think what we have to do is say that
we have a certain image in our minds of how Canada should
function and we do whatever we can to try to preserve that. This
does not mean that we do not compensate native peoples for the
lands and the injustices they have been the subject of in the
past, but what we do is we remain true to certain kinds of
principles. And those principles are based on individual
ownership, individual opportunity, and the opportunity for
redistribution of resources unfettered by genealogical
distinctions or ethnic differences. I think that otherwise, what
happens is you end up with enmity, with hatred and with people
partially frozen in time between an old system and a new system,
especially when they, for example, cannot use their lands.
With that I will conclude my remarks.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that I think are
fairly key in this debate over this historic treaty.
I am a Canadian from the city of Mississauga in Ontario. People
might wonder what interest I could have in a treaty with
aboriginal people on the west coast. I think there are some
things happening here both as to how this place functions and the
significance of the negotiations with the Nisga'a that should
concern all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
I understand that there is no possible way, there are no
circumstances, there is no opportunity for us to satisfy the
concerns of the official opposition. If there were, we would not
be facing some 500 amendments to the bill after it has gone
through the extensive process that it has gone through. One
would think that a parliamentarian could go through committee,
could go through negotiations, could discuss within this place
the issues of concern and come to some understanding of it. While
the opposition says that the government is unwilling to accept
amendments, it continues to put what I think the Canadian people
would consider to be either frivolous or dangerous amendments to
this legislation.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been listening to the hon. member. I am sure that
he is aware that we put many amendments forward and they were all
rejected at committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is debate.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I know that is the
strategy of the Reform Party and that is fine if members want to
continue to interrupt me because I will get the point across.
The point is that what the Reform members are doing in terms of
trying to gum up the wheels of government is, frankly,
irresponsible. If they would just admit that there is nothing
that could satisfy their concerns because they have failed to put
those concerns on the record in this place. They stand and talk
about the potential impact to our charter. They say it is
creating some new level of government. What they do not say is
that the Reform Party is inextricably opposed to self-government
and self-determination by aboriginal Canadians. It is absolutely
the case. They will not say it but that is fundamentally what
they are opposed to.
1555
The bill has had provincial hearings and community hearings. We
have had federal negotiators who have met for countless hours.
We all know it has been an issue for in excess of 100 years. We
all know that the Nisga'a people have attempted to negotiate with
the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada and in
the past they have failed, so what do we do? Do we simply ignore
the injustices? Do we simply ignore the heritage of the Nisga'a
people in British Columbia, or do we try to move ahead
incrementally and put in place a bill and a treaty that will
bring some justice to them?
Reform Party members can be obstructionist if they want to. It
is unfortunate that this issue has come down to a debate between
our philosophy and theirs when in fact what we should be dealing
with are the real issues.
When I talk about frivolous or even potentially dangerous
amendments, let me give an example of one that the member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley has put forward. Clause 5 of Bill
C-9 states, “The Nisga'a final agreement is binding on, and can
be relied on by all persons”. The amendment being put forward by
the member would delete the words “and can be relied on by”.
Therefore the clause would read, “the Nisga'a final agreement is
binding on all persons”. The Reformers would delete the words,
“and can be relied on by all persons”. Why would they want to
do that? What is the impact of that?
Let me give an example. During the negotiations the federal
negotiator met with a number of third parties to this particular
agreement. Those third parties are companies in forestry,
mining, fishing, other resource sectors, utility companies, other
business interests, environmental groups, local government, Nass
Valley residents who are not part of the Nisga'a people and many
other groups with legal interests in this particular agreement.
The Reform Party amendment would take away any opportunity for
any of those groups to be able to challenge anything within the
agreement, perhaps in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or
the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would the Reform Party do that?
Members of the Reform Party stand in this place and say that the
rights and the protection of women is not in the Nisga'a
agreement. The minister has stood in his place as early as today
in question period and clearly stated—I do not know why they
cannot grasp this concept—that the rights of Nisga'a women will
be protected under provincial laws, the same way as all women in
British Columbia and Canada enjoy protection. Why does the
Reform Party need to have it specifically addressed in the
agreement?
When we put a clause in the bill that says that they can rely on
this agreement, by deleting that, if we want to set women up as a
specific group, then we are saying that women will not be able to
rely on this particular agreement. The forest industry, or the
mining industry, or the other groups I have talked about will not
be able to rely on it. We have to ask ourselves whether Reform's
researchers do not understand the impact because words in this
place are so all important.
Words set the future course for the government.
Words tell Canadians what the government feels and what the
opposition feels. By deleting those few little words in that
agreement, we are potentially taking away the rights of so many
groups who perhaps are not specifically mentioned in the Nisga'a
agreement but who have a substantial interest.
1600
I have another example. This agreement gives Canadians the
right to reasonable access to Nisga'a lands. Would the Reform
Party's amendment deny that?
In my own province of Ontario, in a place just north of Parry
Sound, there was a dispute where the native community blockaded a
road and would not allow access to cottagers, who had historic
access, to their lakes. If we were to follow and extrapolate the
views of the Reform Party, they would lose any protection should
that situation occur under the Nisga'a agreement simply because
Reform put an amendment that said that those cottagers, to use
that example, could not rely on the agreement. They could not
rely on their rights as Canadians to cross that particular
barricade to access lands that perhaps will be isolated as a
result of the redrawing of boundaries through this agreement.
I know many members of the Reform Party. I work with them in
committee, whether it is on citizenship and immigration or public
accounts. I see the esteemed chair of our public accounts
committee in this room and welcome him back after his trials with
health problems. We are delighted to see him here. There is a
reasonable individual, and there are others over there. Do they
not see that by deleting those little words it would take away
the rights of all Canadians, interest groups, environmental
groups and women to enjoy the access to and benefits of this
particular agreement? I think it is a mistake. I can only
assume Reformers do not understand it, but it is rather tragic
that we have got to this point.
Let me just read another clause, which states:
The Nisga'a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all
other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings,
of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga'a
Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to
or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date
that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights,
including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.
Are members suggesting that there is something wrong with that?
We are saying that in return for granting new rights and a new
treaty to the Nisga'a people, we are asking that everybody else
who could be impacted on in any way whatsoever be relieved of
that implication. This agreement is historical. It is a
travesty that Reformers are throwing out absolutely false
information. They should simply support this agreement and let
the Nisga'a people enjoy the many benefits that come with it.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9 at report
stage, Group No. 1, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final
agreement.
I want to first assure the Nisga'a people, other native groups
and all my constituents, despite what the current powerholders
say about our questioning of the deal, that my interest in the
bill is to address the need for a better future for the Nisga'a
people and all those under the Indian Act and in relation to each
other and with other Canadians.
We understand that after years of negotiation within a framework
dictated by the Indian Act but controlled by the federal
government and Indian affairs, most Nisga'a leaders feel that they
have no alternative but this agreement. British Columbians have
been wrongly told that it is this deal or nothing. Sadly, it is
just more of the same that has already failed.
Opposition MPs are not similarly tainted. We question and
oppose because we do not believe this agreement, in the long term
perspective, is in the best interests of the Nisga'a people, in
the long range interests of aboriginals throughout B.C. or in the
interests of the people of Canada.
It may be noted that the official parliamentary aboriginal
affairs committee shut out many astute witnesses. So with a view
to being more responsive to citizens than the traditional parties
in the House, Reform conducted additional hearings to let others
have a say.
For example, one witness was Kerry-Lynne Findlay who was on the
constitutional section of the Canadian Bar Association. She was
asked for her views. Somewhat in this vein, I said to her that I
was sure she had reflected a lot about these matters and of
society's relationship with aboriginal people and that it was not
just a Canadian problem. I told her how I had discovered during
my visit to Taiwan that it has aboriginals who it has to work out
a relationship with.
1605
I asked her if she could reflect on society's general
relationship with aboriginals, what would be a better way, in
general principles, the main things we must not forget, if we are
going to actually ameliorate the situation, raise standards of
living, try to modernize democracy and try to get to a situation
where we might say that we have one land, one law and one people.
I will paraphrase her comments. She said “—people really get
confused with the notion and the idea of assimilation—People
say that if you are treated the same, somehow you will be
assimilated if you are being treated equally”. She went on to
say:
Of course, I don't think that's what anybody is talking about,
and clearly antiquated policies that try to achieve that hurt
everybody and I don't think anybody quarrels with that today.
However, that is not the same thing as bringing aboriginal
peoples along with other peoples who live here, some of whom have
arrived recently, into what we call sort of the mainstream of
Canadian society. That means that the opportunities are equal
for all, even some recognition, perhaps, for those who need a
little help to get where the opportunities are equally applied.
But it doesn't have to mean that your culture disappears. It
doesn't have to mean that you language disappears. It doesn't
have to mean that your traditional ways and points of view and,
particularly, your religious beliefs disappear.
Somehow...in government circles, the distinction between the two
has been entirely lost and, therefore, there's been a buying into
this concept that rather than getting rid of separation of
peoples we will actually entrench it. Again, most of the
problems with the way it was done historically is that we took
whole groups of people and said, “You will live there and please
don't cross the line,” and in some cases even moved them into
that place they were going to live.
Yet here we are now putting a (legal) fence up around those
places and saying, “We're going to help you keep the outside
world out”. It isn't realistic in modern terms at all and I
don't think it will work. Over time I really fear we are headed
toward civil unrest and more of the standoffs of the kind we saw
at Oka.
These occurrences will happen again...when people feel left out
and that's what we are talking about. My solution is to bring
people on board. Bring everyone on board and have everyone part
of the process. So many of these decisions aren't even being
made by the minister or the politicians, they're being made by
the bureaucratic system in Ottawa and by faceless and nameless
bureaucrats who do not have to stand up before the people and be
accountable for their decisions, and that's a shame.
Those are some of the comments she made. Certainly, Ms. Findlay
ought to know as she was part of the Liberal policy development
machine in times past.
A Reform member on the committee put it to her further and said
that often in the development of the treaty process we have a
problem with government policy toward aboriginals and that it was
very difficult at the beginning to get people to understand what
the issues were because they simply were not involved. He went
on to say “I think that has been a problem, to a large extent,
with some of the treaty process, that until it hits you
directly”—such as the fishermen, many who are aboriginals, who
will, as a result of this deal, lose their share of the
catch—“it is merely an academic problem that you may or may not
become interested in. I think that's a pretty fair statement of
the situation in the real world”.
In response to the member, Ms. Findlay, the lawyer, responded
this way about the political legitimacy and the broad community
consent and awareness. She said:
I think it is, but I believe it is changing, I really feel,
because I think finally, now, for whatever reason, linkages are
being made right across the country, and I am certainly
experiencing that. When I send out an e-mail now, it goes all
across the country, because I have people from across the country
contacting me and saying, “We want to link with you and we think
that the fishermen who are affected, and the loggers who are
affected, and the non-native leaseholders who are affected, and
the other people in the resource-based economies who are
affected, we want to know you, and we want to support you and be
part of this.”
So you see groups springing up, the United Canadians for
Democracy, that is a group that the leaseholders are part of
forming, but it is based out of Ontario. CanFree is a new group
that has been set up right here in British Columbia. I think that
you are seeing this more and more now, and certainly that's why I
know who Phil Eidsvik is now, and he knows who I am. This is
why, when I was back in Halifax, I contacted fishers back there
because of the Marshall decision that had just come down. So I
think it's changing. Again, though these processes take time,
and time is something we don't have with the Nisga'a treaty, but
it may be something we have with other treaties coming up and
maybe so with this one.
I think the government, the federal and the provincial
government, are being, themselves, very naive now if they feel
that they can continue to use that divide and conquer approach
and that Canadians are not linking, because they are.
1610
Our effort today in the House is to do our constitutional duty,
to require the government to make its case to the electorate. The
point is that the Liberals are out of date. When failed
policies, wrong ideas and false assumptions narrow the range of
choices, the shape of destiny will always be sadly lacking if not
bringing deep sorrow.
The mandate to negotiate and the manner in which it was done by
B.C. politicians is discredited. The arrangement will not bring
about lasting reconciliation, and it is just one treaty down and
fifty to go. The legal expectations are there now and the
template is set.
Much is to be worked out in the future and so much is written in
vague terms. Fairness guarantees are very elusive in the
package. Its emphasis is to separate rather than bring together.
Legal equality principles have been sometimes abandoned. In
such experiments, we must support equality, democracy,
accountability and the coupling of entitlement with
responsibility. Tolerance and diversity and mobility rights are
there entwined in the settlements with Canadian natives. It is of
grave importance when we assess the proposal for embedding by
treaty small closed societies in a large, complex and open
society, that is itself struggling to keep its place in a
changing world.
We can ask how the treaty will help to engage the peoples in the
World Trade Organization. It is because I care about my
neighbour that I serve. It is because I know we can do so much
better as a country, for all not just a few, that I speak to the
mistake parliament is making today. For where there is injustice
we must right it, where there is discrimination we must denounce
it, where there is violence we must stand against it and where
there are wounds we must heal them. May we be generous, be fair
and be honest in our deliberation and learn to be guided as we go
forward determined not to reflect the mistakes of the past.
Nothing informs the public mind to understand and evaluate an
issue like a public referendum. First, let us have one. Second,
the government needs to ensure in better terms that we are not
amending the constitution and that all of it applies to us.
Third, the government needs to ensure all Canadians that the
competing overlapping claims will be accommodated and properly
dealt with.
At this late hour, I call the government to at least do these
three things and the next time to be guided to negotiate more
honourably.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am proud to be taking part in this debate, which is a
very important one for the Nisga'a and the Government of Canada.
I think it is important for all members to understand how the
Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated within the Canadian legal
context.
The Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated with an eye to the
rights and interests of all Canadians and, as recommended by the
courts in recent cases such as Delgamuukw, is intended to
reconcile the rights of the Nisga'a with the title and
sovereignty of the crown.
