CONTENTS
Thursday, December 7, 1995
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17347
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17347
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17348
Consideration resumed of motion 17352
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17356
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17362
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17363
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17369
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17377
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17379
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 17380
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 17383
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17385
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17385
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17385
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17386
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17386
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17386
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17387
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17387
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17387
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17388
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17388
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17388
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17388
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17388
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 17391
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 17391
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17392
Consideration resumed of motion 17392
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 17399
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 17410
Division on motion deferred 17412
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.20 p.m.) 17412
The House resumed at 5.30 p.m. 17412
Bill C-337. Motion for second reading 17412
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 17418
Bill C-337. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17418
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time andreferred to a
committee.) 17418
17347
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 7, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 4, 1995
the committee has considered Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments, and the committee has agreed to report
it without amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 18th report of the standing committee on
public accounts, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(
d). The
committee reviewed chapter VI of the May 1995 auditor general's
report and is now reporting on this chapter, which concerns federal
transportation subsidies, and the Atlantic Region Freight
Assistance Program in particular.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 107th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the
operating budget and the vote structure in the estimates.
Treasury Board officials presented a document entitled
``Operating Budget and the Vote Structure''. This document
explains the reasons for altering an aspect of the votes in the
estimates and proposes that a new operating expenditures vote be
introduced for the 1996-97 main estimates. The new vote would
contain items of minor capital expenditure currently included in
separate capital votes. Parliament would be presented with a more
accurate view of the way departments and agencies expend the
funds which are allocated to them. The proposed change is an
interim measure that will be in place until the government adopts a
new accounting system.
Officials of the office of the auditor general have advised the
subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee that
the change being proposed by the Treasury Board Secretariat is
largely administrative in nature and that it is designed to make it
easier to manage government departments and agencies. The
subcommittee was assured that Parliament's ability to scrutinize
and approve the expenditure plans of the government would not be
diminished by a change of this kind.
I am pleased to present the report. There is no need for
concurrence, Mr. Speaker, as it is simply for the information of
members.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of people all over Canada, I would like to
present a petition which calls on Parliament to enact legislation to
prohibit Canadian involvement in the international proliferation of
land mine production.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition from constituents of my riding
that I would like to present which calls for the establishment of
17348
peace tax legislation by passing into law a private member's bill
entitled the conscientious objection act.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present a third petition which calls on
Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17348
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.) moved:
That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral
aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current
provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British
Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition
parties.
He said: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party had concerns about
this matter before today. For example, on October 30 I asked the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question.
On November 27 I asked a similar question of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. I have also pursued this same subject in
committee.
(1010)
The question I put to the minister on October 30 concerned the
polls in British Columbia which now rate aboriginal issues as the
number one issue. Among the provincial political parties, there
certainly is a growing divergence of views on aboriginal issues. We
now have an NDP administration which is in the waning days of its
mandate.
The question I put to the minister was whether he would assure
the House that he will not entertain completion of any
comprehensive agreement, such as the Nisga'a claim, until there is
a new provincial administration with a fresh mandate. The
response from the minister included the fact that the Reform
member was asking not to do anything until the non-Nisga'a
government changed in British Columbia and he certainly was not
prepared to do that.
In addition, there is a major divergence of opinion on costs
which was a supplementary to that question. The provincial
government says that the cost of settling claims in British
Columbia will be about $10 billion and the federal government
says it will be about $5 billion. This divergence of views is
something of which we should take note. We are talking billions
not millions.
On November 27 my question for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans dealt with the apparent intended agreement on the Nass. I
say apparent intended because everything is based on leaks. We do
not have open negotiations. We do not have transparency. The only
things we know are based on leaks. However, there apparently is an
agreement to include some of the Nass fishery in the Nisga'a
agreement. I wanted the minister's assurance that the Nass River
commercial fishery would not be entrenched in a treaty which
would then get further entrenched constitutionally, and be
unchangeable, socially divisive and the very opposite of free
enterprise. Once again, I received no substantive response from the
minister.
This is no longer an emerging issue in British Columbia. This is
an established issue. The transformation happened over the last
three years. It is considered to be an issue which has gone off the
track. Public concerns are driving a re-examination of all of the
basic assumptions underlying the treaty or land claims process in
British Columbia.
I can give a thumbnail summary of some of these concerns. This
issue has tremendous long term implications and ramifications;
socially, financially and in other ways. The issue has parallels with
B.C. concerns about what many call the disunity bill that the House
has been debating very recently and where we have seen closure
adopted. There are many parallels here. It invokes, for example,
special status, whereas the public is demanding the principle of
equality.
The whole question of public ratification of the government's
aboriginal initiative has not been sought. This has all been done
within a cloistered environment. Neither the provincial nor federal
governments has involved the public in establishing the goals and
objectives of the treaty process in British Columbia.
At this time I should give a background to the negotiations going
on in B.C. We have the Nisga'a negotiations which have been
going on for many years. There is a framework agreement which
was signed in March 1991. There are many who say that the
openness associated with this agreement was really closed off in
1991. That is a very self-serving analysis of the agreement by some
of the bureaucracy and by some government parties.
17349
(1015)
Clause 7.1.1 of the agreement states:
The parties will, together, develop and implement a process of public
information and consultation and will attend meetings with such selected
individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process
of public consensus building.
It is a real stretch to suggest that any of that in terms of the
Nisga'a negotiations has occurred. The Nisga'a agreement is the
closest to completion in the province and is a major focus of
today's opposition motion.
There are some major concerns which are front and centre with
the Nisga'a negotiations. One is the Nass River fishery which I
have already mentioned. This is a public resource. Last week there
were five British Columbia aboriginal fishery test cases argued in
the Supreme Court.
There is an outstanding class action suit from commercial
fishermen involving the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
outcome, if anything, would appear to rule against an aboriginal
right to a commercial fishery.
This is not so much an issue of allocation of commercial
licences. It is an issue of treaty entrenchment leading to
constitutional entrenchment and protection of a commercial
aboriginal fishery which would be in many people's minds and in
my mind socially divisive and the antithesis of free enterprise.
Another major concern deals with costs. If we look at the costs
involved in the Nisga'a agreement, once again we are dealing only
with leaks. We never know where these leaks originate. They may
be self-serving leaks, they may not be. This is one of the problems
with the lack of transparency.
I put out a press release in November. I talked about some of the
statements which have been made very recently on the Nisga'a
offer and which were reported in the popular press. Back in March
when I was doing a series of town hall meetings in British
Columbia, I had taken the known offer of the day and extrapolated
it to British Columbia using the Nisga'a example as a precedent. I
said that the total compensation package would work out to $8.5
billion. At that time the Reform Party was accused of extrapolating
figures from various sources in order to scare the British Columbia
public.
In October the minister of aboriginal affairs within the province
of B.C. said publicly that the cost of land claim settlements in
British Columbia would be $10 billion. According to the leaks, the
Nisga'a offer had grown between March and October. This is
consistent with what I was saying back in March.
According to the latest leaks in the Nisga'a offer we are talking
about a turnover of 2,200 square kilometres of land, a significant
forest resource, $175 million cash and 30 per cent of the Nass River
fishery. I might point out that other bands also have claims on part
of the Nass River fishery.
(1020)
When we talk about this total cost package of $10 billion as
stated by the provincial minister, at the same time the director
general from the federal ministry said that he was baffled by the
number and said that the cost of the settlement was closer to $5
billion. Either he knows something we do not know or I know not
what. Maybe he is only talking about the federal component.
According to the way I calculate it, it is about a 50:50 split
provincially and federally. That is a very significant difference and
one that should concern the public and the government.
Against the backdrop of these Nisga'a precedent setting
background negotiations, we also have the B.C. treaty process. We
talked about that in the House not too long ago with Bill C-107 the
enabling legislation from the federal end to set up the B.C. Treaty
Commission.
The Nisga'a negotiations are not part of the B.C. treaty process
in terms of the treaty commission. They predate it and are not
subject to the same terms of reference. The B.C. Treaty
Commission has only been in place since 1993.
An estimated 77 per cent of the British Columbia bands are
currently involved in the process. There is a total of 196 bands in
British Columbia. The other 23 per cent of British Columbia bands
are not part of the B.C. treaty process and they have no other
option. They either go with this process or they are left out. This is
problematic for that other 23 per cent.
In July 1993 the federal and provincial governments announced
the establishment of a treaty negotiation advisory committee. They
have also set up regional advisory committees in each treaty
negotiation area to represent public and local interests. There is
much public and participant unhappiness about the consultation
process and about the ratification process at this time.
If a band enters into the B.C. treaty process it receives 80 per
cent funding repayable upon completion of negotiations. In effect
this is a loan. The Nisga'a negotiations on the other hand are 100
per cent paid for by the federal government.
I have other concerns. The municipal level of government is not
recognized in any of this. There is simply a sidebar arrangement
through the provincial negotiators. Right now their intervenor
funding or advisory funding or whatever we want to call it is
capped at $250,000 a year. It comes from the province.
The municipalities have many concerns about this. Some of the
municipalities are dealing with multiple claims. Their costs are far
and away exceeding the compensation they are receiving. They are
17350
caught up in this process, not through their own doing but they
cannot afford not to be there. Their interests are certainly affected.
There are no readiness guidelines to the regional advisory
committee boards. They are not in the terms of reference of the
treaty commission. This has also proved to be very problematical.
Interim agreements have been negotiated at the provincial level.
This has also compromised the B.C. Treaty Commission process.
This was identified by the B.C. Treaty Commission in its 1993
annual report. That is as far as it can go. The commission can
identify it but it cannot deal with it unless one or the other or both
levels of government agree to do something about it.
Governments have lost their mandate in those parts of the
province most familiar with and closest to the settlement process.
There has been some movement toward openness and other things
to which the federal Reform has contributed. We have done some
things to open up the public process. In March we had an aboriginal
town hall series in the province. We covered eight communities in
11 nights province wide. In a separate exercise we set out through a
10-month process new aboriginal policy initiatives. They were
very well received in British Columbia and were considered to be
very refreshing.
(1025)
Much of what we were saying in March was common sense,
bottom up thinking which had not been reflected before in B.C.
political circles. Now much of what we have said is mainstream
political dialogue in British Columbia. Issues being talked about
are an end to the Indian taxation exemption and certainly a focus on
not entrenching commercial activities in B.C. treaties.
We have done more as a federal opposition party to open up this
process than the B.C. Treaty Commission and both levels of
government combined. The treaty commission is hampered by its
mandate and the governments are still locked into an agenda they
foresaw three years ago.
The layers of bureaucracy surrounding this process are leading
to inevitable massive gridlock. Unless the governments obtain a
publicly ratified negotiating mandate, the public will never accept
the terms and conditions which are being negotiated. This will
foster further disharmony and misgivings.
We are not objecting to a fair, open and complete conclusion to
the process, but we do have a problem with the status quo
arrangement. People are begging for leadership to break the binds
of the status quo and they are not seeing it forthcoming. We are
trying to fill that void. The manner and the approach currently
being pursued is intrinsically wrong. It is neither enlightened nor
receptive. Therefore, people conclude they are being manipulated
and that the process is entrenched and resistant to change, despite
mounting opposition.
One might ask what the provincial opposition parties are saying.
I can talk a little bit about a B.C. Liberal government. It is talking
about instituting a series of public hearings and free votes in the
legislature; initiating public consultation on a principal framework
for treaty negotiations; and developing a set of guidelines that
would have to be approved by the legislature with the approval of
MLAs who would be free to vote without following party lines.
A second step would be to set up new negotiating teams that
would include local non-Indian representation. The next stage
would be to send any agreements to public hearings. The final stage
would be to take this back to the legislature through another free
vote of MLAs.
The B.C. Reform Party is saying many things about this whole
process. It does say we must offer to negotiate treaties because it is
the right thing to do. The goal of treaties should be to lift the yoke
of the Indian Act off the backs of native people. Further, they must
own their own reserve lands and govern their own affairs within the
context of the Constitution and B.C. laws. Treaties negotiated
should not aspire to the false promise of native sovereignty. The
principle of equality is central to our support for treaty talks.
A Reform government would insist upon renegotiating the cost
sharing agreement as a precondition for B.C.'s ongoing
participation in land claims negotiations. It would reject
constitutional entrenchment of the inherent right of
self-government, would reject a third order of government
enshrined under the Constitution, would reject formal recognition
of aboriginal title, and would define the meaning and scope of
aboriginal rights, title and self-government. That is what treaty
negotiations are all about. It would seek a clear negotiating
mandate from the people, not the politicians.
If treaties confer special rights, they must first pass muster with
the majority. Any deal that purports to accord special status will not
pass public scrutiny in their opinion. Treaties should be aimed at
removing barriers based on race, not at entrenching new
inequalities.
(1030)
In conclusion, given the importance of the issue, the costs of the
issue, the social implications and the permanence of this, there is
absolutely no way an outgoing government should be binding the
public. I urge in the strongest possible terms for government to
respect this position.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once
the minister of Indian affairs has completed his remarks I would
like to invoke Standing Order 43(2) so that subsequent Liberal
speakers will be sharing their time.
I also wish to seek unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of
reports by standing committees. I understand that a report was
17351
unavailable earlier and that there is all-party consent to do that at
the present time, which will only take a moment.
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, I am anticipated to be at the
aboriginal affairs standing committee to finalize a report on
co-management. Am I subject to a 10-minute question and answer
period? If so, could we do that first?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Questions and comments,
the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I do appreciate the chance to question the member on some of the
things he has said. As a fellow MP from British Columbia, I share
his concern that aboriginal issues are getting short shrift, especially
here in Parliament by the government and the minister who seem to
think, as with so many other issues, they have a made in Ottawa
solution to what is really a problem affecting primarily B.C.
B.C. is the area that is not covered by treaties within the country.
Depending on who we believe, it is a $5 billion to $10 billion
question. It is a huge issue, which even touches on the Constitution,
where rights are entrenched and different rights are given to
different people. It is a big issue in British Columbia. The
government should take heed that this issue is something that also
could be very divisive in the country if it is not handled and settled
properly.
Last week I was home on Friday and attended a public meeting
where the chief federal negotiator for the southern half of the
province gave a talk on the progress to date of the aboriginal land
claim settlements. Afterwards we had a question and answer
period. During that time I said there are three things I think people
are saying they want to see happen in this federal negotiation for
eventual settlement of the land claims. First, they want finality to
any agreements. They do not want any leap-frogging ability and
they do not want anybody to be able to reopen these cases in the
future. When the deal is settled they want it settled for good. In
other words, we do not want to do this again 10 years from now.
Second, they say they want any deal they make with aboriginal
communities in order to settle outstanding land claims to reinforce
the idea of equality rather than inequality, hyphenated Canadians.
If it does not lead to that equality in taxation and before the law, I
do not think British Columbians are going to support it.
Third, I asked the negotiator what his specific instructions are
when it comes to the bottom line. In other words, how much money
are we talking here? Are we talking $10 billion or are we talking $5
billion or $1 billion? The rumour mill is rampant. Mr. Cashore, the
minister in British Columbia, has thrown out a $10 billion figure.
His response was you hate it as a negotiator when somebody starts
throwing out those figures because it makes it so difficult to have
negotiations. He says that hidden away in his vault is an envelope
with some kind of figure inside concerning how many dollars we
are talking about. Because there is no openness in this process and
we are dealing with rumours of rumours. I wonder if the hon.
member could comment on those three things, about the finality or
the extinguishment clause that should be in these agreements, on
the principle of moving toward equality of all Canadians and
because the minister will not give us anything, if he has any idea
what kind of a bottom line we are looking at when it comes to
settlement of British Columbia land claim issues.
(1035)
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the
finality of these agreements. In many cases there is a major
disagreement in the aboriginal political leadership concerning this
concept. One of the concerns that I have about the finality of these
agreements is that there is a word that is no longer used within
hearing of the minister of Indian affairs. That word is
extinguishment.
One of the first agreements that came before the 35th
Parliament, in terms of aboriginal agreements, was the Sahtu
agreement in the western Arctic. There is certainly extinguishment
within that agreement. When the major native spokesman for the
Sahtu was at the committee hearings, he was asked about that
clause. He said that was a natural quid pro quo or a trade-off for the
other things that the Sahtu were receiving in exchange for an
extinguishment of the aboriginal interest in lands outside of the
settlement area.
That is fine and dandy but the expectation has now been
delivered by the current government is that no, that is not the case
any more and we are quite prepared to reopen all of these old
negotiations. The government is raising expectations at a time
when it has not even fulfilled bottom line expectations. It keeps
raising the ceiling on something that does not have a foundation at
this point.
This is most inappropriate and it is certainly not something on
which the public has been well informed, nor is it something that I
believe the public wants to accept. It is like a never-ending set of
negotiations and everything once negotiated can be reopened at any
time. That is not appropriate.
The second question dealt with equality. This is probably
demonstrated most clearly in the fact that the taxation exemption is
becoming more and more of a problem in more and more locations
across Canada. I are not talking about just British Columbia in this
case.
While other Canadians are taxed to the max there is a portion of
the native population that is insulated from most forms of taxation.
These are the people living on reserves. Perhaps this cannot be
changed overnight but we have to move in that direction.
17352
Another major concern is that the governments be democratic
and accountable with checks and balances that go far beyond the
checks and balances of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development. The lives of many people living on
reserves are being regulated by one department. That becomes
very problematic. If we had multiple jurisdictions that would be
fine.
We are finding that what resonates with the public is a municipal
style of self-government as being an appropriate model. We have
an example in the Sechelt Band, in my riding.
(1040)
The final question posed deals with the cost and the negotiating
mandate. The negotiating mandate provincially and federally, the
way it sits right now, is a cabinet secret known only to the federal
and/or provincial negotiators. Public ratification of that negotiating
mandate is a major shift in thinking that has gone on and something
that is being asked for more and more and something we promote.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given
that the 10 minutes has now expired, I wonder if we could now ask
for unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of reports by
standing committees.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is this agreeable to
everyone?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17352
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to table today the ninth report of the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I thank members of the House for their unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois presented a minority report on the issue of immigration
counsellors. This is a very serious issue. We agree with the
diagnosis: we are indeed confronted with a serious problem. Some
counsellors are good, but the ethics of others are questionable.
