36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 12
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 27, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ANTHONY TOLDO SR.
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| WEST CENTRAL PELLETING
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| BUFFETT TAYLOR CHAIR
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1405
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| NATIONAL MARINE DAY
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| INCONTINENCE AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1410
| CANADIAN NEUTRON FACILITY
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| NATIONAL MARINE DAY
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1415
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1430
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1445
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
1450
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| EAST TIMOR
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1455
| BANKING
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
1500
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of a Document
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1505
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10 Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-271. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-272. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1510
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-273. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
|
| Bill C-274. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-275. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1515
| Crimes against Humanity
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Property Rights
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Camp Ipperwash
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| National Debt
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
1520
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hepatitis
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Incontinence
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| The Constitution
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| The Snowbirds
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1525
| The Snowbirds
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Bill C-207
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Merchant Navy Veterans
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1530
| Amendment to the amendment
|
1535
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. David Iftody |
1600
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1605
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1625
1630
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1635
1640
| Mr. Ted White |
1645
1650
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1655
1700
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1705
1710
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1715
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1720
1725
1730
| Motion
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1735
1740
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1745
1750
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1755
1800
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1805
1810
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1815
1820
| Motion
|
1825
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 12
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 27, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ANTHONY TOLDO SR.
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that one our community's leading
citizens, Mr. Anthony Toldo Sr., is being invested with the Order
of Ontario on Monday, November 1, 1999.
Mr. Toldo is a philanthropist and industrialist who has made an
enormous contribution to Windsor and Tecumseh. Over the years he
has made many generous donations, the most notable of which was
$1 million to the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre.
Tony Toldo is an example of the Canadian dream. He arrived in
Canada as a poor young boy from Italy in 1934 and through hard
work and determination built a business empire that employs over
1,100 people in three countries.
Tony Toldo represents the very best of what makes Windsor,
Tecumseh and Canada such great places to live. I want to extend
my heartfelt congratulations to Tony Toldo on being named to the
Order of Ontario, an honour that is well deserved.
* * *
WEST CENTRAL PELLETING
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the great western tradition of private enterprise and
finding opportunities, the West Central Pelleting company of
Wilkie, Saskatchewan has built itself into a successful,
value-added operation.
Five hundred shareholders, consisting of retired and active
farmers, small business people and other citizens, raised $2.2
million to start this operation. The company takes in
screenings. That is the plant material left over after the grain
has been cleaned and processed. Though screenings have long been
known to have nutritional value as animal feed, they have usually
been shipped elsewhere, along with the employment opportunities.
West Central Pelleting uses nutritional consultants to provide
its growing customer base with made-to-order feed products.
According to Bonnie Stephenson of Grainews, “West Central
has met its first year goal of 20,000 metric tonnes of production
and has just completed an expansion that has tripled its storage
capacity”. There are 15 employees there now and I predict a lot
more jobs to come as prairie people apply their know-how and
determination to succeed.
Congratulations, West Central Pelleting.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October is women's history month. In this Année de la
Francophonie, which is particularly exciting in Quebec, I would
like to pay special tribute to those women who fought for the
right to vote for women in Quebec.
In 1907, Marie Gérin-Lajoie and Caroline Beïque founded the
Fédération nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste to promote women's civil
and political rights. They called for a reform of the civil
code at the time and demanded a commission of inquiry be set up
to examine women's rights.
In 1922, still not having obtained the right to vote, Marie
Gérin-Lajoie went to Quebec City with a group of women in order
to lobby the premier. In the following years, Idola St-Jean and
Thérèse Casgrain took over. After a number of years of vigorous
efforts, women in Quebec finally obtained the right to vote on
April 25, 1940.
Since then, because of the profound convictions of these
activists, a number of Quebec women have been elected to the
National Assembly of Quebec and to the House of Commons.
Despite that, however, the men to women ratio is far from
representative of Canada's total population.
* * *
[English]
BUFFETT TAYLOR CHAIR
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
near fatal heart attack and a family member's personal brush with
breast cancer has prompted my constituent, Mr. Ed Buffett,
president and CEO of Buffett Taylor and Associates Ltd., to
donate $1 million to McMaster University for a research chair in
breast cancer.
The Buffett Taylor Chair in Breast Cancer Research will conduct
independent research and clinical trials in breast cancer,
evaluate the use of innovative methods to improve communication
between physicians and women with breast cancer, and research
methods to improve clinical practice guidelines to enhance the
care of women who have the disease.
Buffett Taylor and Associates is a leading Canadian consulting
firm that specializes in employee health benefits and worksite
wellness, and Mr. Buffett, a member of McMaster's board of
governors, is the chairman of the Wellness Council of Canada.
As a direct result of his action, many lives could be saved. I
am proud to represent Mr. Ed Buffett, a Whitby resident, in
parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
First Air, the third largest regularly scheduled air carrier in
Canada and its Inuit owned parent corporation Makivik oppose the
merger of Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines
proposed by Onex.
1405
The president of First Air, Bob Davis, is asking the Minister of
Transport to oppose any agreement that does not guarantee
specifically the interests of northern consumers and of the
aviation industry in the north, the positions of First Air
employees, Air Inuit and the investments of the Inuit in the
compensation funds set up under the terms of the James Bay and
Northern Quebec Agreement.
According to the president of Makivik, Pita Aatami, “the federal
government is legally and morally bound to protect the interests
of the Inuit covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreement, who might be affected by a reorganization of the
aviation industry in Canada”.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two people in
Quebec were killed by Sylvain Boies, who was under the influence
of alcohol and driving a stolen vehicle.
We know that Mr. Boies will be eligible for parole after serving
only one-third of his sentence, and also that he will serve that
sentence in comfort in the leisure and recreation centres the
federal government calls prisons.
It is urgent for the federal government to introduce the
legislation called for by the Standing Committee on Justice to
allow life imprisonment for impaired driving leading to
someone's death.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL MARINE DAY
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to welcome Canada's major
marine carriers, shippers and port organizations to Ottawa to
participate in the inaugural National Marine Day.
For the first time in its long history, port and marine
communities across Canada are meeting in the nation's capital to
speak with one strong voice.
There are few places in this great country that are not touched
by the movement of products by ships. From Vancouver to Corner
Brook, Ungava Bay to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway,
Canadians continue to rely on this competitive and efficient
community of industries which links Canada with the global
marketplace.
Through ports across this country, such as found in my own
community of Thunder Bay, the marine industry is responsible for
moving more than half of Canada's international cargo trade while
providing direct and indirect employment to tens of thousands of
Canadians.
I call upon all members and all Canadians to join with me in
celebrating not only our nation's great marine past, but also its
vibrant and exciting future.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to announce a Canadian first. On October 5, the city
of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville launched a textile recovery
operation.
The people of Saint-Bruno can make use of a “Textilosac”, a blue
transparent plastic clothing bag, for clothing, shoes, curtains
and other textiles they wish to dispose of.
They can then drop their bags off at a number of designated
organizations, or pick-up can be arranged by calling the Centre
de récupération et de recylage du Montréal métropolitain,
located in Saint-Hubert.
Use of the these textile bags reduces the amount of solid waste
that has to go to landfill, because the textiles are recovered
and recycled. This is a great plus for the environment, since
we are told that each Quebecer produces approximately 23
kilograms of recyclable textiles yearly.
Congratulations to
Robert Larue, CEO of the Centre de récupération et de recyclage
du Montréal métropolitain, who set up this project.
* * *
[English]
INCONTINENCE AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak on behalf of
more than 1.5 million Canadians, men and women of all ages, who
suffer from incontinence. It is time to bring incontinence out
of the closet.
[Translation]
The foundation is the only national non-profit organization
defending the interests of the incontinent. It has designated
November as incontinence awareness month.
[English]
Today, in anticipation of Incontinence Awareness Month, I will
be tabling a petition calling on the Parliament of Canada to
officially declare November as Incontinence Awareness Month.
I also invite all members of this House to take a few minutes
out of their busy schedules this afternoon to visit with some of
the volunteers of the Canadian Continence Foundation in Room
256S, Centre Block, and to sign their guest book.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the public accounts of Canada were tabled yesterday.
There we find some $200 billion—that is $200,000 million—in
specific aboriginal claims that the federal government will have
to deal with.
1410
Considering that government revenues for the year are only about
$147 billion, what does the government plan to do with these
enormous demands on the treasury?
Last week it was $5 billion to pay for work of equal value and
this week it is $200 billion for aboriginal claims.
There is not enough money in Canada for the government to pay
out these demands. Where does the buck stop?
Grassroots aboriginal people have been largely excluded from the
government payout loop. Why will the government not listen to
aboriginal people who need the money and give them individual
property rights and the money they need to take their place on an
equal footing with all Canadians?
There is not enough money in Canada to pay the $200 billion.
There has to be a better way that all Canadians can live with.
* * *
CANADIAN NEUTRON FACILITY
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of duty and purpose that I
rise today to speak on behalf of the proposed Canadian neutron
facility.
For the past year I have been passionately pursuing, propounding
and, plainly put, just pitching the multitudinous merits of the
new facility at Chalk River which would serve all Canadians.
The Canadian Neutron Facility will be a world class neutron beam
laboratory. It will provide essential materials research for
both industries and universities. It will also help advance our
multibillion dollar CANDU reactor technology. Not only will our
bright, young brilliant Canadian minds stay here to work and do
research, the facility will attract scientists and researchers
from around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the distinguished students we have visiting
today from France will one day be working at Chalk River, in the
marvellous region of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL MARINE DAY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
is National Marine Day, a day of pride and hope for major
carriers, shippers and port organizations.
Canada's marine trade touches many aspects of our development
and future. Our ports move over half of Canada's international
cargo trade. However, National Marine Day is a day of great
shame and disgrace for a Liberal government which does not seem
able to see beyond the city of Ottawa, much less to our coasts.
The Liberal government could be brave and creative and it could
bring us in line with advantages held by marine industries and
workers in other countries.
The Liberal government could move forward with a valid national
shipbuilding policy. We are a maritime nation with the skilled
workers to do the job and the business would bring Canada's
shipbuilding industry proudly into the new millennium. Handouts
are not the issue; sound policy is.
The Liberal government could ensure that the proper links exist
between CN Rail and our ports. The government could take action
to recognize the importance of our major Canadian ports,
including Halifax, Churchill, Vancouver and Thunder Bay. It
could recognize and take action to support the importance of
Halifax as a major container port.
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 21,
the Government of Quebec announced that it had passed
legislation to create a Montreal international trade zone
development corporation at Mirabel.
In the words of Quebec's deputy premier: “This corporation will
make it possible for the Government of Quebec to finally do
something about the tragic mistakes made by the federal
government in the Mirabel airport saga”.
The Government of Quebec's budget includes assistance for site
investment, business operations, training and recruitment, and
bringing in foreign specialists, as well as support for free
trade operations, for a period of ten years.
Yet the federal government, which is to blame for the disastrous
decision to transfer international flights, is taking its time
doing anything about the renewal of Mirabel airport. The Bloc
Quebecois is therefore calling on the government to announce aid
measures similar to those announced by the Government of Quebec.
* * *
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is proud to have signed the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, which was adopted unanimously by the UN General
Assembly in 1989.
This innovative treaty recognizes the needs of children and
affirms their right to live and develop within our society.
UNICEF Week is the perfect opportunity to announce that Canada's
children will have a voice in the first national vote to mark
the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
On November 19, UNICEF Canada and Elections Canada invite
Canadians under 18 years of age to head for the polls and cast
their vote for the particular right of the ten on the ballot
that in their view is the most important.
I appeal to my colleagues to renew our support for the UNICEF
campaign.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has created a race relations crisis in New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
This problem is growing and has now reached the shores of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
1415
Yesterday a native fishing crew from Nova Scotia attempted to
fish crab on Newfoundland's south coast. A serious confrontation
with local fishermen ensued, resulting in a violent confrontation
and four arrests. The federal government must be made to realize
that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Newfoundland fishermen are sending a clear message that they
will not stand idly by while their livelihoods are put at risk by
non-resident native fishermen. Members of the House should be
aware that similar confrontations are almost a certainty without
leadership from the government and without a sensible plan to
prevent further violence.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the premiers of
Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be coming to Ottawa tomorrow to
highlight the current farm income crisis facing prairie farmers.
I am also pleased to note that the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, which I am honoured to chair, will
meet with and hear directly from premiers Doer and Romanow and
their delegations.
The farm income crisis is real. The government recognizes that
many farm families are suffering. Canadians know that it is in
our interest to maintain a stable agricultural industry.
That is why the government has allocated $900 million in
assistance to the agriculture income disaster assistance program.
That is why the government has modified AIDA to make it more
accessible to struggling farmers. That is why the government has
indicated that it will look at further changes to strengthen the
program.
The government is committed to helping Canada's farmers get
through the current income crisis.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's tax mountain continues to grow. He is not
satisfied with the highest taxes in the developed world. He has
hiked taxes 60 times since 1993.
Still not satisfied, he has planned the greatest tax hike in
Canadian history on January 1 when he brings in the CPP
increases. According to the auditor general this insatiable
Prime Minister is hoarding an incredible $21 billion in EI
overpayments from workers and businesses.
Reform pointed out this overtaxation to the minister last year,
yet the auditor general now says this overtaxation is at record
levels.
Why will the government not return the EI surplus to the people
it belongs to, the people he taxed it from: overtaxed Canadian
businesses and families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the current rate is $2.55. That is a 15 cent reduction
from the previous year. That is a 52 cent reduction from the day
we took office. That is $4 billion more in Canadian pockets.
That is what we have done since we have taken office.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is odd the minister thinks that a $21 billion surplus is a good
thing. It might be a good thing for him, but it is certainly not
a good thing for Canadian consumers.
The EI taxes hit low income Canadians the hardest. Premiums
stop going up once a person makes $39,000 a year. That means
people making more than $39,000 a year have a tax advantage over
the poor.
The government already takes $6 billion from people who make
less than $20,000 a year. Why does the minister not climb down
off his wallet and start giving tax policies that will help out
the poorest in the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talks about what the government has done
for low income Canadians. Let us take a look at what we have
done.
The amount of income for which taxpayers are now exempt before
they have to begin paying taxes was increased by $675. Last year
Reform voted against it. The Canada child tax benefit has been
increased by $2 billion. Reform voted against it.
There are now 600,000 low income Canadians who were previously
paying taxes who are not paying taxes, and Reform wanted them to
pay taxes.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
bottom line is that $6 billion are gouged out of the pockets of
people that make less than $20,000 a year. That is the legacy of
the minister.
Small businesses struggle to win their share of consumers ever
shrinking after tax dollars. They struggle to stay competitive
in a growing competitive world market. They struggle to hire
more people because the government taxes them excessively every
time they try to employ a new worker.
Inflated EI premiums are a tax on the poor, a tax on families
and a tax on businesses. Why will the government not give tax
relief where it is needed: to the poor, the families, and the
businesses of the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us take a look at the questions that have been asked
by the hon. member.
1420
He started with his first preamble and asked why we were
protecting the Canada pension plan. Why is the federal
government and all the provinces protecting the Canada pension
plan? We are doing it because we believe that Canadians are
entitled to a decent retirement, which obviously the Reform Party
does not.
The member talked about small business and why we brought in and
increased the Small Business Loans Act. Why does small business
have the lowest level of corporate tax of the major industrial
countries? They do because of this government.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is getting pretty thick in here.
The government is sitting on a $21 billion EI surplus while the
finance minister pursues his favourite pastime, and that is
picking the pockets of Canadian workers and businesses. At the
same time those workers and businesses are struggling to making
ends meet under this Liberal tax regime.
Why does the finance minister not just do the right thing and
return the EI surplus, which belongs to the workers and
businesses, in the form of tax relief and give Canadians a break
for a change?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party likes to talk about its desire to cut
taxes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin: Reform members are applauding. Does
the House know what they are applauding? In their election
campaign they said that they would not cut personal taxes until
the year 2000. That was part of their election campaign.
We cut taxes in 1997. The Reform Party would not have done it.
We cut taxes in 1998. The Reform Party would not have done it.
We cut taxes in 1999. The Reform Party would not have done it.
We cut them three times. We are ahead of the cart and they are
down in the hole.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): I will tell you where they are ahead, Mr. Speaker.
They are at the head of the class for the highest personal income
taxes of all G-7 countries. That is where they are ahead.
They say that they are saving the EI fund for a rainy day. We
better go home and start building our ark because there is a heck
of a flood coming. There is no doubt about that.
I have a question for the finance minister. With his $21
billion surplus, what is his problem? The auditor general says
that he does not like what he is doing. The money is not his.
Why does he not just give it back to the people whom he took it
from?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party sure as heck better build its ark
because it is drowning. The only thing in the country that is
dropping faster than personal income taxes is Reform's share of
the popular vote.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
process presented yesterday by the Minister of Transport
relating to air carriers is absolutely absurd.
He is proposing that parliament look at the 10% rule and states
that no decision has yet been taken. Air Canada shareholders
will be voting on the Onex proposal on November 8, well before
parliament has made a decision. If parliament were to decide to
retain that 10% limit, and the shareholders had accepted the
Onex bid, it would still be illegal. We would therefore be back
to square one.
Is this not the best possible proof that the Onex bid will go
nowhere if the law is not changed?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said yesterday is that the government is
prepared to consider an increase in the 10% restriction on Air
Canada shares, after consultations with MPs and senators.
I think this is a very fair position for the Canadian public, as
well as for the Air Canada shareholders, before a choice is made
on the bid next week.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
being prepared to consider an increase in the 10% limit mean 12,
13, 14 or 15%, as was the case with Via Rail, or just that the
minister does not want to say that he is prepared to accept 31%,
as the Onex bid proposes?
If that is the case, let him say so, so that the issues involved
are clear, so that we can understand, so that the matter is not
dealt with between buddies and behind closed doors.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have put in place a process for obtaining the point
of view of MPs and senators before making a decision.
If the hon. member has a point of view on a limit of 10, 20 or
30%, let him make it known to the House of Commons.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the matter of Onex, the Minister of Transport has said since
the start that he would like market rules to apply.
However, an Onex memo intimates that the company did not submit
an offer to Air Canada without first obtaining guarantees that
the rules would be modified by the government.
Will the Minister finally drop the mask and confirm to this
House that he had already provided guarantees to Onex before its
announcement of August 13?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. The government made no
guarantee to Onex.
I suggest he put his questions to the president of Onex when he
appears before the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the political career of the Minister of Transport would indicate
that he should distrust memos. The Minister is refusing to
enlighten this House.
As the former Liberal Minister, Marc Lalonde, pointed out, is
the government not in the process of misleading parliament by
assuming that the matter is in the bag?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I respect qualities of my former colleague, Mr.
Lalonde. Yesterday, he gave his opinion in an article in the
daily, Le Devoir, but I must point out that Mr. Lalonde is a
lawyer and that his company works for Air Canada.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the transport minister as well.
The travelling public will be gouged. Workers will lose their
jobs. Smaller centres will lose their service unless the
government ensures proper protection like the 10% ownership rule.
The government should set out the rules openly and publicly so
that the bids can conform to the rules. Instead it is changing
the rules to conform to the bids. Why should the tail be wagging
the dog?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we launched a very open process under section 47 of
the Canada Transportation Act which succeeded in bringing forward
two private sector proposals. That will be considered by the
shareholders of these companies.