Although all components of the Nisga'a final agreement fully
reflect the Canadian legal context, it must be linked to the
Canadian constitution, Canadian laws and the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
First, let us look at how the Nisga'a final agreement relates to
the Canadian constitution. In fact, the Nisga'a final agreement
recognizes the constitution as the supreme law of Canada. No
amendment to the constitution is therefore necessary to give
effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, and the agreement does
not alter the Canadian constitution.
Although this agreement includes self-government provisions, the
legislative authority of the Nisga'a will be exercised
simultaneously with existing authority.
The following are a few examples of how the Nisga'a final
agreement was negotiated with a view to the Canadian
constitutional framework.
The Nisga'a final agreement states clearly that it does not
alter the constitution. The intention of the parties was for
the Nisga'a final agreement to be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the constitution.
The preamble to the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act states that the
constitution is the supreme law of Canada and reaffirms that the
Nisga'a final agreement does not alter the constitution. The
courts may refer to this preamble when interpreting the Nisga'a
final agreement act.
Reform Party members have proposed that we delete from the bill the
clear and unequivocal statement by all parties that “the Nisga'a
Final Agreement states that the Agreement does not alter the
Constitution of Canada”.
1615
What problems do they want to create? What confusion are they
stirring up with this amendment? What is more, they are also
proposing an amendment to the wording of the preamble as it
relates to application of the constitution. It is certain that
Reform Party members cannot have it both ways.
The proposed preamble makes the intentions of the parties clear
and will assist the courts in their interpretation of the
Nisga'a final agreement.
Let us touch on the charter of rights and freedoms as it applies
to the Nisga'a final agreement.
I want to point out that one of the general provisions of the
final agreement calls for the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms to apply to the Nisga'a government in respect of all
matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and
democratic character of the Nisga'a government as set out in the
agreement.
It is therefore clear that the charter will apply to all
activities of the Nisga'a government. Consequently, the charter
will apply not only to legislation enacted by the Nisga'a
government but also to other activities, such as the decision to
hire someone or to issue licences. The charter will protect all
individuals who might be affected by the decisions of the
Nisga'a government, not just the Nisga'a people.
The last part of this article—“bearing in mind the free and
democratic nature of Nisga'a Government”—is similar to the terms
used in section 1 of the charter, which indicate clearly that
the rights conferred by the charter are not absolute.
Governments, including the Nisga'a government, must justify any
limits to be imposed on the rights guaranteed under the charter.
This expression shows therefore that the Nisga'a final
agreement provides for the establishment of a government of a
free and democratic nature. A Nisga'a government established in
accordance with these provisions could invoke section 1 of the
charter like any other government in Canada.
The Nisga'a have supported the application of the charter since
the conclusion of the agreement in principle in 1996. The
language of the final agreement, as I have said, follows the
wording of the charter to facilitate its application.
In closing, the Reform Party has proposed an amendment under
which the Nisga'a government would be treated differently from
other governments in Canada. Does that make sense? Does this
further the integration of the Nisga'a into Canadian society
which we are all seeking?
The Reform amendments run contrary to the desire of all of us
here to see the Nisga'a government integrated with the other
governments in Canada. Is that really what they want?
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon on behalf of the
constituents of Calgary East in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to
give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.
Like many of my colleagues speaking here today, I am not from
British Columbia, but that does not diminish our resolve to see
an agreement that is in the best interests of British Columbians,
Canadians, and the Nisga'a people. That is why I am speaking to
this bill today.
Bill C-9 is not an ordinary piece of legislation. The agreement
that is before the House is an arrangement providing for the
government of the Nisga'a people, the government of the local
economy and the government of the relations with each other and
with non-aboriginals. The bill seeks to replace a terribly
flawed system that has existed for 130 years. It is a system with
a track record of bringing poverty, family breakdown, violence,
illness, shortened lifespan, unemployment and suicide to the
aboriginal people of this country. It is a system established
and mismanaged for over 100 years by successive Tory and Liberal
governments. The system as it exists today simply does not work.
Its record speaks for itself.
An effort to change the system has led to a series of land
claims, court cases and court actions which are further straining
the relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal
Canadians. In addition to the billions and billions of dollars
that Canadian taxpayers commit to the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development every year, the Canadian
taxpayer is on the hook for a potential $200 billion price tag as
an estimate of the cost of all aboriginal demands. This is an
absolutely staggering figure.
It is clear that tensions between aboriginals and
non-aboriginals are perhaps higher than they have been in years.
1620
Many are looking at the Nisga'a agreement as a framework that
will miraculously solve all our immediate problems and provide a
template for the future. However, this government does nothing
to redress the key components of aboriginal governance and
economic development.
If this agreement sought to give the Nisga'a people a chartered
municipal government similar to the form of local government
enjoyed by most Canadians, this would be a step in the right
direction, a removal from special status and a step toward
equality. However, Nisga'a laws according to this agreement will
override provincial and federal laws in a multitude of areas. It
will give the municipality paramount power over 14 areas of
exclusive jurisdiction and shared powers in another 16 fields of
federal and provincial jurisdictions.
The Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of provincial
taxes and stumpage fees and will not have to pay the GST.
Individual Nisga'a citizens will be permanently exempt from
having to hold or pay federal and provincial licences, fees,
charges and royalties on fish and wildlife entitlements provided
under this agreement.
At first glance the above points may seem almost trivial.
However, we must remember that this agreement is supposed to
provide a template for 50 similar agreements in British Columbia.
The precedent is being set for race based tax exemptions
throughout British Columbia and indeed throughout Canada.
I would like to address the lack of physical and democratic
accountability in the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a treaty
effectively centralizes power in the hands of governments on
aboriginal lands and not in the hands of the people. Individual
Nisga'a will depend on the government in a variety of areas,
including housing, social assistance and employment. In fact,
most of the employment on Nisga'a lands will be either with the
Nisga'a government or with corporations owned by the Nisga'a
government.
Similarly the model of economic development proposed in this
agreement is one in which nearly all revenues flow from the
federal and provincial governments to the Nisga'a government. It
does not flow to the Nisga'a entrepreneurs, workers, taxpayers or
citizens. It flows to the Nisga'a government to generate
economic activity.
This agreement in fact continues to deny aboriginals many of the
political and economic tools available to other Canadians. From
responsible self-government to all the tools of the marketplace
and private enterprise for economic development, this agreement
in essence denies aboriginal people access to tools that the vast
majority of Canadians take for granted.
Let me look for a moment at property rights. There is an
absence on reserves of the most basic of property rights, just as
there is an absence of contract rights. There is an absence of
free markets in housing, labour and capital. Because these
fundamental rights do not exist on reserves, many aboriginal
people have had to leave the reserve in order to get the tools
that other Canadians take for granted.
I look to the many small business owners in my riding of Calgary
East. Many of them use their properties or homes to secure
capital from the banks to get their businesses off the ground.
This is a luxury that has been denied to the native entrepreneurs
because of the system of socialist economics that exists on
reserves. The reserve system has not only had a negative impact
on the aboriginal people, but it has been poisoning the
relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
The fact is that investors and business people thinking of doing
business in areas contained in aboriginal lands and treaties are
thinking twice about making these investments.
I would like to talk now about what the official opposition
proposes as a solution to a system that has proven itself to be
ineffective and in fact harmful to aboriginals and
non-aboriginals alike.
1625
First, the official opposition believes in equality for all
Canadians. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike should be
entitled to the same rights, entitlements and powers in law with
the freedom to use the law in different ways to give expression
to their uniqueness and diversity.
Second, the official opposition believes that all Canadians are
entitled to the services of a local government that is fiscally
and democratically accountable to the people it serves.
Third, the official opposition believes strongly that the
department of Indian affairs should begin the process of funding
aboriginal persons on reserves directly, then allowing local
aboriginal government to tax its own people to get access to it.
This measure would go a long way to enhance the process of fiscal
and democratic responsibility.
Finally, we believe that private property and contract rights
must be established on reserves. We must develop real housing
and labour markets on reserves, including equal economic rights
for men and women.
To conclude my comments today, Bill C-9 does nothing to repair
the damage caused by the 100 plus years of the reserve system.
The bill does nothing to provide to aboriginals the basic rights
that the vast majority of Canadians enjoy. The bill does nothing
to satisfy the principles of equality under the law, fiscal and
democratic accountability, private enterprise and free market.
The bill fails even the most basic of democratic principles. It
fails to take into consideration the democratic rights of people
living in the federal riding of Skeena, who will be most impacted
by the bill. It fails to fulfill the democratic interests of
British Columbians who continue to be denied adequate
representation. It fails to take into account the interests of
Canadians in general who have been denied full debate and
disclosure of a bill that will have a tremendous impact far
beyond the Nass Valley and British Columbia.
I would like to thank the member for Skeena and my Reform
colleagues for standing in the House and fighting for what they
believe is right, and for what I believe the vast majority of
Canadians believe is right.
The bill is unfortunate for the Nisga'a people, British
Columbians and Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
Gasoline Pricing; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester,
Airline Industry.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's
debate on the final stages of the Nisga'a treaty through the
House of Commons.
I have been listening to the speeches this afternoon by my
friends in the Reform Party. I use the term advisedly; they are
my friends. I consider many of them my personal friends and I
respect their views but they are totally different from mine.
I have had an image come to me. It is an image of Colonel
Custer standing on the plains in the west completely surrounded
by aboriginal warriors. In his last gasping breath, shooting
wildly in all directions, he and his band of soldiers are wiped
out. That is what I thought when I listened to my friend make his
speech just a few moments ago. He does not have blond curly
hair, but if he had, he would be the typical picture of Colonel
Custer in his last stand.
Today and tomorrow as we vote, it will once again be a version
of the last stand. I say that with all due respect but that is
how I feel. The Reform members feel very strongly on certain
sides of the issue. I feel equally strong on the other. I had
this image of Colonel Custer shooting wildly in all directions,
knowing that this was it and finally succumbing to the bands of
Indian warriors on that very fateful day which changed history in
terms of the plains and aboriginal peoples.
Today we are at a similar kind of crossroads. Once again the
people of the Nisga'a nation were consulted after their
negotiators had gone through a very long and painful process of
negotiation. I cannot imagine the tolerance that lasted over 100
years.
1630
Madam Speaker, you know this story and I will not repeat it in
detail, but I will give a brief history of the Nisga'a. They
paddled their canoes almost from the Alaska boundary to Victoria
over a hundred years ago, which is a long canoe paddle for
anyone, to bring their grievances to the governing officials of
the time. They said that they had never agreed to cede their
territory and they wanted to negotiate a deal. We all know the
terrible impact of the reaction when they were essentially told
to turn around and paddle their canoes back home, which they did,
but they never gave up.
Over 100 years later, after the patience of Job was demonstrated
for decades and decades, a deal was negotiated. The Nisga'a
people were asked what they thought about the deal. They said
that they agreed with it, that it was not a perfect document,
that they thought they could get a better deal. Some thought
there were some problems with it, but overall they said it was
the best deal they could negotiate with the provincial and
federal authorities and they would accept it.
That is democracy. That is what life is all about. We
negotiate a deal and then we ask people if they support it. They
say yes and then we move on. British Columbia said yes and now
Canada is saying yes, presumably in the closing stages of this
debate. Then it will go off to the other place. I suspect that
because it has the support of the two parties represented in the
other place it will pass rather expeditiously, having gone
through a lot of public consultation.
I know my friends in the Reform Party are saying that there has
not been enough consultation. Fair enough. That is debatable.
What is enough? I have held many meetings in my constituency.
They were all public, open meetings which were well advertised
and well attended. The discussion was always very thoughtful and
very progressive. Yes, people had some concerns about the deal.
I have concerns about the deal. We all have concerns about the
deal, but that is the way deals are made. They are not perfect.
The people who negotiate them are not perfect. We have come up
with an agreement negotiated by individuals, all of whom are
imperfect by definition, so yes we have differences.
In the House of Commons we witnessed a small political miracle.
It is a small political miracle when Liberals are in agreement
with Progressive Conservatives, who in turn are in agreement with
people from the Bloc Quebecois, who in turn are supported by
members of the New Democratic Party. Four of the five political
parties in the House of Commons are agreeing on a major issue.
Yes, we agree regularly on minor issues, all kinds of trivial
issues, all kinds of minor homework issues and technical
questions, but this is not a typical little deal. This is a huge
initiative taken by this House that is historic in nature on
which four out of the five political parties agree.
We could say that they do not know what they are talking about
or that they do not know what they are doing, but let us face it,
these are honourable men and women who have obviously given this
a lot of thought, who have read the agreement, who have studied
it, who have heard the reactions, and who have, in their
judgment, decided to agree with it.
Do we all feel that this is a perfect document? No. Nobody
does. However, we have looked at it, we have read about it, we
have heard from our constituents and we have made a judgment, and
four out of five political parties support it. The Reform Party
opposes it. Fair enough. It is a free country and it has a
right to its position. This must tell us something.
I consulted with Indian bands in my constituency of Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys. I asked if they supported the
Nisga'a deal and they all said no. The Indian bands do not
support it. They would not sign the deal because they think it
is not good enough. Fair enough. That is their view. They say
that they think they should do better and when they negotiate one
day they will do better. That is their stated position. When my
friends in the Reform Party say that this is a template for other
agreements, I can say that the people of the Shuswap Nation say
it is no template, that they will not agree to it because it is
not good enough from their perspective. All right, we will set
that aside.
1635
I could not disagree more with some of the points made by my
hon. friends in the Reform Party.
I want to say two things. First, there will be a massive
transfer of dollars from Ottawa to British Columbia for the first
time in history. I am talking about hundreds of millions,
perhaps billions of dollars, which Ottawa will put into the
economy of British Columbia. If $100 million goes to the first
nations of British Columbia, they are not going to invest that
money in Hawaii or the Cayman Islands.
An hon. member: Are you sure?
Mr. Nelson Riis: My hon. friend in the Reform Party asks
if I am sure. No, I am not sure, but he is not sure either.