But we differ on the constitutional issue, since we maintain that
it is up to the provinces, and not to the federal government, to
regulate trades and professions. That is the reason behind our
minority report.
17352
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again
in the House to address this resolution. However, the motion has no
thought behind it and therefore gives no idea of its consequences. I
do not even know why we are entertaining such a motion. I
honestly feel that we are not doing our job here debating it.
This motion, as it is written, goes against the very democratic
fabric of Canadian society. Basically it asks the federal government
to stop doing business with a duly elected majority provincial
government. If we were to stop conducting business with the
current government in British Columbia we would be insulting the
majority of British Columbians who voted for this government.
Perhaps this is not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the intent of
the motion is even more appalling. Perhaps the opposition party
does not want the government to continue doing business with the
duly elected government in British Columbia and not do business
with the aboriginal people in British Columbia.
What is it we are debating here? Are we debating whether the
provincial government has a valid mandate or are we debating a
motion based on race? If race is the issue, perhaps we can ask the
hon. members of the opposition if they have any particular wishes
regarding Sikhs in British Columbia, the Chinese people in B.C. or
other minority groups, or are they just willing to continue this
debate on aboriginal people in B.C.?
I might remind hon. members that the negotiations to create the
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were conducted in 1904,
four years into the mandate of the second Laurier government.
Would the hon. member have wanted these talks to be put on hold
because the federal government was facing an election the next
year? The second world war began four years into the mandate of
Mackenzie King in 1935. Did Parliament say that it could not get
involved because the Prime Minister had to go to the polls? In
1956, the last year of the St. Laurent government, the UN
emergency force was created, thanks to the work of Lester Pearson.
He won the Nobel prize for his efforts.
If the hon. member for North Island-Powell River had been
sitting in the House back then he would have said: ``I object.
Canada cannot enter into such an important international
commitment, not with just one year left in the government's
mandate''.
17353
Let us look at the history of treaty negotiations with the
aboriginal peoples. Treaty 7 was signed in 1877. The Macdonald
government had been in office since January 1874. It faced an
election. It would come in the fall of 1878. Was there any question
then that the government had no mandate to sign? Of course not.
(1045)
Treaty No. 8 was signed in 1899 when the Laurier government
had been in office for three years. It would go to the polls the
following year.
In our time, the James Bay agreement was signed a year before
the end of the Quebec Liberal government.
Would the hon. member for North Island-Powell River be
prepared to defer his authority on votes on issues that come before
the House because the other parties in his constituency have not
nominated their candidates yet or have nominated them but there
has not been an election yet? Of course he would not.
Let us not hear any more self-righteousness from the Reform
Party with its claims that it speaks for the people. The people
elected the hon. member for North Island-Powell River on
October 25, 1993, just as the people of Sault Ste. Marie elected me
to come here.
Why have a Parliament at all? Why not just have an office where
public pollsters send their findings to the bureaucrats? If that is the
argument of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, I
invite him to give up his seat, go back home, take up his old job and
do something worth while.
The First Nations in British Columbia have waited 200 years to
reach agreements. Most have never had an opportunity to sign an
agreement outlining their rights. That is an historic anomaly in
Canada which the Liberal government inherited from the leader of
the Reform Party of B.C. He was a minister in the Social Credit
government that signed an agreement with the Nisga'a. He was on
the committee that pushed the B.C. treaty process.
What do Reform members have to say about that? What have
they said to the leader of the Reform Party of B.C.? Is he not a little
embarrassed by the Reform Party in Ottawa about all his work and
efforts of the past? I commend him. He at least had the courage to
do something for aboriginal people.
In 1990 Premier Vander Zalm reversed a longstanding position
of the province of British Columbia which held that aboriginal
rights had been extinguished prior to B.C.'s entry into
Confederation, or if the rights did exist they were the exclusive
responsibility of the federal government. That has changed the
climate out there. Premier Vander Zalm said: ``You have been
sitting there with the Nisga'a for 15 years by yourself. We will do
these things. We will get some certainty for B.C.''
The current government came into office in October 1993. We
opened the doors in December 1993. Since that time 70 per cent of
the just under 200 First Nations in B.C. have been at the table. They
are doing it our way. They are saying: ``We will trust you white
people once more. We will not build roadblocks. We will come to
the negotiating table''. And this is the way they are treated.
The Reform Party has not voted for one piece of aboriginal
legislation in the House in two years, except in the one instance
when it benefited an oil company. When an oil company could
make a profit vis-à-vis aboriginal people, the Reform Party voted
unanimously in favour of it. That party says it will speak for the
people, that it will come here with an open mind and not vote like a
bunch of sheep.
Last week 42 Reform members showed up in the House to vote
against the B.C. treaty process, the enabling legislation which
allows us to sit down with the First Nations. Yet Reformer
members stand every day to denounce Adams Lake and the
Penticton blockade. So do we, but the difference is that we are
prepared to sit down with the First Nations people. What I hear
today is that the Reform Party will not even sit down with the First
Nations people to negotiate.
I once said that the House of Commons in many instances
sounds like the ill informed conversing with the ill intentioned on
any given day. For the first time today I heard the ill informed
conversing with the ill intentioned of the same party when they
questioned each other.
I will give the Reform Party some correct information.
Reformers said vis-à-vis the Nisga'a that we gave them money for
negotiations. That is incorrect. It is based on loans 100 per cent.
The people who are supposed to know the issues out there said that
in the House.
(1050)
Let me go back and refer to some of the history. I am in cabinet
representing the poorest of the poor people in the country. Most of
the time I am on my knees and my colleagues know that.
Just before the election when we were hoping to be elected, we
said that the Pearson airport deal was illegal and immoral and that
if we were elected we would reverse it. Why? We alleged there
were a lot of people making a lot of money. There was a lot of
lobbying and a lot of money being made by lobbyists. A few weeks
before the election we came into the House and who defended the
lobbyists and voted against the legislation? It was the Reform
Party.
Reformers should think about what they are doing today
vis-à-vis aboriginal people and what the Reform Party did in the
protection of lobbyists on the Pearson airport deal. Reformers are
saying today that there may be an election a year from now because
17354
the opposition parties are opposed to dealing with the poorest of the
poor. However they will stand here righteously two weeks before
an election and defend the right of lobbyists to make a bundle of
money. It gives Canadians an idea of the priorities of that party.
They say: ``Let us have a referendum''. This is much the same. It
is another way of saying we should have a referendum. I remember
last year when this was placed before the Prime Minister as an
important issue. They said: ``Let us have a referendum''. The
Prime Minister said: ``It is our job to make decisions and if we do
them well we will be re-elected; if we do not we will be turfed''.
When will Reformers learn that, as we did in 1984? Reformers will
learn that because the public is coming to understand the Reform
Party.
Reformers thought they were the party that would talk about
fiscal responsibility and bring a new spirit to the House. Instead
they found a party that lusted badly for power. It had such an
anti-francophone bias they were willing to destroy the country on a
fraudulent question to which the answer was yes by 50 per cent plus
one. It shows the public the bias of the Reform Party. It shows the
public how badly the Reform Party leader wants to be Prime
Minister of Canada, that he would do that, destroy the country on a
50 per cent plus one response to a fraudulent question.
I sat here and I listened. I have waited two years and listened to
aboriginal bashing from the Reform Party. Some Reform members
actually go out and talk to aboriginal people, an insignificant
portion of that group that is deserving of respect. An insignificant
number of Reformers know what the Reform Party is doing, and
that it is wrong.
After two years the Reform Party has an interim policy on
aboriginal issues, but it did not talk to the aboriginal people. The
leader of the Reform Party says that they did not. I do not know if
they could not find them; there are a million and a half aboriginal
people out there. There are 608 reserves. There are 50 tribal
councils. Where was the consultation? It did not exist.
A key member of the committee that devised this is the member
for Athabasca who said, and it is there in two papers: ``What is this
treaty? The treaty process is a fraud''. We negotiated in good faith
and now they are saying it is a fraud. ``We defeated these people''. I
notice an uneasiness on the face of Reformers because those with a
conscience know that what that member said was wrong. He was a
member of the committee that devised this. He said: ``If we did not
defeat them, why did they allow themselves to go to small,
worthless reserves?''
There are only two ways of looking at it. We said the treaty was
honourable. We made these agreements and told them in B.C. that
some day we would get to them. We finished the numbered treaties
at Edmonton, Alberta. We said we would with the honour of the
crown and the honour of Canadians sit down with them. Or, we can
take the attitude of the member for Athabasca, a member of the
Reform Party. I refuse to use a name in the House again unless I put
the party behind it. The member for Athabasca is a member of the
Reform Party. He said: ``We beat these people. We beat them into
the ground. That is why they are on small reserves. This treaty
process is a fraud. Rebut that''.
(1055)
Then I heard another member of the Reform Party say that he
knows all about reserves, that those people live in a south seas
environment-I was in the House that day-and the men go around
burning women with cigarettes. That is the most atrocious, ill
informed, ignorant comment I have ever heard about aboriginal
people. That was from the Reform Party.
Now we have the B.C. treaty process and Reformers do not even
want us to go to the table and after 200 years do the honourable
thing. What they would rather do is stand here and have us sing O
Canada. At the same time they will say: ``Side with the
separatists''. I see no difference. I see different geography but I do
not see any difference with the separatists facing me or the
separatists from western Canada to my far right.
They would say to the Prime Minister that they we want the
country dismantled on a 50 per cent plus one vote in Quebec on a
fraudulent question. They say that day after day all week. Yet what
did they waste the time of the House on last week? A crest. They
would destroy the country but keep the crest. They can have their
crest but I want my country. It will never be saved by the Reform
Party.
This is the new insight. Let us process the situation. We have the
Reformers' position on francophones. We can take them out of the
equation of what is the Reform Party. We know their non-position
on women. If I were a woman, I would be a little concerned. We
know their position on immigration. They are for immigration but
not to Canada. If I were an immigrant, I would be concerned. If I
were a nationalist and wanted to keep the country together, I would
be concerned. If I were a lobbyist, I would like that party. If I had
big money invested in the Pearson airport, I would like that party.
What do we have left after we strip the philosophy of that party?
Not much. That party stood here and told the Yukon Indians that the
negotiations with them would never work. They came here. They
stood in the House in their costumes. It was one of the proudest
moments of our party. It is working. Yet the Reform Party said the
Manitoba dismantling would not work.
I get a rough time in Manitoba from the media, and rightly so.
Last week the Manitoba media reported:
In Manitoba, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs
are currently negotiating one of the most progressive, daring and risky
self-government initiatives in Canadian history. For the first time since
Confederation, the federal government says it's prepared to give back to First
Nations what many say was never relinquished in the first place.
17355
Harvard University called the Manitoba dismantling the most
progressive move in self-government negotiations in the world.
The same party denounced inherent right; the Reform Party
denounced inherent right. There were over a hundred editorials in
the country by people who are paid to be critical. That is their job in
the democratic process. A hundred of them were favourable and
one was not favourable. The criticism was that we should have
waited until the royal commission report.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): The people voted on the Charlottetown
accord-
Mr. Irwin: I am not talking about the Charlottetown accord.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): You do not want to talk about it.
Mr. Irwin: -or a group of intellectuals sitting around
discussing the Constitution. I will address the Reform. I am talking
about the poorest of the poor, the constituents of the Reform Party
that seems to think they do not count. Reformers do not consult
with them. They do not talk to them. They do not meet with the
chiefs and we have roadblocks. It is the job of the Reform Party to
go out and represent these poor people. We were not elected to
come here to cater to the rich, to the haves, to the white
communities. We were elected to come here to cater to Canadians.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): What about the Bronfmans?
(1100 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Sorry, Mr. Minister. I ask
for order, please.
Mr. Irwin: Once in the four-year mandate I would like to hear
Reform members talk about the housing conditions and what we
can do on reserves. Once I would like to hear a Reform member
talk about suicide problems. I have to go out there and meet with
people who have lost their children. Once I would like to hear the
Reform talk about health. All we get is denunciation, denunciation
of Indian people for one reason, because they are Indians.
The country will not tolerate that. What Reform learned in New
Brunswick and in Abbotsford it will learn in the next election. The
people of B.C. want to be proud of the members they send here.
The people of B.C. are nation builders and what they see strips
away that pride. The Reform Party will learn that in the next
election.
When the Reform Party came to my riding it said to the
steelworkers of Sault Ste. Marie when the company went under and
the unions had to take it over ``do not give them a penny''. They
now have eight months of profit and two weeks ago the men did it,
the men this party does not want to represent. They now have $400
million in the financial community and have invested it. They are
working, no thanks to the Reform Party.
Every time the Reform Party comes up to my riding of Sault Ste.
Marie every steelworker there will know that along with all the
other things I have said about Reform and the groups it excludes, it
has excluded the working people of the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the minister. If he wants to blame the Reform
Party for anything, he should first do his homework and pay close
attention to this debate. He compares the Bloc Quebecois with
Reform. Well, when I as a member of this House tabled a bill to
limit the interest collected on delinquent mortgages, for example,
Reform was not the only opponent. His party was also opposed,
because it was eating into the fund, the large amounts put at its
disposal by Canada's large banks, the so-called seven sisters.
So he is in no position to throw snowballs at the Reform Party. It
is his party that abolished the council on the status of women. What
I mean is that, in spite of everything, I recognize that native people
have been here for 20,000 years, according to some experts, that
they have rights, and that we must recognize these rights. What
better way to do so than by signing treaties? I think that the party I
represent in this House will oppose the motion tabled by Reform
because it is unacceptable.
Some people who have been here for 20,000 years are being
denied their very right to exist, while some first- and
second-generation Canadians claim that they have all the rights. I
feel that all the people here, whatever their origins, have rights, but
why deny them to native people? Although I disagree with the
minister, I say that we should oppose the motion tabled by the
Reform Party because it does an injustice to an important group of
fellow citizens.
[English]
Mr. Irwin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member
has said. I see the member for Saint-Jean out there working hard.
However, we have a fundamental difference. We just went
through the referendum. Last week we heard the guru of the Bloc. I
thought he was gone but he just stepped to the back of the bus. He
was quoted in the Globe and Mail. What did Mr. Pierre Bourgault
say? It is the Jews, the Italians and the Greeks who vote in an ethnic
block who are the racists, not us. They only have one objective, to
obstruct things. They are saying these Jews, Italians and Greeks,
because they want to be Canadians, are obstructionists. If we
multiply that by about fivefold we have an idea of the Cree, the
Montagnais, the Attikamekw and the Micmac and their feeling of
alienation within the province of Quebec.
17356
(1105)
We have to have a uniform philosophy. As much as I appreciate
what the Bloc is saying today it cannot blame the Reform for what
is happening out in B.C. and have a different philosophy in Quebec.
Reform in B.C. cannot side with us to protect the Indians of Quebec
because it fits its agenda and because it is taking an
anti-francophone position, but not do the same thing in B.C.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am not going to get into a long diatribe of rhetoric as the
hon. minister put forth today against the Reform Party. The Liberal
government does not have a monopoly on caring and compassion
nor a monopoly on stupidity.
The goal we have today is shared by the minister and by every
person in the House. Each and every one of us wants to ensure
aboriginal people, particularly those who as the minister referred to
are the poorest of the poor, are able to stand on their own two feet,
and that we are able to decrease the terrible parameters of rape,
sexual abuse, crime and violence that occurs within their societies.
I was going to ask the hon. member a question, but he has
departed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member knows
we do not refer to the presence or absence of anyone in the House.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Madam Speaker, the
goal is to help aboriginal people, working with them in a
co-operative fashion. That is the goal of Reform members, many of
whom have aboriginal people in our ridings. We work closely with
them to resolve these difficulties.
I listened to the individual responsible for the B.C. treaty process
on Vancouver Island. I listened for one hour on what they were
going to do for the aboriginal people. I asked: ``At the end of the
day will the B.C. treaty process actually help the poorest of the
poor, the people I mentioned earlier? Will it actually help them?''
That individual said: ``I do not know''.
That is the basis on which we do not approve of this process. The
process will not help the poorest of the poor in aboriginal
communities. That is what we want and I know that is what the
government wants. The course the government is pursuing will not
help the poorest of the poor.
Other concerns we have are in the resource management. Who
will ensure the resources are taken care of? As the minister knows,
at Stony Creek we saw a terrible tragedy with the timber on that
reserve. We are also concerned about where the money goes. The
minister well knows that aboriginal leadership in many cases have
been known to pocket vast sums of money that were supposed to
be going to those people who are the poorest of the poor. Those are
our concerns.
Does the minister think the B.C. treaty process will truly help
those aboriginal people who are the poorest of the poor? Who will
preserve and safeguard the resources in the areas they are asking
for in terms of land? Does the minister not believe that the
fundamental and most important part of developing self-respect
and respect in one's community is the ability for an individual,
whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to stand on their own two
feet and take care of themselves and be gainfully employed?
Mr. Irwin: Madam Speaker, I want this question because I often
hear this member questioning the health minister and I have always
wanted to respond to him.
This member is a doctor and we would think he would bring his
skills to the House. If he brought those skills as a doctor to the
House he would see the suicide problems we have in First Nations.
He would realize that a lot of these suicides are a result of no
self-sufficiency because there is nothing left. We took all the lands.
We took it all.
(1110)
He would realize that there is more than having social workers
there. There has to be self-sufficiency. He would realize that where
there is self-sufficiency, where there are richer reserves there is
stability and there is health. He would go out and learn this. He
would know what is happening there.
Instead he sits here in a nation that provided him with medical
skills and encouraged him to go to school, subsidized him and
encouraged him to go through school and become a doctor, to bring
this knowledge and skill to the House. But he says: ``Let us spread
this poverty equally. They are poor. Let them go out and be
self-sufficient''.