It was very important for the government yesterday, when I met
with the committee, to ensure that we have a level playing field
and that those shareholders have the ability to vote on both
those propositions.
That is why we stated very clearly that the government is
prepared to consider raising the 10% limit of the shares of Air
Canada after consultations with members in the House.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
game for control of the Canadian airline industry the transport
minister is a biased referee. Whether it is suspending the
competition law or reviewing the ownership rule, the minister is
giving Onex power play after power play.
When will the minister do his job and apply rules that will put
the interests of Canadians where they belong at the top of the
list?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if I had not made a commitment on behalf of the
government yesterday to consider raising the 10% limit, that
would have favoured one other proposition. I certainly would
have been biased in that case.
* * *
1430
HOMELESSNESS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it has
been 216 days since the minister responsible for homelessness
promised to put a plan and money in place to help Canada's
homeless.
All the Liberals have done to date with their cuts to social
programs is to put more people on the streets. With winter just
around the corner, why has the minister ignored the needs of
Canada's homeless and forced them to spend more winters freezing
to death on the streets?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two issues here.
For the short term for this winter, I want to advise the House
that the staff has been in touch with every community that I
visited to make sure they have enough shelter beds for this
winter. The city of Toronto informed us that in order to have
enough shelter beds it needed $1.2 million which the minister of
housing has given to the city of Toronto. Besides that, we are
informed that every shelter is fine.
For the long term the secretariat is getting the recommendations
that I have received and they will be presented soon.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for homelessness promised action. I am
pleased to hear that she is doing a little something for the next
few months.
The minister is quoted as saying that she cannot do anything but
pass along a few ideas to cabinet and hope that something gets
done. Good heavens, I hope cabinet does more than it did for the
merchant navy.
The minister says it is not her job to produce a strategy, it is
not her job to find money for new housing and it is not her job
to lobby the cabinet for new initiatives to end homelessness in
Canada. If it is not her job, whose job is it, and what is her
job?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate all the
information on homelessness.
I would like to advise the hon. member that I have been working
31 years for the homeless, for the poor and for the children of
this country.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, competition is important to Canadians to
ensure fair prices and choices in travel.
The competition commissioner has recommended that the government
extend the foreign ownership to 49%. Since this proposal would
be good for consumers, why is the government rejecting the advice
of the competition commissioner on foreign ownership?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the discussions that we have had with various
stakeholders, including the airlines, at no time was it ever
suggested that their needs were to have an injection of foreign
capital over the 25% limit. We have rejected increasing the limit
over 25% because this government absolutely and fundamentally
believes that the airline industry in Canada must be effectively
controlled by Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Australia has two profitable national
airlines that compete with each other on domestic routes, even
though one of them is 50% foreign owned. Foreign ownership has
provided Australians with healthy competition in its domestic
market. The competition commissioner recommends that for Canada.
Why is the minister refusing to consider it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to compare Australia and Canada with respect to air
policy is indeed wrong. The population of Australia is smaller.
It is somewhat isolated in the Pacific Ocean. Australia does not
live next door to the largest economy in the world with a
population 10 times greater than the population of Canada.
It is essential that we keep control of our own affairs. Keeping
the 25% limit is one way to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, echoing the chief actuary, the auditor general
yesterday asked the federal government to state clearly what it
intended to do with the large EI surplus, which is up to $21
billion. In their view, a reserve of $10 billion would be quite
sufficient for the needs of the system.
Does the minister intend to take a page from her predecessor's
book and turn a deaf ear not just to unemployed workers and the
Bloc Quebecois, but also to the auditor general, who is asking
her to take a reasonable approach to the management of the EI
fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must say that we are doing exactly as recommended by the auditor
general, who said in 1996 that the fund should be included in
the consolidated revenue fund.
1435
That is what we are doing. That is what the previous government
did, and I believe it is consistent with the accounting
principles recommended by the auditor general.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Human Resources
Development not think that, with the huge surplus in the EI
fund, she could tone down the Employment Insurance Act and
restore a genuine form of protection against job loss for
unemployed workers, as well as lower premiums?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member must understand that
employment insurance is there for Canadians who have been working
and find themselves temporarily out of work through no fault of
their own. Of those Canadians, 80% are eligible for benefits.
The most important thing is helping Canadians find jobs. That
is why we have invested in active measures in employment
insurance. That is why we have invested in the Canada jobs fund.
That is why we have invested in the opportunities fund for
Canadians with disabilities. That is why we have made the youth
employment strategy a permanent program.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's agriculture policies have left
thousands of farmers facing the winter with little or no hope.
The Prime Minister has to take responsibility.
Tomorrow a delegation of prairie agriculture ministers, farmers
and premiers are coming to Ottawa to discuss solutions to this
problem. The Prime Minister said this morning that he is refusing
to meet with farmers and is opting to meet only with politicians.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to face the very people who
are suffering as a result of his policies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has had ongoing
consultations with the ministers of agriculture from all the
provinces in Canada. There will be a meeting tomorrow and the
Prime Minister will be meeting with some of the delegation. A
number of cabinet ministers will be meeting with the delegation.
As usual and as we have always done, we will keep in full
consultation to work together to see how we can continue to
support and help Canadian farmers.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister has met with farmers and they
have not received the help they need. I am asking for the Prime
Minister to meet with farmers this time. They are trying to work
out a constructive plan to help them through the winter.
Why does the Prime Minister have so little compassion for the
plight of these farmers that he is unwilling to hear their
concerns firsthand?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very sad that the hon. member and
his party do not realize that the federal government puts $600
million a year into safety nets and that it has put in an
additional $900 million over the past two years. They said that
they would cut the agriculture budget. They said that subsidies
are not the answer and then they stand in their places and say
that they are not significant. We think they are. We would like
to do more. We wish there were more resources but we are not
prepared to approach it the way they would.
* * *
[Translation]
HOMELESSNESS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Labour, who is responsible for the homeless, is the first to
admit that the federal government has made cuts that hurt the
most disadvantaged.
Could the Minister tell us, of the cuts the government has made,
which ones most hurt those most disadvantaged in our society:
cuts to employment insurance, cuts to social housing or cuts to
the Canada social transfer, which forced the provinces to cut
services?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in travelling across Canada what we notice most with respect to
the homeless is that the provinces have closed psychiatric
hospitals. Former residents of psychiatric hospitals are
turning up at food banks.
This is one of the greatest problems we have with the homeless
living on the street.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of
being content with playing the role of spokesperson for the
disadvantaged and the homeless, could the minister become a the
funder of the disadvantaged and the homeless by giving them back
now the money that the government has taken from them?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I travelled across Canada, community agencies told me that
they wanted to work in partnership.
A number of programs were run with money from the federal
government and municipalities, which provided housing for the
homeless. We will continue this work, as we are doing now.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be in
Ottawa tomorrow demanding that our producers be put on a level
playing field with our international competitors.
1440
In Europe 56% of a wheat farmer's income comes from the
government, while in the U.S. 38% comes from the government.
These subsidies are killing our family farmers and are the root
cause of the farm income crisis.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to lead a campaign against
European and U.S. subsidies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have mentioned that problem each time I have met with
these leaders. I have said that the subsidy levels for the
farming communities in Europe and the United States cannot be
sustained and are self-defeating. They should play by the market
rules as we are doing in Canada. I have said that time and time
again.
However, the Reform Party does not even want to help the farmers
at all. Rather than provide money to help the farmers, it has
proposed to cut $650 million from the department of agriculture
alone.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers see the lack of effort from the Prime Minister
and the results that have happened internationally. Europe's
borders are closed to our beef and canola. U.S. protectionism is
rising. Both European and U.S. subsidies are up.
The Liberal government has failed. The Prime Minister's lack of
concern over the farm income crisis is an insult to Canadian
farmers.
I ask again, why is the Prime Minister failing to lead a
delegation against European and U.S. subsidies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to say that we have added $900 million this
year to help with the agricultural problem that Canadian farmers
are facing.
I want to repeat again that while we were doing that, the Reform
Party was telling us that we should not put new money there, that
we should cut $650 million from the farming community.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a recent
article in the respected magazine Nature, three British
scientists were quoted as saying that governments, like the
Canadian government, that approved genetically modified foods
simply because they were similar to traditional ones, were
taking a simplistic and not very safe approach.
Since even the pro-biotechnology scientists are saying that it
would be better to look more closely into the effects of
genetically modified foods, is the minister going to take the
necessary steps?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to assure the hon. member that all genetically modified
foods must be submitted to Health Canada in advance. A team of
experts examines them all and carries out a complete evaluation,
in order to ensure that genetically modified foods are as safe
as foods already on the market.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Health.
The city of Toronto has designated the last week in October as
Epidermolysis Bullosa, or EB, Awareness Week, to bring attention
to this group of rare and genetic skin diseases. What is the
government doing to facilitate and encourage research and
development into the care and treatment of Canadians suffering
from EB?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to first acknowledge the hard work done by the
member for Parkdale—High Park to increase public awareness of
this disease. EB is a rare and devastating genetic disease for
which, unhappily, there is no cure. I think the answer lies in
research.
For that reason we are creating the Canadian institutes for
health research. I expect shortly to be tabling legislation in
the House for that purpose. Over the next two years the
government will be doubling the amount of money spent by the
Government of Canada on health research. Through these efforts
we hope the day will come when this devastating disease is wiped
from the face of the earth.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has publicly stated it is supporting the Nisga'a treaty
because it provides the kind of sovereignty association it would
like to see for Quebec.
Reform does not support sovereignty association, but it is now
becoming clear that the NDP, the Tories and the Liberals do.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to offer the same kind of
self-government powers to Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois
as he has to the Nisga'a, yes or no?
1445
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have sovereignty association within Canada.
Every Canadian is sovereign and we are all associated.
With the treaty, which, under our democratic rules, a majority
of eligible Nisga'a people voted for, our Nisga'a fellow citizens
will be even more associated with all of us.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the minister understands all he knows about the Nisga'a
treaty.
The Bloc Quebecois has indicated it will support the treaty
because it provides the kind of self-government powers it would
like for Quebec.
I am going to ask the Prime Minister directly if he is prepared
to give the same kind of self-government powers to the Parti
Quebecois and Lucien Bouchard as he is to the Nisga'a under the
treaty, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is exactly the same question that the minister gave
him an answer to and he did not understand. I will ask the
minister to write him a letter.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the front page of the Regina Leader-Post and
the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on Monday, the finance minister
is quoted as saying that his government has promised $900 million
in new aid to desperate farmers. He said “We announced that
$900 million five or six months ago. That money doesn't refer to
what Ottawa put up for AIDA”.
Was the finance minister misquoted? Was he mistaken? Was he
playing politics? Or, is there a reason to believe that he is
changing his view on the crisis facing prairie farmers?
Could the finance minister please confirm today if there will be
$900 million in new aid for farmers, yes or no?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that
every year the Canadian government puts $600 million a year into
the national safety net. A little less than a year ago we put an
additional $900 million in to support the farmers. In
co-operation with the provinces, we are looking at ways in which
we can build on that and will continue to do that.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that in the first six
months of AIDA just over one-fifth of the total amount has been
paid out. If we contrast that with the $8 billion in American
farm aid assistance, not only is the amount of U.S. dollars
impressive, but it is astonishing that cheques for the full
amount are being placed in the hands of American farmers within a
matter of weeks of the announcement as compared with AIDA's red
tape program.
Can the minister explain to the House how the Americans can
deliver their cheques so quickly, while our farm safety net
programs are always a day late and a dollar short?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the industry
itself did not want ad hoc payments being paid to everyone. They
wanted the money that was made available to the producers to be
targeted to producers, to be specific to the producers and to be
based on the producers' needs according to a set of criteria.
That is the approach we take in Canada. That is the approach of
the industry. That is the approach that the safety net advisory
committee asked the government to take. We work along with it to
the best of our ability and with the advice of the safety net
advisory committee.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when the throne speech virtually ignored the homeless, the
minister responsible for homelessness said that she was dancing
in the streets. The truth is she was dancing in the streets of
Manzanillo, Mexico.
How can the minister afford to be dancing in the streets of
Mexico when tens of thousands of homeless Canadians are facing
another winter not dancing but freezing in the streets?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Labour was in Mexico meeting her Mexican
and American counterparts on labour issues. I must tell the
member that we are in the forefront on that issue.
On the issue of me dancing in the streets for the throne speech,
when the reporter called I said that I had worked with children
for 31 years and that having listened to every budget and every
throne speech, and having heard the Prime Minister in his throne
speech mention children, I wanted to dance in the streets.
1450
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister responsible for the homeless said she was
working seven days a week on a strategy for the homeless. Yet
she found the time to spend a week in Mexico at the taxpayers'
expense.
Will she have a plan to help Canadian homeless people before
winter, or is she planning to invite them to spend the winter in
Mexico with her instead?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was supposed to be in Mexico Wednesday, but as
members are aware, there was a vote in the House on the Thursday
evening. I got to Mexico at midnight Thursday, and left after
my Saturday evening meetings, or in other words on the Sunday
morning. I took part in meetings Friday and Saturday.
I did not say I was the one working seven days a week, but the
people who were given all of the recommendations on the homeless
after the throne speech and my trip have been working seven days
a week.
* * *
[English]
EAST TIMOR
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, can the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific update the
House on the present state of affairs in the troubled area of
East Timor?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that
Canada has been working very hard to help East Timor's transition
to independence. The Indonesian National Assembly has ratified
the results of the August 30 ballot in East Timor. At the same
time, on Monday it passed over the authority of East Timor to the
United Nations.
These things will help us to help this country to gain its
independence.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says that he never interfered directly with
the APEC security. It seems to me that he is probably taking
more than just golf lessons from Bill Clinton with that answer.
Is the Prime Minister now saying that he never had security
relations with that summit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I hear the Reform Party asking that type of
extremely bright question I am very impressed.
I invite the hon. member to listen to what the RCMP officer said
so clearly yesterday. He said that he was there to do his job
and that is all.
The Reform Party has not much to complain about if it is still
arguing about this a year and a half later.
* * *
[Translation]
PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday, there was a leak of radioactive material at Dorval
airport when a barrel containing uranium was dropped.
Last May, employees were contaminated while working on a
plutonium extraction site closed since 1957. Several times in
recent years, the safety of Ontario's nuclear facilities has
been called into question.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can the
minister support the Prime Minister's proposal to import
plutonium in order to burn it in an Ontario facility, when the
Canadian nuclear industry is already experiencing serious safety
problems?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mixing and mingling a whole variety
of unrelated things.
The incident at Dorval, for example, I am happy to confirm,
involved a container that was in fact empty. There was no actual
spill and there was no health hazard whatsoever.
All the issues the she has referred to are fully covered by
Canada's stringent regulations under the Atomic Energy Control
Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The Government of Canada
will ensure that every aspect of those regulations are fully
enforced.
* * *
1455
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Bank of Montreal is about to close 100 branches throwing
about 1,400 people out of work. This follows a year when the
five men, who are the CEOs of the big banks, together made over
$100 million last year, equivalent to the salary of about 4,000
mainly women bank tellers.
In light of this, can the minister tell us what he is going to
do to stop these bank closures in communities that really matter?
Or, is he just going to sit back and close his eyes and let the
banks call all the shots?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the bulk of those jobs will
be lost through attrition. That does not in any way take away
from the seriousness of the situation, as the hon. member knows
full well. That is why in the new financial services legislation
that we are bringing in we have followed the advice of numerous
consumer and community groups across the country. We have put in
notice provisions which were not there. We have put in
consultation provisions. We have put in the kind of structure
that would allow the government and the public to deal with this
kind of situation in a fair and reasonable way.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last night four Newfoundlanders were arrested after a violent
confrontation with Mi'kmaq natives from Nova Scotia. The Nova
Scotia natives intended to fish, without licences, the lucrative
crab resources off the Newfoundland waters.
After the violent incident last night, will the solicitor
general be instructing the RCMP to enforce the Fisheries Act and
to arrest anyone who fishes without a proper licence, or is he
going to leave the enforcement of that act to Newfoundland
fishermen?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, as solicitor general, do not direct
the RCMP in how it does its job.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
As the federal minister responsible for leading Canada's
domestic implementation of our commitments on climate change, how
does the minister respond to the 100 groups in the Canadian
action network who today put forward nine specific
recommendations to mitigate global warming which they want
addressed in the next federal budget?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, any specific reference to the federal budget would have
to be left to the Minister of Finance.
We welcome the input from the climate action network just as we
welcome all the hard work and advice of the 450 Canadians who
have been involved in the 16 issue tables that we and the
provinces have had up and running on this issue for the past 18
months.
The climate network is talking about transportation
alternatives, energy conservation and efficiency, renewables and
alternative fuels, new technologies, green procurement programs,
building renovations, district heating systems and so forth. We
are already investing in all of those fields. I fully expect
that we will do more.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general has just told us that we are not getting
any direction from the government on this issue. The Marshall
decision is reaching all parts of Canada.
The Mi'kmaq yesterday started fishing for crab out of season off
the coast of Newfoundland. They are so worried about their own
security that they have gone to the RCMP for protection. The
Mi'kmaq had property torched last night in Newfoundland.
What is it going to take? Does there have to be blood on the
water? Does somebody have to die before the government is
prepared to bring in a fisheries policy based on equality not
race?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to
the hon. member's question on the issue of violence off the south
coast of Newfoundland, the government does not condone violence.
We do agree that there should be open dialogue and co-operation.
I can tell the hon. member that we are clearly taking this under
advisement. It is a subscribed fishery on the south coast in the
crab fishery. It is an allocated fishery. We will make sure
that if enforcement is necessary, there will be enforcement.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, employees of Human
Resources Development Canada are so obsessed with making the
quotas imposed on them by the department that they are depriving
honest citizens without resources of their benefits for
ridiculous and improbable reasons.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister think it is reasonable to cut someone's
benefits because they do not have an easy means of
transportation, in the view of a departmental official?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the accusations made by the hon. member
are false.
Indeed, what we have in human resources development are 20,000
employees who are providing excellent customer service to
Canadians. That is the approach we take and will continue to
take.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of Senator the Honourable Margaret
Reid, President of the Senate of Australia, and her delegation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention
of hon. members the presence in our gallery of His Excellency
Edmund Stoiber, the Premier of Bavaria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF A DOCUMENT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I put my
question to the Minister of Human Resources Development, she
replied that my allegations were unfounded, that what I was
saying was false. What I said was the complete truth, and I
have here a letter that proves it.
I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document in the
House.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1505
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, at the end of question period
you mentioned a presence in the gallery from the Australian
Senate. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the
fact that the Australian Senate is elected.
The Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am sure
it is a point of interest.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act
to amend the Municipal Grants Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act to authorize the
divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development
Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend
that the Employment Insurance Act (self-employed persons).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this
bill, which would allow self-employed persons to become eligible
for employment insurance on a voluntary basis.
There have been a lot of changes in our society, in the labour
market, and there are now a lot of self-employed workers,
particularly women, who are living in difficult financial
situations.
By making them eligible for employment insurance, the government
would be contributing to stabilizing their level of income to
enable them to take advantage of the economic growth in our
society and, finally, to permit better distribution of wealth.