These are decent people. These are people who are dedicated
Canadian citizens who take pride in their territory. They sure
as heck are not going to invest the money in the Cayman Islands
or Mexico. The money will stay in British Columbia for British
Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.
The Kamloops Indian band is one of a number of bands in my
constituency which is incredibly progressive, leading the way in
terms of change. It has started a huge housing subdivision on
its lands. The houses are selling. The band is building as we
speak, in spite of the Musqueam problem which people have
identified. I am talking about a huge subdivision being built on
Kamloops Indian land, being sold almost exclusively to
non-aboriginal people.
There are numerous aboriginal businesses which are thriving and
dynamic. They are hiring individuals and doing well. Alongside
these businesses are hundreds of non-aboriginal businesses, all
adding to the economy of the greater Kamloops area.
The Kamloops Indian band developed industrial parks in
co-operation with the city of Kamloops. They agreed to share
water and sewer treatment and various infrastructures to make
economic development possible.
The Kamloops Indian band, working in co-operation with the city
of Kamloops, has put together one of the most progressive
industrial parks in British Columbia. It is filled with
non-aboriginal and aboriginal businesses and most of them are
doing very well. There is all sorts of local economic
development, wealth creation and job creation. It can be done.
This band will soon be coming forward to negotiate a settlement,
not along the lines of the Nisga'a agreement but along its own
lines.
I look forward to voting on this issue. Thank goodness we are
moving to a new phase in our relations with aboriginal people in
Canada.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is good to follow a speaker from the party opposite who has had
some very bright moments in terms of first nations people in his
constituency.
Earlier today we reflected on the terrible event which happened
in Montreal 10 years ago with the massacre of young women by a
lone gunman. As Canadians we reflect on history. Today if we
reflect on our history we could go back some 400 years to the
arrival of the Europeans. They came to this continent and met
the aboriginal people of this country who had their settlements,
their ways of life, their culture, their activities and their
civilization.
In 1579 Sir Francis Drake claimed British Columbia for the English
crown. Over 200 years later, in 1793, George Vancouver
arrived and for the first time met the Nisga'a people of northern
British Columbia.
In question period today the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration answered questions concerning the immigration
policies of the country. I am not sure what immigration policies
the good people of British Columbia had back in the 1700s and
1800s, but certainly the Europeans who came to that area were
welcomed and they became a very important part of the British
Columbia economy as we know it today.
The people of British Columbia who lived in B.C. prior to the
arrival of the Europeans found themselves at a great disadvantage
in terms of the relationships which eventually developed between
their people and the new arrivals to that colony.
1640
The people of northern British Columbia, the Nisga'a, the people
of the Nass River and the people of Fort Simpson, where the
Hudson's Bay Company set up trading in 1834, encountered a new
way of life. They encountered a people who were very aggressive,
who tended to push them back from their civilization and who
interfered with their hunting and fishing grounds and their
natural resources. As a result, today we find ourselves trying
to resolve a final agreement among the peoples of the Nisga'a
nation, British Columbia and Canada which will terminate this
period of conflict and develop a new arrangement by which all
Canadians, especially the Nisga'a people, can live in their
territories with some degree of pride and respect for our
Canadian nation.
The vote that was held among some 2,500 Nisga'a people living on
reserve, with a very small minority of white people present,
indicated that most of them supported the agreement that we are
looking at today. Some 61% voted in favour of it. Undoubtedly, a
few felt that it was not right. Probably more of them felt that
the agreement we negotiated with them over some 20 years was not
as generous as it might be. In fact, the land settlement
encompasses about 2,000 square kilometres and the original demand
of the Nisga'a people was for some 20,000 square kilometres.
It is interesting to note that the entire area of the Nass River
which the Nisga'a negotiated is an area which is probably about
one-quarter of the size of that small island at the mouth of the
St. Lawrence River, the island of Anticosti. It is a small area
in terms of the overall size of the province of British Columbia.
To some it sounds like a lot of territory and natural resources,
but without a lot of people. We hope that with this agreement
those people will be able to develop an economy, an existence and
an area in which they can have pride, show leadership and, above
all, sustain their people and enter the economy of our country.
I heard in the House today many statements about what we are and
who others might be. I would say that when we try to impose our
values on others, whether they be in terms of ownership, how
society should operate or our European traditions, we are not
doing those people who were here before us much of a favour. They
have a civilization that is thousands of years old. It is a
civilization that was developed with great pride in terms of
housing, artwork and the canoes they use to fish on the rivers
and on the coast. Those people do not need great lessons on how
we might see all Canadians fitting into one pattern.
Henry David Thoreau talked about people who listened to
different drummers, who listened to different musicians, who had
a different way of life. As Canadians we have to realize that
there are many people in this country who cannot be made to fit a
single mould.
I was very impressed to find that on the Internet there is a
tremendous amount of information on the Nisga'a treaty, the
Nisga'a nation and the northern British Columbia area. I ask
people who are watching to consult the Internet, to look at those
web pages to better understand the debate we are having tonight.
The final Nisga'a agreement reflects a different attitude than
that which is reflected in the Indian Act, which has been a
tremendous problem for many first nations peoples. We find that
there are great restrictions under the Indian Act. The new
Nisga'a agreement will mean that the people of the Nisga'a nation
will develop a new type of arrangement among themselves and with
our governments. That arrangement will not only deal with how
they develop the fishery, mining and forestry resources.
It will also mean that they may develop a system of taxation by
which they may tax their own people. In the long run over a
period of time, taxes will be applied both by the province of
British Columbia and by the federal government in terms of income
tax, sales taxes and GST.
1645
Above all, we hope it will develop among our people in that
great area of northern British Columbia near the Alaska border a
sense of pride and freedom and an opportunity to develop
themselves. It will show the other first nations of this country
that when agreements are made, wise people sit down at tables to
develop understandings and a new sense of arrangements. It might
become a lighthouse of great hope by which the people of our many
600 first nations across the country may see themselves being
involved in further agreements and attempt to resolve the many
issues that have afflicted our country since the time when our
two peoples came together.
Some members today have indicated the problems of the American
west. As Canadians we can certainly be proud of the fact that in
most situations in this country, the big stands like the stand at
Little Big Horn never existed in terms of relations with our
first nations peoples.
I know there are different opinions in the House. I certainly
cannot agree with some of the opinions I have heard. Hopefully as
good people we can look to the strength and the goodness in all
people and with that, with the development of the best ideas and
the best resources, tonight and tomorrow as we look at this
treaty we can come to a definite arrangement with the Nisga'a
people which will be in the best interests of all of us as great
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in this debate on the Nisga'a final agreement.
It was not planned that I would speak but, after listening to
all the speeches by members opposite and by members of all
parties, particularly the official opposition, I now feel that I must
make my humble contribution to the debate.
I lived for several years in close proximity to aboriginals on the
north shore, and that is where I got to know them. Canada has
some atoning to do when it comes to the native peoples.
I can remember that as recently as 1965 aboriginals were not
allowed to have liquor on reserves.
Unlike other Canadians, they were not allowed in establishments
that served alcohol, such as hotels and taverns. Aboriginals
were excluded. I saw this with my own eyes.
Unfortunately, I also lived through the period when, more
through ignorance than ill will, Canadians, myself perhaps
included in those days, treated aboriginals, our fellow
citizens, unfairly. Fortunately, with age comes experience and
one gets to know and accept others, and often discover that they
have things to teach us.
I would like to speak more specifically about the north shore,
the Montagnais in Sept-Îles and the Bersimis, who are now known as
Innu, as I learned recently. I have worked closely with these
people. I met with some good people who did not necessarily
share our values.
Astonishingly, they were not caught up in the idea of making
money, an idea that unfortunately we all have developed to some
degree, however varying. The aboriginals I knew were not bent
on making money at all costs. They were at peace with
themselves and with nature, but this did not exempt them from
some serious attacks on their dignity. I think that the worst
thing that happened to aboriginals was the Indian Act passed by
the federal government, in 1876 if memory serves.
1650
They were contained within very clearly defined parameters,
rather like animals in a zoo. They were fed, kept clean,
housed, as in zoos, and could not leave in favour of an active
and happy life without risking the loss of their status. And
what was the sense in all this?
The aboriginal people were stripped of their dignity, a dignity
they had before we came along, and today they are demanding it
back. I am no different from anyone else. I have no stones to
throw at my friends across the floor.
When the Erasmus-Dussault report came out we were told, and that
was not so long ago, maybe two years, that it would be costly to
reintroduce equity for the aboriginal peoples, to restore to
them part of what has been taken from them, as well as the
dignity they have lost. The Nisga'a agreement is, in my
opinion, a step in the right direction.
The Nisga'a have perhaps been had, as far as certain aspects are
concerned, and that is always a possibility with the government
across the way. Time will tell. I am sure that the Nisga'a did
not have the battery of experts, lawyers and so forth to conduct
the negotiations as they would have liked, but that is what
freedom is all about. It is the ability to make one's own
mistakes sometimes and also to fix them.
I support this Nisga'a treaty. These are the first nations.
They have been here for at least 20,000 years.
Historians do not agree on this, but there is no doubt they
were here 20,000 years ago. When the Europeans arrived, they
were cavalierly crowded together. There were 50 million of them
in what is now Canada and the United States. How many are left?
I think there are even fewer of them in the United States than
there are here.
We have destroyed them, although perhaps not always
intentionally. Diseases against which they had no immunity
killed many once the first Europeans appeared in North America.
I wonder if there are many of us, Europeans and their
descendants, who would have put up for so long with the
treatment we have given the aboriginal peoples, without
demanding compensation and without waking one day and saying “We
want a say on the matter.
We want to express our opinion, to direct our economic
development and to be part of Canada's economic growth”. I do
not think many of us would have let ourselves be treated the way
these people have.
It is hard to avoid comparisons between the criminal world of
the past and the attitude of some aboriginal people now because
they have no hope. Someone said to me the other day that young
Italian immigrants arriving in the States in the middle of the
last century and at the beginning of this one had no chance of
settling in the North American context, benefiting from economic
growth or enjoying the benefits of it.
They were compartmentalized in a way that put them in the
service of others all their lives.
They had the right to settle in the United States, but not the
right to prosper there, to live in peace, the right to happiness
and, in particular, to hope. That is what led to the emergence
of gangs, and the same thing is happening here with our
aboriginal people.
They have been contained, as I have said, and not allowed the
opportunity to contribute to, and to profit from—for there are
two sides to every coin—the benefits of the Canadian economy.
1655
Now with this little treaty, a first, we have succeeded in
giving the Nisga'a the power to regulate themselves, a kind of
self-government, although this will nevertheless be under the
authority of the Canadian constitution and the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
This may be the start of a better life for them. Perhaps we
will begin to see positive effects: far more interest, far more
dynamism, far more hope. When a people is deprived of hope,
what does it have left? Quebecers know something about that; we
have not gone unscathed either. That may be the reason why
today the sovereignist forces are so strong in Quebec.
It must be terribly insulting for the Nisga'a to see a newly
recognized right challenged by people who were not here 50 years
ago, people who are claiming that an injustice is being done
because they are losing some of their province's territory.
What exactly is going on?
I would ask Reform Party members to give this some serious
thought. Most of them were not here 50 years ago, while the
Nisga'a have been around for a very long time. Let them learn
to live with others.
As early as 1985 the former PQ Premier of Quebec, René Lévesque,
recognized the first nations in Quebec and offered them
self-government in a future sovereign Quebec. We were 14 years
ahead of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I am pleased that my party has approved this Nisga'a treaty and
I hope it is the first in a long list that will set the record
straight and put a stop to the injustices that have been going
on for over 125 years.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to join in the discussion on the Nisga'a
final agreement.
During the debate I have listened to my colleagues in the Reform
Party with much dismay. Let me make one thing clear to the people
of Etobicoke and all Canadians. The Nisga'a agreement is not a
race based policy of the government as charged by my colleagues
in the Reform Party. It is an agreement that speaks to the
principles of fairness, equity and respect.
The Nisga'a people have spent over 100 years bringing their
claim to the attention of governments and their neighbours. They
participated in complex and significant negotiations and they are
at this point in time in need of our support.
In British Columbia where very few treaties were negotiated at
the time of settlement, approximately 50 other first nations are
in the process of negotiating land claim settlements and
self-government arrangements with the federal and provincial
governments. We hear other members who are from that region
speak of those arrangements.
From talking with my constituents I know that the Canadian
public in general is supportive of addressing the longstanding
grievances of aboriginal people. However, I also know that some
have not yet come to terms with the fact that imposed solutions
are not good solutions.
The very nature of negotiation means that no one party can have
everything it wants. The ultimate goal of negotiations is to
come up with solutions that balance all potential issues. At the
end of the day this means that certain parts of the agreement
will be easily supported by certain sectors of society, while
some groups will be more satisfied with other parts of the
agreement. This is life and this is what happens in just about
every area.
To satisfy my constituents who are deeply interested in the
agreement, I had to do my homework.
I discovered that throughout the process of the Nisga'a
negotiations government representatives consulted with the
public, with third parties, with neighbouring communities,
keeping them informed through briefings and information sessions.
Approximately 500 consultations and public information meetings
were held during the Nisga'a treaty negotiations.
1700
In addition, a provincial select standing committee on the
agreement in principle held hearings in dozens of communities
around the province. All of this is well documented.
Much of the advice from these consultations has found its way
into the final agreement. In fact the final agreement contains
many provisions that directly reflect the concerns expressed
during these consultation meetings. We are encouraged to hold
consultation meetings. We are encouraged to hear from everyone
in the community, everyone who has an interest in some way, and
that has been done.
Those consulted indicated that they wanted the treaty to
represent a final settlement with the Nisga'a people. The treaty
contains provisions ensuring that the treaty is final. Those
consulted told us that they wanted conservation to be a priority
in the areas of fisheries and wildlife. The Nisga'a treaty
contains provisions to ensure that federal and provincial
ministers retain their overall authority to manage fish and
wildlife with conservation as a top priority. The treaty also
provides harvesting entitlements that give all citizens a share
of the resources.