The bottom line is when we negotiated these treaties, and he
should know this, in many cases we spent a day or two. In British
Columbia, with treaties 6, 7 and 8, in a couple of days with three
treaties we took away a whole province. We took away the
resources from the native people.
We have spent 200 years to not make the same mistake in B.C.
and make sure there is some self-sufficiency there, that we have a
vision and we can work together as partners. What does this hon.
member do? He is going to vote: ``Stop the process. Do not
negotiate any further. Let those poor people fend for themselves''.
Shame on him.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the opposition
motion.
I will read the motion, for the benefit of the members who are
here. It goes as follows:
17357
That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral
aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current
provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British
Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition
parties.
My comments will be twofold. In the first part, I will discuss the
constitutional validity of such a proposal, and in the second part, I
will deal with the issue of aboriginal claims.
Does a government, democratically elected in Canada according
to the laws of the land and in compliance with our constitutional
principles, have the right to govern? In other words, does a
government that is the government have the right to be a
government?
The Reform Party's answer to that question is no. Indeed, it is
asking this House to urge the Government of Canada to not enter
into any agreements to which a provincial government, duly
elected according to the Constitution, would be a party, because
such an agreement would not reflect public opinion, as expressed
by the two major provincial opposition parties. In other words, the
Reform Party is asking the House to ascertain, before entering into
an agreement with a Canadian province, whether public opinion, as
expressed by the opposition, is favourable to the proposal.
Our friends from the Reform Party do not seem to understand the
nature of our institutions. This motion is wrong in the sense that it
is an attack against the legitimacy of our institutions. It provides
that the House should ask the government to determine, through
polls, through supposedly scientific studies, perhaps through open
lines in B.C., or editorials from the Vancouver Sun, the opinion of
British Columbians, before entering into an agreement supported
by the legitimately elected government of that province.
(1115)
I am not sure whether our Reform Party friends realize what they
are asking from the House. People participating in a political
meeting could say: ``Since the B.C. government is in the last year
of its mandate, it no longer has the democratic or political rightto -'', and so on. As you know, it is easy to organize a partisan
political meeting. It is easy to resort to inflated rhetoric and to
exaggerate, so as to make an impact on public opinion.
The motion before us comes from an official party in the House
of Commons. That party got 52 members elected in the last federal
election and is now asking the House to pass such a resolution.
Let us change the wording a bit in order to examine the
unbelievable nature of a resolution such as this. What, for example,
would our reaction be if the motion were to read, selecting Quebec
at random as an example: ``That the House urge the government to
not enter into agreement with the Government of Quebec on the
sharing and devolution of manpower training until such time as the
Government of Quebec has passed a motion in the National
Assembly recognizing the landslide victory by the no side in the
last referendum''? I think everyone here would say it was
unbelievable.
To take another example, what would our reaction by if the
motion were to read: ``That the House urge the government to not
enter into any agreement with the Government of Ontario as long
as that government plans to cut back on welfare payments''? We
would say it was impossible.
Yet here we have a government, the Parliament of Canada, being
asked to pass judgment on the legitimacy of another duly elected
government within a federation. The legitimacy of the B.C.
government is just as important, just as valuable, just as
constitutionally justified, as the legitimacy of the Government of
Canada.
Just looking at the wording of the motion would be enough to
make the Bloc oppose it.
But there are other grounds. Basically, this motion casts doubt on
the entire issue, on the whole process for settling aboriginal land
claims in Canada.
I have just listened to my Reform colleague's defence of the
proposition. He touched on many topics. He spoke of territorial
rights, of the fact that aboriginal people living on reserves pay no
taxes. When it comes down to it, he has challenged the rights of
these first inhabitants of Canada to demand any particular rights
whatsoever to certain lands within Canada. He even referred to the
B.C. Reform Party's program on aboriginal issues which proposes
that it oppose inclusion of aboriginal self government in the
province's legislation. Yet it has been in the Canadian Constitution
since 1982. According to a Reform government out there, however,
there must be no mention in any of the laws of B.C. of any
entitlement whatsoever to aboriginal self government.
(1120)
There was another resolution that I hesitate to mention here,
because in many ways it challenges the position of minorities in
Canada. According to the Reform Party's provincial platform,
before aboriginal peoples obtain certain rights in Canada, they
should first have the consent of the majority of the population.
It seems this party wants to propose that in British Columbia,
minority rights shall be subject to the will of the majority. It is
unthinkable, in a democratic country like Canada that recognizes
the rights of specific populations subject to certain criteria, that
these rights should be subject to injunctions or decisions by a
majority of the population.
Basically, the Reform Party's proposal challenges the whole
issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. That is its general purpose, but
the Reform Party also challenges specific aspects. Somewhat
17358
ironically, the Reform Party's comments were fuelled by several
kinds of issues.
There is a reference to the Nass River agreement now being
negotiated with the Nisga'a in British Columbia. In fact, the
Reform Party would rather see the agreement dropped, because of
issues like commercial fishing rights, for instance. There are
groups who are making representations. However, I think we
should keep a sense of proportion in all this.
Today in Canada we have a major problem concerning aboriginal
land claims. It is a problem that must be dealt with as quickly as
possible, in a way that is fair to all Canadians and respects the
rights of all concerned. The issue should not be used as an excuse to
postpone agreements that may be finalized very shortly.
I think they are playing with fire, because today in Canada, there
is a polarization of positions on these issues. If we read editorials in
Canada or Quebec and listen to open-line shows, we realize that
non-aboriginal groups are critical. They think there is some
exaggeration in the whole issue of aboriginal claims, and they are
right, but as a result of this situation, prejudice is rife, which is not
conducive to good relations between aboriginal peoples and the
general public in Quebec and Canada.
Opinions are becoming polarized, often with somewhat bizarre
results. As an example of what will happen if we do not deal with
these issues fairly quickly, I was reading a speech made by the hon.
member for Churchill yesterday at a sacred assembly held in Hull.
Now we should realize the assembly is more or less religious in
nature and often the language is very symbolic. Our colleague said
in his opening speech that the Creator had put aboriginal peoples in
this part of the world known as Canada.
I agree one can argue that aboriginal peoples have certain rights
because they were here before we were, because they were the first
occupants, but I think it is a bit much to say the Creator put the
aboriginal peoples in Canada.
This was said in a particular context before an audience of
important dignitaries.
(1125)
The Prime Minister of Canada was present at this gathering.
Ministers of the crown were also in attendance. There was little
reaction. The context is, however, a particular one. If native
peoples get the idea now that Canada was given to the aboriginal
people, like in the Bible, things are going to get tougher.
So, I think, in order to avoid things getting out of hand-because
I think it could happen, and I am sorry to have to say it, out of
respect for my colleague for Churchill-native claims have to be
settled as quickly as possible and, in British Columbia, where
things are developing, matters must be resolved right away.
Because, in British Columbia, things go back a long way.
Between the end of the 1880s and 1990, native claims were not
considered valid. In 1990, the British Columbia government began
to recognize native rights, but only then. I heard the Minister of
Indian Affairs say earlier that the situation of native peoples in
Quebec was terrible. He said that journalists and some people are
making remarks about the referendum vote. People are saying it
must be awful for the native population.
In 1985 or 1986, the National Assembly of Quebec recognized
11 native nations. One of these nations barely has 500 members,
but it was recognized because it had rights. The people of Quebec
did not vote on whether a nation of 150 people constituted a nation.
There was no vote. The National Assembly looked at the cultures
and the characteristics of all the nations and recognized them. That
is what happened in Quebec.
There is the James Bay agreement, which was signed in 1974 or
1975, as the minister pointed out. It was the first major agreement
between Canada and the native populations. It was concluded in
Quebec, while, in British Columbia, it was not until 15 years later
that the territorial rights of native peoples were recognized and the
validity of their claims acknowledged.
I think Quebec can hold its head high. The Montagnais of
Lac-Saint-Jean, the Montagnais on the north shore and the
Mohawks have always been respected. The Attikameks and the
Maliseet are few in number, but worthy of respect and have certain
rights they are claiming. It happened in Quebec. We the people of
Quebec were among the governments and peoples of Canada to
recognize the First Nations. We know that there is a Quebec nation,
a Quebec people. But Quebec also includes other peoples.
We recognized 11 other nations. We negotiated. Our National
Assembly recognized them. Agreements were signed with some of
these peoples. An agreement is being negotiated with the
Montagnais of the North Shore and Lac-Saint-Jean. Things were
done. No one in Quebec told the government that it should not sign.
No one in the 1970s tabled a motion here in the House of
Commons urging the Government of Canada not to sign an
agreement with Quebec because the Bourassa government, which
signed this agreement, was in the last year of its mandate. It was the
James Bay agreement; it was not about fishing rights on a river
somewhere. The James Bay agreement covers a vast territory. The
Cree hold property rights over some lands, surface rights over
others, fishing and hunting rights over other parts of the territory.
We did not undermine these people's rights by signing treaties
with them. We respected them. We told them: ``You are a nation,
you will have territorial rights, you will be given money for
17359
development''. It was not a bargaining session, as demonstrated by
the fact that, in the last referendum, 95 per cent of these
people-this figure is a little conservative; it is probably
higher-voted no in the referendum. Ninety-five per cent is a lot of
people.
What this means is that, on some parts of this reserve, not a
single person voted yes. No one in Quebec questioned these results
or these people's legitimacy. No one accused them of being
ungrateful after we gave them territorial rights. That is not how we
do things.
(1130)
We did not give them rights. They already had rights, which we
recognized and enshrined in legislation. This legislation, this
treaty, this agreement was also ratified by the federal government,
which also had fiduciary rights and was a party to the case.
I hope that the House will carefully examine the content of this
motion. First, it should realize that the motion limits the rights of a
democratically elected government in Canada. Second, the motion
challenges the rights of people in Canada who belong to a nation
different from the so-called Canadian nation and from what we call
the Quebec nation.
I feel it is important to be aware of all this and of native people's
right to demand some land claim agreements in Canada. We must
hasten to correct some visible mistakes that are emerging so that
we do not end up in situations that would adversely affect the future
for the people of Quebec and Canada and for all the native peoples
in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
makes me curious when an hon. member refers to the Quebec
people and the Quebec nation. I am not quite sure what he means
by this in terms of the population of Quebec. This is a point of
concern for me. Obviously I am a Canadian to be able to sit in this
Chamber. I came to this country after the Hungarian revolution in
1957. My 10-year old daughter was born in Canada. My wife is
Irish going back seven generations.
When we talk of people within the confines of a province, I want
to make sure there is some definition to it. Looking at the
demographics of the population in Quebec, the direct descent
French is 74.6 per cent; British, 4.2 per cent; German, half a per
cent; Italian, 2.6 per cent; Chinese, half a per cent; aboriginal, 1 per
cent; Dutch, one-tenth of one per cent; east Indian, three-tenths of
one per cent; Polish, three-tenths of one per cent; Portuguese,
one-half per cent; Jewish, 1.1 per cent; Greek, seven-tenths of one
per cent; Filipino, one-tenth of one per cent; Hungarian, one-tenth
of one per cent; other, 5 per cent; people of multiple origins, 8.4 per
cent.
Maybe the hon. member could clarify for me that all the people
living in Quebec are indeed Quebecers and are indeed Canadian.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I question the pertinence to
the subject of today's debate.
[Translation]
The hon. member may want to respond, but I do question the
relevance of the question with regard to the motion.
Mr. Caron: Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer the question
because some members may wonder how to define a Montagnais, a
Malecite or a Nisga'a.
Allow me to answer by first asking a question and answering it.
How do you define a Canadian? As far as I can understand,
Canadians are persons who live in Canada and call themselves
Canadians. Our hon. colleague told us: ``I am a Canadian. I have
been living in Canada since the late 50s''. He said he came to
Canada from Hungary after the insurrection over there.
(1135)
I am sure the hon. member calls himself a Canadian, probably in
his Hungarian or Magyar mother tongue, and never doubts for a
moment that he is a Canadian.
Similarly, Quebecers are people living in Quebec who call
themselves Quebecers. These people's ancestors may have been
established in Quebec since 1636, or for 360 years, like mine, or for
just two, three, four or five years. Perhaps their mother tongue is
Greek or Spanish. Perhaps they are like my hon. colleague from
Bourassa, originally from Chile, who calls himself a Quebecer.
Therefore, a Quebecer is someone who lives in Quebec, claims
to be a Quebecer and recognizes that he or she and the other people
living in Quebec share the same identity as Quebecers. Of course,
this identity is coloured. The Prime Minister himself mentioned in
his distinct society proposal that it should be recognized that, in
Quebec, we have a French speaking majority and a unique culture,
although the Prime Minister told us yesterday that there was no
Quebec culture. At any rate, such are the vagaries of politics.
We have our own civil law tradition inherited from old France.
Of course, the people of Quebec have a colour, as do the people of
Canada. From what I can see, the predominant language among
Canadians is English. There is a Canadian culture defending itself
against the American culture, and Canada also has its social and
legal institutions.
In short, a Quebecer is someone living in Quebec who claims to
be a Quebecer, like a Montagnais from the Lac-Saint-Jean region,
who speaks the same language as me and looks somewhat like me,
come to think of it. It is someone who says: ``I am a Montagnais
from Lac-Saint-Jean, living in Mashteuiatsh, attending school in
17360
Roberval, working at the Canada Employment Center in Roberval
and proud to call myself a Montagnais''.
A Montagnais is someone who claims to be a Montagnais and is
recognized as such by other Montagnais, the same way that a
Quebecer is someone who claims to be a Quebecer and agrees to
belong to this nation, without any distinction based on culture, race
or language. Quebec gladly welcomes everyone, as long as you call
yourself a Quebecer.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, because I did
not have the opportunity to address the minister's comments on
debate, I will take the first few minutes of my intervention to
address some of the remarks which he made.
It is difficult to listen to the sheer arrogance of the minister and
the government on the subject of aboriginal issues. The minister
talked about it being a democratic process. He talked about the
Government of British Columbia being a democratically elected
government which has a mandate to engage in the negotiations
which are currently taking place. I beg to differ.
The current NDP Government of British Columbia was elected
by 40 per cent of the popular vote at the last general election. That
means six out of ten people who cast a ballot did not vote for the
policies, the platform or the party which is now governing British
Columbia.
When we speak about democratic principles, we have to
recognize that the system of voting does not allow for a proper
representation of the views of a majority of citizens on many
issues, and this is one of them. This is a very important issue for
British Columbia.
The second thing I want to address with respect to the minister's
remarks is that he made the comment that natives have waited for
200 years in Canada to have the issue resolved. I do not dispute the
fact that since Confederation the federal government has had the
clear constitutional responsibility to deal with the issue in British
Columbia and in other parts of Canada. However, in British
Columbia for whatever reason, the federal government chose to
abrogate that responsibility. It is not the province of British
Columbia which has the responsibility to deal with the issue, it is
the federal government. I might also add that for the majority of the
time since Confederation there have been Liberal governments in
Ottawa. What is the minister doing throwing stones at the Reform
Party or anybody else when it is clearly the federal government and
a host of Liberal governments since Confederation that have
created the problem in the first place?
(1140)
The third point the minister made, and one which needs to be
responded to most strenuously, is the point that the Reform Party is
not interested in helping the poorest of the poor. It is his
government and him, as minister of Indian affairs, who is really
deeply concerned about these poor people who live on reserves in
Canada. I suppose he has a lock on caring.
A lot of native people live in my riding. There are a large number
of reserves and nine Indian bands in total in my riding. I have
written on behalf of many people who have come to see me who
have demanded financial accountability from the minister. Can
they get it? This $5.8 billion a year that the minister and the
government is funnelling into aboriginal affairs is going to benefit
a very few at the top.
The minister does not have any lock on caring for the poorest of
the poor because it is the very people in these communities who are
the poorest of the poor and they are not receiving the benefits the
taxpayers of Canada are contributing. It is because of the minister's
refusal to take on his responsibility and demand accountability that
these people are in the position they are in.
I ask the House to recognize that although the minister may be
making these grandiose statements and engaging in the flaming
rhetoric that he loves to engage in so much, the reality is that the
minister cares more about the entrenched leadership in Canada's
aboriginal communities than he does about the poorest of the poor
or the ordinary people. It is very clear to me that the leaders in the
aboriginal communities are as much out of touch with their
constituents as this government is out of touch with the people of
Canada.
In talking about the land claim situation in British Columbia, we
started by saying that almost nobody in British Columbia disagrees
with the proposition that we have to resolve these longstanding
disputes between aboriginals and the Government of Canada. No
one disputes the fact that we have to get these outstanding claims
resolved and get on with life. No one disputes the fact that there
have been injustices done to native people historically and I might
add in contemporary terms.
How did we get to be where we are today? The government is
saying that there is a a huge problem out there which has to be dealt
with. The government says it has a mandate to deal with it,
although there are many who would disagree with that, so it has get
on with it and it is going to engage in a modern treaty making
process in British Columbia.
We have to go right back to the Act of Union by which British
Columbia joined Confederation to understand where we are today.
By that Act of Union in 1871 British Columbia joined
Confederation with an agreement that the federal government
would be responsible for all existing and future obligations to
aboriginal peoples. That is stated in the Act of Union. The federal
government has a clear responsibility going right back to the day
that British Columbia joined Confederation. However, it has never
addressed that responsibility and that is why we are in the situation
we are in today.
17361
Going back to the 1970s some Indian bands decided they were
going to commence legal actions to have their grievances aired
and dealt with because they could not get them dealt with any
other way.
The most famous legal case, the one that is the pre-eminent legal
case in Canada today with respect to aboriginal issues, native land
claims and the inherent right to self-government, is the
Delgamuukw case. This was launched by the
Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people who also happen to be within the
riding I represent.
(1145 )
The B.C. supreme court listened to 360 days of testimony, to all
kinds of anthropological evidence, oral evidence presented by the
elders of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people, listened to all kinds of
legal arguments made on their behalf. At the end of that process
when the court rendered its decision it found clearly that there is no
inherent right to self-government and there is no aboriginal title to
land.