This is why I consider it important for self-employed people to
be eligible for employment insurance on a voluntary basis.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act (waiting period).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the present context with a surplus in
the employment insurance fund of some $21 billion, this outmoded
rule must be eliminated. It requires that an individual in the
first weeks of unemployment have no income.
I believe the
government is capable, with the plan we have and especially if
it were to be managed independently by employers and employees,
to ensure that people have benefits from their first day of
unemployment. This is the purpose of this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of children).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to reintroduce my bill to
repeal section 43 of the criminal code. This is the only section
of the criminal code that is permissive in that it condones the
use of force toward a child as a means of correction or
discipline. The repeal of section 43 would make it clear that the
use of physical force as a means of discipline is totally
unacceptable and inappropriate for children and should not be
sanctioned by law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-274, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act (student Loan).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this bill in
the House today. Its purpose is to reverse and stop the
discrimination facing students who are now required to wait 10
years before they can declare bankruptcy. This new 10 year rule
means that unlike other consumers who must wait two years to
declare bankruptcy, students must face additional hardship and
discrimination. The overwhelming majority of students do
everything they can to repay student loans, but when bankruptcy
becomes the only option the bill I am presenting today would
ensure that students would get a fair deal and would not be
discriminated against.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-275, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act, 1999 (rate of benefits).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend
the manner in which EI benefits are calculated.
If passed, this bill will eliminate from the calculation of
benefits the many rules that decrease the amount to which
claimants are entitled.
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that benefits truly
represent 55% of income earned. In this way, we will be showing
a little more compassion for workers who find themselves
unemployed.
Since the EI fund surplus is now up to $21 billion, I hope that
we will have the support of all parties in the House for this
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my constituents and others I am happy to present a
petition which expresses concern over the court decision in
British Columbia which has made the possession of child
pornography legal and concern that it is spreading across Canada.
The petitioners are calling for the notwithstanding clause of
the charter to be invoked. As the notwithstanding clause exists,
it should be used to strike down this decision until the issue
can be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada.
1515
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to
present to the House a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions and signed by over 2,250 Canadians from many provinces.
Whereas Canadians from many diverse backgrounds have been
affected by crimes against humanity throughout the 20th century,
the petitioners pray that parliament will support the Recognition
of Crimes Against Humanity Act, Bill C-224.
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure I will surprise you. I have a petition to
abolish the Senate, signed by a number of residents of the city
of Saskatoon.
The petitioners are saying that the Senate is unelected,
undemocratic and unaccountable, that it costs the country about
$50 million per year and that it undermines the elected role of
members of parliament of the House of Commons. Therefore they
call upon parliament to undertake measures aimed at the abolition
of the Senate.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I have the privilege to present to the House
a petition with some 130 signatures of concerned citizens of my
riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners are appalled at the existence of child
pornography and are astounded by the legal determination that
possession of such pornography is not criminal.
For this reason they call upon the Parliament of Canada to take
measures to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a
criminal offence and that police forces be directed to enforce
this law for the protection of children.
I am fully supportive and on the side of the petitioners in my
riding of Cambridge.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that it is out
of order to indicate support or opposition to a petition being
presented in the House. I know that the hon. member for
Cambridge would want to set a good example for all hon. members
in that regard.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I present a petition on behalf of 226 constituents of
Saanich—Gulf Islands, which brings the total number of
signatures to over 15,000 so far.
The petitioners request that parliament support private member's
Bill C-237, known as Bill C-304, proposed by the member for
Yorkton—Melville concerning the strengthening of property
rights.
The protection of property rights is in the Canadian bill of
rights. It specifically guarantees that every person has the
right to the enjoyment of their property; the right not to be
deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing,
paid fairly, timely and impartially fixed compensation; and the
right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been
infringed upon.
CAMP IPPERWASH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by 1,000 residents of Bosanquet and Ipperwash
Beach. They urge the government to complete the Camp Ipperwash
army base transfer to the Kettle and Stoney Point first nations.
An agreement in principle was signed by the chief and minister
of Indian affairs in June 1998 with little progress to date.
Residents want this completed so that the native and non-native
communities alike can build their community and their economy
together.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting a petition in defence of marriage signed by
petitioners in my constituency in the lower mainland.
They call on parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always
been known and understood in Canada be preserved and protected.
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEBT
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am submitting
a 902 page petition signed by almost 22,500 people from
throughout Canada.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take
the necessary action to eliminate the national debt, which, in
their view, is the primary cause of taxes and widespread
poverty, by the year 2000.
These citizens are also calling on the government to stop
borrowing from financial institutions and to print the necessary
money to pay down the debt, as it is empowered and obligated to
do by the Canadian constitution.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to present on behalf of Canadians a
petition which states the 1998 and 1999 budgets increased the
amount of income that can be earned on a tax-free basis, namely
the basic personal amounts.
As a result of the past two budgets, 600,000 Canadians have been
removed from the tax roles and $16.5 billion in tax relief have
been provided over three years. Therefore the petitioners call
upon parliament to further increase the basic personal amounts.
1520
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present two petitions.
The first one contains 50 signatures from people either working
or living in my riding. They ask the government to implement the
decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on equal pay for
work of equal value.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 110 signatures from people in my
constituency. They request that parliament oppose any effort to
exclude references to the supremacy of God in our constitution
and laws.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
duly certified by the clerk of petitions and signed by some 1,200
people from across Canada, the majority being from the greater
Vancouver region.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to make funding
available for humanitarian assistance, emergency relief and
reparation to all parts of Yugoslavia, and to urge other members
of the NATO military alliance to support similar initiatives.
HEPATITIS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to
stand in the House today to present three petitions from the
beautiful people of Edmonton, Alberta, and Swan Hills, Alberta.
They concern one of my private member's bills.
The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill C-232, an
act to provide for a hepatitis awareness month, ensuring that
throughout Canada in each and every year the month of May shall
be known under the name of hepatitis awareness month.
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 and on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla, I wish to present a petition that is now
signed by over 3,000 people in Canada concerned with the Nisga'a
agreement.
They pray and request that parliament reject the treaty as it
may divide Canadians forever.
INCONTINENCE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to
present a petition to the House on behalf of over 3,000 Canadians
who have signed it on behalf of 1.5 million Canadians. It calls
on parliament to declare November as incontinence awareness
month.
For those who do not know, incontinence is urinary incontinence
or loss of bladder control. It negatively affects over 1.5
million Canadian men and women of all ages.
It is my honour to table the petition in the House and to call
on parliament to officially declare November as incontinence
awareness month.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
first petition I present today is on behalf of R. J. Gelling and
49 others in North Vancouver who want to bring the attention of
the House to the fact that 80% of Canadians practise personal and
corporate religious faiths that recognize the power and universal
sovereignty of a supreme being.
They pray and request that parliament reject all calls to remove
references to a sovereign God from the charter of rights and
freedoms.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition contains 582 signatures including Brian Taylor of
North Vancouver. It brings the attention of the House to the
arrival of a ship bearing 123 illegal Chinese migrants earlier
this summer.
It calls upon parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's
immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the deportation
of obvious and blatant abusers of the system.
THE SNOWBIRDS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today on behalf of 200 people
living in the riding of Palliser who are concerned about threats
and rumours that funding for the Snowbirds will be curtailed.
This is the air demonstration squadron 431.
The defence department is suggesting that perhaps funding will
be limited. The petitioners feel that the Snowbirds represent an
icon with the skill, professionalism and teamwork of the
Snowbirds. They are asking the House to take all action necessary
to ensure that there is stable funding for the air demonstration
squadron 431 Snowbirds.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 800 individuals from my
riding of Vancouver Island North.
The petitioners are asking parliament to enact immediate changes
to Canada's immigrations laws governing refugees to allow for the
deportation of obvious and blatant illegal immigrants to Canada.
1525
I have a second petition signed by 163 individuals from my
riding of Vancouver Island North.
The petitioners are asking parliament to do exactly the same
thing as the previous petition regarding the deportation of
obvious and blatant illegal immigrants to Canada.
THE SNOWBIRDS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of many
constituents and people living in Saskatchewan and in Goderich,
Ontario. They are absolutely disgusted with the attack the
Liberals are making on Saskatchewan and the essence of
Saskatchewan. We have seen the Liberals attack farmers by taking
away all their subsidies.
These people are as disgusted as the farmers. They are asking
the House of Commons to ensure that continued and stable funding
for the 431 air demonstration squadron Snowbirds remains a
priority.
This is an institution in Saskatchewan of which all Canadians
are proud. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons and
the Liberal government in particular to back off.
BILL C-207
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to introduce the signatures of 1,682 petitioners
in support of Bill C-207, an act to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human
life is inviolable.
These 1,682 petitioners want to ensure that health care
providers working in medical facilities of various kinds will
never be forced to participate against their wills in procedures
such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.
They lament the fact that medical personnel in Canada has been
fired because the law is not explicit enough in spelling out such
conscience rights. They affirm Bill C-207 because it will make
those conscience rights explicit.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
after 54 years of denial of equality of opportunity for our
merchant navy veterans a Liberal committee offered an empty
handshake.
The petitioners disagree with that. They ask the Liberals for
compensation for merchant navy veterans for the years of denial
of equality.
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 on behalf of petitioners who are quite
depressed with the notion that we continue to have the Senate.
They list a whole number of reasons why they consider the Senate
to be just sort of a completely inappropriate institution. I
will not go into the details. We have heard them all many times
before.
They are simply calling upon the Parliament of Canada to take
whatever step is necessary to abolish the Senate once and for
all.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final
agreement, be read the second time and referred to a committee,
and of the amendment.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous
consent of the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of
this House, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of
daily adjournment today, but no later than 10 p.m. this day, for
the sole purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-9, an act
to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette have unanimous consent of the House to propose
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: When the bill was last considered
last evening, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had the
floor. He had three minutes remaining in his remarks.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
carrying over my closing remarks from yesterday's debate I wish
to say that it is with the deepest regret that I must oppose the
current Nisga'a agreement. I oppose it for three main reasons.
1530
First, if this treaty is truly a template for all other treaty
negotiations, it does nothing to address the climate of mistrust
and fear that exists at the band level between ordinary
aboriginals and their band leaders. Until the serious problem of
band accountability is addressed, there is no guarantee that the
proceeds of any treaty will actually get to the people who need
it most.
Second, I do not believe that this bill is good for British
Columbia. Much has been said that the economy of B.C. will take
on a new vibrancy after the passing of this bill. Who can say
this with any certainty? Instead, I believe that this bill will
increase confrontation over other outstanding aboriginal disputes
in British Columbia. If a businessman was looking for a place to
invest his money, would he want to invest it in a B.C. like that?
Third, this bill is not in the best interests of Canada. Look
at what is really happening today. The paternalistic environment
created by the Indian Act and recent decisions by the courts all
point to trouble ahead. Look at what is happening with the
Musqueam land in Vancouver, the east coast fishing dispute, and
the controversy around the west coast fishing and logging rights.
This agreement is a recipe for further disaster.
I have three native children who are part of my family. I love
them very much, just as I love my other five children who are
non-native. We have made this work in our family because we love
and trust each other. I want them to grow up in a country where
they will not encounter prejudice because of the colour of their
skin. However, I am afraid for them and for all of us. I am
afraid that this agreement paves the way for more confrontation
rather than less, afraid that it does nothing to address the
climate of fear and mistrust and corruption at the band level. I
must therefore take my stand against this bill.
In closing, I move the following amendment:
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the subamendment to be in
order. The debate is on the amendment to the amendment.
Resuming debate. I believe the hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan was the second member for ten minutes. I will
therefore recognize the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I understand the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was not on the
second part of 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, you may want to ask him
for clarification.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has checked with the table
officers.
I should advise the hon. member for Vancouver Island North that
during the debate last evening the last two speakers were the
hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla and the hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan who just completed his remarks. They
apparently had split their time.
1535
Even if they had not, I believe, having had four speakers in a
row from the hon. member's party, that it is time for a change as
they say, if someone else wishes to speak and someone else does.
Accordingly I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson
and Highland Valleys.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a very real privilege to participate
in today's debate on Bill C-9, an act implementing the Nisga'a
agreement.
I have before me the Indian Act which this bill will do away
with. The Indian Act has a subtitle which states that it is an
act respecting Indian people. That is probably the most
erroneous title one could have for this piece of legislation,
because it does exactly the opposite. It does not respect Indian
people. It is an act filled with disrespect for Indian people.
The fact that the Indian Act will now become redundant at least
in the Nisga'a territory of British Columbia is probably one of
the brighter things that has happened in a long time. We say
enough of this act that disrespects Indian people. As we
approach the 21st century, we look forward to beginning a new era
in aboriginal and non-aboriginal affairs. Let us face it. That
has been long overdue.
Way back in 1887 the Nisga'a people paddled their canoes from
the northern part of British Columbia to what is now known as
Victoria. They asked the government for the opportunity to
negotiate some kind of a settlement and they were rebuffed. They
were told to leave, that the officials could not be bothered with
that. After paddling more than 1,000 kilometres down to Victoria,
they had to paddle more than 1,000 kilometres back home empty
handed.
Here we are 112 years later in the Parliament of Canada wrapping
up a debate that will eventually see the Nisga'a people become
self-determining, self-governing and self-reliant. This has to
be a major step forward for perseverance. We have to acknowledge
that the Nisga'a people have been very patient. They have
persevered. Others would have long since given up, but they knew
they were doing the right thing. They knew they had right on
their side, which is a great motivator.
As I said, 112 years later, and as we approach the new
millennium, we are finally at the stage where we want to enact
legislation that will see this treaty become law of the land. It
is a treaty that was negotiated in good faith between the Nisga'a
people, the province of British Columbia, because of the fact
that it holds the resource rights, and the Government of Canada
which has the fiduciary responsibility to support aboriginal
people. The three groups got together and over a prolonged
period of time negotiated a treaty which we are in the process of
ratifying today.
To put this in some context, let us go back a few years to
before the Europeans came to that part of British Columbia on the
northwest coast. The Nisga'a people were there. That well
established society had been there not for generations but for
thousands of years.
For thousands of years the Nisga'a people have lived in the Nass
Valley and the surrounding area. They were a very highly
sophisticated society, self-sustaining and self-reliant. They
were self-sufficient and self-governing. They were prosperous
and entrepreneurial. It was a dynamic society.
1540
Europeans then appeared on the scene. I say with some hesitancy
and with some reluctance, that a form of ethnic cleansing took
place. At that time there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of
30,000 Nisga'a people. After a very short period of time that
number was down to 800 individuals, the result of illness and all
sorts of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the European
population. The Europeans set out to essentially exterminate the
Nisga'a people. We call it ethnic cleansing today. They were
almost successful.
Thankfully we can now say that there are 6,000 Nisga'a people in
the area and they are making a major comeback. This legislation
and this treaty is a major step forward in reversing this very
negative process which took place over the last number of years.
A large number of people should be acknowledged today. I note
that some of the speakers before me have done that. We should
acknowledge some of the leaders in British Columbia and others
from the Nisga'a people themselves.
I personally want to acknowledge Joe Gosnell, the Nisga'a Tribal
Council chief, who said the other day that this was an example of
the Nisga'a now making their way into Canada. Let us think of
this, making their way into Canada. A lot of people have said
that obviously the Nisga'a have been part of Canada. In fact,
they have not been part of Canada like others have been part of
Canada.
People say that they just want everybody to be treated equally,
in other words, treated the same. It is clear when we look at our
history first nations people were not treated the same as others.
They were not treated equally.
When my ancestors first came from Norway many years ago, they
were eligible to homestead on 160 acres of land virtually for
free. They did and they built the family farm and it is still in
our family today. They had that right.
Did Indian people have the right to do that? Could they go out
and buy 160 acres of land? The answer is no. They were not even
able to hire a lawyer to advance their cause for what they called
their treaty rights. They were unable to hire a lawyer. It was
actually against the law for them to do so.
Could they, living on a reservation, go to the bank and get some
money to start up a business and so on? No. Could they vote?
The right to vote in a general election is a fundamental right in
our society. It is embarrassing to say this but it was 1960
before aboriginal people had the right to vote in our country.
To say that everyone has been treated equally over the years
could not be further from the truth. First nations people have
been treated very shoddily.
I mentioned a form of ethnic cleansing that took place in the
western part of our country. I suppose the best example of ethnic
cleansing is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where
first nations were completely eliminated. Not a single person
was left from those early cultures.
There is a lot of catching up to do. One thing this bill and
this treaty moves us toward in my judgment is that it will bring
some stability and certainty to the decision making in that part
of British Columbia. It is not going to be the answer. There is
still a long way to go and much negotiation to complete. However,
it is the beginning of bringing certainty to the landscape.
If there is one thing that capital does not like, it is
uncertainty. Capital will flee uncertainty. If there is
anything insecure about a particular place, we can rest assured
that capital will not stay there very long. That is one of the
things happening in our country today. A lot of good economic
investment is not being made because of the uncertainty that
surrounds the whole issue of land and the jurisdiction over land.
I say with some pride that I come from an area of British
Columbia that is often referred to as the Shuswap nation,
represented by the Shuswap people. A number of reservations and
a large number of people living in the towns and urban areas in
this area have their tradition from the Shuswap central part of
British Columbia. They are very progressive bands on very
progressive reservations and are doing relatively well. Even in
this area a number of issues remain outstanding because there is
no effort at the moment to negotiate some kind of settlement.
1545
Yes, there is a treaty process in British Columbia. As an
aside, some people have asked why we are concentrating so much on
British Columbia. As the European population came in contact
with aboriginal peoples from the east coast, through the central
part of Canada and out toward the west, they negotiated treaties
with the native people. The understanding was that with these
treaties certain rights would go to the aboriginal people and
certain rights to the newcomers.
However, that did not take place in British Columbia. There
were no treaties signed for all intents and purposes. The
European population basically came in and told the native people
they were going to live on a little crummy piece of land while
they would take all the rest. Obviously the aboriginal people
did not like that but the Europeans said that it was too bad
because that was the way it was.
We had all sorts of forced relocation. People were taken from
their traditional territory and their traditional lands and told
where to live. Rest assured that although today those lands
might be well located, in those days they were always the
crummiest pieces of property, the most remote, swampiest and
rockiest places that the others did not want. That is where the
first nations people ended up. We forced them onto those lands.
I heard an awful lot about the great treatment the first nations
people have experienced, of all the things they have received and
about how we should all be treated equally. If there is one
aspect of growing up in recent times as a first nations people it
was that period of time when, in the best interest of our
churches primarily, they decided that children should not be part
of first nations families, that the children should be taken out
of the families, by force in many cases, and put into residential
schools to get rid of their aboriginal, traditional and cultural
ways and to drop their language.
Can anyone listening and watching television today imagine what
it must have been like in those thousands and thousands of
aboriginal families to have someone with a European background,
who looked maybe like me, come in and say “I am taking your
children away from you for the next 10 months and putting them in
a residential school where they will not be able to ever speak
their language?”
Year after year those children grew up with no parents. Not
only did they grow up with no parents, they developed no
parenting skills. The parents were devastated and the children
were devastated. This went on time and time again.