Canadians told us that they did not want treaty lands to be
separate from the rest of Canada. The Nisga'a treaty contains
provision to ensure that the Nisga'a lands may be registered in
the British Columbia land title settlement or land title system.
It also contains provisions to ensure that the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and the criminal code and all other
federal and provincial laws continue to apply on Nisga'a lands to
protect all Canadians, Nisga'a and others. This is important for
my constituents, this notion of fairness, this notion of
partnership with Canada, this notion of being a part of the
entire system.
Those consulted told us that they wanted all citizens to be
subject to the same taxation regimes. As part of this agreement
the Nisga'a will pay taxes in the same way that all other British
Columbians do after a transition period of eight years for sales
tax and twelve years for income taxes.
The final agreement reflects years of negotiation and the give
and the take on the part of all parties. I think my colleague
from the New Democratic Party spoke quite eloquently about this
give and take on the part of all. They negotiated throughout a
wide range of views. Their goals were to act fairly, were to act
justly, were to balance the range of interest expressed by people
who were consulted and we see that this was done.
There were issues that arose in a discussion that I had with
constituents when they talked about overlapping claims. What
happens with one group of first nations people who are involved
in negotiations and who have primary responsibility for resolving
issues arising from overlapping claims with other first nations
people? That too is consistent with recommendations that have
been made.
There is a report of the tripartite British Columbia claims task
force that made some recommendations in this regard. One of the
things that was said was that first nations resolve issues
related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves,
that they resolve that among themselves.
Canada has always adopted this approach in its comprehensive
claims policy. However, Canada also recognizes that it is not
always possible to resolve long standing disputes. But we know
that somehow this has to be worked out in a fair way in dealing
with overlaps, that progress in addressing the claims of
aboriginal people in this country could be very limited unless we
allow them to negotiate among themselves.
For this reason Canada is prepared to proceed with treaties in
the absence of overlap agreements provided that there are two
conditions which must be met.
1705
It is important to set out those two conditions. First, Canada
must assure itself that best efforts have been made by the first
nations involved to resolve the overlapping issues among
themselves. Second, Canada must assure itself that the treaty
appropriately provides protection from infringement of any
aboriginal rights other first nations may have in the territory
covered by the agreement or the treaty rights which they may
acquire.
This treaty has been a long time in coming. The Nisga'a people
have chosen a peaceful and lawful path to reach their objectives.
It may not have been the easiest or the fastest path but all
members in the House should applaud the Nisga'a for choosing it
as the best way to maintain strong and respectful relationships
with other Canadians.
Now is the time to take action. Now is the time to open the
doors so that the Nisga'a first nations can have their proper
agreement. Now is the time to put a Canadian framework in place.
It is not a Utopian solution that fulfils the needs and dreams of
all Canadians. It would be ridiculous to expect any agreement to
provide that result. It is, however, a practical and fair
agreement that takes into account the broad spectrum of interests
and sets out detailed provisions to allow people to live together
in the best way that they can. The parties have carefully
negotiated, they have agreed on the terms of this treaty, it is
time to get on with it.
Let us vote tomorrow to do what is fair, to do what is just for
the Nisga'a people.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of
Selkirk—Interlake and speak on Bill C-9, better known as the
Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a final agreement act.
There has not been a great deal of information distributed in my
riding by the government to inform people about what is actually
in the Nisga'a treaty from the government's point of view. This
should have been done in a proactive way so that we could have
understood. As well, the government has distributed its
information to selected entities in British Columbia and I am not
sure where else.
I would like to touch for just a moment on the fact that Bill
C-9 is a treaty for the Nisga'a people in northwest British
Columbia. It has been passed by the British Columbia legislature
which used closure in effect to stifle debate in that
legislature. There was a referendum in the Nisga'a treaty lands
and the people there had a say on it. However, this right of
referendum was not extended to the people of British Columbia.
We see in the House also that closure is being used to stop
debate in the House where we are attempting to look at all the
facts, at all the sections of the treaty and to expose to the
government and to the Canadian people parts of the treaty that
are not as perfect or as good as they could be. What I am
talking about is certainly the role of an opposition member.
The Nisga'a people never received a treaty from the British
crown at the time of European colonization. From the late 19th
century to the mid-20th century the issue remained on the back
burner without resolution. Successive federal governments
refused to negotiate or even acknowledge the need for a treaty
relationship. To a certain extent we have the Liberals in
particular, and the Progressive Conservatives also as
johnny-come-latelies recognizing that in fact they have been one
of the biggest problems to the aboriginal people of Canada.
In 1996 an agreement in principle was reached between the three
parties after some seven years of closed door negotiations. The
final agreement was drafted over the next two years and was
initialled in August, 1998. Although the Nisga'a people had a
referendum on the final agreement, the federal and B.C.
governments, as I said earlier, have refused to allow a
referendum to consult the people in British Columbia who live
outside the Nisga'a reserve and in fact all Canadians through the
idea of giving them information so that they could reach some
conclusion on their own.
1710
On May 4, prior to the agreement even being introduced in
parliament, the three parties concerned signed the final
agreement. Then it was presented to parliament. It would seem
that perhaps the Canadian people should have had their say first
before presenting this bill to parliament for debate and before
the final signing was done.
I would like to say that I believe and acknowledge that treaty
agreements should be signed and that the treaties signed in the
past have to be honoured. In Manitoba full entitlement is being
given in lands and money where the original compensation was
deemed to be inadequate or was contrary to the treaties that were
signed.
This agreement contains both sections that are good and sections
that leave some doubt as to whether or not they really serve the
needs of Canadians and the Nisga'a people themselves. We have a
case of both good and bad in this treaty.
I have a question for the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and
the Bloc. What is their role in this parliament in dealing with
legislation put forward by a government? The role of an
opposition member of parliament, whether in the official
opposition or just another opposition party, is to critically
look at legislation the government brings forward and not just to
rubber stamp it saying, “Yes, that must be good. The government
brought it forward and it has been working at it a long time”.
In fact, it should closely question and monitor what is actually
happening.
Ultimately an opposition party may vote in favour of the
legislation, but to stand here day after day, as the NDP, the
Progressive Conservatives and the Bloc members have, and to
simply applaud the Liberal government just does not cut it for an
opposition member. It is not doing the job we were sent here to
do. As a result—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I beg to contradict the hon. member from Selkirk. We do
not just applaud the Liberals on every piece of legislation they
have.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Nice try, but that
sounds like debate to me. The hon. member for
Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the
duty of opposition members in the House is to question closely,
to hold the feet of the government to the fire, so to speak, and
say “You prove to Canadians that in fact what you are saying is
factual, that in fact you have had full disclosure, that in fact
you have given all Canadians a full opportunity to understand
something that affects them as fully as it does when the country
signs an agreement with a people who were sovereign at one time
in the British Columbia area”.
The extent of the government information sharing has been a
website which is becoming more accessible. Certainly in my
riding it is more accessible all the time. However it is still
not sufficient to make sure that people are informed. Many
people, in particular middle age and older, are not too familiar
with computers and as a result do not have the information. They
still have to live with the agreement that is signed and their
children, on whose behalf they are making decisions, also have to
live with it.
It is the duty of the opposition parties to clearly identify the
good and bad as I have stated.
To simply stand here and say that they are not doing their job,
while it may be the truth, is not sufficient either.
The question is whether the other opposition parties are worried
that the bill may not go through, even though they would like to
see it go through. However, we have repeatedly seen in the House
that the Liberal government can quite quickly have its members
vote the way it wants and pass the legislation that it wants.
1715
In speaking to why we in the Reform Party want to question the
Liberals closely on this, let us look at a couple of facts that
have already been demonstrated. The first one that concerns me,
and should concern all Canadians, is that in a couple of
sections, Nisga'a law, when it is passed by the Nisga'a people,
will supersede Canadian law where the two are in conflict. That
strikes at the very heart of the supremacy of parliament.
The second obvious thing I find right off the bat is that the
land, which has been negotiated on behalf of the Nisga'a people,
has overlapping land claims from neighbouring aboriginal peoples
who also have a legitimate claim on the land. It would seem that
after it is signed, put into law and put into the lands registry
office in B.C., it will be too late to have another negotiation
later to sort out just what will happen to those Indian people
who also deserve a share of the land. It is their land as much
as it is Nisga'a land.
Why would we want to create this kind of dissension for our
children, our children's children and our children's children
after that? That is exactly what is happening.
The other thing that really bothers me is that aboriginal women,
who I have spent a lot of time with over the last two years and
have spoken on behalf of with regard to their rights under the
Indian reservation system in the Indian Act, are not being
specifically addressed here, particularly in the area of
matrimonial rights.
I conclude by saying that the government has failed to fully
inform Canadians and give all Canadians a say in this treaty.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at last I get to speak on the Nisga'a treaty.
I would like to begin by picking up on something the former
speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, said when he pointed
out that it was the duty of the opposition to oppose. I noticed
that throughout this debate there have been representatives of
the Nisga'a people in the gallery. I would like to say to them
that the member for Selkirk—Interlake is very correct. Something
goes absolutely wrong in parliament when there is no opposition.
This place becomes a dangerous place when everyone is on side,
Mr. Speaker. I do believe that the Reform Party, which seems to
be the sole party that is opposing this legislation, is doing its
duty, and quite properly so.
Having said that, I would like to look at some of the arguments
the Reform Party has put forward. I have to say that I do find
some of the arguments wanting. I would like to just strip away
some of the rhetoric of those arguments which seem to fall into
three categories.
The first argument is that the Nisga'a treaty is wrong because
it transgresses the constitution in some way.
The second argument is that there is great uncertainty about how
the laws will be applied by the Nisga'a; those laws that are
given to the Nisga'a people as a result of the treaty.
Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the other major concerns
expressed by the opposition was that somehow the citizenship that
would be applied to the Nisga'a lands is a race-based
citizenship.
Firstly, Madam Speaker, on the constitutional question, I
followed the debate very, very closely. Quite frankly, there is
no substance to the fear that the constitution of Canada is being
somehow circumvented through the back door. The reality is that
there is nothing in this legislation and in the treaty that does
not fully empower this parliament to devolve certain privileges
in law to the Nisga'a people.
It is no different than when the constitution or the Parliament
of Canada gives certain privileges in law to a province, to a
municipality or anything like that. I just did not find any
substance in the constitutional issue at all.
1720
However, the second problem, the problem that pertains to how
the Nisga'a people will manage those laws. Well, there is always
fear and this is where the debate from the Reform Party has had
substance, because it is correct to look at what powers the
Nisga'a people are going to have and to wonder whether the
Nisga'a people are going to apply those powers in a just and
equitable manner.
There is some reason for concern in B.C. on this very issue
right as we speak, because not long ago the Musqueam Band in
Vancouver acquired from the Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs the right to manage its properties that were on the
reserve. It had a number of rental properties that came up for
lease renewal involving some 71 non-native families. This has
led to a very unfortunate confrontation between the Musqueam
leadership and the tenants on this property.
I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I went out there to try
to arbitrate and bring the two sides together. It seemed to me
that if both sides could sit down and work out their differences
in good faith, the situation could be resolved. But, Madam
Speaker, I failed in my mission, and as a result I wrote a letter
to the minister just summarizing the results of my mission to the
Musqueam, shall we say.
I would like to read a few passages, Madam Speaker. I will not
take too much time on it. If you are patient, you will see how
it does relate to the Nisga'a peoples' agreement. Anyway, I met
with the Musqueam Band and its tenants on September 30-October 1.
In writing to the minister, I said:
I met with representatives of the tenants first. Given the
acrimony of the current situation, they said they would like
nothing better than to leave the reserve but, naturally, want
some kind of compensation for the money they have invested in
their homes. In some cases that money may have been
considerable.
The next day I met with the chief, the band lawyer, and a
handful of the band council. The discussion was dominated by the
chief, the lawyer and one councillor whom I will refer to as the
band leadership. They were adamant that the tenants should
either pay up or get out.
In my presentation I stressed that in my opinion while the
tenants had long enjoyed an unreasonably low rents and probably
did not have any legal basis for compensation, it was in the
band's material interest to be conciliatory and offer the tenants
something in exchange for the good will that would be engendered.
I emphasized that if the tenants are evicted summarily, this
could compromise the band's ability to attract new tenants and
other investors. The leadership rejected this proposition
outright, although I do not know what impression I made on those
councillors who did not speak.
Clearly under the influence of their lawyer, who has no other
client than the band, the leadership is convinced that the tenant
properties are worth the rents decreed by the courts ($22,000
average plus taxes of about $5,000). The leadership contends
that it has the full support of the band community in insisting
on these rents. I suggested that notwithstanding the court
decision, rental properties are only worth what people are
willing to pay. This idea was rejected.
I am quite convinced that because of the failure between these
two groups to come to terms, and because there is a lawyer
involved who is preventing people of goodwill from speaking one
on one, that not only will the tenants lose but I believe the
band will lose. I believe the band will lose heavily because I
think it will have terrible problems getting any kind of income
on those properties. Nevertheless, it has become a political
issue within the band.
As a matter of fact, the chief said to me that he does not like
politicians, and yet he appears to me to be playing politics
himself.
Finally, I have one other paragraph. I said to the minister:
If the band is to learn a hard lesson by its unyielding attitude,
then it must do so. Self-government by any community means that
the community must bear the consequences of the decisions of its
elected leaders. Enough advice has been offered the leadership.
In the end the decision is theirs.
What does that have to do with the Reform Party's concern about
the Nisga'a? It is simply that when we give people independence,
when we give people the right to make their own choices about
their future, we also give them the right to make mistakes, and
that is democracy.