The court also found that the federal government had a
constitutional obligation to address the issues of concern to
aboriginal people and urged it to get on with it. In the meantime,
after the court decision was rendered the Government of British
changed. We had an outgoing Social Credit government and an
incoming NDP government with an ideological bent on this issue,
fervent in its belief it has to deal with the land claim issue in a way
the province has never considered doing until then.
What did it do? The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people are continuing
with their court action. They have appealed the decision to the B.C.
court of appeal. The province of British Columbia fired the
successful legal firm of Russell & DuMoulin, which had won the
Delgamuuku case on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and
replaced it with the firm Swinton & Company, a registered paid
federal lobbyists in 1994 on behalf of the very people it was to be
squaring off with in court, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people.
Furthermore, Swinton & Company was also engaged in an action
on behalf of the Gitksan in the B.C. supreme court against the
province of British Columbia at a time when it had accepted this
landmark legal case to represent the province of British Columbia
on the very issues it was fighting the province with on behalf of the
Gitksan at the time it was appointed. Talk about a conflict of
interest.
This is the way the NDP government in British Columbia has
behaved with this issue. It wanted a political decision from the
court. It was not prepared to allow the process to be followed
through as it should have.
In following the ideological rather than the legal decisions of the
court and totally ignoring how the people of British Columbia, and
in Canada for that matter, voted against the inherent right to
self-government in the Charlottetown accord, British Columbia in
concert with the federal government went ahead and started to try
to implement these things anyway, much as the federal government
is trying to do with distinct society and a veto for Quebec in the
unity issue right now.
This is a slap in the face to British Columbia and a slap in the
face to democracy. When the people have spoken in a democratic
referendum and the government ignores that decision and goes
about implementing the decisions anyway, legislatively rather than
through constitutional change, that is a clear slap in the face to the
people of Canada, particularly the people of British Columbia.
The native population in British Columbia voted against the
Charlottetown accord with almost the same percentage as the
non-native population did. I have talked to enough native people to
know very clearly they do not favour this notion of inherent right to
self-government. I am talking about the ordinary grassroots people,
not the chiefs, not the people benefiting from it.
Now we have a process in place designed to achieve ends the
public does not support. They are not supported by legal
jurisprudence. The public is shut out of the process. There is no
opportunity for the public to even be involved. What do we have
but a bunch of bureaucrats getting their marching orders from
Ottawa and Victoria. They are up in my riding negotiating with the
Nisga'a. We hear rumours of these negotiations although we do not
even know for sure what has or has not been put on the table.
We hear rumours of a potentially massive conveyance of land,
$175 million in cash, 2,200 square kilometres of land and a
constitutionally protected right to 30 per cent of the Nass River
fishery on a basis of forever and ever. Let us not forget the deals
will be set in constitutional concrete. They will be forever. It is
vital that we not make mistakes. Of course, the governments of the
day are totally ignoring that.
(1150)
I took the time to canvass people in my riding. One of the
reasons I became so deeply involved in the issue is that I was
receiving hundreds of letters and phone calls from constituents
extremely uneasy with what they perceive to be a process taking
place behind closed doors with the potential to alter the social
fabric and the economic fabric of British Columbia with no
legitimate opportunity for public input.
As I said before, there are many parallels to the current national
unity issue we are seized with. There are two agendas in Canada,
the government's and the people's. Most of the time those agendas
are not in sync. The government is proposing to give distinct
society status to Quebec and to provide vetoes on a regional basis,
but it is not in sync with what the people of Canada want. We can
understand why the people of British Columbia, in particular the
people of rural British Columbia, are uncomfortable with the
17362
current process. There is no legitimate opportunity for them to be
involved. This is all going on behind closed doors.
The ratification process proposed by the government is that once
an agreement in principle is signed it will be brought to the House
for a vote. That means for the most part there will be members of
Parliament from the rest of Canada voting on legislation which will
have major, long term, far reaching consequences for the people of
British Columbia, which has a leaderless, lame duck administration
in Victoria that has lost virtually any shred of credibility.
That is the thrust of the motion today. It is in recognition of the
fact that the Government of British Columbia has no mandate and
has never sought a mandate to be involved in negotiations of this
magnitude. It has no credibility with the public. Its administration
is in shambles. It is caught up in scandal. The aboriginal people of
British Columbia, the ordinary grassroots people, are saying: ``We
are not represented in this process. The people negotiating on our
behalf do not have a mandate for us. We do not feel comfortable
with it. We do not feel comfortable that this will ever benefit us.
We think it will benefit the leaders. We think it will benefit the
negotiators''.
We are in the process of entering into agreements which will
forever change the landscape of British Columbia. They have the
potential to do that.
In canvassing my constituents, which I have taken the time and
the care to do, they have said very clearly they are looking for
finality and extinguishment. They want an end to the division. The
root cause of most of the problems in which native people find
themselves is that we have treated them separately from day one.
We have never given them the opportunity to be ordinary
Canadians. We have never treated them as if they are able and
capable of looking after themselves. We have built a pervasive
welfare system around native people in Canada which has robbed
them of their dignity, their self-esteem and their initiative.
(1155 )
The minister was talking about the poorest of the poor and what
we will do about aboriginal housing and about the plight of these
people.
Friederich von Hayek talks about the Liberal philosophy and the
socialist philosophy, which are virtually indistinguishable in this
country, and he talks about fatal conceit. The fatal conceit is that
people elected to government somehow feel like they have a God
given ability to correct all the problems of people and society
rather than letting those people have the opportunity to resolve
their own problems.
It is because of these interventionist, elitist, arrogant, top down
policies created by government and driven by government,
supposedly to solve all the problems, that we have the problems we
see on native reserves today.
What we are doing in this process right now, from my window, is
creating new and better ways to separate people by race. We are
saying the way we kept them separate and distinct and apart from
Canadian society in the past has not worked. It has been a failure.
The Indian Act is no good. Virtually everybody agrees with that
now. We will find a new and better way to keep them separate. We
will find a new and better way to give them a status different from
that of ordinary Canadians.
In the long run and maybe even the short run that as well
intentioned as some members opposite are on this issue, and they
feel this will resolve the problems of native people, it will entrench
them that much deeper. It will not solve their problems.
As the member for Esquimalt said in his remarks a few minutes
ago, we should be considering what is right, doing what will
actually work; an encouragement to these people to take control of
their own lives on an individual basis and forget about expecting
the government to solve their problems because the government
has a disastrous track record in that regard.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's
remarks this morning, as I did with preceding speakers.
For the record I will read the subject of the motion the Reform
Party put forward today and then talk about the hon. minister's
objection to it and why that is. In part it states:
That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral
aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current
provincial government mandate.
The hon. minister said that for the federal government to do that
would be insulting. I find that strange and more than a little
contradictory because it is the same government that had no
problem in arguing quite successfully that the EH-101 helicopter
purchase which the Tory government had entered into was not right
and we should not be doing that as a nation, that we should not be
spending the money on that.
It argued the Pearson airport deal was not right because it was
entered into in the dying days of the Mulroney administration and
should be cancelled.
It does not find that insulting, to back out of commitments made
by previous governments. Yet for some reason the hon. minister
seemed to think today it would be insulting the government of
British Columbia to insist that we do not enter into any trilateral
agreements with B.C. and the natives of British Columbia in the
17363
dying days of that administration. I find it more than a bit puzzling
and I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to remark on that.
I note with interest that the hon. minister spent almost his entire
20 minutes bashing Reformers for being aboriginal bashers. I find
that puzzling. That type of name calling and labelling is nothing
new for Reformers. We have been labelled that and subject to those
types of attacks right from the very beginning when we started our
party. We are going to insist on carrying forward sensible
arguments on this and other issues, even if they are non-politically
correct arguments, regardless of how we are attacked or how often
ministers openly attack us in the House.
(1200)
Would the hon. member care to remark on what he has done. One
of the things we have heard this morning is that the public is not
well enough informed and the expectations of the native people
have been raised. What about the awareness? What has this
member actually done in British Columbia to bring to the attention
of all British Columbians what is happening?
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
He is absolutely right. The minister began his remarks today by
having the gall to question the Reform Party for even wanting to
debate this issue in the House. He asked, how dare we to even want
to debate this issue? Is this not a democratic institution? Is this not
what this House is for? But, no, we should not be debating this.
Anytime we even raise an aboriginal issue and want to debate it, we
are labelled. Frankly that has an odour to it that I cannot abide.
Second, my colleague points out that the minister said that this
would be an insult to the province of British Columbia if the
government were to accept the motion of the Reform Party. For the
benefit of members in the House who do not live in British
Columbia, I could tell them how insulting the government of the
province of British Columbia has been to the citizens of British
Columbia in recent months. Its members have absolutely no regard
for the public interest. They put their own interest forward all the
time. They are so blatantly ideologically driven that there is no
hope they could ever be re-elected as a government in British
Columbia.
Yet this very administration is the one that is negotiating behind
closed doors, in secret, with the Nisga'a and with other aboriginal
groups right now and contemplating, as rumours go, making
agreements that are going to have long term implications for
British Columbia.
In response to the member's question on what I have done as a
member of Parliament and as a representative of the people of
Skeena since I was elected, I held a series of four town hall
meetings in my riding, in Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert and
Kitimat. I brought the issue to the people and said that we need to
have a public discussion on this.
Subsequent to that, my colleague and I went around the province
of British Columbia. We held town hall meetings at in Williams
Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, Nanaimo, Cranbrook and in several
areas in greater Vancouver. We have done as much as we possibly
can to bring the issue to the people, something that the province of
British Columbia, and I might add, the federal government have
never cared one whit about doing, not one whit.
The reason I feel so passionate about this, and I mean this
sincerely, is this. What is going to happen if the province of British
Columbia and the federal government sign a deal with which the
people cannot live? The native people's expectation levels are at an
all time high. They have been led to believe that these agreements,
once they are entered into and signed, are going to be abided by,
that they are going to be honoured. We already have opposition
parties in British Columbia saying that they do not intend to honour
them.
Think of the tremendous social upheaval we are going to have if
governments sign agreements with which the people are not going
to live, which the people do not want and will not accept. It is
absolutely critical that we do not sign agreements unless we are
sure they are going to be supported by the public.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from
Skeena for actually standing up and saying what he wants to do to
help those that the minister referred to as the poorest of the poor.
(1205 )
It is interesting to compare both speeches. The minister went on
a 20-minute diatribe against the Reform Party instead of stating
what he was going to do for the people who he claims are the
poorest of the poor in our society.
While we stand in the House talking rhetoric among political
parties, those aboriginal people who are on or off reserve that are
suffering from sexual abuse, violence and the poverty that they
endure, are still out there suffering. We should be ashamed in the
House to be seeing that happening.
Previous governments have created for the aboriginal people an
institutionalized welfare state. They have done this by giving
money to people in the honest expectation that it would help them.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, one cannot keep giving things
to people and expect them to have pride and self-respect. Pride and
self-respect comes from within one's person and it is rooted in the
ability of the person to take care of himself or herself.
17364
Contrary to what the minister said, I would like to ask my hon.
colleague from Skeena, and for him to reiterate if he could, that
the pursuit of the treaties is constitutionally and legally from the
court's point of view, illegal.
What does he propose to help those people on or off reserve who
are suffering from the terrible things that I mentioned previously?
How is he going to help the poorest of the poor stand on their own
two feet and take care of themselves? That is the root of the
problem.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. It is very clear that the plight of native people in Canada,
the tremendous social problems that we see on reserves, are a direct
result of the huge welfare state that we built up around them. It is
the arrogance and the elitist notion on the part of government that it
can fix problems by throwing money at them and creating new
programs and so on that entrenches these very serious human
conditions on native reserves.
What is required is for the government to say first, stop treating
aboriginals as if they all think and act and want the same things.
They are not communists. They are individuals just like we are.
They are individuals who have individual aspirations, desires,
visions, hopes and dreams.
We need to break that welfare state, start dismantling it. We need
to give a hand up to those people and encourage them to get out into
the private sector, to become ordinary citizens and provide them
with a one-time opportunity to make that transition easier.
We have to understand that the corollary of success is failure.
The government cannot guarantee success and it cannot guarantee
that people will not fail. That is axiomatic. That is something that
we have to live with. It is a human condition. It is natural law, if
you will. One cannot guarantee that anybody is going to be
successful. All one can do is try to make the conditions as fertile as
possible for success to happen.
I believe very strongly that when the government backs out of
this interventionist mode it is in right now and allows native Indian
people to take the bull by the horns and start controlling their own
lives, we will see some failures. There is no question about it.
However, we are going to start seeing successes. We will see more
success as time goes by.
When we talk about having native Indian people as ordinary
Canadians, I am not saying that I do not respect the culture. I
respect the culture and I respect that there are differences. Those
differences can and should be celebrated, but not celebrated in law,
not entrenched in the Constitution, not entrenched in
distinctiveness and separateness in law that is going to keep us
apart forever.
The gulf between native and non-native people is widening all
the time because of the policies of government, not because there is
a fundamental problem. It is the policies.
(1210 )
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced he was going to
increase access fees for fishermen, but the access fees were only
going to go up by 50 per cent for native fishermen but 100 per cent
for everyone else. I am convinced the native fishermen did not ask
for that. It was this minister who came up with some
woolly-thinking policy that this was what he should be doing. What
it does is create division. Why is it that we have the problems with
the native and non-native fishermen on the Fraser River system? It
is because government created a policy that allowed access to a
resource on a different basis based on race. That has to be done
away with.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing time with my distinguished colleague, the hon.
member for Vancouver Centre.
The motion put forward is an interesting one and I respect the
spirit in which it was put forward. It raises issues going to what is
called the lame duck status of government. It is a principle of
American constitutional law that I think sensibly could become
part of Canadian constitution law, but it is limited in its potential
application to actions taken by governments between the dropping
of an electoral writ and the return of the electoral writ and the
formation of a new government or the continuance of an old one.
Having said that, I would like to enter into discussion of some of
the very interesting issues that have been raised. This is a subject,
rightly said, of special concern to British Columbia. British
Columbia, as we all recognize, is not a province like the others and
in the area of land claims we do have elements of distinctiveness
that separate us off from the other provinces of Canada.
The substantial absence of treaties is one very important
consideration which has led to a proliferation of sometimes
overlapping claims. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the public
discussion and the lack always of full understanding of how these
complications can be removed.
I leave to one side the issue of the status of treaties, which is
something that has always interested me professionally. Do they
have international law status, as some argue, or are they simply
constitutional documents within the ambit of provincial law?
Elements of concern have been expressed in this debate on
which perhaps we could offer some clarification. I was, I think, the
first to suggest the implications for Canadian law of the
International Court's judgment in Western Sahara in 1975 and the
two concurring opinions which rested very strongly on the
argument
17365
made by then counsel, Mr. Bedjaoui who is now the president of
the World Court. Let me say that although I think they do raise the
intellectual challenge very effectively, which the court has
recognized, to the concept of acquisition of territorial title and
sovereignty by European colonial powers, they do not necessarily
raise any implications as to the dispositions in view of that and in
substitution for that. These are issues to which a body constituted
on an independent basis like the treaties commission, armed with
the facilities for research and the time for thinking, can offer fresh
light.
Let me say that it is a misconception to assume that
automatically by querying the original basis of acquisition of
sovereignty over North America one automatically displaces
supervening claims. In fact, in the most recent international law
act, the two-by-four treaty, the treaty between the four occupation
powers of Germany and the two Germanies about to be reunited,
there is a specific clause that effectively saves supervening third
party rights. It leaves open the issue of how one balances the
claims.
What I am saying is that one anticipates in British Columbia an
orderly process of claims adjustments and settlements in which the
claims of everybody can be and will be considered if properly
presented by counsel as is counsel's duty. As yet no definitive
answer can be given, but it should bring some satisfaction to many
of the people who have raised these issues with us to know that the
orderly process does allow taking into full account the acquired
third party rights.
(1215)
In a sense the legal problems in British Columbia are sui generis.
They are peculiar to British Columbia. To a large extent we get into
conflicts between different cultural conceptions of law: the
European concept of fixed territorial frontiers and non-European
concepts which may emphasize mobility and expression of
territorial interests in which land is secondary or subordinate to the
notion of ethnicity. It is an interesting example of the clash of legal
concepts. It is the sort of thing I expect the commission will
consider because it will have to be considered in the process of the
settlement of land claims.
The issue of the participation and consent of local communities
has been raised. It has been asked if there was full consultation. I
cannot speak of the particular cases now being cited in the debate,
but on the precedent that the federal government followed in the
bill which was before the House in relation to the northern
territories, there was a very substantial provision for consultation
with local interests. I believe there is nothing in the implementation
of the commission process which prevents local interests, local
municipal authorities and others from bringing forward their views
and making their arguments. It is not excluded by the act. The
initiative rests with those concerned.
When an independent commission is set up, it takes on a life of
its own. It develops its own precedents. It is very much dependent
on intelligent lawyer-manship by those people who want to bring
forward their own interests and their claims. The commission is a
body which has interesting people appointed to it. They are
independent in their outlook. I would suggest to hon. members that
they exercise to the full the process of making known to the
commission the different and sometimes conflicting interests of the
different people involved.
One of the great problems in British Columbia which
distinguishes it from the rest of the country is that, simply because
of the absence of treaties, there has not been the process of the
sorting out of claims which I encountered in my previous
professional work in dealing with, for example, the province of
Alberta. This accounts for the overlapping and competing claims
which sometimes, in the superficial extent, exceed the total amount
of land involved in a region. This can be sorted out and sensibly,
this is the mandate of the commission.
Problems of this sort complicate the matter in the public
perception. In terms of the commission, I believe it is an excellent
step forward. I am satisfied with the independence and the quality
of the people concerned.
I urge hon. members to indicate to their constituents, particularly
to the very thoughtful people at the municipal level that the process
is not closed. The door is open for participants to bring their
interests forward. The commission itself is not in the position of
deciding on a dichotomous basis all here or all there. There is room
for the acceptance of third party claims. There is room for
apportionment of benefits. Following the international law as it has
developed since the western Sahara case, international law itself is
in the making. One would expect equitable settlements in which the
largest possible range of participants is involved.