Let us face it, people who have had that kind of violence
perpetuated on their families will not just drop it and forget it
quickly. It will probably be many generations before that kind
of evil behaviour will be overcome.
When we talk about aboriginal peoples being treated equally and
fairly, let us remember what we perpetuated on those people. We
took their children away from their homes, their parents, their
grandparents and their loved ones and put them into a military
style residential school. We cannot understand the incredible
human, emotional, psychological and spiritual impact that must
have had on all those people. However, that is what happened.
Today we are trying to do what is right. We are sitting down
with aboriginal people and offering to negotiate a fair deal for
everybody. That is what Bill C-9 is all about. Is it a perfect
piece of legislation? I have never seen a perfect piece of
legislation, and since human beings negotiate legislation, I do
not suppose we ever will.
However, the Nisga'a people on balance have said they like the
deal with 72% of them voting in favour of it. The duly elected
Government of British Columbia said it supported it. Today we are
being asked whether we support it.
What I can gather from the speeches being presented in the
House, four out of the five political parties, representing the
vast majority of the citizens of Canada, say we support
implementation of the treaty.
1550
Let us acknowledge right up front that the treaty is not a
perfect document. However, I ask those who are naysayers to the
process, I ask those who will one day vote against the
legislation, what is it that they propose? If we tell the native
peoples of the country that we will not negotiate any treaties
and will not acknowledge the uncertainty and instability that
exists from coast to coast in all sorts of matters, then what do
they propose?
This may not be the perfect process, but if the bill and the
treaty do not proceed what kind of signal will that send out to
aboriginal leaders, particularly militant aboriginal leaders, who
are really frustrated at how slow the process has worked and is
working across the country today? This slowness has resulted in
all sorts of things that we have seen in the last few weeks, in
particular with the east coast fishery.
What choice do we have? We have to do something. This is what
is before us. For those who say that they do not want to support
this, I challenge them to say what they are proposing we do as a
country to resolve these outstanding issues and, most
importantly, to bring certainty to aboriginal people and
non-aboriginal people alike. I think that is a fair challenge to
put, particularly to my colleagues who are going to be voting
against this and who do not like what the process is all about.
In spite of what others have said, this is not a template. This
is not a border plate piece of negotiation that is going to apply
elsewhere because first nations groups will not support it. I
represent the Shuswap area of my province. Most of the bands in
the Shuswap Nation do not support the Nisga'a agreement. They
agree that it is what the Nisga'a want and respect their right to
decide on their own future, but the Shuswap Nation wants a lot
better deal. They want things that will be much different for
them because they have a different culture with different
expectations, requirements and so on. This is not a template nor
a border plate piece of legislation that we can apply willy-nilly
to any piece of negotiation across the country. I felt this was
one point that ought to be made.
Second, have we had adequate input into the process? I know the
debate today is on second reading, which is the way legislation
proceeds. From there it will go to a committee where experts,
from a variety of backgrounds, will comment on the pros and cons
of the treaty. They will point out some of its strong points,
presumably some of its weak points and some of the concerns
people have. The bill will then come back to the House for
debate at report stage and then a final debate at the third
reading stage before it goes on to the Senate where it will go
through the same process.
It is a fairly thorough process. It has already gone through a
pretty thorough process. In my own area, we had a lot of
meetings on the Nisga'a agreement. There were over 500
consultations on the Nisga'a agreement throughout British
Columbia. Yes, people have strong feelings. Yes, many people
have deep concerns based on, in my judgment, a lot of
misconception because they have not studied the document
carefully. They have also been sort of conjuring up a mythology
attached to the treaty.
The Nisga'a treaty was achieved within Canada's existing
constitutional framework. The Nisga'a government will be a
democratic government for the Nisga'a community. It will protect
Nisga'a language, culture and property, promote the future
prosperity and well-being of the Nisga'a people, and give the
Nisga'a the control over their lands and destinies that most of
us have had for a long time and have always taken for granted.
It will not create an order of government apart from Canadian
law and society. As many people have indicated, the charter of
rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the Nisga'a people.
Federal and provincial laws, such as the criminal code or B.C.'s
family relations act, will apply.
The treaty lays out those areas where the Nisga'a government
will have the right to enact laws. These laws will only prevail
in matters internal to the Nisga'a people, important to their
culture and essential to the operation of their government. In
general, federal and provincial laws will continue to prevail.
If there is a conflict between Nisga'a law and the laws of Canada
or the laws of British Columbia, there is a dispute settlement
mechanism that will be invoked.
1555
One of the areas I want to emphasize in this agreement that
non-aboriginal people in particular want to hear about is the
issue of taxation and the extent to which certain aboriginal
peoples do or do not pay taxes. There is a lot of mythology
around this area, but the reality is that in most cases people
who work and make their livelihood from enterprises on the
reservation do not pay income tax.
The Nisga'a agreement will eventually end this. After a 12 year
phase-out period, Nisga'a people will pay taxes the same way
other Canadians do. If nothing else, this has to be an
incredible breakthrough in terms of breaking the kind of mindset
that exists between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people.
The reliance of the Nisga'a people on transfers will be reduced
over a time. I suppose we can say that if there is a final goal
it will be that the Nisga'a people will be as economically
self-reliant as any other Canadian as a result of economic
development and wealth growth in their territory.
I am particularly proud to be part of a group of people who,
after the process is completed, will vote in favour of the
enabling legislation. It is a good day for Canada, a good day
for the Nisga'a people and a good day for the province of British
Columbia. The treaty will move us toward an element of
certainty, predictability and stability in areas which are, at
the moment, woefully wanting.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for his interventions today. I think those
people watching his dissertation would agree with me that he has
spoken very well.
For those Canadians who are watching the debate, I welcome the
member's participation. I have talked to him about this on
several occasions. I was quite delighted to see him speaking in
the House today. He is a veteran member of parliament from
British Columbia and a member of the New Democratic Party. He
provides some insights and a different angle with respect to
British Columbia.
Many members from rural British Columbia have repeatedly spoken
against the deal in the House. I want to ask the member why he
thinks, feels, or believes that the Reform members, even those
next door to him in his riding in British Columbia, have so
strongly opposed what he and I both agree is a great deal for the
people of British Columbia? Could he elaborate on that
complexity and misunderstanding with the Canadian people?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for
me to speak on why representatives of other political parties do
what they do.
I will say something that has made me rather curious in times
past. My Reform Party colleagues from British Columbia, who work
hard in their constituencies, know the uncertainty surrounding
the land issue in British Columbia when it comes treaty rights.
I kind of look ahead to the next provincial election which will
be coming soon. If there is a provincial election and a change
of government, which is possible, and that new government throws
out any concept of negotiating treaty rights or land claims with
first nations peoples, that province will see complete chaos
because it will appeal to the militant extremes on both sides of
this question.
1600
What has confounded me, and I say this with all due respect
to my Reform friends, is that as a party that espouses a
businesslike approach to issues, to do anything that would not
advance the cause of certainty, security and predictability
economically I think is folly.
I suspect that I will have a question from my Reform friend
next, so I will ask, for a political party that does not like
these kinds of negotiations, that does not support this
negotiation process, what is it that Reform members would suggest
we do as a province and as a country to bring certainty and
stability to these areas?
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. There are obviously
many areas where we disagree. I am presumably the next one to
speak and I think I will have trouble delivering everything in
the time allotted, so I will ask the hon. member some questions.
The hon. member is correct in stating that the Indian Act is
gone, but one part remains, and that is the part that deals with
who is an Indian, which is the very worst part of the Indian Act.
There are many other concerns I would like to get to, one of
which is the fact that we are here to represent a very educated
public in British Columbia, a public which is more educated on
this issue than those in any other part of Canada. Has the
member done any polling in his riding? We have.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to my
friend that I am not a courier service. I am not someone who
exclusively takes the views of my constituents here, but that is
part of it. I have not taken a survey, but I suspect that the
situation in my riding is relatively balanced. Quite frankly, I
am not a courier service. We have Fed-Ex and we have EPS and
others to take care of that. Otherwise there would be no point
in our being here.
I ask my hon. friend, whom I respect greatly, when he stands to
give his speech, condemning the process and the treaty, will he
please offer what he is proposing as an alternative? If what he
is proposing as a clear alternative will not bring stability, an
element of peace to the landscape and certainty to British
Columbia, I say he is not doing this process a real service.
Yes, he can criticize it. Yes, there are problems with this
treaty. It is not a perfect document. However, what is it that
he would propose in lieu of this?
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys. I presume the member owns a piece of property.
I presume he lives in a community, on a street with other
residential properties.
I am wondering if the member could explain to me why he would
not want to see the Nisga'a people have the same rights to
individual property as he enjoys and the people in his
neighbourhood enjoy. Maybe then he could explain to me and to the
House how he would feel if one day he was told that he did not
have those individual property rights any more, but in fact there
were communal rights to the property that he now enjoys. Why
would the member not want the Nisga'a people to have individual
property rights just as other Canadians enjoy?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me use this as an
opportunity, in case there is some misunderstanding, to say that
when it comes to treaty settlement in British Columbia, private
property itself is not on the table. For the people who own
private property in Kamloops or anywhere else, that property is
not on the table in terms of being up for negotiation. I want to
make that clear, and I realize what my friend was asking.
We all enjoy collective rights. Much of the municipality of
Kamloops is a collective right that we enjoy.
When it comes to individual territory, I look at the Kamloops
Indian reserve, which is part of our city. The same situation
exists there. Indian people on the Kamloops Indian reserve
cannot own their property. They can obtain rights to their
property, which they do, whether it is a home, a business, a
ranch or whatever. That is what exists today.
1605
I do not know where my friend wants to take this, but I
challenge him and others, because people so far have not raised
this and I am going to be here this afternoon to listen to them,
that if members do not like this process, if they do not accept
that first nations people should have their land and treaty
rights negotiated—and I do not think the member suggests that
they should be litigated—what is it that they would propose we
do immediately to bring peace, stability and certainty to the
British Columbian landscape?
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member from British Columbia,
who is one of the most honoured colleagues in the House of
Commons, with over 20 years of service to the Canadian public,
knows very well that the Conservative and Liberal governments of
before and today have constantly told the aboriginal people to
pound sand and take their case to court.
As a long time veteran of the House, could he advise the House
as to why governments have constantly done that and why the
Nisga'a treaty is so valuable in today's process?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has
raised that issue. What has frustrated so many over the years is
the inability of governments to deal with these issues, in
particular in British Columbia where we do not have any treaties
in place to bring stability to the situation.
People have been patient. Aboriginal leaders have been patient
in anticipation that there would be a process under way. The
government has set up some processes for treaty negotiation which
I think are completely inadequate. There is growing frustration
from coast to coast to coast that these issues are not being
addressed seriously and adequately. There is increased tension
on both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal sides and the situation
is getting out of control.
I pose again, not so much rhetorically but as a very serious
question to my Reform friends, that if this is not the approach
to bringing certainty economically, in terms of the business
climate in British Columbia, what else is there? If negotiations
will not resolve this, the only other alternative is litigation.
We have seen what that does, in particular most recently on the
east coast of Canada. Litigation is not the answer to solving
these issues. There have to be people sitting down at the table,
negotiating something that is fair and equitable for everyone.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for resumption of
debate on the motion, I should advise the House that the time for
20 minute speeches with 10 minutes of questions and comments has
expired. We will now start 10 minute speeches with no questions
or comments.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a point of clarification. The time before which
I would have to speak and still get 20 minutes was 3.53 p.m. We
are past that time. I have had a challenge posed to me by the
member from Kamloops. I fully would like to respond to his
questions. Could I ask the House if I could speak for more than
10 minutes and no longer than 20 minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow
the hon. member to speak for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this is very frustrating
indeed. For those people who are watching, I am going to give
them my website, which is www.duncanmp.com. I do offer proposals
as to how to do this differently. I have been doing that since
1996 with regard to the Nisga'a agreement, prior to it becoming
an agreement in principle. I also have been making suggestions
in aboriginal policy areas since 1994.
I cannot help but respond to the previous speaker. We obviously
have a different vision, but we both want to fix what is wrong in
the area of aboriginal issues.
We both agree that the native population has received shoddy
treatment. I would be the last one to say that has not been the
case.
1610
Reform believes that equality is created by treating everyone
equally, unlike the NDP and the Liberals. They consider it a
criticism of us that we want to treat everyone equally. I
believe that is a fundamental philosophical difference that will
forever separate us and is what separates us on this agreement.
The member from Kamloops talked about residential schools. My
wife went to a residential school. I do not need any lessons on
that issue from anyone.
A bit of time was spent talking about the taxation issue. I
will simply say that, yes, individual taxation exemptions for the
Nisga'a under the agreement will be phased out over 12 years, but
there was a whole new tax exemption brought into the agreement
and that is for the Nisga'a central government.
We did not need a treaty to get out from under the tax exemption
differential that exists in this country. We could have done it
legislatively. It all flows from section 87 of the Indian Act.
It is a very simple thing to fix.
I could talk about the Nisga'a agreement for hours, but I am
going to focus on only one aspect because my time is limited. I
want to talk about public consultation. If I have time I will
offer some proposals.
I was the aboriginal affairs critic in the last parliament. I
did the first publicly available comprehensive analysis of the
Nisga'a agreement in principle. I did that in early 1996, after
the agreement in principle came out.
The Liberals would have the public believe that Reform has not
dealt with or had discussions with the public, stakeholders or
the Nisga'a. The Liberals are revising history and I can prove
it. I have a track record of having dealt with the agreement
before it was ever unveiled and of having discussions with the
public and stakeholders, including the Nisga'a, which is contrary
to the revisionist history and statements being made in the
current debate coming from Liberals with their public relations
spin.
The Liberals are trying to revise history. I am revisiting
history. There is a big difference.
Reform MPs in British Columbia, including our current critic,
have been talking about the Nisga'a agreement since 1994. We are
on the public record, especially in British Columbia.
The only body given official standing as adviser for the Nisga'a
treaty was the provincial treaty negotiation advisory committee.
The public was excluded other than through this formal committee.
I can demonstrate that that committee was also excluded from the
process by both the federal and provincial governments.
We have not erected barriers, but the two senior governments,
provincially and federally, certainly have. The manipulation of
their so-called public consultation has been ongoing.
When the Nisga'a agreement in principle was unveiled in February
1996, a member of TNAC, the committee I just talked about, said
publicly:
I can't say we worked on this document, because we never saw it
until February 15, just hours before it was initialled. Not one
page, not one paragraph of this 150-page document was shared with
TNAC, the government's Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or
any of the local advisory committees, or any of the people with
legal interests in the Crown Land that this agreement would give
to the Nisga'a.
That is what the forestry representative said. If the very
people who were paid to know the contents of the negotiations
were kept in the dark, we know where the average British
Columbian was.
1615
Long before the agreement was initialled we knew it consisted of
some leaks and from these leaks we prepared an analysis. We took
that analysis and other speculations on the road. We visited 10
towns across British Columbia and conducted townhall meetings. We
talked about self-government, tax exemptions and other matters
that we thought were the direction of the government. It was
sponsored by the current aboriginal affairs critic and me.
Nisga'a and other aboriginal groups attended some of these
meetings. Representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, its bureaucrats, were also in
attendance.
Later in the same year, in November 1995, I held another series
of townhall meetings to follow up on the earlier meetings. I
remember driving through a blizzard 2,000 kilometres in 36 hours
to hold two meetings. We met in Nanaimo, Prince George, Terrace,
Penticton, South Surrey and Maple Ridge. Once again there were
aboriginal representatives and Nisga'a representatives
particularly in Terrace, which is in the front yard of the
Nisga'a.
My office prepared a 37 page analysis which was published as a
tabloid and sent to half a million households in British Columbia
in the middle of 1996. After the Nisga'a final agreement came
out that analysis was revised. It can be found on my website
today.
The province talks about consultation. The province got into
the act with the so-called consultation in 1996. Everyone in the
public thought that they were going to something which would
allow them to say what parts of the Nisga'a agreement were okay
in their minds and what parts were not.
What did the government do? It changed the terms of reference.
The public was to tell it what parts of the agreement could be
negotiated in other treaties and what could not be. This was
done by a very biased chair of the committee. I will quote from
something he said to give clarity to my charge that it was
biased. He said:
I am just in awe, really. I've been around, federally; I've been
in constitutional negotiations and so on. I don't know what
the...I keep thinking about the Fathers of Confederation as they
call them, or whatever the words, putting together the BNA Act
and so on. The amount of work you people have done in this is
really quite unbelievable.
He was talking to the Nisga'a negotiators. He continued:
You're to be really commended...We are coming at it kind of as
amateurs seeing your work. I guess that's a long way of saying
I'm very impressed.
Is it any wonder that the B.C. Liberals walked away from the
process? Obviously no substantive criticism ever came from that
committee.
Essentially the public has been excluded by both senior
governments. The rationale behind separating the Nisga'a treaty
process from the B.C. treaty process was that the Nisga'a treaty
predated the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission. That is how
we ended up with the only sanctioned body being this treaty
negotiation advisory committee. I have already mentioned how it
was excluded.
It is fair for me to say that our current critic has had ongoing
dialogue with the Nisga'a and other interests throughout. We
have been participants in public consultation. I know, for
example, that he had a televised debate with Chief Gosnell from
the Nisga'a nation.
If one is to be critical of an agreement, I agree with the hon.
member from Kamloops that there is an obligation to provide
constructive criticism. I will not deal with that part of my
speech, suffice it to say that members should visit my website.
1620
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since the member who just spoke is clearly one of the most
knowledgeable people in parliament on this issue, I would ask
again for unanimous consent to give him another 10 minutes. I
think it is important to do that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the hon. member's speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to
give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement. My colleagues from
South Shore and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have already
spoken on this ratifying legislation and I am pleased to have an
opportunity to speak on it today. I will pretty well stick to my
script. I do not want to be sidetracked because I want to make
sure my remarks are on record.
The Nisga'a final agreement offers new opportunities to the
approximately 3,000 Nisga'a people living in the upper Nass
Valley region of British Columbia, opportunities they will be
able to realize because of the agreement.
The Reform Party has been vocal on its position on the Nisga'a
final agreement, a position which contradicts that of every other
opposition party. The arguments it has put forth have been
misleading and serve only to confuse the issue.
The Nisga'a people have worked hard to reach a negotiated
settlement with the provincial and federal governments. Some 61%
of them approved the agreement in the referendum last year. The
provincial government in British Columbia did the same in April
of this year.
There are three ways that parties often use to try to reach
agreements, some better than others. For instance, we all
witnessed what can happen when violent confrontation is used as a
negotiating ploy and how destructive it can be to any peaceful
and reasoned process that may already be in place.
In Oka a few years ago we all saw how quickly such tactics could
get out of hand. No one wants to participate in that kind of
demonstration. It ultimately delays any agreement and does
nothing to develop peaceful, effective and harmonious relations.
It does not matter whom we are talking about. Violent
confrontation seldom accomplishes the intended objective and does
not effectively lead us to peaceful negotiations.
The same type of confrontation was seen recently involving the
Burnt Church first nation of New Brunswick. We all know the
Marshall decision recognizes treaty fishing rights for Mi'kmaq,
Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people. Since that September 17
ruling there has been confusion and unrest in some communities in
the Atlantic region.