1725
How many times has the Reform Party—and it really only has been
the Reform Party-raised concerns, and very legitimate concerns,
about what the Nisga'a will do when they get this right to manage
their own affairs. Will they always make the right decision? No,
Madam Speaker. They may make many mistakes, just as the
provincial government makes many mistakes, just as my own
municipality and the city of Hamilton often has made mistakes
that are quite contrary to the interests of the people in the
region.
So, too, the Nisga'a must be allowed to make their mistakes
because, Madam Speaker, that is democracy. When it really comes
down to it, what is sovereignty but the ability to make our own
mistakes and be responsible for it. So, I say that what we see
is democracy in action. Actually, I would hope that the Nisga'a
will be tremendously successful, more successful, because if they
leave the lawyers alone and if they negotiate and talk with other
Canadians, with the spirit of goodwill, their own conscience and
their own good judgment, I am sure that the Nisga'a nation will
be a wonderful success.
The final question is the race-based citizenship. I want to
draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the fact that what we are
really talking about here is not race-based citizenship, what we
are talking about is territory. We are talking about territory
in the same sense that we talk about Quebec as a territory. I
noted that during the debate often the Bloc Quebecois supported
the Nisga'a in their aspirations because the Bloc Quebecois saw
resonance with the situation with the Quebecois, who wish of
course to have a sense of preservation of their identity.
What is it that the Quebecois or the Nisga'a are preserving? Are
they trying to preserve the race? I think not in the case of the
Quebecois. They would never that they want a province to be
based only on the white race. Are they trying to preserve
francophones? No, because there are allophones and anglophones
in Quebec. Are they trying to preserve the French language? No,
not just the French language because there are people who speak
other languages, many other languages in Quebec.
What I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that they are trying to
preserve in the territory of Quebec, and I suggest to you this is
the same situation with the Nisga'a people, is they are trying to
preserve a culture, a heritage. They do not want that heritage
to be lost. When I read the Nisga'a treaty and the legislation,
I noticed that the Nisga'a have provided for the fact that
ultimately—and maybe it will become that way—anyone could
become a Nisga'a. The key thing is to preserve a tradition, a
tradition that goes back hundreds of years and goes back before
Quebec.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on the surface, the Nisga'a treaty may appear to many
Canadians to be an issue that only affects a relatively remote
and isolated region of northwest British Columbia.
However, I believe that Canadians are beginning to see that this
treaty will have implications for the entire country that will
extend beyond northwestern B.C. and well into the next century.
There has been much attention attributed to this treaty,
although the official opposition believes that there still has
not been enough debate on the issue. Today I intend to focus on
a few key aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, and specifically I want
to focus on the following questions.
What is the Liberal vision for Canada? What vision are the
Liberals offering all Canadians, both aboriginal and
non-aboriginal? Where will this vision take us? Will this
Liberal vision actually lead to the building of a stronger, more
united Canada or will it lead to the fragmenting and polarization
of individuals and groups? How does the treaty and others that
will flow from it fit within a Canadian cultural reality that is
becoming only increasingly diverse rather than singular?
Let us briefly consider some of the key components of the
treaty. First, it establishes a Nisga'a government in northwest
B.C. with title to 2,000 square kilometres of land plus
management rights over another 10,000 square kilometres. It
provides that government with $190 million in cash and gives it
paramount power in 14 areas, along with shared jurisdiction in
another 16.
It requires the Nisga'a to pay income tax in 12 years time but
grants them preferential access to the local fishery and exempts
them from paying certain other taxes and licence fees in
perpetuity.
1730
What is perhaps most alarming is that the Nisga'a treaty is a
template. It is a model for more than 50 treaties to come in
B.C. There is no way to know precisely how much these treaties
will cost but a 1999 study by R.M. Richardson and Associates
estimates that the total cost could be as high as $40 billion.
There is little doubt that the creation of more than 50
entrenched ethnic government enclaves in B.C. will usher in a
period of tremendous uncertainty in economic development. The
cost of settling these claims within the parameters set by the
Nisga'a agreement will be staggering.
The Public Accounts of Canada estimated the total known costs of
land claims in Canada to be about $200 billion. In addition the
public accounts document included the statement: “The
government is aware of an additional 2,000 potential land claims
currently being researched by first nations. A reliable estimate
of these potential land claims cannot be made at this time”.
Incredibly the Liberals are pursuing this and other treaty
making without giving Canadians, especially British Columbians, a
fair voice. They have done this without asking what is
affordable to the people of Canada. This is hard to believe
because it is the Nisga'a and other bands currently negotiating
other treaties who will have to live together not only with the
people of B.C. but with the rest of Canadian taxpayers as well.
I will now return to a central concern I have with the vision of
Canada being offered by the Liberals. Their policy course would
be more appropriately referred to as one that is desperately
lacking vision.
Fundamentally the Nisga'a debate is about nothing less than the
kind of country we want to create for our children and our
grandchildren. It is about whether we want to live in a Canada
in which the quality of one's citizenship is determined not just
by one's race, or whether we want to live in a country where all
Canadians have equal rights under the law. It is about whether
we are prepared to stand aside and watch the government sow the
seeds of perpetual ethnic conflict and division within Canada or
whether we are prepared to say no to the failed and bankrupt
policies of the past.
Future generations of Canadians, those not yet born and those
who are not of voting age, as well as future immigrants to Canada
will be asked to assume a huge liability, both fiscal and social,
that was never theirs.
It is no exaggeration to state that the Liberal aboriginal
policy has completely failed. For one, it does not serve
grassroots natives on reserves. Also, the costs of the Liberal
solution supported by the Tories, the Bloc and the NDP are
completely unaffordable to the people of Canada.
The Nisga'a treaty perpetuates all of the problems inherent in
today's reserve system and entrenches them in a modern treaty.
The failed policies of the past centred on the collective
ownership of land are continued under the Nisga'a treaty.
We on this side are echoing the concerns of millions of other
Canadians who fear these treaties will leave enormous political
and economic power concentrated in the hands of the band
leadership rather than dispersing it among grassroots Nisga'a by
guaranteeing private property rights.
The treaty also grandfathers many special rights for ethnic
Nisga'a including a priority commercial fishing allocation on the
Nass River and other entitlement programs available to status
Indians but unavailable to other Canadians.
While individual Nisga'a will pay income tax after 12 years, the
Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of taxes and fees,
including the GST. At the same time, the federal government will
be obligated to financially subsidize the Nisga'a government in
perpetuity.
The treaty establishes the shocking precedent of denying voting
rights on the basis of race. Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands
will have no right to vote in Nisga'a elections even though they
will be subject to all Nisga'a laws and regulations.
It is hard to believe that any government in the late 20th
century would sign a treaty so grounded in race and special
privilege. It is hardly a wonder that British Columbians have
been denied the right to vote on this treaty in a referendum.
The impact of Nisga'a does not end at the British Columbia
border. Discussions relating to the reinterpretation of treaty 8
in my province of Alberta have already begun. The Nisga'a
agreement will be an important precedent for bands seeking to
enhance the agreements they made a century ago and which in light
of Nisga'a are now modest in comparison.
Although Reform is the only party opposing this treaty in
parliament, the debate crosses party lines.
1735
The proponents of the race based approach are the federal
Liberals, the Tories and the NDP. They have found it impossible
to resist the pressure and inertia generated by the land claims
industry in Canada. Even in the face of conflict and division
that these policies have so obviously created, they simply do not
break with the failed policies of the past.
[Translation]
I am surprised and disappointed at the Bloc Quebecois' support
for this agreement. I also find it strange that the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to allowing the people of British Columbia
to hold a referendum on an agreement that is as important
historically and constitutionally as this one.
Their position perplexes me. How can they support a referendum
on the sovereignty of Quebec, but be opposed to a referendum on
an agreement that will set precedents for other agreements in
Canada and even in Quebec, and even jeopardize their own
sovereignist agenda?
[English]
The opponents of this race based approach recognize that we
simply have no choice but to chart a new course. Both Reformers
and provincial Liberals in B.C. oppose the Nisga'a treaty. In
1982 former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated:
We do not think that there are different categories of Canadians.
We believe that all Canadians should be equal and it would be
desirable to attempt to define rights in a way which does not
distinguish between ethnic groups.
We agree with this fundamental principle and believe that if we
are to ensure future ethnic peace in Canada, parliament must say
no to the Nisga'a treaty.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join
my colleagues as we bring to a conclusion the debate on this very
important bill which is long overdue. As I listened to the
opposition, it appeared to me that it would not matter how many
more days or weeks we debated this bill, I do not think the
official opposition could be convinced of the importance and
value of passing this legislation. I agree with my minister, with
my colleagues on this side of the House and the other parties
that this must be done. Bill C-9 must become a law of the land.
My riding is in northern Ontario. Possibly after the minister
himself who also represents a northern Ontario riding, I believe
my riding has the second greatest number of first nations
communities, approximately 25. This does not make me any expert
on first nations affairs but it does give me some insight into
representing first nations communities with regard to the
importance of taking this very important step forward.
In Ontario, as in most provinces, we have treaties with our
first nations which provide some framework for negotiating issues
of concern in relationships between the federal government, in
some cases the provincial government, and our first nations
communities. Unfortunately this is not the case in British
Columbia for different and valid historical reasons, but that
does not mean we cannot find the basis for a treaty today.
As we struggle to interpret treaties of 100 or 150 years ago in
today's context, this treaty itself will not be the silver bullet
to answer all future problems. Like the treaties in the rest of
Canada, it will provide an important framework and foundation
upon which to allow our first nations communities to move
forward.
I would like to address the allegation being made by the Reform
Party that the Nisga'a treaty will form a template for all other
agreements in British Columbia. The Nisga'a treaty was not
carelessly negotiated and it bears no resemblance to the
hodgepodge of poorly conceived and often counterproductive
amendments which the Reform Party has put before the House today
for our consideration.
The Nisga'a treaty is the result of more than 20 years of
intensely adversarial negotiations.
The treaty represents a delicate balance of interests and
reflects the compromises and trade offs made by all parties
through years of these difficult negotiations.
1740
Canadians can be proud of the hardworking individuals who gave
their hearts and souls to hammer out the Nisga'a treaty.
Negotiators representing the governments of Canada, British
Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council deserve enormous praise
for their patience and perseverance during the long years of
negotiations. Their determination to find a just and lasting
solution to the Nisga'a claim has resulted in a landmark
settlement that stands as an example of reconciliation and
equity.
Much has been learned from this treaty. We have wrestled with
some of the most contentious issues surrounding aboriginal
self-government and implementation of the inherent right. We
have found ways to finally do away with the antiquated Indian
Act, replacing its provisions with progressive measures that
enable the Nisga'a people to manage their own affairs. Perhaps
equally important, we have come to a new understanding of how
aboriginal and other governments in Canada can co-exist and bring
benefits to all residents living on and adjacent to first nations
lands.
This treaty stands as a symbol of how Canadians work things out
in a collaborative and honourable manner. It further proves that
Canadians can act as peacemakers around the world because they
can indeed act as peacemakers at home.
We must acknowledge however that the Nisga'a treaty represents
only one step in a much larger process. While this treaty
finally and fully addresses the longstanding claims of the
Nisga'a first nation, it cannot serve as the standard form to be
used in drafting all other treaties.
There has been an assumption on the part of some that the
Nisga'a treaty somehow serves as a template for the more than 50
others being negotiated in British Columbia and as a template for
other treaty negotiations in Canada. It is important for
Canadians to understand that this is simply not possible and for
a number of fairly obvious reasons.
First among them is the fact that a one size fits all model
could never work. Individual first nations are just that,
individual. The James Bay Cree of northern Quebec are as
distinct from the Inuit of Nunavut, as they are from the Nisga'a
in the Nass Valley. Each first nation has its own unique
history, culture and customs, geography, language and political
structures.
An equally crucial consideration is location. The issues that
must be negotiated in a rural setting are often very different
from those in an urban area. Hunting or forestry issues may not
be especially relevant to a suburban setting while matters such
as ensuring a harmonious relationship with other local
governments will deserve greater emphasis.
Most important is the fact that the treaty process revolves
around fair negotiation, not unilateral imposition. By their
very nature treaties involve give and take. Every fair agreement
must strike a reasonable balance between diverse and competing
interests in accordance with local circumstances.
Having said that, there is clearly a case to be made for
learning from Nisga'a treaty experience. One of the most
valuable lessons is that treaties provide a reasonable way to
resolve our differences peacefully and productively by working
together for the common good.
In British Columbia the absence of treaties has historically
resulted in confrontation and lost economic opportunities for
aboriginal people and other citizens. This treaty proves that we
can resolve those problems through negotiation rather than
litigation.
There are also practical reasons to apply lessons learned to the
Nisga'a negotiation process. Few people other than the
negotiators themselves can fully appreciate the incredibly long
hours and years of work that went into drafting the careful,
detailed and precise language in this agreement. Much of the
time was spent by each of the parties developing their respective
positions. From Canada's perspective this entailed extensive
third party consultations as well as careful legal and policy
analysis. Having gone through this time consuming and costly
exercise and having achieved a sound understanding of the issues
being addressed, it makes sense for us to build on this knowledge
in future negotiations.
1745
There are also advantages to adopting elements from one treaty
when they are applicable province-wide. One of the most
significant is consistency.
Of particular significance within that framework is the benefit
of certainty over land and resource ownership and use, which is
critical to providing stability for the business community. This
in turn encourages investments that lead to increased job
opportunities for all people living in and around the affected
areas.
Perhaps the most convincing reason to borrow best practices is
that it makes sense. It speeds up the treaty making process. My
hon. colleagues need to appreciate that it can take years to
reach a final settlement. This painfully slow process comes at a
significant cost for the first nations directly affected and
prolongs economic uncertainty within the entire region.
I emphasize that this treaty is not a template, but it will
serve as a useful example for other negotiations.
Ratifying the Nisga'a final agreement will enable us to achieve
all of the objectives that are good for the country, good for the
province and good for the first nation community itself. Bill
C-9 is clearly legislation that the House should support and the
Nisga'a treaty is clearly the right agreement for the Nisga'a
people and for the residents of northwestern British Columbia.