(1220)
It is a new approach to the pluralizing of our legal system and the
participation in it. This is better than doing it through the court
system as such. Of course, decisions of commissions are also
subject to limitation and control by the courts in respect to ultimate
constitutional principles. Everything done is under the Constitution
and under the charter of rights. The charter of rights as we know is
a house of very many rooms.
I compliment the speakers on both sides of the House on the
fervour with which they have entered into this debate. I have taken
note of the points they have raised, but I believe they can be
achieved within this ambitious process that the bill the minister
originally introduced involves.
17366
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talked about a substantial absence of
treaties in British Columbia. That is correct. The assumption is
often made that because there is a substantial absence of treaties
and largely a reserve system in place, there is somehow an
overriding legal obligation on the part of governments to enter into
treaties.
A legal counsel for the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development confirmed to me very recently that the
current federal government position is that there is no legal
obligation or imperative on the part of the federal government to
enter into treaties in British Columbia. That is certainly consistent
with what I had thought. It is also consistent with the position of the
provincial government.
This means to me that government should only be entering into
this process if there is something in it for all parties. This is the
quid pro quo or trade-off I mentioned in my speech. My first
question for the member would be whether that indeed is his
interpretation as well.
There was some discussion about an independent commission. I
assume the member is talking about the B.C. Treaty Commission.
There was some debate about the B.C. Treaty Commission recently
in the House when we debated Bill C-107, which is the enabling
federal legislation, albeit quite tardy.
The terms of reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission actually
leaves it rather toothless. In most areas of endeavour the
commission can suggest but it is not very much of a decision
maker. The commission is called the keeper of the process. Some
things as basic as readiness guidelines for some of the participants
in the negotiations were not foreseen at the time the enabling
legislation was put together. For example, regional advisory
committees do not have readiness guidelines that fall within the
terms of reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This has been
pointed out by many parties as a shortcoming. Therefore, it has no
mandate.
What has happened in some circumstances in B.C. is that
negotiations have pushed ahead by either the federal and/or
provincial negotiators without the regional advisory committees
actually being ready. This is quite a handicap and of course creates
consternation at the local level. My second question would relate to
that area.
The third and final area I would ask the member about would be
the role of municipalities which he mentioned. Municipalities are
recognized nowhere in the B.C. Treaty Commission terms of
reference. There is a separate provincial memorandum of
understanding. They are kind of a sidebar arrangement with the
province. The municipalities through the Union of B.C.
Municipalities are saying that their actual costs already, early in the
process, are at least double that which the provincial government is
compensating them.
(1225)
I would say the door is not open. The door is ajar. It is a very
unsatisfactory situation. There must be a much better way to
approach this subject. Does the member have some suggestions in
that regard?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very
thoughtful series of questions.
On the first point, what we are talking about relates to what I
spoke of as the ambiguity in the term ``treaties''. What one is really
seeking is a movement from unwritten or customary law to written
law. This could be done by a contract, by legislation or it could be
done by something else. The ultimate aim of the process is to
reduce to written uncontrovertible form what the legal rights are.
The complication I referred to of overlapping claims is virtually
inevitable and it has been demonstrated in jurisdictions other than
our own when we do not have things written down. That was the
big advantage of the treaties in whatever legal category we put
them to.
On the commissions, my own experience in administrative law
and public administration is that it depends a good deal on the
imagination and the civil courage of the commission itself and the
players in it. The players include the lawyers and others appearing
before it. To a very large extent an ambitious commission
establishes its own agenda. It redefines its own mandate. I
encourage all parties interested in the equitable disposition of B.C.
land claims to try to do that.
On municipalities, the hon. member was right in saying that the
specific provision is not there. There is nothing excluding it. Since
they are major players in relation to the third party claims,
supervening claims, subsequent to any original title, such as it may
be, municipalities are directly involved and they are important
players in the political processes.
In the previous federal legislation relating to the northern
territories there was an enormous amount of provision by the
federal government for consultation of local interests. I think the
encouragement would be to the municipal councils where they
have legitimate interests that they feel they want to express to
communicate them. The answer can only be no or ``yes, we would
love to hear you''. I would think in a facultative sense a good
commission tries to do just that.
It is law in the making. A good deal will depend on the good
faith, good spirit but also the professional preparation that
interested parties do. That would be the main message I would
encourage our B.C. voters to adopt in this approach.
I thank the member for his questions. I would add that the debate
we are having today constitutes in legal terms travaux
préparatoires, which simply means that it may be cited as evidence
for the future of what the law in this area should be and is.
17367
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is one further area I would like
to explore with the member and I will do it very quickly.
There is a lot of concern and a lack of support for the way the
negotiations are occurring. There is a lack of confidence in many
people because the negotiations are run provincially by an
aboriginal affairs department and federally by the department of
Indian affairs. People consider it a total conflict of interest which is
lopsided.
Could the member comment on that, please.
(1230)
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment specifically.
My experience in negotiations in this general area was in situations
where there were treaties in force, treaties 6, 7, 8 and 9. There the
process of the negotiations was happy with all parties. If there is
something at fault here it may go down to the handling of particular
cases.
I just do not have the direct information. If there is a feeling of
dissatisfaction, maybe that is a matter to take up directly with the
commission and to be led as such. The commission would want to
satisfy itself that negotiations have been properly conducted and
evidence properly assessed.
I commend to the hon. member, if he has information, to bring it
to the attention of the commission.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today
to respond specifically to the motion of the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River that the House:
-not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim
agreements in B.C. in the last year of the provincial government mandate-
Inherent in the motion is the issue my hon. friend referred to
recently, which is the lame duck issue that seeks to nullify the
powers of any government in the last year of its mandate. This is
the most cynical statement I have ever heard from any party of any
legislature or House.
Does this then suggest that any process-and one in this case
that is so clearly in the best interest of the people of British
Columbia and of the aboriginal people-must be put on the back
burner for political consideration?
Surely Canadians deserve to know that their governments can
make policy decisions that are sustainable and not politically
biased but people biased in the best interest of Canadians.
Government serves the people. Whatever the stripe of
government, good public policy and the integrity of government as
a whole must be kept sacrosanct.
Reformers are suggesting then, or are they, that they do not want
to be bound by the decisions legally and morally agreed upon in a
trilateral, provincial government, aboriginal people and federal
government negotiated contract.
Since the 1800s, that is over a century ago, aboriginal people
have been trying to negotiate validity of land claims with the
British Columbia government. It has constantly rejected this
validity based on the fact that it was a federal responsibility, or this
is what it said.
The process has taken so long that finally in 1990 the B.C.
government, a Social Credit government, took a major step and
began a process to right this wrong. The three parties, that is the
First Nations, the federal government and the provincial
government, have since agreed to the process, and this is what is
happening now.
I hope we will not accept this motion which in effect seeks to
further delay the process. The people of B.C., the aboriginal people
and the people of Canada have been waiting for far too long.
During the second reading stage of the bill that sets up the
commission, members of the third party stood repeatedly and
complained about how long the process was taking. Now they are
seeking to set up another barrier to the process.
In 1989 we witnessed the end of the cold war and the Berlin Wall
coming down. One year later it seemed that another longstanding
barrier had been removed, a barrier that had stood between
aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and the economic and
social development to which they aspired.
Good governments must bring down barriers, not raise them as I
see the third party in effect attempting to do with this kind of
doublespeak. Future generations may well regard 1990 as a
singular turning point in the history of British Columbia's
aboriginal peoples, the year in which they were offered a glimmer
of hope.
Settling land claims is the single most important thing that can
be done in British Columbia to help aboriginal communities.
Uncertainty over land claims has been a barrier to economic
development for all British Columbians for quite a while.
Uncertainty has hindered aboriginal participation in land and
resource management. All British Columbians know that when we
solve these problems it will mean greater self-sufficiency. It will
mean jobs. It will mean employment for the people who have long
been disempowered to take their rightful equal place in Canadian
society.
In addition to the ownership of settlement lands in the area
covered by the treaty, the final agreements may include specific
measures to stimulate economic development. This may include
resource revenue sharing. This may include sharing of royalties
derived from resource extraction throughout the area.
17368
(1235 )
It is not only economic good that we seek in these treaty
negotiations. We have seen in the aboriginal sacred summit that
began across the river in Hull last week, a summit of aboriginal
elders organized by the hon. member for Churchill, that the
attachment to nature and to the Creator by aboriginal peoples is a
central element of their spirituality. Land claims are more than just
economic; they are spiritual to the people of British Columbia's
aboriginal communities.
I think the House would agree the decision by the provincial
government to come to the negotiating table was of paramount
importance. Prior to 1990 aboriginal Canadians in British
Columbia were offered no hope and no equality of benefits. I
remind the House of some of the developments that led to that
turning point because in those developments there is a profound
irony.
One key player in convincing the British Columbia government
to reverse its historical opposition to negotiating treaties was the
minister of native affairs for the province at that time, Mr. Jack
Weisgerber. Mr. Weisgerber was a Social Credit cabinet minister
when British Columbia decided to negotiate. Today he is the leader
of the Reform Party in British Columbia. What irony that the
decision was taken by a man who had vision unlike what is being
proposed across from the House.
In 1989 provincial governments appointed the premiers advisory
committee on native affairs. The council travelled through the
province and met with bands and tribal councils to suggest a
solution to address the social and economic issues facing
aboriginal people. They were not seeking to continue to erect
barriers. And so the province began the process of coming to the
negotiating table.
The advisory council made its recommendations to cabinet in
1990 and shortly thereafter Mr. Weisgerber signed the Nisga'a
framework agreement. For the first time in the history of British
Columbia a province was negotiating a land claim. Soon the B.C.
government was deeply involved in the process of bringing the
First Nations to the table.
B.C. participated in the First Nations summit and the province
met with the federal government in B.C. By the time Bill 22 that
created the legislative authority for the B.C. treaty commission
came into the legislature, Mr. Weisgerber was no longer a cabinet
minister but sat on the opposition benches.
However the new NDP government continued the process begun
by the Social Credit government although it was of a different
political stripe. By doing so it reaffirmed people's faith in the
certainty of public policy free from the vagaries of petty subjective
politics.
I quote what Mr. Weisgerber said at the time of the debate in the
legislature. He pointed out that the strategy for government in
British Columbia for 125 to 130 years had been to deny that a
problem with treaties existed, a philosophy it seems the third party
still continues to espouse. He said:
It became increasingly clear to us, as we travelled and met with groups
around the province, that if we were going to address the root of the social and
economic problems, we had to deal with the land claim question.
This was a bold and visionary conclusion to make. It took great
political courage. It overturned the accepted political wisdom of
the day. It acknowledged a simple reality. It was a a daring act of
great statesmanship by a politician who put the public good before
political ideology. I urge members of the third party to take a leaf
from that book.
In 1991 a new provincial government, the NDP government,
accepted the recommendations of the last government. Also in
1991 a federal government accepted the recommendations of a
provincial government that was not of the same political stripe.
Mr. Weisgerber went on to predict to the B.C. legislature that the
First Nations would be very able negotiators. He urged the
provincial government to negotiate every bit as effectively for the
interest of all British Columbians. He said that negotiations had to
be tough but fair.
These are the views of a British Columbian who is not only one
of the founders of the current treaty process. I have quoted him at
length because of the motion by the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River. He asked that the federal government not
enter into agreements in order to respect the views of British
Columbians on the land claims issue as expressed by both major
provincial parties. The leader of one of those provincial opposition
parties, the Reform Party of British Columbia, is Mr. Jack
Weisgerber, the man who in 1990 put justice before politics.
It is clear British Columbians want to get on with the task of
resolving land claims and to become a stable environment for
economic growth once again. The process is a good one. The
aboriginal peoples approve and both levels of government agree.
We cannot put the process on hold each time a government nears
the end of its mandate. It is unjust, unfair and cruel.
(1240)
Where would we be today if we had followed the logic of the
hon. member's motion? We would actually be a federal Liberal
government and an NDP provincial government not taking up a
policy that was carried on in good faith because it was in the best
interest of the people.
Back in May 1993 the previous federal government had been in
power for nearly five years, since the 1988 election. The former
Prime Minister had announced his intention to step down and the
Progressive Conservative Party was in the middle of a leadership
convention. Did the provincial government and the aboriginal
summit say at that time: ``Wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't pass
this legislation. After all, the federal government is nearing the end
17369
of its mandate. Let's wait until the next federal election?'' Did they
say that? Of course they did not.
Canadians elect their representatives to serve for a full mandate.
The people hope that vicarious politics will not stop good public
policy. This would leave to massive destabilization in Canada
every four years and to a meaningless international trade and
provincial controls. We have seen how this type of political
grandstanding brought the United States government to a halt
recently.
Let us allow the British Columbia government to get on with its
business in a way that it deems appropriate. Let us get back to our
own responsibilities for taking measures that will improve the
economic and social prospects of aboriginal people in Canada.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member talked about the motion somehow being
cynical.
Under normal circumstances a government in the last several
months of its mandate does not enter into major binding
commitments. If it does so, it is at the peril of the arrangements
being cancelled. There is a clear precedent for that in the province
of British Columbia and there is a clear precedent for that federally.
This administration should know that better than anyone. This
administration cancelled the EH-101 project. This administration
tried to cancel the Pearson deal.
The province of British Columbia should voluntarily back off.
However it has indicated that it wants a deal by January. The
likelihood is that there will be an election between March and June.
This is totally inappropriate for a precedent setting agreement.
There are 47 other agreements being negotiated and this would
become the precedent. As I mentioned earlier, $10 billion is the
early price tag put on this business.
There was discussion about the Nisga'a framework agreement
entered into by Mr. Weisgerber in 1991. I talked about it earlier in
my speech. I quoted section 7.1.1 which is often used to say there
was no openness in the agreement and that Mr. Weisgerber had
agreed to it. I do not have to defend Mr. Weisgerber. However I can
read what the agreement says. To me it does not say what it has
been interpreted to say. I will read it again:
The parties will together develop and implement a process of public
information and consultation and will attend meetings with such selected
individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process
of public consensus building, and the parties may separately carry out such
additional consultation and communication initiatives as they see fit, including
initiatives to obtain a broad range of input and consensus.
Those are hardly cloaked in mystery, secret or non-transparent
negotiations.
(1245 )
There is a further interpretation by the member that somehow
our motion is suggesting there should not be any negotiations. That
is not what we are saying at all. We are saying there should not be
no conclusive negotiations, no conclusive agreement during this
latter part of this current mandate at the provincial level.
It is a very simple, limited request. The member is
misinterpreting it.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the two
points. The first is that is appropriate to create a lame duck
government in the last year of any government's term. This is so
inappropriate.
This is a process that has spanned two governments. It is a
process that began in the last year of a Social Credit government. It
was picked up by an NDP government and continues to be carried
on. It occurred because it was good public policy. Obviously, good
public policy will be seen to be such and it must be a process that
can be carried on.
If a provincial government should stop in a tripartite process
with another level of government and with a group of people duly
set up by their own people to negotiate in good faith, then when the
provincial government does that in the last year of its mandate and
the federal government does that in the last year of its mandate,
once in every three years will we have any negotiation at any
signatory. It makes every single level of government ineffective.
It also makes the aboriginal people, who are the third party
negotiating with them, wonder whether this is a worthwhile process
at all. It makes a mockery of any type of negotiated process.
Second, the hon. member referred to what Mr. Weisgerber said
and to the changes in the process of the Nisga'a treaty sinceMr. Weisgerber had set it up. He is right.
What Mr. Weisgerber did say, and I listened carefully to the
quote, is not that we stop the process but that we continue to refine
it as we find flaws in it. That is extremely appropriate.
What this member is asking is that we stop the process that has
been on the table. Negotiations are going on. People may come to a
conclusion any moment now and we must ignore all of the year's
work that has been done to get to that point. This does not make any
sense to me. It is an ineffective way for any government, any
negotiations to take place.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers will be splitting their time from this point
onward today.
17370
I would like to rebut one thing the hon. member preceding me
said. She seemed to imply that somehow Reformers would be
creating a lame duck government, as she called it. In actuality,
the NDP in British Columbia has done a very good job of creating
a lame duck government all by itself. That responsibility rests with
it and no one else.
We are now entering the 21st century. As we look at the B.C.
treaty process we have an obligation to future generations of
Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We must enter into
negotiations with a clear view of what we are trying to accomplish.
I believe a fundamental objective to any negotiations with native
Canadians should be equality.
If there are historical grievances they should be resolved. The
end result should be equality, not the creation of two classes of
citizens and not the creation of more special rights to individuals
depending on race. We are all Canadians and government policy
should not be based on guilt or some misguided sense of righting
past wrongs.
British Columbians have recognized this. The opposition parties
also realize the underlying principles of the current treaty
negotiations in B.C. are flawed. It is time to look forward, not
backward.
(1250 )
Certainly we must learn from the grim history of past Indian
policies in Canada. However, what is the fundamental lesson to be
learned? It is simply that policies which have given Indians special
rights and status under the guise of protecting them have utterly
failed. For many years Indians lost their status and right to live with
their families on reserves if they received a university degree or if
they defended our country or values in wars overseas. They were
not even allowed to vote until the 1960s. Children were taken from
their families and sent to foster homes or residential schools.
Although Indian communities have known about it for decades, the
stories of physical, emotional and sexual abuse suffered by those
children are only now coming to light in the mainstream press.
Just this week the church has finally issued an apology for the
suffering caused by its members.
That Indians were mistreated, used and abused is well
documented. However, it does neither natives nor non-natives any
good to dwell on the past. It will not solve today's problems. We
must learn from mistakes to make sure we do not repeat them, but
it is time to move on.
The treaty process in B.C. is going in the wrong direction. It is
designed to perpetuate inequality. In the Constitution Act of 1982
aboriginal and treaty rights were given constitutional protection.
That means any treaties we enter hastily into now will be virtually
unchangeable, no matter how flawed or unsustainable they may
prove to be.
Any legal obligations to Indian communities should be cleared
up as soon as possible because until we do, the question of
aboriginal title will remain unresolved and the legal uncertainty
over the ownership of land and resources will continue.