Confrontations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen
and community members only emphasize the problems that exist in
finding a long term solution to the matter. The violence that we
witnessed at Burnt Church resulted from a lack of leadership and
a lack of involvement of stakeholders in any kind of a process to
outline how the fishery would operate.
There are only three ways to reach agreement. The second one is
through the court system where judges determine how parties will
interact. As we have seen in the Marshall case, this does not
necessarily provide the most effective agreement but instead
provides guidelines for future negotiations.
I would argue that the court system has a place in society in
establishing common ground among parties or overcoming bias and
discrimination that may otherwise exist. It does not establish a
solid basis of mutual respect for future negotiations. Instead,
the parties involved know the limitations imposed and must work
within such a framework to establish an agreement that satisfies
not only the court's requirements but the objectives of each
party.
The Marshall decision opened the door for more aboriginal
involvement in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. What has been
lacking, and I emphasize it, is direction from the federal
government on how to implement such a decision. That
responsibility has fallen to the people involved: aboriginal
fishermen, non-aboriginal fishermen, community groups and other
stakeholders.
We have already seen in Atlantic Canada some agreement on how
the fishery will operate and when and where aboriginal fishers
will take part in the fishery in the short term.
This was not the result of the federally appointed negotiator's
involvement, but the desire on the part of stakeholders to have a
peaceful, clear and concise agreement on what will happen in the
fishery.
1625
This leads me to the third point that negotiations are the best
means of reaching agreements like the one we are debating today.
Negotiation is the most effective means because all the parties
involved are there for one reason, and that is to formulate the
best settlement they can, recognizing the limits, objectives and
aspirations that each party brings to the table.
The Nisga'a final agreement provides the Nisga'a people with
almost 2,000 kilometres of land and $190 million to be paid over
a 15 year time period. It provides a commercial fishery and a
resource ownership including forestry and mining opportunities.
The Nisga'a people will establish a Nisga'a Lisms government and
will begin paying taxes, an important word in the House, on a
phased-in approach over 12 years. The Nisga'a will also have a
constitution.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the fisheries aspect of
the final agreement. Under the agreement the Nisga'a people will
receive a percentage of the Nass River salmon stocks and money
toward buying into the commercial fishery. Conservation remains
paramount, however, for all aboriginal fishing rights. As with
the lobster fishery on the east coast, if stocks do not meet
minimum levels established by the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, no one including aboriginal fishers may fish.
Conservation must remain paramount.
The provisions of the treaty are the result of years of
negotiation which have finally culminated in the treaty or
agreement we have today. The ratifying legislation we are
debating is the final step before the Nisga'a people assume the
obligations and, another key word, responsibilities entailed
within the agreement. The agreement was negotiated on a nation
to nation basis.
The Reform Party suggests that the agreement will be a template
for other agreements, particularly in B.C. where there are 50
outstanding land claim agreements. While a number of the basic
concepts contained within the treaty may provide a foundation for
future agreements, the nation to nation concept precludes this
from being an actual template for other agreements.
Each first nation will arrive at the negotiating table with
different objectives and will negotiate from a different
perspective. Social conditions, geographic location and
financial circumstances will all play a role in what future
agreements will look like and how they will be reached.
It is important to note that the agreement was reached
peacefully. I am sure the Nisga'a people and other negotiators
would like to have seen the process concluded a long time ago.
They have been working a long time to bring certainty and closure
to the issue. However, they can be very proud of the fact that
they did it effectively and peacefully and that harmonious
relations among the three parties will prevail.
The Reform Party has tried to minimalize and degrade the efforts
of the Nisga'a people in reaching and ratifying the agreement.
They have made assertions that the charter of rights and freedoms
does not apply, that it is a race based government and that
non-Nisga'a people will be taxed without representation. All
these statements are wrong, false and very misleading. The
Nisga'a final agreement clearly states that the charter of rights
and freedoms continues to apply to the Nisga'a people. The
agreement states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a
Government in respect of all matters within its authority,
bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a
Government as set out in this Agreement.
The Nisga'a people will not tax non-Nisga'a people living on
Nisga'a lands and non-Nisga'a people will continue to vote in
municipal, provincials and federal elections. As well,
non-Nisga'a people will have voting privileges where their
interests are affected by Nisga'a law. More important, they will
have more rights than currently exist under the Indian Act where
non-aboriginal people have no opportunity to vote.
The Nisga'a final agreement will be the first modern day treaty
in B.C. I commend the Nisga'a people for their perseverance in
seeing the agreement to its conclusion.
1630
The situation on the east coast only emphasizes the importance
of having agreements among stakeholders, agreements that set out
the role of each party involved and that are negotiated with the
input of all stakeholders without confrontation or court
involvement. The Nisga'a final agreement shows how effective
negotiation can be.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Surrey Central, Aboriginal affairs.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of all the issues we will be dealing with in this
parliament this issue will have the most profound impact on the
state of our nation now and for the next 20 years. With a
combination of our collective guilt and a recognition of the
appalling conditions that exist on aboriginal lands and for
aboriginal people both on and off reserve, we are pursuing a
course with the Nisga'a deal that will carve up this country. It
will balkanize our nation and do little to improve the health and
welfare of aboriginal people in this country.
This deal is an extension of the racist Indian Act which has
acted like a lodestone around the necks of aboriginal people and
which has ensured that they cannot develop as non-aboriginals
have. It is nothing other than the continuation of separate
development.
In the past decade I worked in South Africa during the dark days
of apartheid. I saw the appalling conditions under separate
development. I have been privileged to work with aboriginal
people both on and off reserve. I have seen them raped. I have
seen them assaulted. I have seen them overdose, some successfully
and some unsuccessfully. I have seen their children abused. I
have seen their bodies broken and their spirits destroyed.
That is the direct result of the separate development we have
pursued for more than 120 years. Whether we are speaking about
South Africa under apartheid or Canada under the Indian Act, both
engaged in separate development and were equal failures.
The Nisga'a deal is nothing but an extension and an entrenchment
of the same type of separate development. It will do very little
to improve the health and welfare of these people. In fact,
Canada is engaging in apartheid today.
The Nisga'a deal represents more than 16 different powers that
supersede the federal and provincial powers. As my colleague
from the Progressive Conservatives mentioned, this is a deal
nation to nation. It cannot be looked at in isolation for there
are 50 other so-called deals that will be made in British
Columbia. So far those claims represent 110% of the land mass of
B.C. The rest of Canada cannot be complacent in believing this
will not affect them.
The Delgamuukw decision said very clearly that aboriginal title
was not extinguished. The implicit nature of the decision was
that oral tradition would be equal to written tradition and there
has been an opening up of treaties from coast to coast. This
will have the profound impact of balkanizing our nation. It will
divide it up into mini states where rights are not given to the
individual but are given to the collective.
Part of the problem we have had is that individual rights have
never been given to aboriginal people. As a result, powers have
been given to the collective. This cannot be underestimated. We
have been doing this for years.
Some $6.5 billion per year and $3.5 billion goes directly to
more than 600 bands representing over a quarter of a million
aboriginal people who are suffering from the same or worse
conditions today than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. They
have the highest rates of suicide, substance abuse, unemployment,
diabetes and tuberculosis. By many other parameters they have
the worst conditions in this country, conditions that approach
those of the third world. That is what separate development has
done for aboriginal people.
We are going beyond that. The courts are now developing
separate rules. Under the courts, an aboriginal person would be
treated differently from a non-aboriginal person for committing
the same offence. Is it right for an aboriginal person who has
committed a murder or another serious offence to go back into the
community because it is the right thing to do from the court's
perspective?
1635
That is exactly what happened recently on a reserve that I
worked on. Somebody who had committed murder, not once but on
two separate occasions, was being released into the very
community where the murder had been committed. Where is the
justice for the aboriginal people, for the victims who live in
that environment? The family members of the murdered woman were
mortally afraid that the person who murdered one of their own was
going to come back again. That is what happened in the judicial
system.
We all care about this issue very much. There is not a person
in this House who wants to see the aboriginal people continue
living under the conditions that they have been living. We all
want to see an improvement. We all want to work with them. But
the difference between the Reform Party and the rest of the House
is that we do not want to participate in the same separate
development that has compromised the ability of aboriginal people
to live lives of freedom, to live lives of security and to live
lives of hope. We want that for them as they want that for
themselves but some things have to happen.
One, we have to scrap the racist Indian Act. It has acted like
a lodestone around the necks of aboriginal people for so long.
Two, there has to be one law for all people. If we have
different laws for different people, we have no law at all. How
can aboriginal people on and off reserve have any faith in a
judicial system that is going to treat them differently from
other people?
Three, we have to invest in education and health care for these
people so that they will be able to stand on their own feet.
No matter what our racial group is, we cannot get pride and
self-respect unless we take it and we cannot take it without
being self-sufficient. People must be able to provide for
themselves, their families and their communities. No one is
going to give that to them.
The aboriginal leadership has to start behaving like leaders.
Some leaders have done an excellent job and many have not. More
than 150 aboriginal bands out of some 600 have been investigated
for gross mismanagement of funds. The reason is rooted in the
fact that funds are going directly to the leadership and not to
the people.
The Pacheenaht band is in my riding. The hereditary chief and
people on the reserve are trying to find out about what is going
on in their band, about decisions that are made by the
leadership. They were told that they could not have that
information. I stood right beside them when they were promised
that information but it was not given to them. I asked the Indian
affairs minister to please help this group. The department said
it could not intervene, that it was a band issue. Who is going
to defend these grassroots aboriginal people when their own
leadership is not going to bat for them? That is what is
happening.
We see these people on the ground, the horror of children
falling into open sinkholes. The ministry will not give them
money because the band has the money but the band is not giving
them the money. These people have absolutely no recourse and
nowhere to go for help.
We cannot do it by giving collective rights to a group. We have
to give it to the individual. That is critically important.
We want to ensure that people have independence. But do we
really need to have political independence to ensure economic
emancipation? That is what this is about. We have not been able
to help the aboriginal people to work together with us to engage
in economic emancipation.
Everybody here who speaks with aboriginal people knows they want
to have what everybody else has, congruent with their customs and
rights which are protected under the constitution and the
charter, thankfully. Thankfully, they can still engage in their
rights and traditions and enrich and empower us and teach us
about what they have. Following that line does not absolve us of
ensuring that an aboriginal person is treated the same as a
non-aboriginal person, that an aboriginal person will have the
same opportunity as a non-aboriginal person.
The department of Indian affairs spent $6.5 billion and has very
little to show for it. Money is sucked up by the bureaucracy.
Imagine developing a new layer of government, which is what this
Nisga'a agreement and others are going to do.
1640
A huge amount of money will go into other bureaucracies at the
provincial and federal levels to interface, non-aboriginal groups
with the aboriginal governments. Would it not be better to use
that money to ensure the aboriginal people have the improvements
in health care, education, welfare and housing that they
desperately need? Why are we putting money into a bureaucratic
solution when these people need a solid solution?
In closing, I can only impress upon every member and every
Canadian that this is the most important decision the House will
have made in four years. Please do not take it lightly. Please
let us work toward a common objective of ensuring that we will
have the power to work together, aboriginals and non-aboriginals,
to build a future we can share and work in as equals congruent
with our customs and traditions. It is the fair thing to do.
Pursuing this Nisga'a treaty will only end in the balkanization
of Canada and apartheid in Canada.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
amendment before the House at the moment is to institute a six
month delay on the bill. I would like to approach the discussion
from the angle of representation.
When asked about the fact that the polls in B.C. clearly showed
that a majority of people were opposed to this deal, the member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys said that he did not
want to be a courier to this place or what would be the point of
being here. There was a time, in a former lifetime perhaps, when
the NDP prided itself in being representatives of the people or
what was the point of being here. That marks a major departure
in political philosophy between the NDP and the Reform Party. We
feel we have an obligation to represent the concerns of the
people of B.C. in this place.
From a philosophical position I can understand why the NDP would
support a socialist structure of government, which is certainly
the structure that is to be set up by the Nisga'a deal. But the
evidence from all around the world is that socialism does not
work. It depresses the people. It suppresses initiative and it
always results in a lower standard of living. I think we can see
that in what has happened with existing treaties on reserves
across Canada. In fact, I would challenge any member in this
place to show any treaty passed in the last 200 years that has
resulted in a higher standard of living for people on reserves.
In terms of representation, why has the government side not
bothered to ask those Nisga'a who voted against the deal why they
are opposed to it? If it had taken the time to do so, it would
have discovered that the opponents are afraid that the treaty
will entrench a system which will confer benefits on a few at the
expense of many, particularly at the expense of individual
rights.
As my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said a few moments
ago, it smacks of segregation. I can tell the House that
literally dozens of immigrants from South Africa who live in my
riding have phoned and written to me to tell me that they call it
apartheid. They pull no punches about it. They told me on the
telephone, in person and in letters that they do not understand
why Canada is pursuing exactly the same course that they were
criticized for in South Africa. The whole world reacted against
South Africa and imposed sanctions. They do not understand why we
are going down the same road.
Speakers from other parties asked us what Reform would have done
to solve these problems. Let me put in a suggestion based on
representation.
If the people of B.C. had been asked or allowed to vote and
indicate to their government whether they agreed to land being
involved, whether there should be individual or collective
rights, whether there should be money transferred, and the basics
of treaty making had been passed in some sort of referendum in
the province of B.C., the politicians would have had the mandate
to go ahead and negotiate a treaty. It would have been endorsed
and supported by all of the people of B.C. That did not happen.
Today we have a situation where poll after poll in B.C. is
showing strong opposition to the agreement.
In fact in the ridings of Liberal MPs in this House, Vancouver
Centre and Vancouver South—Burnaby, up to 70% and 80% of the
people are opposed to the Nisga'a deal.
1645
It is just not good enough to say that they do not want to be
couriers to this place. They should be coming here, standing in
the House and saying why the people in their ridings are opposed
to it.
Instead, we have a situation where all of the other parties are
attacking Reform, and completely unfairly. We saw today in
question period a member of the PC party standing to ask a
question about the Mi'kmaq and the lobster fishers on the east
coast. There was not a single word of criticism or an attack
against the PCs for expressing tremendous concern about what is
happening in their ridings.
Look at what has happened in the House over the last six years.
The member for Delta—South Richmond, five and six years ago,
talked about the illegal fishing that was going on in the Fraser
River and all of the fish that were being sold illegally in B.C.
by native fishers. He was attacked. We were labelled as bigots
and that other r word that I am not allowed to use in this
House. We were attacked for representing our constituents. Now
it is happening on the east coast.
Perhaps it is a little wake up call for the government and for
everyone who does not understand what is going on in B.C. They
will share in the strife if they continue with the process of
setting up governments based on race.
Over 90% of all Indian bands in the country are in B.C. People
who live anywhere else in the country, who have not experienced
the difficulties, do not have even the slightest concept of what
is happening in B.C.
The Liberal Party of B.C. fought this bill tooth and nail as it
went through the legislature in British Columbia. It even filed
a court case, claiming that this bill was unconstitutional. The
fact that it was rammed through by the NDP government has put an
aura of mistrust in place. The people of B.C. do not trust the
NDP government. Just the fact that it was rammed through by the
NDP is a bad mark for the deal. It would have been much better
had the people of B.C. been allowed some say in it. The member
for Vancouver Island North went into great detail about the
process and how flawed it was.
I have on my desk many newspaper articles written by people who
could not be labelled with the r word or called bigots or
extremists. Barbara Yaffe, Rafe Mair, Gordon Gibson and many
commentators in British Columbia have written about this treaty.
A headline in one of Barbara Yaffe's columns read “Reality check
for the Liberals: alienation is real and justified”. She went
on to criticize the Prime Minister's task force and to explain
why segregation based on race is not the way to go with Indian
land claims.
Another column by Barbara Yaffe was entitled “Special rights
for natives threaten our otherwise civil society”, and she
related the Mi'kmaq situation to what is happening now in British
Columbia.
Rafe Mair wrote:
A pall of madness has settled over the province of British
Columbia and will soon spread across the country. Our
representatives, both provincial and federal, have utterly
betrayed our interests. We have, with the Nisga'a agreement now
before Parliament, ensured there will be at least 50
semi-autonomous “nations” in B.C.
Despite what you may be told, these will not just be native
“municipalities”. Nisga'a sets up a separate style of
government to which powers, reserved for the federal and
provincial governments, will be permanently ceded. Does all this
really mean anything? You bet it does. It means that in British
Columbia there will be between 50 and 75 “nations” that will
govern themselves with constitutions, not on the level of
municipalities but as part of the power-sharing process envisaged
by the Constitution of Canada.
And B.C.'s voters have also specifically rejected the Nisga'a
treaty when given the chance. Since the B.C. government refused
to hold a province-wide referendum, some B.C. citizens' groups
held their own instead. Earlier this year, 7,200 Prince George
residents...voted on the Nisga'a treaty and more than 97% cast
their vote against it. Residents of the northern region of
Vancouver Island...said no to the tune of 97%. A poll in
Ladner-Tswassen found 93% of 3,400 voters against the treaty. The
turnout itself was damming: Two weeks later a school board
election was held in a nearby area with twice as many voters as
were eligible for the Nisga'a vote. There, only 2,600 people
showed up to cast ballots.
1650
That gives an idea of the relevant importance of these two
issues in the Ladner area.
The article by Rafe Mair continued:
Am I some anti-native, red-necked racist looking for a forum to
peddle hatred? Those who know me know I'm anything but. What I
am, however, is one who, in a long life, has seen his country
reach a point where, far from reducing racism, it is about to
sanctify it for all time in the constitution of the country.
I congratulate Rafe Mair for the article that was printed in the
National Post and I would ask members to read it in full.
It illustrates and demonstrates beautifully what is happening in
B.C. at the moment, why the Reform Party is so vigorously
opposing it and why the member for Kamloops should be doing the
same thing. He is not just a courier. He owes it to his
constituents to bring their concerns to this place.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the House in this
debate, and particularly the members of my party who are standing
to oppose the treaty which is before the House for ratification.
It has been interesting to listen to opposition and government
members talk about the treaty. I hear them say that they have
been there, they have seen this. I remember one of the Bloc
members even describing the colour of the Nass River and I
wondered what insight he had obtained on this treaty from the
colour of the river.
I have spent some time on a reserve. After my university,
seminary work and ordination I was the minister, or the
missionary to use the traditional term, at an Indian village on
the west coast. During the orientation, before I took that
posting, I was told that I may think I would go there with my
university work behind me, with my study of sociology,
anthropology and the course work on native Indians, particularly
in British Columbia, and I may have lived next door to reserves
as a boy on ranches for virtually all my life; however, I was
told that I did not know anything about what I would be doing and
would not know until I had been there for two or three years, and
that I would then begin to know.
I had a position to fill on that reserve, a place in the
community, but understanding the people and their traditions only
began to come when there was some way of hearing their stories
and experiencing the familiarity between people that comes with
sharing at that deeper level.
People who have been close to native Indian people, who
understand the hardship and the effects of their powerlessness,
understand also that they live in a power structure and most of
the people in that power structure have not had the opportunity
to exercise that power. There is power, but most people do not
have an opportunity to put their hands on it.