I urge all members, including those in the loyal opposition who
might consider changing their minds, to support this legislation.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we
are debating today report stage of Bill C-9, the Nisga'a land
agreement. Last year, after years of closed door debates, talks
and consultations, the Nisga'a agreement was signed, but the
people of British Columbia had no input, nor were they given any
opportunity for input. I think that denial of democracy is one
of the main reasons the Reform Party is against the agreement.
My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington gave a very good speech.
It was a speech from the heart. It was not one that was simply
cranked out in the back rooms and sent over to him to be
delivered. This was a speech that he had researched and he spoke
from the heart, without notes I noticed. He gave a very good
speech.
However, I find it rather ironic that his government has moved
closure on this bill every time it has come before the House. If
it had not moved closure, other members of his caucus would have
been able to speak and we would have been able to debate the
question. I naively thought that was how the House should work.
It should operate in a manner in which we can have divergent
points of view and debate them. We should be able to use our
persuasive powers on the government and the government should be
able to persuade us that perhaps we are not right and do not have
the proper point of view.
In this case I think we have the proper point of view. I refer
to the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. He
spoke about the Reform Party being like General Custer. General
Custer was massacred. We are not being massacred; we are simply
pointing out what is wrong with this agreement. The only
possible way that we could compare members of the Reform Party
with General Custer is that we stand alone.
Reformers are the only ones who have said that this agreement
needs to be rejigged or looked at again. We have also said that
it needs to go before the people of British Columbia in the form
of a referendum. However, the government, taking a page from of
its cousins in British Columbia, the B.C. NDP caucus, has decided
that no matter what stage this bill comes before the House it
will impose closure and ram it through before Christmas. I do
not think that is the way things should be done in this place.
1750
Government members on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development admitted that the only reason
they went on the road with the committee was because of pressure
brought to bear on them by the Reform Party. I find it appalling
that the government would say that it is not in its best
interests or it is not one of its priorities to take the standing
committee to the people this agreement affects the most, but to
do it only because it was embarrassed or forced into it by the
official opposition.
Whether we are on that side of the House voting for the bill, in
one of the three opposition parties voting for the bill, or in
the Reform Party, which intends to vote against the bill, we have
to agree that this will have a lot more effect on Canada than
simply on the residents of British Columbia. It has a lot more
to do with Canada than simply how it will affect the residents of
British Columbia. It will affect the people of British Columbia.
There is no question about that. However, it will affect
everyone else in Canada as well.
We all know that there are at least 50 more of these deals to be
negotiated in the province of British Columbia alone, and many
more across Canada. I heard from members opposite that they do
not think this agreement will be held up as a template for other
agreements. I think that anyone who believes that has their head
in the sand.
Why is it that every time this comes up we cannot even debate
it? The Reform Party carries the debate for the entire day.
Occasionally we touch a nerve and a member of one of the other
parties will jump up and grace us with some thoughtful and
insightful points, as in the case of my colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington. Other than that, we have people coming in
from that side of the House with predetermined notes which they
simply recite. I guess that is allowable in this place, but it
is hardly debate. Something that is as groundbreaking as this,
something that is as precedent setting as this deserves a lot
more debate than we have been giving it. Where are the people?
Where are the debaters?
When I go to the schools in my riding I tell them that things
are settled in the House of Commons by good, spirited debate,
with speeches that are well thought out and well researched. When
the students come here they find that is not always the case.
They find that the government has a majority. We cannot expect
the government to be hamstrung by a handful of people who want to
completely derail its agenda, but debate should take place and it
has not taken place in this case. That is a terrible travesty.
One of the things that we have said we do not like about this
deal is that it sets a precedent by which all other agreements
will be measured and argued.
Therefore, we have to make sure we get this one right. This one
above all has to be right. It has to be one that we can live
with and that our children's children can live with, one that
actually empowers native people and gives them freedom. I do not
think, from what I have seen of this bill, that it accomplishes
those things.
1755
A couple of summers ago, on one of the Indian reserves in my
riding, a group of people had a sit-in in an administration
building. Their problem was that they were not being dealt with
fairly. They said there was bias in how things were done by
their band council. If they were in the in group, they were in;
but if they were in the out group, they would never be in. They
also said that huge amounts of money were not being accounted
for. They wanted to have something done about it.
The member for Wild Rose, I and other members brought those
problems to the House. We asked the former minister of Indian
affairs if she would cause a forensic audit to be done that would
either prove that the people who were making the claims were
right or prove that the council had acted properly. The minister
said “No. This is strictly their business. This is entirely up
to them”.
There was no recourse for those people at that time. We think
that there should be some sort of recourse in here for people who
have complaints. My colleague for Wild Rose talked about—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Provencher.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate prior to the final votes
being taken in the House.
I want to begin with that point and advise Canadians of what we
are doing this evening and will probably be doing tomorrow
evening. If they tune in again to this well known and famous
station, they will notice members of parliament repeatedly
getting up and down, again and again, probably for hours on end,
voting on 469 amendments proposed by the Reform Party to this
treaty.
This is quite interesting in itself, in that it is an unusual,
highly irregular practice in the House, what we tend to call the
highest court in the land, where 80% of the members will vote for
the treaty, but we have an obstructionist group putting forth
amendments and pretending to have a legitimate debate. I think
it is important to inform the Canadian people about what is
happening in the House as we have this discussion.
Having said that, I want to begin by making some primary
observations and I would like to go into some discussion about
the applications of the charter and the constitutional
implications for this particular bill.
It has been said many times that this is an historic treaty
which breaks away from the confines, the handcuffs and the
shackles, as members of the Reform Party would say, of the Indian
Act. That is the same Indian Act that has held first nations
people bound to the confines of their reserves and their lands.
It is an attempt to break free from that, to move on into the
21st century and to do it with dignity which would be supported
by all Canadians.
1800
I found it quite interesting in testimony to hear from our
member from Nunavut who talked about her parents not being able
to vote until 1960, like Canadian first nations veterans who
fought for this country. While living on reserve they
nonetheless joined the forces in the second world war and made
great contributions to this country. They came back home and
were not able to vote. I wonder where those who are opposing the
treaty now were to defend them in those important historical
moments? They were not there. Their voices were conspicuously
silent.
Reform Party members have talked about consultation. We know
that we have had a debate in the House. We have had a week long
trip in British Columbia. The provincial legislature had the
longest debate in recent history in British Columbia, 116 hours
of debate. Through an all-party standing committee dealing with
these matters, there were 34 meetings.
There were many other meetings conducted even in places like
Trinity College in British Columbia, a well known Christian
college. I believe Chief Gosnell and others went at their
invitation to meet with them and discuss openly with the students
and staff what the treaty meant and what they were intending to
do.
The Anglican church in British Columbia also invited them, as
well as others. Wherever they were asked to go they willingly
went to talk about these important features with all Canadians,
anyone who was interested in hearing. So we have had
consultations.
I want to talk about the constitutional legal framework of this
agreement. What is important to understand in the debate with
the Reform Party is this. We have heard a lot of this over the
past number of months about the protection of women's rights,
constitutional third order of government and so on. Let us set
out very clearly for the Canadian people the fundamental point of
the Reform Party's argument and why it would oppose the
legislation.
The fundamental point, Reform Party members argue absolutely
wrongly and I think they realize that as well, is that this is a
constitutional amendment. In other words, the 14 areas of
jurisdiction laid out in that treaty would somehow contravene or
spill outside of the constitution or those protections provided
in section 35 for existing treaties and new treaties that would
be negotiated now, such as this one, and in the 21st century.
They argue that if that is the case this would trigger a
referendum both in the House of Commons in Canada under part V of
the constitution or those particular provisions in British
Columbia where it would trigger a referendum there. This is
absolutely not true. This is absolutely false.
The fact of the matter is that there are no powers in that
treaty, in that bill that contravene the constitution. There are
no new powers. The powers delegated throughout that process in
that treaty, those 14 areas, are those that are normally used
within the understood provisions of aboriginal self-government
for first nations people and they are quite gentle in their
application in terms of delivering health services, education,
child welfare, to name a few. They are not the kind that are the
normal cause of debate in terms of constitutional provisions in
this country. These are very everyday kinds of services, such as
child welfare, that in fact, quite honestly, through
federal-provincial agreements many first nations have been
delivering for 20 years.
What do the experts say about this? What do the experts tell
the Canadian people about the debate? We have heard from the
Liberal Party. The Tories are agreeing with us and the NDP and
the Bloc, but the Reform Party is saying no. Let us turn to the
experts for a moment and ask them. What did they say in their
testimony?
Professor Scott from McGill came under questioning in one of the
first rounds of questions from the Liberal side and I had the
opportunity to ask him the question. Professor Scott was chosen
by the Reform Party as one of the folks it would like to have
testify at the committee table. What did he tell us? He said
that this is no constitutional amendment.
I believed him.
1805
In that same group was Professor Brad Morse, a former vice-dean
of the University of Ottawa, and still teaching there, who again
reiterated that in his view this was no constitutional amendment.
In fact, he went on to discuss the seven years of applications
of law where the supreme court of the United States had applied
these same kinds of provisions in the U.S. courts recognizing
those rights of first nations people and without violating what
they call the sacred constitution of the U.S. The same would
hold here. This is no violation, no abrogation, no derogation of
those provisions that were negotiated in 1982.
We also heard from Professor Hogg and Professor Monahan. Those
who are lawyers, either watching this debate, or who might read
about it after, or even here in this Chamber, will know that
Professor Hogg is the dean of constitutional law in Canada. Any
student will know that his written textbook is required reading
in first year constitutional studies across Canada. We had him
testify before our committee.
I would like to quote from some of his observations, as well as
a colleague of his, Professor Monahan, another equally eminent
and respected legal scholar who is called upon frequently by the
media and others to give his observations on a number of issues
affecting Canadians.
Professor Monahan in responding to questions said that “While I
think there are some respectable arguments that can be made,”—I think
he was being very generous here—“challenging the
agreement on the basis of some older cases”—he is referring to
the privy council which was the supreme court at the time—“in
the early part of the 20th century, in my view, the better or
more persuasive legal conclusion is that the agreement”—the
Nisga'a Treaty, Bill C-9—“and the ratifying legislation is
valid”—here we go—“and does not constitute an amendment to
the Constitution of Canada”.
He also went on to talk about section 35 recognizing both
existing treaties and future treaties. That is spelled out very
clearly in section 35 of the constitution.
What did Professor Hogg have to say? I am quoting him in his
analysis and he said:
I have very little doubt that the courts will decide that there
is an aboriginal right to self-government. So the Nisga'a people
have those things now whether or not the treaty is entered into.
I want to conclude by saying that there is no constitutional
amendment and, therefore, no referendum. It is clearly within the
boundaries of—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before we resume
debate and to make it clear to everybody, debate will go on until
6.27 p.m. Therefore, there are about 15 minutes left.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to finally have an opportunity to debate
this bill.
I am disappointed that I have had to wait until debate at report
stage for this opportunity on such an important bill which can be
construed as constituting a constitutional amendment, according
to many of the expert constitutional presenters who appeared
before the committee.
According to the official opposition in British Columbia, the
Liberal Party there, this treaty constitutes a constitutional
amendment. For that reason alone I find it really quite
disturbing that the government has rammed the bill through the
House with undue haste, with a fraction of the time taken to
consider it at the provincial legislature in British Columbia.
In fact, two weeks ago, as we know, the committee studying the
bill travelled through five communities in British Columbia
hearing from a hand-picked witness list. Many of the
organizations and individuals who applied to appear before the
committee to express their concerns were refused the opportunity.
One of those organizations was the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation, a large advocacy organization representing some
80,000 Canadians; representing some 20,000 of them in British
Columbia.
1810
This organization had prepared a 30-page study, including
thoughtful appendices and original research by constitutional and
economic experts, and yet it was denied the opportunity to
present its views on behalf of its members to the committee.
I will take the opportunity to read part of its submission,
which was never heard by the parliamentary committee because of
the Liberals' refusal to have a full and complete debate. I will
take the opportunity to read some of their analysis into the
record.
Before I do so, there has been something of a debate today on
whether or not the treaty constitutes a template for future land
claims agreements. Indeed, it is not the official opposition in
this place who originated that argument, rather it was the then
British Columbia premier Glen Clark, one of the principal
negotiators of this treaty, who said that it constitutes a
template for future lands claims settlements. We are simply
taking one of the principal negotiators at his word when he
suggests that this treaty will be a template for the future.
Obviously it will not be a precise template, but a very important
precedent.
I hear my colleagues from the New Democratic Party speaking in
caustic tones about the Reform Party's opposition to this treaty,
yet they seem to ignore the fact that perhaps the most credible
New Democratic attorney general in Canadian history, Alec
MacDonald, the former NDP attorney general in British Columbia,
has spoken out publicly and vociferously against this agreement.
This opposition does, and ought to, cut across partisan lines.
One non-partisan organization that I know something about, the
Canadian Taxpayers Federation, was denied a hearing on this
treaty. It released a study which called on the minister of
aboriginal affairs to read the fine print of the Nisga'a treaty.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says that the $490 million cost
of the Nisga'a settlement for cash, land and resource transfers,
is likely understated as it does not include any estimates on
mineral, water or fisheries resources to be transferred. It also
says that fair party compensation is likely, significantly
underestimated.
It goes on to say that “the $490 million cost quoted by the
government does not include taxpayer transfers to the Nisga'a
government which will cost taxpayers, according to federal
negotiators, a minimum of over $400 million in additional
transfers over 15 years for one settlement with one native band.
The Nisga'a treaty is not final in a multitude of senses”,
according to the CTF. It says that four appendices in its study
from constitutional legal expert Mel Smith, a former principal
constitutional adviser to three successive B.C. governments, are
attached to the review and that they list 49 sections of the
treaty where there are explicit requirements to consult or
negotiate agreements and a further 22 sections of the agreement
where paramountcy is unclear or not stated.