Settlements must be affordable and settlements must be final. If
the federal and provincial governments purport to represent the
interests of all Canadians they will only negotiate what the courts
have stated the government is legally liable for.
As far as I know, the courts have not said the government has to
turn large tracts of land over to native communities. In the
Delgamuukw case, as has already been stated, the judges
recognized an aboriginal interest in the land but not an outright
title. Therefore legally the crown does not have to turn over title to
all lands that a band claims as traditional territory, but it does have
to recognize certain traditional rights to use those lands.
We must respect these court decisions because they are based on
the constitutional protection of aboriginal rights. Therefore any
agreements the government signs should fully meet our legal
obligations but should not go beyond them. If the government feels
it has a moral obligation to offer more, then all such offers should
be made outside of the treaty process.
The governments of the day do not have a mandate to incur
unsustainable debts beyond their legal obligation in the name of
our children. They do not have the right to create citizens-plus by
enshrining new treaties which give additional rights based on
membership in a particular band or community. This will soon be
the 21st century, not the 12th.
I would be very pleased if any member opposite, in fact anybody
participating in the B.C. treaty process, could point out where in
the Constitution it states we must enter into new treaties. I
recognize that existing treaties have constitutional protection but I
have not found the section that states we must enter into dozens,
perhaps hundreds, more treaties.
Government has a legal and moral obligation to resolve disputes
or grievances with all Canadians, whether aboriginal or not. I am
not aware of the case law which states we must use a treaty process
to do it. In every other segment of our society grievances are settled
with some type of finite, quantifiable compensation. Why not
Indian claims?
It is long past time that historical differences were dealt with, but
the end result should be some sort of cash compensation, not a
treaty with constitutionally entrenched special rights or status.
Cash settlements would allow individual natives to determine their
17371
own futures. They could start their own small business, buy land or
put it in the bank for their children if that was there wish.
If land is to be on the table also then it should be transferred to
individual recipients on the same fee simple basis as to all other
Canadians who own land.
(1255 )
The tax exempt status of the current reserve system afforded by
the Indian Act was based on a paternalistic idea that Indians would
sell off the land to the first unscrupulous businessman who
happened to walk by. Nobody, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, wants
the Indian Act any more. That also means getting rid of the tax
exempt status. If natives are to participate in today's economy they
must participate on an equal footing with all other Canadians.
Anyone who might suggest this would not be just or fair as a
settlement is guilty of paternalistic racism. If government or native
leaders suggest land can only be transferred as reserve lands held in
common, they are suggesting native Canadians are incapable of
making sound business decisions and government must still be
responsible for protecting native interests because they cannot do it
themselves.
What is the legacy of past treaties? First and foremost, it is the
reserve system. This was a deliberate policy by the government to
isolate and concentrate natives in easily managed groups. It was a
bad policy from start to finish. The poverty, low life expectancies,
health problems and social problems found on so many reserves
across the country cannot be a fluke. Natives from the east coast,
from the north, from the prairies and from fishing communities on
the west coast are not from the same cultures or traditions. The
problems we see on reserves are not because the people are Indians.
The biggest part of the problem is the reserve system itself.
I believe first and foremost that all Canadians should have the
right to equal opportunities. No one should have special rights or
privileges based on race. This means we all pay taxes and we all
have access to the same programs. All third party interests should
be taken into consideration. This is not what is happening in B.C.
today. The majority of British Columbians have grave concerns
about the current B.C. treaty commission process.
We must reach just settlements with B.C. natives as soon as
possible so we can all move on. These settlements must be final,
affordable and must extinguish all future claims to land, resources
or special rights and privileges. Without equality we will never
have long term social and economic stability in Canada.
The enormous social problems we see on reserves today cannot
be addressed through treaties. Treaties and reserves are, in my
view, a big part of the problem.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated there should be
direct cash compensation instead of negotiated settlements with
aboriginal peoples. Cash does form part of the settlements
negotiated with aboriginal peoples. However, cash alone will not
provide the kind of certainty and long lasting, enduring settlement
necessary in this type of negotiation. This type of negotiation will
benefit all of British Columbia in the end because we will be able to
put these negotiated settlements to rest once and for all.
Negotiated agreements have been based on a range of benefits.
There is a necessity to provide that range to continue to have an
enduring and lasting distribution of rights for the native peoples,
which have to cover harvesting rights, participation in wildlife and
environmental management.
The hon. member said he did not know where there was a legal
basis for settlement comprehensive land claims. In 1973 the
supreme court ruling in the Calder case acknowledged the
existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More recently, in the
Sparrow case the supreme court recognized a constitutionally
protected aboriginal right to fish for food. The courts have
emphasized in these cases that the proper way to resolve
outstanding claims to aboriginal rights and title to land and
resources must be through negotiated agreements.
The hon. member said we should fee simple or its equivalent.
That is exactly what we are doing. Perhaps the hon. member might
acquaint himself better with what the treaty negotiation process is
all about.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as usual
the hon. member opposite has covered a lot of ground.
(1300)
She said I said I favoured direct cash compensation and that I did
not favour negotiated settlements. That is ridiculous. That is not
what I said at all.
I said I was in favour of cash settlements but obviously it will
have to be negotiated. How can government come to some
agreement on how much cash to turn over to the natives without
negotiating it? That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. That is
not what I was saying. The only reason she said that was she was
hearing, as is so often the case, exactly what she wanted to hear
when she was listening to my remarks.
That points to the fundamental problem Reformers have in the
House and outside the House. We try to shed light on subjects that
are politically sensitive, as so many are, whether outstanding native
claims or immigration or gay rights, whatever is deemed politically
incorrect to speak on.
17372
When Reformers and put forward the policies we want to put
forward, we are attacked. If we spend all our time trying to defend
ourselves from the statements we heard this morning once again in
the House, we will never be able to put forward our own
alternatives, which is the function of an opposition party, to put
forward alternatives for the Canadian people.
That is the real question here. Will we have an open process?
Will we have a process that welcomes input from everyone? Will
we continue to see these types of settlements actually being done
behind closed doors where there are a very few people included in
the process: the native leadership, the native industry comprised of
consultants and engineers and lots of lawyers. Will we broaden that
to include the people themselves, not only the aboriginal people of
British Columbia but the non-aboriginal people in the process and
make them aware of what is happening?
Further, the member made a comment about the legal basis of
these. What I was referring to is I do not see anywhere where there
is a legal basis for entering into treaties. Yes, we have to have
settlements. We have to have agreements. I do not see where we
have to enter into a treaty which confers on one group special
rights, constitutionally entrenched, not conferred on all Canadians.
As long as we have that we will see more divisiveness. We will
be driving the wedge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people
deeper and deeper instead of trying to mend the problems of the
past that I referred to in my speech and instead of trying to move
beyond that eventually.
We cannot achieve equality overnight. The Reform Party is not
saying we can wave a magic wand and all of a sudden we are all
equal. We recognize that some segments of society, the poorest of
the poor, are starting out a lot lower down and we have to give them
a hand up. A hand up is not a continual and perpetual handout. The
people do not want it and we should not want to give it to them
because it is not the answer.
If a handout forever were the answer, certainly spending
upwards of $9 billion a year on aboriginal programs within the
confines the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and outside would have solved the problem by now.
We are spending in the neighbourhood of $9,000 million on
these people. Yes, we all want to see the problem solved, but
throwing money will not solve the problem or we would have done
it long ago.
It has also been said repeatedly today that a very select few,
although a growing industry, are profiting from that, this Indian
industry. When I visit reserves in my riding like Fort Ware, a
disastrous example of a reserve, I see the assistance that we all so
desperately want to ensure gets to the poorest of the poor is not
reaching them. It is not doing the job.
No matter how much more we spend every year, it is not doing
the job. We have to look beyond that. We have to look for new
answers.
(1305 )
The whole thrust of my speech was that in the end the ultimate
goal for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must be
equality, the equal treatment of all our citizens.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in this debate today. I will address the
actual decision or policy to negotiate treaties.
This government policy is more advanced in British Columbia
than elsewhere across the country. A growing amount of concern is
arising in British Columbia as this process takes place. The concern
is not only in British Columbia but is starting to spread across the
country. There is input today from grassroots aboriginals. Their
concern is that this negotiation progress may lead to a situation in
which there is just a transfer of power to a more local level where
they still would not have any say as to what is going to happen in
their lives. On the non-aboriginal side there is a growing concern
that we do not know what is being negotiated.
When we look at the concerns arising we tend to think an
approach was taken to negotiate versus going to the courts. By
negotiating it stays within the parliamentary jurisdiction whereas if
it were taken into the legal field it would be within the court
jurisdiction. It is still here in the House. This negotiation process is
seen to be the route to go.
When we get a good idea we have to market it for it to catch on
and be accepted. There was not that communication for this policy
and this approach to the situation. The concerns are mounting to a
point that the concerns are being expressed in the provincial
legislature in British Columbia by the opposition sides.
There have been statements that they may not recognize the
existing agreements. I believe the Nisga'a band is the one most
advanced and used as the example.
I do not wish to debate all the examples occurring within the
negotiation process. I would like to address my remarks to the
concerns. They are not only communication concerns from both
sides of the table and the public. There is also the whole process of
negotiation. If we put negotiation into a management-labour
context, the membership knows what is on the table and what is
being negotiated. The doors may be closed to the negotiation rooms
when that is actually taking place but we still know the types of
topics on the table.
The municipalities are suggesting they are not represented at the
table. Another comeback to that is the municipalities are repre-
17373
sented by the provincial representatives we elect. However, the
problem is the information from the negotiation is not coming back
to the people or is not even put to the people beforehand so that we
know what is on the table, what is being discussed and what the
possible parameters are for a subsequent decision. That is one
aspect of the negotiation process that is very faulty.
Another problem occurring and giving rise to concern is the
various definitions. For example, there are a great number of
Canadians who thought this negotiation process would be
addressed to existing treaties or the historical treaties. I believe the
government approach was to negotiate those treaties and come up
with an extinguishment thereof, then satisfy that commitment
made in our history and then get on to building life as Canadians in
unity. What we are hearing now are things like modern treaties,
living treaties, aboriginal rights, extinguishment. We do not really
know what these terms mean. This again is causing concern.
(1310)
When the Hamilton report came out it tried to address the
extinguishment and aboriginal rights. One of the things identified
in the Hamilton report, or before that, is that when the aboriginals
go in to negotiate a treaty they leave all their rights at the door.
They go in trying to see what they can get. That is not cricket in
negotiations. When a negotiation is entered into, one does have
rights somewhere which should be identified. Even between
management and labour the previous contract is a starting point.
One of the things that is happening is the concept of rights. What
does that mean? The Hamilton report tries to address it with the
following point of view. When a treaty is negotiated, the decisions
reached by all parties become the rights of all parties and the next
time a treaty is negotiated it commences with those rights. The
report also suggests we address the extinguishment aspect of this.
Once the topic has been addressed and agreed on it is extinguished
and no longer comes up. I believe there is an opening clause. If not,
there should be an opening clause so that when society changes that
can come back to the table.
There is some sort of finality which could address the
extinguishment. That tends to give rise to where this modern treaty
or the living treaty comes into play. I do not believe this concept
was apparent when the original policy was established. Unless we
hear more information as to where this kind of thing can lead us,
that in itself will provide concern.
To get back to the process and concern aspect of it, there is
concern from a parliamentary point of view of actually getting to
the point. I do not wish to address the contents of the bill on the
B.C. commission at this point. My point is we had a bill come into
the House for debate that was actually established by an agreement
between three parties that had representatives there. The House
was actually debating something that had already been established.
I can understand that the possibility of defeating that bill creates
a horrendous amount of work. We would have to backtrack to all
that was done before that. However, because these are our
representatives, it could possibly have been debated in the House
before the parties went into agreement and that there were some
parameters set so that we knew what was going to be on that table
when the negotiations were undertaken.
Another thing that comes out of this when we are talking about
cultural groups again is the process taking place. This concern
arises when we hear such things as aboriginals referring to
themselves as nations. The obvious conclusion to that would be
nations within a nation. The perception of how that would work is
unknown. That is a concern to us.
We also must look at the unity point of view. We have on the one
hand a negotiation process that could feasibly terminate in this
nations within nation concept or be the first step toward that in our
future. On the other hand we have a parliamentary kind of process
going on with the Quebec situation, which is again a divisiveness
kind of thing. I should restrict my remarks to the aboriginal
process. But are we creating through this process another
possibility to be debating unity somewhere down the line? I have
some concerns on that.
(1315)
What we have to look at in this whole thing-and British
Columbia is trying to get the message across to Canadians-is that
a lack of information is getting out to the people. We do not know
what is being discussed at the table. We are sitting here wondering
with what we will be left.
The counter argument to that is we do have representatives there.
My point is that they have not come out and discussed things with
whoever they are representing and then taken that information back
to the table.
To give my comments more clarity, think of management and
union negotiations. We know what these people are talking about
behind closed doors. We know all the parameters of it, but we know
that their discussions will eventually lead to something. We may
not get all we want, but we might get part of what we want.
I suggest very strongly to the government that it can no longer
negotiate behind closed doors. It has to be up front. B.C. is in a
position that it is much further ahead than the rest of the country on
this negotiation situation. If we are having problems in British
Columbia, then it is going to transfer all across this country as we
go along, unless we change some of the things we are doing in the
process right now. Municipal governments have to be informed of
17374
how their concerns get represented at that table and there has to be
a mechanism for that to occur, et cetera.
The other item that has to be put out in general terms is what is
this self-government thing we are talking about. Is it a municipal
kind of situation? Is it a provincial kind of situation? Will it lead to
individual territories within our country, or will it lead to the
possibility of future negotiations in relation to unity? These are
some of the concerns I have about the whole process.
We should be looking at the British Columbia situation, not only
with what is happening today, but where this will lead us in our
future, 10, 15, 100 years from now.
Is the Hamilton report strictly based on negotiations and setting
the parameters? I would assume it is not far afield from being
incorporated into this process as it was commissioned by the
minister.
The modern treaty, the living treaty, has to be identified. There
has to be some kind of indication to the public, both aboriginal and
non-aboriginal, that this negotiation process can be speeded up,
that we are not looking at another 20 or 30 years to negotiate
individual contracts.
There is concern for the situation in British Columbia and it has
reached the ears of the political components in that province. They
are also expressing concerns about aspects of this process. I
sincerely hope and recommend that the government stop and have a
look at what is actually occurring here and coming up with some
sort of options, if they choose to follow this policy, in which they
can address some of these concerns.
There is one other point I would like to make before I close. A
great number of these negotiations are based on the fact that the
self-government component of the band will be democratic. Yet for
the band to establish that democratic process and hold elections,
they really do not have an appeal process to a Canadian election
officer, other than an appeal to the minister. This should be
addressed as well and bring them into the Canadian process of
elections.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
referred to the Quebec referendum process at one point. I recall the
Reform Party talking about the need to continue government as
usual. However, in this case we are being asked to hold back a
process until there is an election in British Columbia. That election
could be in the far distant future. It has not been called and it does
not need to be called for some time. This appears to be a
contradiction in the policy of the Reform Party.
(1320)
The second point which I want to make relates to the comment
which was made about the negotiations being held in secret. It is
very clear that any negotiation requires an element of secrecy. It is
required when we buy a car. We do not let the bottom line be known
right away. However, in the case of the negotiations about which
we speak today, the Government of Canada has issued a statement
indicating how it intends to ensure that the treaty making process
will be open and accessible and how public records will be
maintained. In fact, there will be a sharing of information.
I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the statement and what
her comments would be on the analogy with Quebec.
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, my comment expresses my
concern about the situation in relation to unity. There is a unity
debate going on between one province and Canada. However, there
is the possibility of future unity debates happening with various
aboriginal groups if we pursue this course without some
clarification of what it means.
Those persons who are well informed on the process and the
ultimate resolution may not share the same concerns I do. They
may not see the aboriginal negotiation process as possibly leading
us to another unity difficulty in the future. If that is not so, please
share it with the rest of us in order to allay this concern.
My main message is that in Canada we have two different
processes happening which could lead to similar debates in the
future.
The second question concerned public information. I agree that
there has been an effort made in the last year with respect to
providing the public with more information. That stemmed from
outspoken people expressing their concerns in the proper circles.
However, a lot of the information, if not all of it, is after the fact.
We still do not know the conditions we are negotiating. Basically
what we are seeing are great claims for land. We do not actually
know what is going to happen.
I am suggesting that if we follow our democratic process of
electing representatives, we do have those representatives there,
but we have absolutely no idea what they are doing until after it has
been done. If they looked at the process they certainly could allay a
lot of the public's concern by being a little more informative of
what their objectives are.
With respect to the delaying of the process, that remark may
have been related to political strategy concerning the election. Be
that as it may, what I am addressing here is the fact that the delay
should be to review what is actually happening because of these
concerns. A stitch in time might save nine. The problem will not go
away unless we see a concerted effort by those persons involved
17375
and the government to come out with an outline of the objectives
they are trying to achieve.
(1325 )
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
hoping there would be some Reform members in the House to
witness-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows how angry he
gets when that comment is made from the other side of the House.
It is not permitted to make reference to the presence or absence of
other members in the House and I would ask the member not to do
it again.
Mr. Telegdi: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to support the comments made by the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the importance of
treaty negotiations. As members of this House are aware, only a
small minority of First Nations in the province of B.C. have ever
signed treaties with the crown.
On lower Vancouver Island several First Nations signed treaties
with Governor Douglas in the middle of the 19th century. By the
end of the century the Peace River district was included in Treaty
No. 8 signed by the Government of Canada.
In the past two decades the Nisga'a Tribal Council has been
actively negotiating with the federal and provincial governments.
When these negotiations are completed and an agreement is signed,
it will be the first treaty with B.C.'s First Nations signed in this
century.
We are approaching the threshold of the next century. British
Columbians want to approach the 21st century secure in the
knowledge that the unfinished business of the 19th century has
been completed.