Something else I have heard in the debate is that under this
treaty people can own property. That is true, they can. The
difficulty is that individual property rights come with power and
those property rights come as that power is given to them.
However, there is no guarantee that there will be individual
property rights. Without those property rights and power, native
Indian people will never have the resources they need to insist
upon their rights.
How important are property rights? I will tell a story or two
from my own personal experience. The first story begins probably
before I was born.
I remember a friend of my father's who was a resident on one of
the reserves near our home. His mother had a piece of property.
Traditionally she had owned it. She had tried unsuccessfully to
get title to it. His mother died.
I will not use names because these people are still living and
still do not have the power to protect themselves.
1655
This man wanted to own his mother's property. I remember, as a
friend of my father's, they would discuss how this might be
accomplished. I lost track of this story, but interestingly
enough this man was one of the first constituents to come to see
me in my office after I was elected as a member of parliament.
It was a great reunion. I had not seen him for a long time.
He said “I am here for a reason. Do you know that property of
my mother's?” He showed me all the papers of all the
applications, rejections and the difficulty he had in getting the
money. Finally it all came together and he got title to that
property.
After that he included it in the reserve lands. The reason he
came to see me was to see if there was some way he could get
control of his property again because now the band owned it and
the band would not let him use his own property for which he had
worked so many years to get title to.
In my mind this relates pointedly to the need for property
rights for individuals. Band members should be able to own their
property, use it as they wish, buy it, sell it, mortgage it and
take full advantage of it for themselves. Unfortunately this
piece of property is still beyond the grasp of my father's old
friend, but he is still working at it.
I also want to talk about property rights in a way that
currently affects many native people. Native people know the
value of the vote. They know that without being able to vote
they do not have any power at all.
A man came to my constituency office and said “When I left my
village I lost my house. Somebody else began to live in it. Now
I want to go back. I went back to vote, but I was told that I
did not have a house, that I did not live there, so I could not
vote. So I said that I would like to have my house back and they
said that was not possible”.
This is a man who was caught in the catch-22 of not being able
to vote unless he had his property, but he could not get his
property so that he could vote. He is a very unhappy person. I
see this man regularly.
I want to talk about another instance where property rights are
important. A man on a reserve in my constituency has
agricultural land. He liked to cut and sell the hay. He had an
agreement with one of the local ranchers who needed that hay.
For a long time this agreement worked. The hay was cut, it was
hauled to the ranch, the money went to the man who cut the hay
and did the work. One day the chief of the reserve said to the
rancher “The hay is coming from reserve land. The money that
you pay belongs to the band, not to the individual, so I will be
taking the cheque”. The rancher checked it out and that is what
he had to do.
Needless to say, the man who did the work, who put the sweat
into the effort, did not get the money and he does not cut hay
any more. He has lost a big part of his livelihood simply
because he did not have the right to the property and the right
to take payment for the work that he had done on land that he
considered his own.
As a minister on the reserve on the west coast one of the things
that I discovered was that, according to the west coast reserves,
there are a whole variety of little reserves up and down the
coast, usually at the mouths of rivers or at points of land,
places where it is reasonably easy to beach a boat. These
traditionally belong to individuals and to families. They are
passed down through families.
I would not want to suggest that they go from father to son
because that is not always the way it is done in native Indian
culture. However, to say that the Indian people have no concept
of private property and no concept of the right to private
property is not correct. I know of native Indian people who own
land on reserves in their name and it is held within the reserve
system in trust for them.
1700
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the right to personally
own land, the right to personal property, if we are going to
empower native Indian people to take responsibility for
themselves by having the power they need to defend themselves.
They cannot defend themselves according to their rights under the
constitution if they have no means of grasping those rights, of
defending those rights and of prosecuting those who would
jeopardize those rights.
This is a bad treaty. It is going to leave people in the old
system rather than bringing them into the new Canada of the new
millennium with the same rights, privileges and freedoms that all
Canadians expect and enjoy.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-9 and to the
amendment to hold it up for six months, which I think is an
extremely good idea. One of the reasons I say this is that most
of us from B.C. know that the issue of the Nisga'a treaty will
come before the courts. A number of court cases are already
pending.
We are here today in the House trying to debate a bill that our
democratically elected government has put time allocation on. We
do not have enough time to speak on it and to bring all the
issues forward to properly inform the people of Canada with
regard to what is going on here.
The treaty was jammed through in British Columbia without the
consent of the people of British Columbia. It was not brought to
the people of British Columbia. The hon. members of the NDP
should remember that the instigator, the premier of the province
at that time, has now resigned in disgrace over this issue and a
number of other issues.
I have a a lot of difficulty with this because of four reasons.
First, since B.C. fulfilled all of its obligations to our Indians
before it entered confederation, Ottawa alone should bear all the
costs of the Nisga'a treaty, including reimbursing the province
for fair market value of the additional land and natural
resources involved. This is very critical. The treaty will not
cost just the people in British Columbia, it will cost everyone
in Canada. When British Columbia entered into confederation, the
federal government at that time said that it would take over
Indian affairs. This is just one of the arguments.
Second, all the people in British Columbia, not just the Nisga'a
people, should have the right to vote on this. I shall clarify
that. Not all of the Nisga'a people voted on this. Some were
not allowed to vote on it.
Third, due to the sweeping changes the treaty proposes, it
should be subject to periodic review, perhaps every five or ten
years, rather than being entrenched as it stands now in Canada's
constitution. I say that because we have lived for a number of
years under basically two governments in the country, the
Liberals and the Conservatives. We have seen what they have done
to the country. We have seen what they have done with regard to
the Indian Act. They still believe that this is a workable
document. They have gone on for years and years holding up our
native people, holding up the reserves and holding up the process
of the Indian Act as a great workable document for the people of
the country.
However, we know it is a failure. We have heard time after time
from speakers from all parties in the House about just how
detrimental it has been to our Indian population in Canada. That
is one of the reasons why, before we sign off on all these
agreements, that we should have reviews every five to ten years.
1705
My fourth and final point is that the B.C. legislature and
parliament are legally required to pass, amend or defeat this and
other modern day treaties yet to come because it is our
responsibility to ensure the legislation is as good as we can
make it rather than merely rubber-stamping it, which is exactly
what we are doing here. We are just rubber-stamping the
document.
The government is not open. It has already said that it will
not accept amendments. I have no doubt that it will bring
in closure when it goes committee. It will try to ram this
through. It has said in the paper that it will try to get this
through before Christmas. They stand over there and say that
this is not so, but it has been stated in the papers.
If that is not rubber-stamping, if that is not forcing an issue,
if that is not showing total disregard for the people of British
Columbia, I do not know what is. It is not only total disregard
for the people of British Columbia but, in my humble opinion,
also for the Nisga'a people.
I had the honour and privilege of visiting the Nisga'a country
and meeting with the chiefs. I had lunch with them and talked
with them. We decided to disagree very politely in regard to a
number of these issues.
After having travelled through the Nisga'a country and visiting
New Aiyansh, I visited the bordering reserves and met with many
of their chiefs. They had great concerns about the treaty
because it infringed on their traditional territory. Here we
have other bands saying that the agreement infringes on their
territory and the government just sits over there and goes ahead
with it anyway.
When the agreement hits the court, the government will say “We
didn't know that. Nobody told us that or put that out”. Well,
we have and I want the government to remember that.
I also want hon. members on the other side to realize that
British Columbia is a part of Canada. When it comes to an issue
of this importance, where we are basically reshaping and
redefining how Canada will look on maps and how the laws will apply
in different parts of Canada, I would really think that a
government that says it is so concerned about the well-being of
Canada, of its people and of the native population in the country
would at least have the common decency to sit in the House.
However, government members do not. They just leave. Hardly any
of them stay around with regard to this.
We can go back years and years, long before your time, Mr.
Speaker, to when British Columbia first came into confederation.
In my home province it has been proven by order in council that
British Columbia has fulfilled its obligations with respect to
its Indians.
I have strong objections to the Nisga'a treaty and to the
remaining hundreds of treaties which B.C. Indians still have to
come forward with. The government says that this will not be a
template of what is to happen but it will be. The ex-premier of
British Columbia has also stated very strongly that it will be.
It is strange that the government says that this will not become
a template to what will go on in our province because it is a
template. There is absolutely no doubt about it.
I understand the NDP with regard to the issue of private
property rights. Private property rights are nowhere to be found
in the agreement. I understand that from the NDP members, with
their socialistic attitude regarding private property rights, and
that governments should own everything and that they should be
the government that will tell us what we can do.
I also do not have any trouble understanding it coming from the
Conservatives down on the other side of us because the red Tories
are almost exactly the same thing as what we have sitting here as
the NDP.
I did have a little trouble though trying to understand where
the Liberals are coming from on this.
They profess time after time that everybody in the country should
have the opportunity to own something, to have security of that
ownership and to be able to better themselves in regard to that
ownership. However, here they are ready to rubber-stamp this
without giving that right to the natives themselves. It is
almost like they want to keep that entrenchment upon the reserves
so that they cannot better themselves. I have great difficulty
with that after listening to how they profess they care and what
they say to the public outside.
1710
I sincerely hope that the government will at least open this up
to proper debate and allow us to speak on this instead of keeping
us to 10 minutes and shutting off debate with no questions and
answers in the House. This is supposed to be the most democratic
House in Canada. I would think the rest of the world would have
to shake its head at that.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague from British
Columbia speaks, it is always very interesting to hear what he
has to say.
For his attention, for the Reform Party's attention and for the
attention of the listening audience, of which I am sure there are
hundreds of thousands of people watching this now, I want them to
know that I also grew up in British Columbia from 1956 to 1979. I
travelled the province extensively during the time that I lived
there.
I also lived in Watson Lake in the Yukon Territory for nine
years. I toured the Kitwanga area, the Nass area and the
Stikine. I visited the whole area very extensively and met with
tremendous numbers of wonderful people, aboriginal and
non-aboriginal. That is why I have always had high admiration
for people from British Columbia. However, when I say that,
there is a certain political party from there with which, in many
ways, I agree with some of its concerns and I am sure it agrees
with some of our concerns.
Individually, its members are great people, but politically they
have made some mistakes. First, the previous speaker talked
about private property rights. They keep talking about private
property rights. The fact is they are the only ones talking
about private property rights. In negotiations, and not
litigation, there are people on both sides who negotiate what
they would like to have. It was the Nisga'a people who wanted to
have the communal rights to the property on the land. That is
what they wanted. Over 70% of the people voted for the Nisga'a
treaty in favour of it. That is a clear majority right there.
Second, as everyone knows, I now live in Nova Scotia. We have a
huge crisis in the fishing industry because this government and
past Conservative governments refused to negotiate. The
aboriginal people were told to get lost, to go pound sand and to
take their case to court. Three straight decisions have ruled in
favour of the aboriginal people: Delgamuukw, Sparrow and now the
Marshall decision. It has caused chaos in my part of the country
and is now causing uncertainty right across the country.
There is one aspect of the Nisga'a agreement that I would like
to read aloud for the benefit of my Reform colleagues. I do not
believe the treaty will be a template, but I do believe that some
aspects of it could and may be used for other treaties across the
country. If we had the descriptions on page 107, sections 31, 32 and
33, which I will read for Reform's benefit, prior to the Marshall
decision, we would not have the chaos that we have now. It is
titled “Disposition of Salmon Harvests”, but it could equally
have said “any harvest on the Atlantic coast. It reads:
Subject to paragraph 33, the Nisga'a Nation, and its agents,
contractors and licensees authorized by Nisga'a Lisims
Government, have the right to sell Nass salmon harvested under
this Agreement.
For greater certainty, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the
General Provisions Chapter, federal and provincials laws of
general application pertaining to the sale of fish, in respect of
commercial transactions, health and safety, transport,
inspection, processing, packaging, storage, export, quality
control, and labelling of fish, apply to the sale of all Nass
salmon harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.
Here is the key to this. If we had the next key in Nova Scotia,
we would not have a problem today.
If, in any year, there are no directed harvests in Canadian
commercial or recreational fisheries of a species of Nass salmon,
sale of that species of Nass salmon harvested in directed
harvests of that species in that year's Nisga'a fisheries will
not be permitted.
1715
That means if the non-aboriginal recreational and commercial
fisheries are not operating due to conservation measures or other
reasons, there will be no Nisga'a fishery. That is a tremendous
opportunity for co-operation from both sides.
It clearly states that the non-aboriginal and aboriginal people
have in mind conservation first, long before any commercial or
sport recreational activity. If we had had that kind of
agreement in Nova Scotia prior to the Marshall decision, we would
not have the problems or the millions of dollars that are being
wasted as a result of the confusion the Marshall decision caused.
This is what happens when we negotiate, not litigate.
It really upsets me that governments in Canada have continually
told aboriginal people to go away. They are told to take their
case to court because the government refuses to talk to them.
Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, Mr.
Wayne Wouters, one of the deputy ministers at DFO, said quite
clearly in his presentation that it would have been unrealistic
to have expected DFO to have put in any kind of a game plan for
the Marshall decision because they did not know what the ruling
would be.
In March, April and May, the Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia came to
Ottawa to start a dialogue process with DFO and the Indian
affairs department. If the Marshall decision went in favour of
the Mi'kmaq, they wanted to set up a plan of action to avoid the
kind of turmoil which we see now. The government told them to go
away.
Mr. Wouters also said in his presentation to the committee
yesterday that they had a legal obligation to talk to the
aboriginal people of Nova Scotia. But they did not talk to them.
One minute he said that they could not be expected to talk to
them. The next minute he said that they had a legal obligation
to talk to aboriginal people. He was talking out of both sides
of his mouth. No wonder we are frustrated.
On behalf of the Nisga'a people, my colleagues in British
Columbia and my party, I say that the B.C. New Democratic Party,
headed at the time by the great Glen Clark, in negotiations with
the previous Indian affairs minister who is now the Minister of
Human Resources Development, and all the parties that negotiated
this treaty have done a good thing. They have now brought the
aboriginal people into Canada. They are now going to be
full-fledged partners in Canada. It is the way it should be
done. Negotiation, not litigation.
This will not be a template across the country because every
region will be different. There is no question. The Mi'kmaq of
Nova Scotia may have different aspirations or rules, but the fact
is that we must negotiate. That is what has to happen. When we
bring all the stakeholders together and discuss their concerns in
an open and friendly manner, there are compromises on both sides.
The fact is that they will become full citizens of the country,
which they so rightly and richly deserve.
It is no secret that when we go to the Canadian Museum of
Civilization in Hull, Quebec the first thing we see in the great
hall is totem poles, aboriginal artifacts. Why is that? Because
we as Canadians are very proud of our rich cultural history with
the aboriginal and first nations people. This is something we
have to respect and encourage for further dialogue down the road.
The Nisga'a treaty is a good agreement. I recommend that all
parties support the agreement. I thank all members of the House
who do.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all I can say to the hon. NDP member from Nova Scotia is
that as the goalie for the official opposition hockey team, I
wish he could block shots nearly as well as he can block out the
facts about this treaty. If he did, maybe we would beat the
Liberals for a change.
I rise today to speak not only on behalf of the people of Prince
George—Peace River, but on behalf of the majority of British
Columbians whose concerns and rights have been ignored by the
government.
In the limited time allocated to me today, it is my intention to
focus my remarks on the merits of this legislation by asking two
fundamental questions. Will the Nisga'a people be better off as a
result of this legislation? Will Canadian society as a whole be
better off as a result of this treaty?
1720
My riding is located in the northeastern corner of British
Columbia adjacent to the east of the Nisga'a treaty lands. My
constituents are concerned about this issue because the
ramifications of the Nisga'a treaty will impact on the yet
unsettled land claims throughout Peace country in northern B.C.
As a Reform MP I am motivated to vote against this bill based on
philosophy alone. This philosophy was articulated eloquently by
the Leader of the Opposition in his remarks yesterday. The
remarks of the Leader of the Opposition illustrate a better way
of serving our aboriginal people. His arguments clearly outlined
Reform's guiding principles of equality and fairness. These
principles will lead not only to prosperity for our aboriginal
peoples but to a more harmonious relationship with other
Canadians.
As a Reform member of parliament I do not vote based solely upon
my philosophy or that of my party. I balance these interests
with the interests of my constituents who I am pleased and
honoured to represent.
Last March I hired a research company to survey my constituents
on the Nisga'a treaty and on other issues. The following
questions were asked. First, should the people of British
Columbia have a voice on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty
through a province wide referendum? Seventy-five per cent of the
people in my riding voted yes. They felt B.C. resident citizens
should have that. Second, with the information you now have about
the treaty, how should your federal member of parliament vote
when it comes before parliament in Ottawa? Only 17% of my
constituents said that I should vote for this treaty.
In January 1999, I along with the members for Skeena, Prince
George—Bulkley Valley and Okanagan—Shuswap sent out a Nisga'a
treaty householder to 30 ridings held not only by Reform but by
Liberal and NDP MPs. The following are the questions and answers
from that householder survey.
First, do you believe the public has had adequate opportunity to
provide input into the Nisga'a treaty? Eighty-nine per cent said
no and only nine per cent said yes.
Second, do you believe that the people of British Columbia
should have the right to vote on the principles of the Nisga'a
treaty in a provincial referendum? Ninety-two per cent said yes
and only seven per cent said no to a referendum.
Third, how do you want your federal MP to vote on this treaty in
the House of Commons? Of all the returns that came in, 91% were
against it and only 8% said that their MP should vote for it. In
Prince George—Peace River, 96% were against and 3% were for. In
Vancouver Quadra, currently a Liberal held riding, 91% were
against and 7% were for it. In the riding of the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women, 81% were against the treaty and
17% were for it. In Victoria, the riding of the former minister
of fisheries, 92% were against and 8% were for it. In Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, the riding of the current yes
man, 94% were against and 6% were for it. In Kamloops, 95% were
against and 4% were for it. We just heard from the hon. member
from Kamloops yet he did not even poll his riding to see how his
constituents felt about this issue. In Burnaby-Kingsway 87% were
against it and only 11% were in favour of it.
Those numbers say a lot about the intentions of British
Columbians on this issue. Unlike the minister of Indian affairs
I believe that the people of British Columbia are more than
capable of comprehending and deciding this issue. Based on that
and on the overwhelming will of my constituents, I will be voting
against this bill.
What reason do the rest of these members have for not opposing
this bill? Even if they did not want to go with the wishes of
their constituents, what reason would they have for not opposing
it? They are in opposition after all.
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is such an important issue. It is very disappointing that
there do not appear to be enough members in the House. Could I
call for a quorum count, please.
1725
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is quorum.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I note there is quorum now
because of course once my colleague called for quorum a whole
bunch of Liberal members came scurrying out from behind the
curtains and from their lobby where I am sure they were sitting.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We called a quorum and we asked for a head count of the members
opposite and the members on this side. Do they not have to be in
their seats rather than just milling around outside?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No. Just as a point
of interest, provided the Speaker is able to see a member and
recognize a member as a member of this parliament anywhere within
the Speaker's vision, that member is considered to be here. That
includes the galleries. For instance, it is possible to deny
consent provided the Speaker is able to see and recognize that
person as a member.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I could not commend you more for your judicious ruling.