It says there is a ratchet up provision where any favourable tax
exemptions granted to other bands over the next 20 years will
need to be given to the Nisga'a as well, and that there are 17
instances where the Nisga'a treaty or future Nisga'a laws will
prevail over federal or provincial laws in the event of an
inconsistency. The Nisga'a government will be anything but
municipal as proponents claim.
Municipal governments do not possess power over citizenship,
culture, adoption and all levels of education, timber resources
and court systems whereas the Nisga'a under this treaty will.
The decision on whether non-Nisga'a will be able to vote in
Nisga'a elections is up to the Nisga'a government. Senior levels
of government have traded away a core political right, the right
of taxpayers to be represented by those who will have the power
to tax them in this agreement.
The CTF's B.C. director, Mark Milke, is quoted as saying that
the Nisga'a treaty “is neither fair nor final to taxpayers and
it gives powers to one native band similar to powers possessed
only by the federal and provincial governments”. He says that
“in addition it trespasses upon the basic political right to
vote for those who would set the taxes. Canadians deserve better
than a document negotiated by a distrusted B.C. government and
rammed through parliament by a federal government afraid of
debate”. He says that “when politicians horse trade core
political rights and negotiate open and financial commitments,
taxpayers deserve a vote on it”. By that I infer a referendum,
which I think something like 80% of British Columbians have
expressed a desire for.
The CTF's submission goes on to say:
—the Nisga'a treaty and the B.C. treaty process will involve a
substantial reallocation of taxpayer money, Crown-owned
resources, and Crown-owned land. Because of federal and British
Columbia cost-sharing agreements, every Canadian from St. John's
to Victoria will be affected. In addition to the costs to
taxpayers, forgone tax revenues (from forestry stumpage for
example) will result from land to be transferred. Such land
transfers could one day also affect the public treasuries of not
only Canada and British Columbia—given the lack of treaties in
some provinces and the possible judicial reinterpretation of
treaties already signed and thought to be final—but other
provinces as well.
Moreover, municipal tax bases within British Columbia may be
affected—
1815
It goes on to detail how that is the case. In addition, the
Nisga'a treaty in fact removes the long-held political right to
taxation with representation, and thus runs counter to the basic
principle of liberal democracy. Disenfranchisement for any
reason, cultural or in pursuit of justice for past wrongs, can
hardly be said to be either responsible or in taxpayers'
interest. It goes on to say:
Moreover, the size and responsiveness of governments to taxpayers
is directly related to the powers that such governments possess.
The more portfolios that a government possesses, the higher the
price tag for such a government is likely to be... The Nisga'a
government will far more closely resemble provincial and federal
governments than municipal governments. That is an important
point to remember in the context of taxation, tax transfers, and
the disbursements of such tax dollars by the proposed Nisga'a
government.
It asked how much the treaty will cost. In 1995 there was $125
million in cash according to government estimates. In 1996 the
agreement in principle cost $190 million in cash. At the time,
the B.C. government failed to include the value of the crown land
and resources transferred in the deal. When pressed, the
government reported the land to be worth $107 million. Thus in
1996 government estimates totalled $297 million.
In 1998 leading up to the final agreement, the B.C. government
still insisted the cost of the treaty was only $190 million
according to press releases. But the opposition Liberals leaked
a copy of the treaty, the official estimate jumped to $312
million. When questioned on the breakdown of the costs, Premier
Clark admitted it was closer to $382 million. The premier's staff
shortly thereafter added items not mentioned by the premier and
the cost rose to $459 million. The next day the figure was again
revised to $490 million, where it remains.
This does not include any estimate of mineral resources to be
transferred, any estimate of water resources to be transferred or
any estimate of fisheries resources to be transferred. There are
monetary transfers to the Nisga'a of $160 million over five years
after implementation of the treaty as well.
The report goes on but unfortunately I have run out of time. A
serious concern is being raised by a major taxpayer group about
the long term fiscal implications not just of this treaty, but of
dozens of other treaties which will be negotiated with this as a
template. We should pause because of these concerns rather than
rush to the judgment which we see from all four other parties in
this place.
On behalf of my constituents I will be voting for these
amendments and against the bill.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the opportunity to describe how
the Nisga'a final agreement deals with private property and land
ownership. My comments will be particularly helpful to our
Reform Party colleagues. It has become painfully obvious to the
rest of us in the House that they have not read the agreement and
do not understand it.
Members of the official opposition have suggested that
individual Nisga'a citizens will not be able to own private
property on Nisga'a land. They also suggested that members of
Nisga'a governments will be unable to exert undue influence over
Nisga'a citizens because of lack of security over tenure to their
homes. This is simply not true. Let me take the opposition
through what the final agreement really says.
Through the final agreement the Nisga'a will own their lands in
fee simple, the highest estate in land known in law. No longer
will the crown hold the Nisga'a land in trust. No longer will
the minister of Indian affairs have to approve every use made of
their lands. Nisga'a lands will not be lands reserved for
Indians. The reserve system and the application of the Indian
Act to the Nisga'a will end.
The Nisga'a will own their land and its resources, other than
water, submerged lands, and the private properties which were
excepted from Nisga'a land.
If they choose to do so, the Nisga'a will be able to create
private parcels of Nisga'a lands and dispose of them without the
consent of either Canada or British Columbia. There is the
essence of private property ownership.
1820
As long as the Nisga'a meet the requirements set out in the
final agreement, they will also be able to register these parcels
in the provincial land registry system. This is something that
Nisga'a leaders have indicated they wish to do once they have the
legal means to do so, and the political direction from their
constituency, the Nisga'a people. The owners of parcels
registered in the land title system would realize all the
advantages and securities of the system, just as private property
landowners enjoy those advantages.
None of this is available to the Nisga'a people under the Indian
Act, yet some members opposite would seek to prevent this
significant advancement through nonsensical amendments which they
have proposed. What is the purpose of this obstructionism? These
same members purport to represent the interests of grassroots
Indian people. Do they not want private property ownership
rights for the Nisga'a people? Do they not want to end the
application of the Indian Act and the Indian reserve system for
the Nisga'a people?
Maybe the Reform members opposite should take the time to talk
to Nisga'a people. The Nisga'a people in a clear and substantial
majority strongly supported this agreement and would stand to
benefit from being treated like other Canadians for the first
time.
What some members opposite have missed is that through this
agreement the Nisga'a will finally have responsibility for
managing their own land. If their democratically elected
government decides to do so, they can create parcels of fee
simple land, register them in the land titles system, sell them
to anyone they choose and allow them to be mortgaged. None of
those opportunities exist today under the Indian Act. That is but
one of the many reasons why the Nisga'a final agreement is such a
significant step forward.
The official opposition has suggested that individual Nisga'a
will not have private property rights and that Nisga'a
governments will own the housing communally. The opposite is
true. Appendices C5 and C6 list many hundreds of individual
Nisga'a, in fact all the Nisga'a, who now have homes in four
villages. Appendix C5 lists those Nisga'a who now have
certificates of possession. Appendix C6 lists those Nisga'a
whose current band council have allocated housing.
All those names in both appendices will receive the same private
property rights to their homes. Those rights will include the
right to exclusively possess and use their land, in effect
individual ownership of land and improvements. This ownership
right can be passed down through their estates and marital
property settlements. These rights cannot be expropriated by
Nisga'a government.
Therefore, it is not accurate to suggest that the treaty does
not provide for individual property rights or that residents will
be exposed to arbitrary decisions of Nisga'a government. In fact
this agreement provides a new level of security for Nisga'a
families and a range of opportunities for economic development of
land which are not currently available to the Nisga'a.
The members of the official opposition have their own views of
what is best for the Nisga'a people. That is the old way of
doing business, to arbitrarily choose for aboriginal people what
we think is best for them. The Reform Party is living in the
past. This is the past that they claim to condemn but for which
in fact they would have future generations condemned to repeat by
virtue of a lack of vision and a lack of trust and the strength,
spirit and capabilities of the aboriginal people.
The Nisga'a have chosen differently. That is their right.
Through peaceful negotiations, patience, dedication and a spirit
of co-operation and compromise, all three parties to this
agreement have chosen differently. They have chosen to move
forward in a responsible positive way that will benefit the
Nisga'a people and respect the interests of all other Canadians.
1825
It is time for everyone in the House to uphold this choice for a
positive future by rejecting these motions and supporting Bill
C-9.
The Reform Party has tabled nearly 500 amendments to the Nisga'a
treaty. It is clear that they have no interest in seeing a
conclusion to this most important treaty which would allow for
self-government of the Nisga'a people. The Reform Party says it
wants more time so it can do consultations. Let me remind the
Reform Party that the Nisga'a people have been negotiating for
130 years to have the Nisga'a agreement brought to fruition. We
see the sons, the grandsons and the great grandsons of the
original negotiators that first tried to get justice for their
people. One hundred and thirty years is a long time.
It is time for justice to be done. Most members in the House,
with the exception of those in the Reform Party, rise to support
the final agreement of the Nisga'a people. We will do so with
pride. I am very proud to be in the House to partake in this.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.27 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, the motions are deemed
moved, the questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of
Bill C-9 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed
requested and deferred until Tuesday, December 7, 1999, at the
end of the period provided for the consideration of government
orders.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
2, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 33 on page 2.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be
amended by replacing lines 5 to 14 on page 2 with the following:
““Nisga'a Agreement” means the Agreement reached between the
representatives of the Nisga'a people and Her Majesty in right of
British Columbia on April 27, 1999 and on behalf of Her Majesty
in right of Canada on May 4, 1999 and laid before the House of
Commons on October 19, 1999, and as amended by the Parliament of
Canada.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:
“the Nisga'a and Her Majesty in right”
(b) by deleting the word “Nation” wherever it occurs within the
Bill.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be
amended
(a) by replacing line 7 on page 2 with the following:
“the Nisga'a Indian Bands and Her majesty in right”
(b) by replacing the word “Nation” by the words “Indian
Bands” wherever it occurs within the Bill.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be
amended by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 2 with the following:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be
amended by replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following:
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 on
page 2 with the following:
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
2, be amended by deleting lines 34 to 37 on page 2.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 36 and
37 on page 2 with the following:
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 37 on page 2 the following new clause:
“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to fulfil the Federal
Government's obligations under the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
2, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 2 the following:
“2.1 For greater certainty, it is declared that this Act is
enacted without prejudice to the legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada, and may, accordingly be amended, repealed,
or altered by the Parliament of Canada; but no such Act may take
or permit the taking of, or otherwise affect title to or
enjoyment of, aboriginal land, in any manner which would not have
been lawful had this section not been enacted; this section is
inseparable from this Act.”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9,
in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 41 on page 2
with the following:
“3. The Nisga'a Agreement is subordinate to the Constitution
of Canada and to the laws and statutes of Canada and British
Columbia.”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be
amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be
amended by replacing line 2 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 3 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4,
be amended by replacing line 3 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be
amended by deleting lines 4 to 10 on page 3.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
4, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the
following:
“(2) A person or body has the”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be
amended by replacing lines 5 to 10 on page 3 with the following:
“subsection (1), a person has the powers, rights, privileges and
benefits conferred on the person by the Nisga'a Final Agreement
and shall perform the duties and is subject to the liabilities
imposed on the person by that Agreement.”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to
10 on page 3 with the following:
“subsection (1), the Nisga'a Nation, Nisga'a Villages, Nisga'a
Institutions or Nisga'a citizens have the powers, rights,
privileges and benefits conferred on the person or body listed by
the Nisga'a Final Agreement and shall perform the duties and is
subject to the liabilities imposed on the the Nisga'a Nation,
Nisga'a Villages, Nisga'a Institutions or Nisga'a citizens by
that Agreement.”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 4, be
amended by deleting lines 11 to 14 on page 3.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
5, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 3 with the following:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 3 with the following:
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 3 with the following:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 6, be
amended by replacing lines 17 to 22 on page 3 with the following:
“6. In the event of a conflict between the Nisga'a Final
Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law,
including this Act, that Agreement prevails to the extent of the
conflict.”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the
following:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
31 on page 3.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 31 on page 3 with
the following:
“7. (1) Notwithstanding the common law, the Nisga'a
Agreement represents the final settlement of all claims of the
Nisga'a nation collectively and individual Nisga'a in British
Columbia or Canada. Any rights of the Nisga'a people in Canada or
British Columbia, other than as provided in this Agreement, are
forever extinguished.”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
38 on page 3.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 32 on
page 3 with the following:
“(2) The aboriginal title”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
44 on page 3 and lines 1 to 3 on page 4.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 7, be
amended by replacing lines 40 to 43 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 3 with
the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 7 to
12 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
8, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be amended
“(2) The Auditor General shall table, for each fiscal year,
in the House of Commons an audited report of all sums paid out of
the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with subsection (1).”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be amended
“(2) For each fiscal year, the Minister of Finance shall
table in Parliament a report indicating the sums paid out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with subsection (1).”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be amended
“(2) The Minister of Finance shall table, for each fiscal
year, in the House of Commons a report indicating the sums paid
out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with
subsection (1).”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 9, be amended
“(2) For each fiscal year, the Minister of Finance shall
table in the House of Commons a report indicating the sums paid
out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with
subsection (1) and this report shall be deemed referred to the
appropriate committee.”