The land claims of British Columbia's First Nations must be
resolved because resolving these issues creates an environment of
certainty. Certainty means economic growth and job creation.
Settling land and resource issues creates an environment for
investment and increased local economic activity.
Over the past few years we have made a great deal of progress
toward resolving this unfinished business. In 1990 the federal and
provincial governments and the leaders of the B.C. First Nations
agreed to establish a task force that would map out a negotiation
process that would accommodate the many First Nations in B.C.
that wanted to negotiate settlements.
The task force reported on June 28, 1991 with 19
recommendations. All of them were accepted by the First Nations
summit, Canada and British Columbia. One of the key
recommendations was to establish the British Columbia Treaty
Commission or BCTC as an arm's length keeper of the process. I
would remind the House that the current leader of the B.C. Reform
Party was one of the key architects of this process. I congratulate
him on his vision and wisdom.
The agreement committed the principles to establish the BCTC
through the passage of federal and provincial statutes and the
resolution of the summit. As my colleagues know, Bill C-107 was
passed by the House last week and has now been put before in the
other place.
The commissioners began their valuable work on December 15,
1993 and have made considerable progress. Forty-seven First
Nations groups are involved in the BCTC process to date. They
represent over 70 per cent of the First Nations of the province, with
more likely to become involved in the near future.
The BCTC consists of five commissioners, two nominated by
the First Nations summit, one by the provincial government and
one by the Government of Canada. The chief commissioner is duly
selected and appointed by all three of the principals.
The First Nations summit includes all First Nations in B.C. that
have agreed to participate in the BCTC six-stage treaty negotiation
process. The summit provides a forum for First Nations involved in
the treaty process to meet and discuss treaty negotiations. It worked
closely with the federal and provincial governments in the
development of the treaty negotiation process and in the
establishment of the BCTC.
As one of the principles of the process it continues to provide
direction along with the governments of Canada and British
Columbia. The B.C. summit chiefs believe that negotiation rather
than confrontation and litigation is the best way to solve
outstanding issues. It is unfortunate that the Reform Party does not
think the same.
I would like to tell the House a bit about the men and women
who have offered to serve Canada, B.C. and the summit as the
BCTC commissioners. Carole Corcoran was elected by the First
Nations summit as one of the first treaty commissioners. She also
sat on the royal commission on Canada's future in 1990-91 and
serves on the board of governors at the University of Northern
British Columbia. Unfortunately Ms. Corcoran has recently
resigned.
On October 4, the First Nations summit chiefs selected Miles
Richardson of Haida Gwaii to succeed Ms. Corcoran as the second
First Nation treaty commissioner. Mr. Richardson was a member of
the B.C. claims task force which reported to the governments of
Canada, B.C. and First Nations on how the parties could begin
negotiations to build a new partnership. From 1991 to 1993 Mr.
Richardson was part of the First Nations summit task group, an
executive body reporting to the First Nations in B.C. on treaty
negotiations.
(1330 )
The First Nations summit has also elected as one of its
commissioners Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine Indian Band. Mr.
Adam is a
17376
former chief councillor of the band. He is chairman of the Burns
Lake Native Development Corporation and is co-founder of the
Burns Lake Law Centre.
British Columbia has appointed Barbara Fisher, formerly general
counsel and Vancouver director of the Office of the Ombudsman.
She currently practices part time as counsel to the B.C Information
and Privacy Commission.
Since last April the Government of Canada's representative to
the commission has been Peter Lusztig. Dr. Lusztig has been a
professor of finance at the University of British Columbia and also
brings considerable breadth of experience from the community. He
has sat on the B.C. Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance
and the B.C. Commission of Inquiry on the Tree Fruit Industry. In
1991 he also chaired the Asia Pacific Initiative Advisory
Committee struck by the federal and provincial governments.
Since last May the chief commissioner has been Mr. Alec
Robertson, QC. The legal community is familiar with his past work
as president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association,
chairman of the Law Foundation of B.C. and as a member of the
Gender Equality Task Force of the Canadian Bar Association. Mr.
Robertson spoke eloquently on Bill C-107 before the standing
committee.
The House will recognize that the BCTC consists of five
distinguished British Columbians. They are doing excellent work
to ensure that the comprehensive claims process moves along in a
timely and orderly manner.
The commission oversees the six-stage treaty negotiation
process which includes: one, statement of intent; two, preparation
for negotiations; three; negotiation of a framework agreement;
four, negotiation of an agreement in principle; five, negotiation to
finalize a treaty; and six, implementation of the treaty.
The commission assesses the readiness of the parties to
negotiate. This involves making sure that the First Nations have the
resources they require to make their case. It also includes ensuring
that the federal and provincial governments have established
regional advisory committees so that the interests of the local
residents who are not aboriginal can be heard.
These regional advisory committees are part of an extensive and
responsible effort to keep the public and all affected third parties
informed of the developments in the negotiations as well as to
ensure the advice of all sectors of B.C. society is considered. Other
efforts include newsletters, public information meetings, a 1-800
number, numerous speaking engagements, information brochures
and other publications, and participation in trade shows. The
Sechelt negotiations are televised.
The commission allocates loan funding to enable First Nations to
participate in the process. It works with all parties to ensure that
they get on with the job in a timely manner. If required and if
agreed to by all parties, the commission will assist the parties to
obtain dispute resolution services if the negotiations seem to be
reaching an impasse.
Finally, the commission helps ensure that the process remains
open and accountable. It prepares and maintains a public record on
the status of negotiations, and it reports to this House on that status.
Its annual reports are tabled in this House. In summary, the B.C.
Treaty Commission facilitates treaty negotiations; it is not a party
to the negotiations.
I am sure that members on both sides of this House would agree
that settlement of land claims in British Columbia is long overdue.
British Columbia is home to 17 per cent of Canada's aboriginal
population, yet treaties have been signed with only a small
minority of First Nations there. The question of land issues
surrounding undefined aboriginal rights must be brought to a
successful conclusion.
The federal government is committed to settling land claims in a
fair and equitable manner for aboriginal people as well as third
parties and the general public. I urge the House to vote down this
regressive and spiteful motion.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member two questions.
The member made reference in the beginning of his speech to
addressing the historical treaties. I agree. We have been 300 or
whatever number of years at that. I also express some apprehension
with this concept of the modern, living or new treaties, whatever
we wish to call them.
(1335 )
Does the hon. member think that the creation of more treaties
will put us in a similar situation as the existing or the back treaties
have? Would it take us x amount of time to get these other treaties
into some state of agreement between all parties?
The next question is in relation to the B.C. Treaty Commission.
We understand that body is preparing parties to negotiate and
actually does not participate in the negotiation process itself. In the
preparation of that body's mandate, would it ensure that the people
who are going to the table have consulted with those whom they
represent so that they go into the negotiation process with the
blessings of their membership, or are they going in based on their
opinions?
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the whole treaty process is about
making sure we give people a hand up and not a hand out. We want
to end the dependence which has taken place over too many years
while the treaties have not been solved. The native community has
not had the opportunity to make a contribution and be
self-sufficient.
17377
There have been many questions regarding the legal basis for
settling comprehensive land claims and what their status is. I can
say that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the Calder case
acknowledged existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More
recently in the Sparrow case the Supreme Court has recognized
constitutionality protecting the aboriginal rights to fish for food.
Since 1973, as a result of a number of court rulings the
Government of Canada has as a matter of policy negotiated
settlements with aboriginal groups that assert aboriginal title and
where there is some evidence of continuing title. The Constitution
Act, 1982 affirms and recognizes existing aboriginal treaty rights.
We want to end uncertainty associated with unsettled land
claims. By addressing it we produce certainty. The production of
that certainty would result in jobs and investment and a healthier
B.C. economy.
Various studies have indicated that $1 billion in investment are
forgone in the resource industries. Thousands of jobs could be
made available if the treaty process were to be successfully
conclude.
In terms of whether the people are representing their
stakeholders, I would say that yes they are. Beyond that I would
like to draw attention to the 31 members who are part of the treaty
negotiations advisory committee. They virtually cover the whole
section of the economic activity in British Columbia: the B.C.
Shellfish Growers Association, the B.C. Fishing Resorts
Association, sports fishing institutions, the Steelhead Society of
B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Community Fishing
Industry Council, Fisheries Council of B.C., the United Fishermen,
northern fishing representatives, the Interior Forest Industry
Coalition. There is representation from the unions, the Industrial
Woodworkers of America, a fine union I was a member of at one
point. There is the B.C. Real Estate Association, the B.C.
Federation of Agriculture and the list goes on and on.
It would seem to me that at some point we have to have some
trust in the process. We have to end this injustice which has existed,
and a costly injustice I might say. All studies have shown that
economically British Columbia is suffering from the uncertainty.
We want to establish some certainty on this question and give
justice to the native people which I believe is long overdue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to note that three government members
have addressed our motion so far today. If memory serves me
correctly, all three of them gave accolades to Mr. Jack Weisgerber,
the leader of the B.C. Reform Party. I remember the hon. member's
words: ``I congratulate him for his vision and foresight''. I would
certainly agree that Mr. Weisgerber is a man with vision and
foresight.
(1340)
I would like to read into Hansard the following quote: ``The vast
majority of British Columbians rejected the backroom deal that
was Charlottetown. They rejected the constitutional entrenchment
of an undefined inherent right of self-government and so I. They
rejected a third order of government for native Canadians
enshrined under the Constitution and so do I. We also reject the
government's formal recognition of aboriginal title''. That is from
a speech given on October 4, 1995 by Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the
leader of the B.C. Reform Party.
I wonder if the hon. member who is so free with accolades for
this gentleman, which are richly deserved, would agree with those
statements and that he truly is a man of vision and foresight.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the decisions he made
when he was a cabinet minister in the government of the Social
Credit Party. Clearly, he is a perfect case in point as to how a
reasonable person of the Social Credit Party can be transformed
into a Reformer who does not make sense.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for
North Island-Powell River. I oppose the motion. I consider it to
be ill-conceived. Why do I take that position?
The first reason is that the correct approach to the issue was set
out by the government in its red book promises. In the red book the
government made it very clear that if we were elected we would be
committed to building new partnerships with aboriginal peoples
based on trust and mutual respect. We stated in the red book what a
Liberal government would do.
We stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people
would enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity
equal to those of other Canadians. It would be a Canada where First
Nations, Inuit and Metis would live self-reliantly, secure in the
knowledge of who they are as unique peoples. All Canadians would
be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would be committed to the
fair sharing of the potential of our nation. It would be a Canada
where aboriginal people would have the positive option to live and
work wherever they chose. Perhaps most important, we set out our
goal for a Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in
secure families and in healthy communities with the opportunity to
take their full place in Canada.
As a result, we also said that the resolution of land claims would
be a priority. This is our vision and we have been moving step by
step to bring it alive. In two years we have already made
considerable progress.
On August 10 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and the federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status
Indians announced the government's approach to the implementa-
17378
tion of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. We have
fostered greater economic development opportunities for
aboriginal communities through co-management agreements and
support for business ventures. We have committed an additional
$20 million annually to the Indian and Inuit post-secondary student
support program. We have settled some 44 specific claims and we
have seen five comprehensive claims come into effect. By any
measure we have achieved a great deal in living up to the
commitments we made to the people of Canada in the red book
during the election.
Perhaps the most complex challenge to the government and to
the people of Canada in this area is treaty making in British
Columbia. I would like to remind the House that British Columbia
is unique in Canada. If I could remind hon. members of the debate
which was recently held in the House, it is a distinct society in this
respect, in that the process of signing treaties has never been
completed. Only a handful of treaties were signed in the
pre-Confederation period and they cover parts of Vancouver Island
only.
In 1899 Treaty No. 8 was signed with the First Nations in the
Peace River area in the northeast of the province. However, in the
rest of the province the issues of aboriginal rights remain largely
unresolved. First Nations legitimately want to see a resolution to
these issues.
(1345 )
We have repeatedly seen the First Nations of British Columbia
press for treaty resolution. Until this decade, however, the
provincial government had been unwilling to negotiate. It took the
position that there was no need to negotiate because whatever
rights to land and resources the aboriginal people may have had in
British Columbia had been extinguished by an act of the crown.
The result was decades of legal acrimony. The First Nations first
sought settlement through the courts of what they had been unable
to achieve through the negotiation process. In 1973 the Supreme
Court of Canada was asked whether the aboriginal title to the
Nisga'a traditional territory had been extinguished in the Calder
case. In that case the six judges were evenly split on the question. It
fell on a very narrow technical issue in the way in which the case
had been brought.
It was very clear from reading the judgments in the case that
there was a recognition by the courts of the country of a legitimate
claim to aboriginal rights in British Columbia which had to be
addressed equitably if we were ever to resolve this extraordinarily
important issue.
The courts for their part have expressed repeatedly and in the
strongest terms that the issues brought before them ought to be
settled at the negotiating table and not before the bar, settled
through negotiations and not litigation. Many cases have
determined this issue. I cite Judge Macfarlane in one who wrote:
Treaty making is the best way to respect Indian rights. The questions of what
aboriginal rights exist-cannot be decided in this case, and are ripe for
negotiation.
He went on to observe:
During the course of these proceedings, it became apparent that there were
two schools of thought.
The first is an all or nothing approach, which says that the Indian Nations
were here first, that they have exclusive ownership and control of all the land
and resources and may deal with them as they see fit.
The second is a co-existence approach, which says that the Indian interest and
other interests can co-exist to a large extent, and that consultation and
reconciliation is the process by which the Indian culture can be preserved and
by which other Canadians may be assured that their interests, developed over
125 years of nationhood, can also be respected-I favour the second approach.
I must say I agree. When I was in the private practice of law I
had the opportunity of being involved in a case that was very
interesting and very instructive in this area. It was the Baker Lake
case. It took place in the Northwest Territories. The court also
resolved and ruled that the applicants in that case had aboriginal
rights, but the court failed to set out what those aboriginal rights
were. It failed to set out what the specificity of those rights were.
Therefore the aboriginal peoples in the area were left with the
unpleasant situation of knowing they had a right but not knowing
whether they could exercise it in contradistinction against mining
companies that might be in conflict with their claims and exercise
it in contradistinction against other claims.
These issues cannot necessarily be settled by courts of law. The
courts may lay out a general provision such as saying that there are
aboriginal rights that have not been extinguished. That is a legal
issue and an issue a court can rule on.
What is the exact content of those rights and how they will be
applied in a modern complex society where there are conflicts
between urban and rural uses of land mixed with that of the
aboriginal peoples? They have to be addressed in the negotiating
process. That is being sought in the circumstances. That is why I
agree with what the judge said in the case to which I have referred.
I am sure members of the House would agree that the co-existence
approach, based upon consultation and reconciliation, is the
appropriate approach.
I am sorry, I say to my legal fraternity friends, to suggest that
court is not the place to be on this issue. There are places where we
do not need lawyers and we certainly do not need judges to resolve
them. We need the political will to have people sit down and
resolve their disputes with a mutual trust and understanding among
them.
It pains me to say that in the province of British Columbia today
quality of trust is absent. I happen to come from Vancouver
originally. I happen to have the privilege of going back to
Vancouver regularly. I have seen the tremendous turbulent summer
of pain and protest that took place last summer. These
confrontations will not resolve the issues. It is only through
negotiation and
17379
mutual respect that we will be able to do that. It will not work
through an all or nothing approach.
We cannot leave the resolution of the issues for those who have
little respect for the law. That is what worries me about the
resolution. It astonishes me that a member of the third party would
bring forward a resolution suggesting that this issue be pushed over
for a couple of years. Basically that is the suggestion.
(1350)
I have listened to the passionate intensity with which members
of the third party speak in the House about the rights of their
constituents, about their need to defend their constituents, and
about how their rights are not being properly regarded by the
government and by the ways in which the laws of the country
apply.
What would they advocate to their constituents about the
resolution of their essential rights, how their lives will be
conducted and how they will be able to earn their living? These
rights have been in abeyance in some cases for 30, 40 or 50
frustrating years. Would they go back to their constituents and
suggest that they just sit still and put this off? I find that difficult to
believe. I do not believe they would do that. What is sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander. We should not be treating the
aboriginal peoples of the country or of the province of British
Columbia any differently than we treat other citizens in this
respect.
We have a B.C. Treaty Commission. It establishes a solid
foundation for consultation and reconciliation. At the heart of its
operations are the coexistence approach and consultative approach.
There are those in the House and those in the community who
would maintain that the process concedes too much to First
Nations. This too is starting to sow discontent.
I have heard radio shows in British Columbia. I have heard
members say that 100 per cent of the province is covered by claims
of the aboriginal peoples. However hon. members know better than
this. We all know that claims are one thing, but to exaggerate them
as a threat to the existence of the process is irresponsible. Claims
are one thing. They are put forward but they can be resolved not
necessarily in a court of law but in a framework of consultation,
mutual respect and a desire to achieve a result that will be
beneficial for all parties.
If that approach is taken, rather than an in terrorem approach of
having huge claims, of the whole province being swamped and
taken away from us, we would move toward a much more
satisfactory resolution of the issue.
We know there are overlapping claims. The commission knows
that is the case. They can be dealt with. We will not move forward
by leaving the issue fester for another two years, until after another
provincial government election; pushing it off into the future; and
allowing the distrust, mistrust and exaggerations on both sides to
prevail.
For those reasons I urge the House not to adopt an all or nothing
approach. We should give to the British Columbia Treaty
Commission its right to facilitate modern day treaties, to assess the
readiness of parties to begin the negotiations, to allocate
negotiation funding to aboriginal peoples, to assist parties to obtain
dispute resolution services at the request of all parties and to
monitor the status of negotiations.
In that way we could move the issue onward and start the process
of achieving an equitable, just and lasting resolution of an issue
that is extraordinarily important not only to the citizens of British
Columbia but all citizens of the country who wish to see a
harmonious social climate in which to operate.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened quite attentively to my hon. colleague's
comments about the Reform motion that has been put forward
today.