It is so critical to us as members of parliament that we have the
opportunity to discuss with our colleagues, not only on this side
of the House but on the opposite side of the House, the important
affairs of state which have been entrusted to us by the people of
Canada. This is why your ruling is so important.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The points of order
are really out of order.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, despite the humour of the hon.
member across the way whose stand-up comic routine I always
appreciate, I do hope that I still have time to finish my
remarks. I want to take up where I left off.
Could those members not find anything in this legislation that
they oppose in order to show their constituents that they are
listening to them, or are they like the Indian affairs minister
and believe they are smarter than their constituents? My
suggestion is that is for the electorate to decide and it will
decide at the next election.
I would now like to discuss the two questions I posed at the
outset of my remarks.
Will the average Nisga'a person be better off as a result of
this legislation? Absolutely not. Aboriginal Canadians have
been treated as second class citizens for hundreds of years.
This legislation does nothing to remedy that.
I want to go out on a limb here. I hope it does not cost me my
re-election, but I have to agree with the words of the current
Prime Minister and his mentor Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Just listen to
these quotes:
What we want, and the Indians are in agreement, is that they
should become equal citizens of Canada.
That was the current Prime Minister when he was Indian affairs
minister in 1968. Another quote:
There is a long term intention on the part of the government...to
arrive eventually at a situation where the Indians will be
treated like other Canadian citizens of the particular province
in which they happen to be.
That was Prime Minister Trudeau in 1968.
Equality was the long term intention of the Liberal government's
Indian policy. Why has it abandoned this policy? Do Liberals no
longer believe in equality? It has been over 30 years since
these statements were made. How long are their long term
intentions? They have an opportunity to put the words of Pierre
Trudeau into action. Carpe diem, seize the day. Withdraw the
Nisga'a legislation so that the aboriginal people can take a step
forward into the next century instead of passing into law the
mistakes of the last 200 years.
This agreement does not grant the Nisga'a people the property
rights that the rest of us enjoy. Nisga'a women are left
unprotected by this legislation. The charter of rights takes a
back seat to Nisga'a law. These are just a few examples of the
shortcomings of this.
Mr. Speaker, you just signalled two minutes. I am sure that two
minutes did not go by in that period of time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Time flies when you
are on your feet. Just wind it up, please.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am watching the clock too.
The second question is will Canadian society be better off as a
result? Ask the people of New Brunswick if they are better off
today than before special rights were granted to members of their
community by the Marshall decision.
We should ask them if they are better off now that their access
to fish is not based on conservation rather than ethnicity.
1730
I have reached the end of my speech. It was a great speech. It
would have been even greater had I been left a bit more time. I
move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 26, the House continue to sit
beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of
continuing consideration of the subamendment regarding Bill C-9,
an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is in
order. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those
members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): More than 15 members
having risen, the motion is deemed withdrawn.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe, if you were to check, that several of the members were
not in their places, which I think is crucial to this vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will start over
again. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those
members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): More than 15 members
having risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to
this issue. Indeed we are dealing with a very historic occasion.
We are in fact creating history as we discuss this very important
topic.
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
spoke quite eloquently with respect to the situation concerning
the Indian Act and how that has crippled a people for many years.
We are at a point where we can now start to rectify some of the
wrongs that have been done over the historic period of time when
we have been living side by side with the aboriginal people in
Canada.
We have heard a lot of objections being raised as to why the
treaty should not be supported. Many of them have come from the
Reform Party. In many instances the objections have been centred
on things that are not accurate in terms of what the treaty
actually says.
1735
Concerns about individual property rights were raised. Yet, if
we look at and understand the treaty, there is provision whereby
the Nisga'a can organize and arrange for people to have
individual property rights. It is a question of
self-determination and self-governance.
Why should someone outside the Nisga'a community be overly
concerned about the property rights of individual members of that
community? We have to ask ourselves what attitude is prevalent
that is raising that concern. The Nisga'a people have approved
the treaty. They understand the principles involved with respect
to property rights and they have made decisions in their
interest.
We talk about self-government for a people. Yet, when it comes
right down to it, a lot of people do not really want to adhere to
that principle. Self-government is okay as long as they can
dictate what that means to a people.
We are looking at very important principles with respect to the
support of the treaty. When we support the treaty we support the
right of the aboriginal people to determine their destiny, to
make laws and to deal with issues of importance to them as a
people. Some people may ask right off the bat why that should
be.
All we have to do is look at the history of what has taken
place. Under the other system, as my hon. colleague from
Kamloops indicated, the Indian Act treated people with disrespect
rather than with respect. It is the only piece of legislation
that determines who people are and spells out that they are or
are not Indian, no matter what their blood lines may be.
Certainly the rest of the people living in Canada have not been
subjected to such legislation.
Now we have a situation where we can rectify some of the wrongs.
Yet we hear people crying out and saying how terrible it is and
how it ought not be supported.
He heard statistical information from surveys that were
conducted. We all know that we can make surveys say what we
want. I would be quite interested in seeing the householder that
was sent out and the information that was put forth to inflame
the attitudes that might come back through those surveys.
Certainly we can make any kind of statistical analysis, but the
proof of the pudding is what resides within our hearts when we
are dealing with these issues, not what is written down on a
piece of paper in terms of a statistical answer.
We ran into that problem on another issue concerning national
sovereignty and how a question should be worded, what it should
say. In reality we know what people want. We know that the
Nisga'a people want self-government. We know that we want to
support self-government. We know that we want to support the
treaty because it is good for the Nisga'a people. It is good for
Canada. It creates a sense of certainty. It rectifies many of
the wrongs that have been done. We have to be cautious when we
hear people putting forth strong objections based upon their
culture, their background and their perception of equality.
People say that we should all be equal. When we think of
equality we should realize that being equal does not mean
everybody being the same. I must point out to hon. members who
put forth the concept of equality that two people can be standing
side by side, toe to toe on a line, about to run a race. Some
would say they are equal because they are both standing at the
starting point and will go to the same finishing point. However,
if we look at the history of the two competitors we see that one
has been in chains for years and years—
An hon. member: Like him.
Mr. Gordon Earle:—and has not had the opportunity to
train. I heard that racist remark but I will ignore it.
The other person has had the opportunity to train and all the
advantages that come with that. Suddenly the chains are taken
off the person who has been bound and inhibited and the person is
declared equal and ready to run a race with the person who has
had all the opportunities over the years.
For people to be considered equal and have equal opportunity
there quite often has to be differential treatment which makes
the ground rules fair and gives a level playing field for all.
Anyone who is familiar with sports will see how on a circular
track runners are staggered so that there is equality. People
have opportunity to train.
1740
What we are really getting at in the treaty is how as Canadians
we can fulfil our obligations to our fellow human beings in a way
that will be fair, equal and just. This whole issue is very
important because as people say it has ramifications right across
the country and not just for the people in British Columbia.
It also has lessons for those of us in other parts of the
country. It has lesson for those of us in the fishery as
mentioned by my hon. colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore. If the government had been seriously
negotiating and dealing with the aboriginal people, as indicated
in the Delgamuukw decision and in other decisions, we would not
be in the situation we are in now with respect to the fisheries.
It waited for a decision to come down that caused people to have
a knee-jerk reaction.
I must compliment the aboriginal people and many non-aboriginal
people in my area for the calmness they have shown with regard to
this decision and the respect they have to shown to one another.
The media portrayed the few hotheads on both sides who are taking
advantage of the situation, not the majority of people who want
to peacefully negotiate a settlement. I give praise to the
people who looked at the decision as a way to move forward
together with respect for each other and to learn to share the
resources in a way that would benefit all of us collectively.
It is an honour to have had the opportunity to speak to this
matter. When all members of the House consider the issue, I
sincerely urge them to vote with their hearts, not with some
statistical information, not with some fear they have flamed up
about how some things will be disadvantageous to them and to
people in British Columbia. British Columbians will benefit from
the treaty as will Canadians and all of us who want to see
justice and equality for our citizens.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this debate. I
listened to the member who spoke prior to me call people who
oppose this matter hotheads. I found it a little disconcerting
that a party debating a bill that represents a majority viewpoint
of the people in British Columbia can be called hotheads because
they disagree with the government.
I read with interest today a little brochure the national
Liberal caucus put out called “Dancing with dinosaurs”. I was
really proud when I opened it up because I was the first one they
quoted. I want to read it because I think it is a very
interesting quote. I hear the Liberals over there yelling and
screaming. They get a little excited and I think it is quite
funny.
I look at the government over there and the things it has done
over the years. The Liberal Party misled Canadians on the GST.
It promised to do something and did not do it for their two terms
of office. That is the same party that said it would eliminate
free trade. It did not do a darn thing. How can we believe the
Liberals on anything? How can Canadian people, especially
westerners, believe the Liberal government on anything?
My Liberal friends say “Dancing with dinosaurs”. I would
rather dance with a dinosaur than be in the water with a Liberal
shark. Sharks eat people for no reason at all, do things for no
reason at all, and are vicious animals. I would rather be
dancing with a Reform dinosaur than be in the water with a
Liberal shark. That is what these people are. They are sharks.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I know we want to keep the debate in line and civilized.
I know the member, as a former member of parliament under the Tory
government, does not want to get into an unhelpful debate. I ask
him to continue a proper and civil debate for Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Respectfully, in my
opinion, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was
not saying anything inappropriate.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, neither would I say
anything inappropriate. I am quoting from a Liberal document.
If he wants to keep this debate at a certain level they should
stop printing documents which do not contain the truth. That is
what the Liberal Party should do.
1745
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Just for clarification for my hon. colleague from British
Columbia, my hon. colleague from Halifax West did not refer to
him or the Reform Party as hotheads. He was referring to other
people who resort to violence on the east coast.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the truth really hurts in
this place when we start speaking the truth or reading some of
their own documents back to them. I think I have been up for
five minutes but time-wise I have only had about a minute and a
half.
Let me talk about what the Liberals say in their document. They
refer to myth No. 1, a third order of government. The member for
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, as reported in Hansard of
June 3, 1999, said:
There are some frightening and constitutionally questionable
aspects to this treaty...The Nisga'a creates a new level of
government, the Nisga'a national government.
This is the Liberal myth document. Let us see if what they say
is the reality. They indicated that the treaty recognized the
right to self-government and returned stewardship over the land
to the Nisga'a, that the Nisga'a government would not have any
exclusive jurisdiction, and that concurrent jurisdiction in this
case between Nisga'a laws and all existing federal and provincial
laws was a common feature of Canadian communities. That is what
the Liberals say in their document Dancing with the
Dinosaurs.
Let me quote from a Liberal friend in British Columbia, a friend
of mine too over the years, Rafe Mair. Rafe and I have had some
disagreements on politics. He said publicly that he would vote
Liberal in the next election, so he is a Liberal. This is what
he says in this Liberal myth document:
At the end of it all, the Nisga'a deal does three things: it
denies rights, i.e. voting, to resident non-natives; it creates a
fishery—
An hon. member: That is wrong.
Mr. John Reynolds: The hon. member says that is wrong but
Rafe Mair says that is right and I say it is right also. He
continues:
—it creates a fishery every bit as racist as if “a whites
only” fishery were enacted; and it constitutionalizes a special,
entrenched style of government to which, irretrievably, are
granted powers hitherto reserved to the federal government or the
provinces.
We will have 50 to 75 of these constitutionaled, unamendable,
self-governing jurisdictions in B.C.
And you think the Nisga'a agreement is just a British Columbia
problem? Dream on, fellow Canadians, dream on.
This man is well respected in that province. He served in the
provincial legislature. He said he would vote Liberal in the
next election. He totally disagrees with the Liberals on this
matter.
Let us get off the issue of who is calling whom a hothead. We
are debating an issue that is very important to all the people of
British Columbia and Canadians.
Mr. David Iftody: Stick to the facts.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I just gave him the facts
on the myth versus his myth. They are wrong and they get very
upset when they hear the truth. The majority of the people of
British Columbia and the NDP Government of British Columbia,
which our friends down here support federally, do not like the
agreement.
They talk in this document about fair treatment of British
Columbia. I was Speaker of the British Columbia legislature for
nine years. It was the worst sham I have ever seen when this
bill went through the British Columbia legislature. The
Government of British Columbia did not let it get halfway through
the legislature before it brought in closure. The government
opposite just denied us the right to sit tonight to debate the
bill until 10 p.m., but in the next few days it will bring in
closure on it.
That is not debating legislation the proper way. We can go back
to the pipeline debate a number of years ago that went on for
days and weeks and months because it was a right of Canadians, no
matter how small their group in the House, to debate a bill until
it was fully debated and fully discussed, so the people of
eastern Canada can understand what is the problem with the
legislation in British Columbia.
I suggest to people out there, as my friend said earlier the
hundreds of thousands that are watching, that they should look at
the treaties we have had in eastern Canada for the last 100
years. Are natives in eastern Canada living any better because
of the treaties they signed? I do not think they are.
Mr. David Iftody: We have not fulfilled the treaty. That
is what we are trying to do.
Mr. John Reynolds: The Liberals say that they have not
fulfilled the treaty. What makes them change? The Liberals and
the Tories have been in government for the last 100 years. They
have had treaties with these people and not a darned thing has
been done for them. Are the Liberals telling us now that they
will change? No Canadians believe that. This is a phony
document. It needs some changes.
We have to ensure native people get treated just like other
Canadians get treated. Some people may not think it is all that
good, the way the rest of Canadians get treated by governments
because of our taxes and all other situations.
I will go back and quote what some well known Liberals have
said.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Will the hon. member tell us what the
Nisga'a people say about the Nisga'a treaty?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman across the
hall asks me to quote what the Nisga'a people say about the
treaty. I will tell him something. I heard in the House today
from the minister of Indian affairs that our member for Skeena
had never talked to Nisga'a. That is absolutely untrue.
He has met with them many times. He has asked to meet with them
over the last while and they do not show up for the meetings.
1750
Those are the facts and the member does not want to know them.
He knows that area better than anybody sitting on that side of
the House. He gets elected by a very big majority of people who
live in that constituency. The people in his constituency do not
want this treaty and that is why he is here debating it.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister said. He said:
The Prime Minister of Canada said that they wanted to become
equal citizens of Canada. That is not in the bill. It creates a
fishery that is racist. That has been quoted not only by the
Reform Party but many other prominent people in western Canada.
It is a racist treaty. It does not make everybody equal in
Canada. Yet the Prime Minister said that we all should be equal
in the country, and I believe that too. I have another quote
from a well-known Liberal:
There is a long term intention on the part of the government, and
this to be debated, I suppose, as part of our Indian policy, to
arrive eventually at a situation where Indians will be treated
like other Canadian citizens of the particular province in which
they happen to be.
This was said by Pierre Trudeau in the House of Commons on
November 5, 1968. If members read the legislation it does not
match that paragraph. Yet this man was a great Canadian, well
respected by his party and won a number of elections. The
legislation does not allow that to happen. I have another quote
from a well-known person across the hall:
For many Indian people, the road does exist, the only road that
has existed since Confederation and before. The road of
different status, a road which has led to a blind alley of
deprivation and frustration. This road...cannot lead to full
participation, to equality in practice as well as in theory...the
government will offer another road that would gradually lead away
from different status to full social, economic and political
participation in Canadian life. This is the choice.
This was said by the present Prime Minister in June 1969. That
was their position then. They have a different one now. They
say we should vote for the bill, let it happen and we will all do
fine. As I said earlier, this is the government that said it
would ban the GST when it defeated the Tories who had really
messed up the country, got elected and became the Government of
Canada.
This is the same government that said it would get rid of free
trade. It did nothing about that. This is a government which
does not know how to keep a major promise. How could anybody in
British Columbia believe the government when it says that we
should trust it?
As I said, I would trust the Reform dinosaurs before the Liberal
sharks on the other side. They act like sharks when it comes to
legislation. They have acted like sharks when running the
country. They are not doing what is good for Canada. They are
trying to make the issue look like it is good for the native
people. It is not good for native people. It is not good for
Canadians. It certainly is not good for British Columbians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to debate the Nisga'a final agreement. The people
watching need to remember that once the agreement comes to this
place it cannot be changed, not a jot or a tittle.
I find amazing, when dealing with this kind of agreement and
other agreements that we develop internationally, that we in the
House of Commons never get to see it. When it comes to us it
comes as a done deal. It is not to be changed. It is not to be
trifled with. We cannot propose an amendment. It is a done
deal. It is very unfortunate that we are talking about the act
to implement the Nisga'a agreement and not the actual terms of
the agreement.
I would like to dwell for a few minutes on the manner of
development of the Nisga'a agreement. The treaty negotiators
portrayed a grassroots treaty development process in British
Columbia. Both native and non-native members of my riding were on
the treaty development process. They went through the process of
how it could be developed, what kind of consultations should take
place, and so on.
When the first draft of the Nisga'a agreement, which is
basically unchanged today, came back members of my riding quit
the treaty negotiating team. Not a single sentence resembled
anything like what they had talked about in their meetings to
develop the treaty.
There was no resemblance in any way, shape or form to the topics
or the depth of discussion they had. Even though they had
travelled the province and had hundreds of hours of discussion,
nothing resembling those discussions ended up in the final
document.
1755
It reminds me of something. In my own riding there is currently
another treaty development process. It may be the next one
coming in a rearview mirror near us. It deals with the Sto:lo
nation. The Sto:lo nation in my riding consists of 17 or 18
bands. They have been negotiating under the same treaty
development process.
Four or five years ago I contacted the minister's office to say
that there was an ongoing treaty development process. I asked if
he could send some maps to show what areas were involved. The
answer was that I could not know what maps were involved in my
riding as a member of parliament. I asked for some idea of the
economic implications of what was being negotiated. No economic
implications were allowed to be discussed until it was a done
deal.
What about how much territory was involved or what was the
claim? I was not allowed to know that. What about the rights of
the Sto:lo and non-Sto:lo in my area? I asked what kind of
parameters or guidelines there were. I was not allowed to know
anything.
When the deal is completed it is dropped down upon us like an
epiphany from heaven. When it comes on to our plate we have to
approve it, every jot and tittle. We can express concern in the
meantime, but we are not allowed to enter into the negotiations
in the meantime. That is unfair.
Many areas are still to be negotiated with the Nisga'a people.
All the side agreements will have to be negotiated. I wonder if
any of them will end up like the agreement in my hometown of
Chilliwack dealing with aboriginal fisheries.
This is the situation in my riding. There is, by the way, no
commercial fishery on the Fraser River this year because there
just are not enough fish. Coincidentally after four or five
years of the aboriginal fisheries strategy there are no fish this
year.
Regardless of where the blame should be pinned, this is how DFO
must deal with it now. This is the negotiated settlement in the
DFO arrangement. For the most part DFO has given no permission
outside of food fisheries to the aboriginal people to fish for
commercial purposes on the Fraser River. There are no
agreements. There is no regulated commercial fishery.
However, because there are armed militia on the river, complete
with balaclavas and working openly with the native people, there
is an agreement now. DFO has been asked to sign an agreement
that as long as a native is attending a net, no DFO officer will
remove that net from the river. That is the agreement. We must
remember that there is no regulated fishery right now. It is not
a legal fishery. There is no permission to do it, but the DFO is
not allowed to remove the net.