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 16 and
17 on page 4 with the following:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be
amended by replacing lines 16 to 18 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be
amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 4 with the
following:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 9, be
amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following:
“(2) Such sums paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
shall be reviewed by Parliament in accordance with the usual
parliamentary financial practice .”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 10, be
amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:
“10. The Governor in Council may, after consultation by the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with the
Nisag'a Nation, make any”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
10, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 4 with the
following:
“10. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
may make any regulations or orders that the Minister considers
necessary or advisable for”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20 on
page 4 with the following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 10, be
amended by replacing line 21 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 10, be
amended by adding after line 24 on page 4 the following:
“(2) Such regulations or orders shall be laid before
Parliament and referred to the appropriate committee.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be
amended by adding after line 24 on page 4 the following new
clause:
“10.1 All negotiated modifications to the Nisga'a Final
Agreement shall presented to Parliament for its legislative
approval.”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 11, be
amended by deleting lines 25 to 27 on page 4.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 26
and 27 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 28 to
30 on page 4.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 11, be amended by deleting lines 31 to 36 on page 4.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
12, be amended by deleting lines 37 and 38 on page 4.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be
amended by deleting lines 39 to 44 on page 4.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be
amended by replacing lines 39 to 42 on page 4 with the following:
“(2) A copy of a Nisga'a law shall be deposited in the
public registry of Nisga'a laws and is”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 41
and 42 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be
amended by deleting lines 1 to 5 on page 5.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be
amended by deleting lines 6 to 10 on page 5.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 5 with
the following:
“(2) Neither the Harvest Agreement nor the Nisga'a
Agreement confer any new rights within the meaning of section 25
or 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 9 and
10 on page 5 with the following:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be
amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“(3) Prior to entering into the Agreement referred to in
subsection (1), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall hold
public hearings within the Province of British Columbia.”
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be
amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“(3) Any agreement to which Her Majesty becomes a partner
pursuant to section 13 shall be deemed to be in the interest of
the public.”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
13, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“(3) Any Agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (1)
shall be laid before Parliament and referred to the appropriate
committee.”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 13, be
amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“(3) An agreement made under section 13 shall terminate
five years after the date on which it comes into force or may be
terminated earlier by either party giving the other at least
three months notice.”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the
following new clause:
“13.1 (1) The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall publish
any agreement negotiated under section 13 before it is entered
into, or give notice of its availability, in the Canada Gazette
and in any other manner that the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) Within 60 days after the publication referred to in
subsection (1), any person may file with the Minister comments or
a notice of objection.
(3) After the end of the sixty day period referred to in
subsection (2), the Minister shall publish a report in the Canada
Gazette that summarizes how the comments and notices of
objections were dealt with.
(4) The Minister may, after publishing the report referred
to under subsection 4, enter into an agreement under section 13.
(5) The Minister shall publish the agreement in the Canada
Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister considers
appropriate.”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be
amended by replacing line 12 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
16 on page 5.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 15
and 16 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 21 on page 5.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be
amended by replacing lines 19 to 21 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 5 with the following:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be
amended by deleting lines 28 to 32 on page 5.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be
amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 5 with the
following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 14, be
amended by replacing line 35 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 15, be
amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 6 with the following:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 16, be
amended by replacing lines 11 to 17 on page 6 with the following:
“16. Only sections 5 to 14 of the Indian Act apply to the
Nisga'a Final Agreement as of the effective date of that
Agreement for”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
16, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 6 with the
following:
“16. The Indian Act does not apply to the”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 11
and 12 on page 6 with the following:
“16. Subject to Chapter 13 and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the”
That Bill C-9, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 12
and 13 on page 6 with the following:
“Chapter and paragraphs 5 and 6 of Chapter 16 of the Nisga'a
Final Agree-”
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 25
and 26 on page 6 with the following:
“18. Nisga'a laws made under the”
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 18, be amended
“18. (1) For greater certainty, neither Nisga'a”
“(2) Clerical errors that occur in the framing or copying
of any instrument drawn by an officer or an employee of the
Nisga'a government shall not be construed as invalidating that
instrument, but when discovered they may be corrected under the
authority of the Nisga'a government.”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 33 on
page 6 with the following:
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 38 to
43 on page 6 and lines 1 to 5 on page 7.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be
amended by replacing line 40 on page 6 with the following:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 42 on
page 6 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20,
be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 8 on page 7
with the following:
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be
amended by deleting lines 10 to 12 on page 7.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be
amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 11 and 12 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 19 on page 7.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
26 on page 7.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
29 on page 7.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be
amended by replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“(5) When the Attorney General for Canada has been served
notice under subsection (1) and has appeared and participated
under subsection (3), the Attorney General for Canada shall lay
upon the Table of the House of Commons a report of such
proceedings and this report shall be referred to the appropriate
committee of the House.”
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“(5) When the Attorney General for Canada has been served
notice under subsection (1) and has appeared and participated
under subsection (3), the Attorney General for Canada shall lay
before Parliament a report of such proceedings.”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a report
on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the
following new clause:
“20.1 Every two years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every seven years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a report
on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every third year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a report
on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every four years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be
amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 Every fifth year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a report
on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every six years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill
C-9 be amended by adding before line 29 on page 7 the following
new clause:
“20.1 Every eight years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every ninth year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a report
on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every ten years, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development shall table in each House of Parliament a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 Every eleventh year, the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development shall table in the House of Commons a
report on the state of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding before line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development shall prepare an annual report with respect to the
implementation of this Act.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of this report to be
laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen
days on which that House is sitting after the Minister has
prepared his report.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development shall, within fifteen days after the termination of
the fiscal year or, if Parliament is not then in session, within
fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session,
lay before Parliament a report setting out the activities of the
Nisga'a Final Agreement in that fiscal year.”
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be
amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9
be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9
be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20.1, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill
C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following
new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within five yeas after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be
amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit
a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the
coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein
shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of
the Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated
or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9, in Clause
20, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of one year after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate
or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate, as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three year after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and, shall within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of ten years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of eight years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.)
moved:
That Bill C-9
be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new
clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of six years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament, as may
be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament, as may
be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of nine years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and, shall within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of two years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within three years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming
into force of this Act, he provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after
line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or
established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within three year after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the Senate.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the
Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or
established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament
for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable,
undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation
of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is
undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by
adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming
into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be
referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose
of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act
and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken,
submit a report to the House of Commons.”
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 21, be
amended by replacing line 36 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
21, be amended by deleting lines 37 and 38 on page 7 and lines 1
to 5 on page 8.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 5 on page 8 with
the following:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 15
and 16 on page 8 with the following:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
23, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 8 with the
following:
“means a Nisga'a annual fishing plan, as defined by the
Nisga'a”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 23,
be amended by deleting lines 35 to 39 on page 8.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 23, be
amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 8 with the
following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 24, be
amended by replacing lines 4 to 10 on page 9 with the following:
“(d.2) members of the Nisga'a Government persons on the staff of
those members or employees of the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a
Village or Nisga'a Institution as defined in the Nisga'a Final
Agreement.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 25, be
amended by replacing lines 19 to 24 on page 9 with the following:
“Village if it levies and collects a real property tax or a
frontage or area tax in respect of Nisga'a Lands as defined in
the Nisga'a Final Agreement.”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 26,
be amended by deleting lines 36 and 37 on page 9 and lines 1 to 5
on page 10.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 5 on page 10 with
the following:
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
1, 2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 1, 2005
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on June 1, 2004
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. This Act comes into force six years after the day on
which it receives Royal Assent.”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 1, 2004
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 1, 2003 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 1,
2002 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 8 comes into force on November 15, 2006 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 8 on page 10 with the following:
“of the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 22,
2001 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 6, 2002
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 08,
2003 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 09,
2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 5, 2006
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 10,
2006 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.: moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 6, 2007
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 7, 2008
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 10,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 8, 2009
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 10,
2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on January 9, 2010
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 10,
2010 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 13,
2022 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 20,
2002 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 18,
2003 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 et 7 come into force on April 6, 2004
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 4, 2005
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on June 5, 2005
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 3, 2006
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on June 7, 2006
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 2, 2007
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 25,
2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on June 8, 2007
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into“
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 1, 2008
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6, and 7 come into force on June 10,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 1, 2009
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on June 10, 2009
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 22,
2002 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 17,
2004 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 et 20 come into force on March 18,
2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 19,
2006 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
3, 2006 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 20,
2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
5, 2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 21,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
7, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 20,
2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
8, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 20,
2010 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September
8, 2010 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 22,
2001 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 2,
2002 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9, and 14 come into force on February 05,
2003 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 07,
2004 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 5, 2005
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 6, 2006
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 9,
2006 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 9, 2007
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 10,
2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 10,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 11,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 11,
2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 20,
2011 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 21, 2001
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 5, 2002
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 2,
2003 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 07, 2003
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 3,
2004 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 08, 2004
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 5,
2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 9, 2005
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 10, 2006
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 6,
2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 12, 2007
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 6,
2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 12, 2008
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 20, 2010
and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27,
be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 22, 2001 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 4, 2002 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 6, 2004 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 06, 2004 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 8, 2005 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 09, 2005 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 10, 2006 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 11, 2007 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 10, 2007 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 12, 2008 and the
remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 11, 2008 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the
following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 12, 2008 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 12, 2009 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on February 11, 2012 and
the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and
8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended
by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
That Bill C-9, in
Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with
the following:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause
27, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the
following:
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be
amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10,
Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-2, The Nisga'a Final Agreement
and related Appendices, as Schedule 1.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10,
Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-3, The Nisga'a Nation Taxation
Agreement, as Schedule 2.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, just over a month ago I raised a question in the
House about the competition problems in the gasoline industry. I
raised it in the context of Statistics Canada saying that energy
prices and gasoline prices were “the major driver of inflation”
in Canada. The inflation rate had just hit 2.6% at that time.
This is significant because the Bank of Canada has an inflation
target of between 1% and 3% and when inflation threatens to go
higher than 3%, the bank raises the ceiling on its overnight rate
and all the banks follow suit and before we know it, interest
rates everywhere are going up.
The Bank of Canada mainly looks at increases in the so-called
core inflation rate which is the CPI for everything but food and
energy. Nevertheless the reason analysts were starting to be
concerned last month is because once energy prices go up for a
period of time, they start to affect the cost of other goods and
services in our economy. Then the core inflation rate goes up,
the bank gets worried, it hikes interest rates and we all end up
paying higher prices and mortgage rates as well as the higher gas
prices and energy costs.
If anything goes up, such as gasoline, another thing goes up is
that oil company profits go up. The same week I asked my
question, oil refining companies like Suncor and Imperial were
posting record profits and the crude price had not even jumped as
high as it got a month later.
I asked by question very deliberately about competition problems
in the gasoline industry, an issue clearly within the
jurisdiction of the federal government and the Minister of
Industry.
The minister chose not to hear the question that way for his own
reasons. The fact remains that he has done nothing about
monopoly pricing in the gasoline retailing industry and now high
gas prices are threatening to hike inflation and interest rates
which will affect the entire economy.
The minister has done nothing, but others have tried to do
something. For example, I led a group of six individuals who
asked the Competition Bureau to investigate why prices had gone
up after competition was reduced in gasoline retailing in my
province of Saskatchewan.
I received the bureau's report just last week. It said “sure
there is less competition now”. It said “sure that can lead to
higher prices”. The bureau just did not see that the prices
have gone up.
1830
But they did go up. Everyone in Saskatchewan knows they went
up. I put out a press release in September 1998, over a year
ago, after my office was swamped with phone calls about a four
cent a litre gas price increase at the pumps. However, this four
cent price hike did not show up in the Competition Bureau's
database of prices that it showed me when it tabled its report.
So it had to find that there were no competition problems. I am
not convinced nor are my constituents.
If Canadians believe there are no problems in gas pricing and
that gas prices are lower in Saskatchewan than in seven other
jurisdictions, then they can vote Liberal, as I am sure they
will, as they did in the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar byelection
where 15% voted Liberal, an amazing increase from the last
election.
In any event, the next CPI numbers are due out on December 17.
Gas prices remain high and the Minister of Industry remains
uninterested in doing anything about them. He is more anxious
about hockey than he is in protecting consumers from gas prices.
So what else can be done?
Clearly, it is time for a different approach. I am convinced
more than ever that we need an energy price review commission to
hold oil companies accountable to justify their price increases
in this country and to take a more active role in bringing the
oil companies to account.
That is why I am moving now to update and table my private
member's bill calling for an energy price review commission,
which I hope can accomplish those very objectives in the near
future.
In the meantime, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary will
actually speak to the question I posed last month or whether he
will repeat the industry's mantra that there is no problem, it is
all in our imagination, just relax and trust the oil companies,
and if Canadians believe gas prices are lower than they have ever
been, they should vote Liberal, don't worry, be happy.
What is the answer from the parliamentary secretary?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the question today is just as
confusing as it was last week, simply because the hon. member
goes from pricing to competition.
Let me point out that the Competition Act contains all the
necessary tools to investigate and prosecute offences in the
gasoline industry. I can assure the hon. member that where
allegations are made to the bureau that companies or individuals
have crossed the line of appropriate business behaviour by fixing
prices or engaging in anti-competitive conduct, the Competition
Bureau will act appropriately.
When the bureau finds evidence supporting allegations made it
will actively pursue these matters through the competition
enforcement of the Competition Act. For example, criminal
charges were laid in September of this year against a refiner and
two retailers of gasoline for price maintenance.
Where the bureau's investigation finds that the allegations are
not sustained or do not support the conclusion drawn by the
complainant, the bureau will discontinue its investigation. It
is important to realize that when an investigation is
discontinued due to lack of evidence, it does not mean that the
act is deficient or requires amendment. It means that there is
no sufficient evidence of anti-competitive activity.
I will also point out to the hon. member that the authority to
regulate retail gasoline prices falls within the purview of the
provincial government not the federal government. Therefore, the
hon. member's suggestion to have the federal government establish
an energy price review commission that would have as its mandate
to review and regulate gasoline prices, could not be undertaken
by the federal government.
If the hon. member, my good friend, wants to achieve this, he
should take this case to his colleagues in the Government of
Saskatchewan. The hon. member should realize that price
regulation usually results in increased costs, higher prices and
distorts the normal operations of the markets. Reliance on
market forces and not regulations is in the best interest of
Canadians.
With respect to hockey, I think Saskatchewan needs a hockey team
too.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.)