The DFO is drifting down the river at night with the lights off,
hoping to bump into an illegal native net with no natives
attending it so it can be withdrawn from the river. DFO is so
afraid of the policies the government has put in place and the
restrictions on its officers that we are reduced to the farce of
having DFO officers agreeing that illegal activity is okay as
long as the natives are right there. That is the situation in my
riding. At any given time in my riding alone a dozen nets can be
found illegally strung across the Fraser River.
A month ago one native person was caught with 100,000 cans of
salmon. What will be his penalty? DFO says it is very concerned
and quite worried. It was kind of like last summer when in that
same stretch of river the same group of people dredged 100,000
tonnes of gravel out of the middle of a spawning bed without
permission. All other dredging operations had been shut down,
but it was okay because they did it the previous summer too.
Their argument was that they could do it because they knew the
river better than anybody else. They had been there for
thousands of years so that when they dredge gravel it does not
hurt the salmon.
1800
Do government members not see what is happening? If they would
come to my riding they would see thousands of sports fishermen
with their gear in a box on the shore because they are not
allowed to fish. There are so few damned fish left in that river
that people cannot even fish with a rod and reel, and yet there
are a dozen nets stretched across that river and we all know it
because the floats are right there every single day. One hundred
thousand fish for one guy.
What is the solution? To close their eyes to the problem and
pretend it does not exist.
I have said this time and again about the Nisga'a agreement. I
have a lot of respect for the current Nisga'a leadership and the
way some of its people have conducted themselves. As the Leader
of the Opposition said previously, they had no choice. They had
to negotiate the best deal they could, given the parameters of
the discussions. However, we have to develop a system for
getting along in the country that is not for this year, not for
this leadership, not for this government, and not for the current
leadership of the Nisga'a people. It has to stand the test of
time. It has to be something that when we look at it a hundred
years from now it will have been a solution that was good for all
people. We are not going to have some people move in there,
strong arm their way into a position of unreasonable power or not
treat the people right.
There are no guarantees in a system where people are divided up
and where, like it is in my riding, there is a set of rules for
one group of people and the rest can pound sand. In my riding
there are literally thousands of people who sit on the shore in
frustration. They cannot even catch one fish for supper, while
illegal fishing takes place every single day under the watchful
eyes of DFO officials who know this is going on and are not
allowed to intervene because of the orders of the justice
department of this government.
Nobody is denying that hundreds of native people absolutely have
the right to a food fishery, but that has somehow been
transformed into an abusive commercial fishery that is dredging
that river dry. How can we possibly say it is a good thing over
the long run? It is unsustainable. My worry, as we negotiate
the 50 or more side agreements to come, is that if there is a
conflict the federal government will fold its cards, will throw
up its hands, and whatever happens happens. A country cannot be
governed in the long run like that.
I can speak from experience. I brought this to the attention of
Brian Tobin when he was the minister of fisheries. I met him
outside the doors and told him what was happening in my riding.
He named the people involved, including the chiefs. He knew the
amount of fish going out of there. I told him that he had a
fiduciary responsibility to fix the mess and he said that they
were going to do nothing. That is what happened.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish I
could say that I am delighted to enter this debate, but I cannot
because I am so concerned about what is happening to our country.
I want to tell the House why I became a member of the Reform
Party. There were a number of reasons. One reason was the basic
bedrock principle of all decent democracies in the world, the
equality of all citizens. When I see what is happening here and
the mishandling of this issue, not only by this government but by
successive governments over the last 130 years, I am deeply
concerned.
I am quoting directly from the Reform Party when I say that we
believe in true equality for Canadian citizens, with equal rights
and responsibilities for all. That is one of the things that
attracted me to the Reform Party. When I first joined the Reform
Party I realized that the Conservatives of the day and the
Liberals before them had totally violated that basic principle in
many different areas.
I think it is absolutely shameful that the present government,
the present leadership in our country, is totally unwilling to
face this issue head on and do something right about it.
1805
I need to take a few minutes to talk about process. People who
have been watching on television have observed that in the last
few minutes there have been several occasions when members of the
Reform Party have tried to extend the debate for today. We have
asked to continue the debate because we anticipate that the
government, like the NDP government in B.C., wants to jam this
bill through before too many people find out about it.
That is a violation, again, of a very basic principle of
democracy. In a democracy the governed must accept the
governance of the country. In other words, we have to have
consensus among the people for the laws that are being passed.
There have been other occasions when a government has, within
the rules of the House, which I say are dysfunctional, passed
different laws and used the rules of the House, the ones that
make it dysfunctional, to jam things through which it knows do
not have the majority support of the people, and our democracy is
crumbling. The best example I can think of is the GST. Former
Prime Minister Mulroney not only jammed the thing through this
House, he even evicted from his party several members who had the
nerve to respect the wishes of their constituents and vote
against it. He had the gall, in my opinion, to appoint extra
senators to the other place whose only qualification for office
was that they could stand on command and vote in favour of what
has now become the most hated tax in the country.
The principle that we are missing is that the majority of
Canadians who opposed that tax had it right.
I think it is arrogant in the extreme for a government to say
“Here we are, a small group of people, and we know best”. We
heard it from the NDP member from Kamloops earlier who said “I
am not here to represent my constituents”. I am paraphrasing
him of course. “I am here to make wise decisions on their behalf
because they just don't understand”.
With respect to the Nisga'a agreement, we have found that
particularly in the province of British Columbia where the people
will be most profoundly affected by this agreement immediately,
as well as across Canada where the effects will be felt later as
they accumulates, the people do not support the agreement in
large numbers. We are talking of a disagreement level which
exceeds the number of people who were opposed to the GST. We are
finding that support for this agreement is not there among the
people.
Let us face it, there cannot be an agreement without two
parties. There cannot be an agreement just because the leaders of
the Nisga'a have agreed to it. Forty per cent of the Nisga'a
people, when they voted on it, seriously questioned it. About
90% of the other side of the agreement, namely the other citizens
of British Columbia, the non-natives, are saying “We do not
agree with this treaty”.
Therefore it bears slowing down. It means that it is incumbent
on the government not to shut down debate, as it did a few
minutes ago when we asked if the debate could be extended tonight
before it invokes closure and all of those silly things.
Government members stood and said no. There were not enough
Liberals in the House to stop it. They needed 15. That is
shameful. We are dealing with an issue that has long term
implications into the next millennium for the country.
1810
There are not 15 Liberals in the House to stand to say they do
not want the Reform Party or other members of parliament to
debate this matter tonight. That is a shame. However, they have
their allies. The Bloc members, the NDP and the Conservatives
stood. They said “Let's not debate it. Let's just jam it down
the minds of people. Lets forget about whether or not the people
agree. It does not matter”.
I care profoundly about the country. I care profoundly about
the equality of Canadians. For us to give approval by the
actions of a whip telling his people how to vote and jamming the
thing through, with all its implications, will have profound
effects for many years to come. We will see our children and our
grandchildren living with the consequences of this dastardly
deed. This will go down in history as one of the dark points of
the 36th parliament because of the fact that they will have put
into the constitution rules that divide us based on race.
I would like to read another blue book policy which attracts me.
The Reform Party's ultimate goal in aboriginal matters is that
all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in Canadian
citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other
Canadians.
I believe that is a high goal based on a valid human principle.
It is excessively superior to the lack of principles demonstrated
in the Nisga'a agreement in which we have the country divided up
based on bloodlines, based on race.
I also believe that we have been sitting on our butts far too
long with respect to native affairs. I am saying this now
collectively. I am blaming the governments of the last 130
years. There has been inaction and any action that has been
taken has been wrong action.
The Indian Act is a bleak part of Canadian history. When the
agreement says that we will move this group of native people out
of the Indian Act, I have to say that I agree with that part of
it, because the Indian Act has been used in order to keep native
people in their place. That is very wrong.
I have only been in Canada for a scant 60 years. I was not here
132 years ago when some of this was done. I was not here 250
years ago when some of these fishing agreements were made. Yet I
look back and say those who were here made an error.
As any person will say, it is the height of folly not to admit
when one has made a mistake. It is a greater folly to say that
what we have done in the last 130 years has not worked and if we
do more of it now it will work. That does not make sense. We
need to deal with this matter in a way which is rational,
addresses the problem and does not continue to sweep under the
rug the real issues. My closing statement is that the
fundamental issue is the equality of all Canadians.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member's
speech. I wish I could compliment him on it but I cannot. I do
not agree with much of what he said. I do not at all share the
views I have just heard or a lot of what I have heard over the
last couple of days.
The hon. member said one thing with which I agree, though. He
said that we were living in a bleak part of Canadian history. In
a way we are, but I think the bleakness in what we are hearing
now comes from across the floor.
1815
On the Yukon bills, one party in the House voted against them.
On the Nunavut territory and on the Manitoba land claims, one
party in the House voted against virtually all of the bills. All
of these bills were for aboriginal people, and one party and only
one party has the bleak distinction of having voted against all
of them. That is the bleakness in which we are living.
Yes of course hon. members across the way will want to raise
other topics to try and erase that bleakness, but I am afraid it
is in indelible ink. It will stay for a long time. It will be
bleak, but I do not believe ultimately that that bleakness will
reflect on this parliament nor this institution. Rather, it will
reflect on those who have perpetrated this on the people of
Canada as a whole, on the House and I would say, on the people
affected adversely by what we hear today in the claims of some
hon. members.
In any case, there is the possibility for us to listen to the
speeches of the hon. members. I am not saying that I will like
them. As a matter of fact, I suspect I will disagree with most
of them because they will probably be similar to what I have
heard over the last couple of days and they have not been good.
The exercise probably will be bleak. Members want to be
permitted to speak on this issue and they think that a hopelessly
long time is required not to debate the bill, not to debate an
amendment which said that we should not debate the bill, but to
debate an amendment to the amendment as to whether or not we
should debate the bill. They are trying to tell us this is
serious debate on legislation to make the life of aboriginal
Canadians better. I do not believe it.
However, I am willing at least to take a chance to see what they
have to say. We will listen to the speeches of the hon. members
if they want to make them. We will listen to those speeches
later this evening if they are willing to extend the debate.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like the House, the table and the Speaker to take note
of what is about to be asked here. The fact is that this party
has asked not once but twice today to extend the sitting hours
into the evening. If the government House leader is going to
insult us with a request after we have sent our people home, he
has another think coming.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in
this alleged point of order that is not one. Just moments before
I heard the hon. member for Elk Island speak. He unfortunately
let the cat out of bag, but perhaps it was fortunate for all the
House to know. He said that he wanted to do everything he could
to debate this bill as long as possible so that it would not
pass.
The objective is not constructive debate, it is to stall the
process. That is out of the bag now. We now know the truth. We
suspected it all along of course. Nevertheless, let us hear more
of that proof from across the way.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
What the member is saying about my statement is not factually
correct. I want to debate this with the Canadian people so we can
get consensus among the governed on something of great
importance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That certainly is a
point of debate. Very often there are differing points of view
on the same issue, depending upon the side of the House.
1820
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to
what the hon. member said in his alleged point of order. To put
it in terms that my children would understand, yeah right.
In any case we will now see whether or not the members want to
debate. Pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of
adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-9.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like you to check with the table officers to see whether
the hon. government House leader can present that particular
motion. I must say, not having had the courtesy to be informed
of the content of the motion, and having presented the House with
a request twice today and having been refused twice by the
government, the Progressive Conservatives and the separatists, I
find it totally irresponsible at this time of the night that the
government plays this little dumb game with the House of Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion is in
order.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those members
who object to the motion please rise in their place.
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 26(2) the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe there must be such a thing in the House of Commons as
dignity in debate and a respect for all members of the House. It
is a terrible thing what has happened here at this point in time.
The government has come in to give itself a better image after
we made a request twice today and the government refused to
extend the hours. It has basically lied.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am going to deal
with one issue at a time.
First, I am not going to ask the member for Langley—Abbotsford
to withdraw “lied” because it was not directed at any member or
any ministry. It was a generalization. However without question
the use of the word, in my estimation at this time in the way it
was used I am not going to deem unparliamentary but it was
certainly not gentlemanly.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not want to further aggravate the House with respect to
this issue. It was very obvious and should have been obvious to
everyone, including the House leader for the official opposition.
When matters such as this debate were discussed, a blind man on
a galloping horse could have seen that this issue was going to
arise today.
For there to be any suggestion by members of the Reform Party
that they did not realize that this debate was going to be
extended, it was discussed openly at the House leaders meeting
yesterday and this is just misleading the House.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the man
galloping blindly off into the distance who just spoke to
remember that on the Thursday question last week which details
the business for this week, not only was it not discussed at the
House leaders meeting, but the government House leader said that
we were not even going to debate Nisga'a today.
The member cannot say that this was openly discussed at the
House leaders meeting. The government House leader unilaterally
changed the schedule a couple of times. We have asked twice to
extend the hours so we could plan an evening debate and have been
denied twice by the government and the galloping horseman down
there. They would not do it.
1825
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This has been most
enlightening to me and I am sure it has been most enlightening to
everyone watching. I am sure that the next House leaders meeting
will be really interesting. However, we have five minutes left
for debate. I am asking if there are any members who would care
to rise on debate.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we are seeing here is absolutely unacceptable. I will focus
on what has happened here in the last few minutes.
A number of people in our caucus have been asking to debate this
issue, including myself. I came here because I happened to be
working late in my office. I had no intention of being here. I
have been asking to speak on the Nisga'a agreement and I am
slated about 20 speakers down the list. Most of our people have
gone home. In order that we can have an opportunity to debate
this later, we asked that we debate this late into the evening.
To focus on the Nisga'a agreement itself, I have spent
considerable time reading it from cover to cover. I have spoken
to some of the top legal authorities in this area. I talked with
Mel Smith at length. He is a very respected man in the legal
community and I would suggest he is probably one of the
authorities on this matter, if not in Canada then in North
America.
This agreement at the end of the day will polarize the native
and non-native communities. We as a society and the previous
governments over the last 30 to 40 years should be absolutely
embarrassed by how the first nations people have been treated.
Very few non-natives would trade places with native persons on
any of the reserves in Canada. We have driven in wedges. We
have not made life any better for them. We have taken away their
dignity and self-worth.
All of a sudden we have come up with the famous Nisga'a treaty.
We have created another fork in the road. We will only drive
wedges between the native and non-native communities. We will
polarize those people. We will only make matters worse. By no
stretch of the imagination are we helping those people.
We have created another level of government. Where I live in
British Columbia, in my own backyard, there are five levels of
government. We are now creating another whole bureaucracy and
system of government.
I suppose the most troubling aspect for me is that there is
absolutely no provision in the Nisga'a agreement where a Nisga'a
person living on the Nisga'a lands has the absolute right to
title to the property they hold. Some people would suggest it is
within the power of the band or the minister to decide if they
want to have title to the property but they do not have the right
to have title to the property.
Many Canadians have used the title to their property as
collateral for bank loans, to launch business ventures, fund
prospects, a whole host of things, as have I. One takes a lot of
pride in one's property and in building up self-worth in what one
does. People in the native community cannot do that. They live
in horrific conditions.
I met with two chiefs last Saturday in my riding. We went over
some of the problems on their reserves with respect to housing
and other things on which they have to deal with government. They
do not have much faith in the process. They say they are promised
one thing by the government and then the door is shut on them.
The problems in the aboriginal community have been culminating
over the last 30 to 40 years. They are massive and cannot be
solved overnight.
There are some very good parts to the Nisga'a treaty which I
fully support, but there are some fatal flaws which will make
matters even worse and which will drive wedges between
communities. I ask all members to really look at the treaty and
the government propaganda and make a decision for themselves
because it will not help matters on the reserves.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period last Friday, I asked why the government
was promoting the Nisga'a treaty that abolishes equal
opportunity.
The Liberals have fixed it so that success in our country is now
based on race. Hard work is no longer the factor that determines
how successful one can be making a living in forestry, fishing or
mining.
The government has quashed the principle of equality with the
Nisga'a treaty. It is assigning democratic rights according to
race not based on needs. Canadians find that offensive and an
attack on the very foundation of our country. Equality is at the
core of what it is to be Canadian.
Imagine my surprise when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
jumped gleefully to his feet to address my question.
Hansard shows that his carrying on required the Speaker to
ask for calm. In his blathering, the fisheries minister
attacked, with rhetoric and misinformation, the Sikhs willing to
join the RCMP. What a peculiar notion. Where does he get this
stuff from? As a Sikh, I find his remarks offensive. As a Sikh
himself, the minister should apologize.
At the Reform Party convention in 1996, the Reform Party passed
a resolution supporting a change in the dress code of our RCMP.
The fisheries minister, like his government, is living in the
past. He should be kept up to date. If he was up to date, he
would know that he was wrong about the Reform Party policy.
Later the same day during question period, I rose again and
asked point blank why the fisheries minister supported a treaty
that segregates Canadians and creates inequality. I informed him
that the Reform Party believed in the equality of all Canadians,
and that was why, as a Sikh member of the party, I was living
proof. The Reform Party of Canada has more members representing
ethnic minorities than any other party in the House.
Finally, I challenged the minister to a debate on the Nisga'a
treaty in Vancouver, B.C. If the Nisga'a agreement is so
representative of the Liberals' position on equality, why does
the minister not debate the issue with me? By the minister's
refusal, it is obvious to me that he is uncomfortable with the
government's bill on the Nisga'a agreement. The Liberal
government's bill on the Nisga'a agreement creates inequality for
aboriginal women and maintains band control over individual
property rights, among other important issues.
After my second question, the Speaker of the House gave the
minister an out by saying that the minister did not have to
respond, and the minister chickened out again. He refused to
answer my challenge. Instead, he attacked me personally based on
my religion. He should apologize.
Is he refusing to debate me? I do not know. What is he afraid
of? I have no clue. I again ask: Why is the government
promoting the Nisga'a treaty that abolishes equal opportunity for
all Canadians?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be here tonight in the final closing hours
of an exciting day to respond to the questions and concerns
raised by the member from British Columbia.
I will just repeat a number of things that I think are important
with respect to clarification on this matter and some of the
concerns that he has raised in the House today and on other
occasions.
1835
First, it is very important to recognize that section 15 of the
charter, the equality sections of the charter of rights and
freedoms, apply here to all people. There is no distinction
based on race or gender. Those sections are very clear.
Second, with respect to the Nisga'a legislation, section 28 of
the charter provides even further clarification on those
equalities. If that were not enough, in the 1983 amending
conference on the charter of rights and freedoms, section 35(4)
was put in the constitution to guarantee that wherever we have
aboriginal rights in Canada they would not detract from men or
women in any unequal way.
I commend my colleagues, the Liberal members from British
Columbia, who have been working on the bill. We debated Bill C-9
in the House this afternoon and we will continue to debate it in
the days to come. The opening section of the legislation states
quite emphatically that the Nisga'a agreement is subject to the
charter of rights and freedoms. This is not a distinction
between people based on race and creating inequalities. This is
an opportunity for Canadians and all of us to do the right thing,
to embrace the Nisga'a people and to welcome them into Canada.
I would remind the hon. member of those first nations people in
northern Quebec in 1995 when we had a referendum. They filed
into the polls at 40-below to support Canada and Canadians
because they wanted to be part of the country. I can tell the
House with certainty that the Nisga'a people want to be part of
the country as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)