We really have to describe the reason behind it. Perhaps we have
not been explicit enough in explaining it. We feel very strongly that
the British Columbia government at this time lacks credibility and
does not have the confidence of the B.C. people to continue to
proclaim it has a mandate to bring about some very comprehensive
claims agreements and new treaties for British Columbia.
I listened to the member say that trust was absent in British
Columbia. Certainly it is, but we have to ask why it is absent. I
assert that it is because of the bungling of both provincial and
federal governments in the past.
(1355 )
Given the claims in the territories which in the opinion of a great
many Canadians were very generous, is it any wonder there is
concern among Canadians about the extent of the claims in British
Columbia?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a
complicated issue. The first part of the issue concerns the
governance of the country. He is saying that his sense of the
political process in British Columbia or that of observers is that the
present government lacks credibility.
I do not disagree the present government in British Columbia is
in political difficulty. We live in a process whereby that
government was elected for a certain term and has certain
obligations to serve the people of British Columbia. This is not a
new policy that has been brought forward. The argument would
stand better both with the public and with the political process if
this were some radical departure the present government was
proposing, if it were something in the extreme. That is not what is
happening.
17380
The commission has been put in place to take the venom out
of the process and to get the negotiations moving along. There
is no guarantee they will be completed before the government
changes, but the process must be allowed to continue.
To use the present government's unpopularity as a pretext to end
what has been a long, extended historical process, which for some
people has been going on for 40 years, would be unfair to the
aboriginal peoples. It would be disrespectful to the political
process of the country.
Sometimes in parliamentary debate we exchange views about
one another, but I am sure the hon. member would be very unhappy
if I were to stand and say that the polls indicated that the Reform
Party has x per cent and therefore nothing he says in the House is to
have any credibility. The member was elected. He has a right to
speak.
That government was elected to do a job. It is doing its job.
There is no sense that it will necessarily complete it but we must
continue the process. We have a democratically elected process in
the country that has established a mechanism by which we are
finally seeing some chance for the resolution of these enormously
complex, difficult and important social issues.
I for one would like to see the process continue and to see a
peaceful resolution achieved. That is why I find it very difficult to
accept the basic premise under which the motion has been moved.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), we will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
17380
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I
had the pleasure of visiting a dairy farm in Oxford County as the
guest of Jim Donaldson of Donaldson International Livestock Ltd.,
Lubor Dobrovic of the Slovak State Breeding Institute, and George
Heyder of the Slovak Holstein Association. Also present was a
member of the board of directors of Ridgetown College and the
communications adviser of CIDA.
Donaldson International has arranged for training to be provided
for key people in the Slovakian dairy industry over the next three
years. This $800,000 development project will help to develop a
modern sustainable dairy industry in Slovakia.
It is encouraging in the extreme to know that small Canadian
businesses, Canadian educational institutions and CIDA can
co-operate in such important endeavours.
This three-year project will prove beneficial to the dairy industry
in both countries and will build closer ties between Canada and the
new Republic of Slovakia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is a sad
day in that it marks the 20th anniversary of the invasion of East
Timor by the Indonesian army. As you know, this invasion resulted
in one of the worst holocausts since 1945, with the genocide of
more than one third of the population.
Unfortunately, East Timorians are still the victims of one of the
harshest political repressions known.
Year after year, reputable organizations such as Amnesty
International, denounce violations of human rights in that country.
On this sad day, which reminds us that too many human beings die
in the name of freedom, the Bloc Quebecois wants to denounce the
very timid attitude of the Canadian government regarding the
promotion of human rights.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 6 the ``Stop the Great Train Robbery'' bus
came to Parliament Hill. This bus was covered with thousands of
signatures protesting gross over subsidization of VIA Rail at a time
when Canadian are facing crippling government debt.
The bus carried supporters of the protest and a petition
containing almost 10,000 signatures. The Minister of Transport had
been requested to accept the petition from these concerned citizens
but did not even bother to respond to the request.
I accepted the petition, but because it is not in a form deemed
presentable in the House for the government I cannot present it
here. As an alternative I invite the Minister of Transport to accept it
from me outside the doors of the House immediately after question
period.
I also ask the minister again to take action to stop VIA Rail from
reducing already heavily subsidized fares so it can take Canadian
taxpayers' money and use it to compete against customers
unsubsidized in the private sector.
The minister can choose to send out a message of goodwill to
Canadian taxpayers or he can continue to squander their money.
Thousands of people who signed this petition are waiting for his
response.
17381
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for more
than 20 years successive federal governments have claimed to be
fighting inflation and the deficit by cutting corporate taxes, raising
interest rates and cutting programs. What have investors done with
the interest earned and the taxes saved? They have used their
surplus funds to bid up existing stocks to the point at which general
stock values in Canada are reported to be up 35 per cent over last
year.
To continue generating existing levels of profit, their prices for
goods and services provided will have to be pushed up, as will
inflation.
If the government is serious about fighting inflation and the
deficit, a tax on transactions can both cool inflationary pressures
and reduce the deficit. Such a multiple approach to fighting the
deficit and inflation might actually work, unlike current policy
fixation with high interest rates, low corporate taxes and deep
program cuts.
Surely after 20 years of failure to meet even one deficit target it
is time to try some things that might actually work.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the big
banks would like to sell insurance directly to their customers.
Many Canadians are worried about concentrating economic
power in the hands of a few large banks, putting the safety of the
financial system at risk.
In changing the Bank Act, the government should be careful not
to reduce competition. Consumers would suffer from reduced
choice in the financial industry. Banks selling insurance would
have an unfair advantage over insurance companies. Insurance
companies are not entitled to have the same government guarantees
the banks have, including Canada deposit insurance. Banks will
also have an unfair advantage if they are allowed to use
confidential client information to help sell insurance.
Any changes to the Bank Act must be fair to the insurance
companies and must protect the consumer. Banks should stick to
their mandate and start lending money to small businesses, the
engine of the country's economy.
Rather than letting the banks expand into insurance, we should
tax their record profits and force them to lend more money to small
businesses.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week in my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River we
are completing the last of the work on the Malvern Remedial
Project.
This is an initiative to restore a residential area where soil had
been contaminated by low level radioactive material dumped
during the second world war. Although the problem was discovered
in 1980, it has taken 15 years for all levels of government and the
community to achieve their goal of removing the contaminants and
restoring this neighbourhood of family homes.
We want to recognize and thank the Minister of Natural
Resources and the leadership of her officials, the province of
Ontario for sharing the cost and purchasing the real estate required,
AECL for its expertise, the city of Scarborough, the local advisory
committee chaired by Mr. John Brickenden, elected representatives
at the municipal, regional and provincial assemblies and, last but
not least, the Ontario and Canadian taxpayers who underwrote the
costs.
The Malvern/McLure neighbourhood says thank you for this
successful initiative. We hope the Malvern Remedial Project can be
a successful example of community and government working
together to correct environmental mistakes of the past.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it may come as a surprise to our beloved finance minister
to learn that last Friday in my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt
there were no less than four individuals passing themselves off as
the Minister of Finance of Canada.
(1405 )
The culprits are students from the University of Saskatchewan
participating in an annual term project, the brainchild of Professor
Marv Painter of the college of commerce, whereby undergraduate
commerce and MBA students produce a federal budget.
This year 138 students made up the four teams which presented
their government initiatives regarding economic and social policy,
taxation, government spending, deficits and debt.
In support of their budget proposals, each group determined the
source of revenues, allocation of expenditures and future estimates
of GDP growth, interest rates, inflation and so on.
17382
As one of a group of 50 invited to hear the budget speeches,
I was very impressed with the effort put into this project and the
vigour with which the students attacked this thorny fiscal
challenge.
My congratulations to Professor Marv Painter and finance
ministers Michelle Cocks, Roger Miller, Curtis McKenzie and
Judy Karwacki, and the other students on a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Quebecers from all political affiliations were stunned to hear the
Prime Minister, a Quebecer himself, say that there is no such thing
as a Quebec culture. Rather, there is a French and an English
culture which he calls the Canadian culture.
The Prime Minister's simplistic vision, which denies the very
basis of his motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, shows
that his roots in the Quebec society and culture do not run very
deep. Given the comments made by her leader, it is surprising to
see that the current labour minister, a former cultural affairs
minister in the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, has nothing
to say on the matter.
Her silence must be a heavy burden on her conscience since, as
the proverb says: ``Silence is a form of consent''.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have no problem agreeing that Quebec and Quebecers
are or constitute a distinct society. My problem is with entrenching
it in the Constitution. That for me and for many Canadians creates a
problem. Why should Parliament resurrect an idea that Canadians
voted down in the Meech and Charlottetown accords?
I believe in the equality of all Canadians, that each province,
each region and the aboriginal peoples are all distinctive in their
own way. But the question of what it means to be distinct has no
concrete answer at this time.
Some say it does not mean anything but simply recognizes an
historical fact. Some say it means the courts when they are looking
at Quebec's laws will interpret them in light of the distinctiveness
of Quebec. Therefore it is an interpretative part of the Constitution.
This would be something no other province would have. If we
believe in equality, then we do not believe in special powers.
Please, let us not go through this again. Let us get on with
rebuilding Confederation with new ideas. Let us look at what the
Reform Party has to propose for the future of our country.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently we
have had some strange echoes from the past in regard to maritime
union. Let us hear what the past of maritime union has been.
In his thesis on maritime union, John M. Wilkinson posed the
question:
Was there ever in any one, or all three, of the maritime provinces any general
or popular movement in favour of their union, as distinct from those
inaugurated by official classes, such as politicians or those actuated by profit?
The answer is that, unless the situation has changed, popular support for
maritime union has been virtually non-existent. Even the legislators who in the
1860s agreed to a conference to consider such a union did it without enthusiasm
and certainly not in response to the express wishes of their constituents.
Because of its lack of interest in maritime union, Prince Edward
Island has been called the reluctant province. History indicates,
however, that it has been different only in degree. It has been
somewhat more reluctant than reluctant Nova Scotia and reluctant
New Brunswick.
Let me assure the House this situation has not changed. A recent
poll on Prince Edward Island put opposition to maritime union at
70 per cent-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week a North York investor, Mr. Seymour
Schulich, donated $15 million to York University's school of
business. His gift will pay for a series of undergraduate and
graduate scholarships and up to five endowed chairs to study
specific areas of business.
He said he believes every affluent Canadian has an obligation to
give something back to the country.
He also suggested the federal government encourage more
private donations by providing the same kind of tax breaks offered
to American philanthropists, who get tax breaks four times larger
than Canadians.
(1410)
I take this opportunity to commend Mr. Schulich for his
generosity and to suggest the government consider his advice very
carefully.
17383
Hospitals, schools, libraries and other public institutions can use
all the donations they can get.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
every province, Canadians are wondering what they can do to help
keep Canada united.
All residents of Brome-Missisquoi, the Carons in Frelighsburg,
the Gaudets, the Barabés in Farnham, the Bergerons and the
Landrevilles in Magog want to see proposals for change on the
table very shortly.
The demand for change is strong in Quebec. And in this
connection, Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon.
member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury who, last Sunday,
organized a forum for Canadian unity in Fredericton. This kind of
forum which brings together people from all political parties is a
way to promote discussion on the changes that are necessary.
I urge all members of this House, whatever their political
affiliation, all those who believe in the Canada of the future, to
work hard to keep Canada together. As for our differences
regarding the administration of this country, we will have plenty of
time to express them during the next election campaign. Canada
counts.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after doing a hatchet job on the unemployment insurance
system and offloading most of the government's spending cuts on
the provinces by reducing their transfer payments, the Minister of
Finance is now zeroing on his third target: old age security
pensions.
Yesterday the minister announced that he would soon be meeting
with his provincial counterparts to consider the future of OAS in
Canada. These discussions were to be preceded by the tabling of a
federal policy paper. The tabling of this document, originally
scheduled for 1994, was later postponed until this fall. However,
nothing has been tabled so far, and federal cutbacks are to take
effect in 1997.
The minister should at least have the courage to be open about
his policies and table without delay a document which senior
citizens have been waiting for all this time.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
my nomination for a place on the executive of the
Interparliamentary Union, commonly known as the junketeer
travel club, was denied even though it was acknowledged by the
Chair as being in order.
At the same meeting prior to the election procedure and in order
to deny my nomination, the constitution of the IPU was changed to
allow executive positions only for those who ``undertake to
promote the aims and objectives of the said interparliamentary
organization''. This will be a difficult task given that the IPU has
no aims or objectives.
The IPU is funded by the House and yet it has muzzled free
speech, ignored its own constitution and trashed democracy.
My rights as a parliamentarian have been compromised. The
reputation of the House has been sullied and I request that all
parliamentarians condemn the actions of the IPU and direct the
procedure and House affairs committee to investigate this abuse of
process.
Even the communists played with more finesse than the IPU.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was appalled the other day to read in
Le journal de Montréal how
Pierre Bourgault, a staunch separatist and confidant of Mr.
Parizeau, branded a group of Canadians as racists.
It seems after a Canadian victory on October 30 the separatist
had to blame somebody. Therefore Mr. Bourgault stated: ``The
Jews, Italians and Greeks are racists''. Mr. Bourgault further states:
``We are not asking them to be sovereignists, we are asking them to
be Quebecers''. They are proud Quebecers and they are also proud
Canadians.
The separatists have now been completely unmasked and their
hidden agenda is secret no longer.
He further made reference to the member for Bourassa. When
the Bloc member and all other immigrants, myself included,
arrived on these friendly shores, who welcomed us? It was Canada.
Who gave us citizenship? It was Canada. It was Canada that gave
us the opportunity to share in the Canadian dream.
The vote on October 30 was not an ethnic vote. It was a Canadian
vote, a vote for unity, a vote for home, a vote for Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday, December 10, will mark the end of a
17384
series of events to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding
of the Diocese of Edmunston.
(1415)
During the past year, a group of volunteers in the diocese, under
the able leadership of Jean Pilot, organized a variety of activities
for the young and not so young. Thanks to these activities, this
event was celebrated with enthusiasm and style.
The final day of the 50th anniversary celebrations will be
marked by a solemn high mass at the Immaculate Conception
Cathedral in Edmunston, followed by a Christmas concert.
The motto of the Diocese of Edmunston, ``Son amour s'étend
d'âge en âge'', illustrates the optimism and sense of sharing that
prevails over any differences that exist in our community.
I want to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a day
filled with joy and happiness.
_____________________________________________
17384
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his economic update yesterday, before the finance committee,
the minister finally admitted that his government is putting the
unemployment insurance fund surplus into the consolidated
revenue fund, along with the other federal revenues and
expenditures, and will continue to do so, rather than in a distinct
reserve fund as the Minister of Labour claims. This admission
leads to another, that his deficit for the current year is being
lowered artificially with the U.I. account surplus.
Under these circumstances, will the Minister of Finance admit
that, because he is taking five billion dollars out of the U.I. account
this year, the real federal deficit for the current year is therefore not
$32.7 billion but $37.7 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
ought not to confuse annual surpluses and cumulative surpluses.
To give an example, in 1993 when we became the government,
the cumulative deficit of the unemployment insurance fund was $6
billion. In 1994, there was an annual surplus of $2.3 billion, which
brought the cumulative deficit to $3.6 billion. In 1995, the annual
surplus was approximately five billion dollars. This is the five
billion the hon. member is referring to.
It will bring the cumulative surplus to only $1.4 billion. The two
things must not be confused. We now have a surplus, not of $5
billion, but of $1.4 billion.
Our goal was not to reduce the deficit but to bolster the U.I. fund,
which we have done, being good managers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a good
manager knows the contents of his budget.
Although I respect the minister, he is entitled to his
shortcomings as much as anyone. He has certainly forgotten that
next year he himself has projected taking $5 billion from the U.I.
fund during the year. He is entitled to a mistake, so we will give
him another chance.
Will this minister, good manager that he is, admit that to bring
his deficit, the federal deficit, down to $17 billion in 1997-98, as he
has indicated to us, he will need to keep on dipping into the U.I.
fund year after year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect
for the hon. member for Roberval. I clearly understand where the
confusion lies. What he is really recommending is an accounting
process which was in place prior to 1986.
I would simply like to state that prior to 1986 the government did
follow the procedure recommended by the hon. member and by the
Bloc finance critic. But the auditor general came out with the
following opinion in 1986. ``In my opinion''-I am quoting the
auditor general here-``the unemployment fund operations ought
to be consolidated with the government financial statements, with
employer and employee contributions added on the reported
receipts side, and benefits and administrative costs included with
reported expenditures''.
(1420)
Since this had not been done in 1986, the auditor general
expressed reservations on the government's financial statements.
That year, the government changed to the accounting process we
are currently using. I would therefore suggest to the hon. member,
if he does not like the way the government is accounting, and if he
thinks he is better at figures than the auditor general-and perhaps
he is-that he talk to the auditor general.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Two strikes against him
now, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has neglected to point
out that, at the time the auditor general made that recommendation,
the federal government was contributing to the unemployment
insurance fund. That is no longer the case. Two strikes, no hits.
I will give him a third chance. Given the government's reticence
to really streamline the federal machine and review all of its
finances, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, if he does
17385
not divert the sizeable U.I. fund surpluses into his budget, he will
be totally incapable of reaching his budget targets in coming years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is
capable of convincing the auditor general that we ought to change
the accounting method because contributions now come only from
employers and employees, we are prepared to examine the
situation.
I understand the hon. member's questions but he is constantly
quoting the auditor general as if he were quoting the Deity.
Sometimes we have to accept that God does things that are not to
our liking. Only the Pope is infallible.
Instead of making forecasts, let me point out what we have done
to date. The government's operating balance has risen from a $4
billion deficit in 1993-94 to a $17.6 billion surplus this year, a
$21.6 billion improvement. Within that amount, there was a $6
billion improvement in the U.I. fund deficit. This means that,
looking at the cuts, the reorganization of public finances, less than
30 per cent has come from the unemployment insurance fund, and
70 per cent from government activities, cuts and other steps.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would first off remind the Minister of Finance that the
Canadian Institute of Actuaries and almost all employer
organizations, including the Conseil du patronat du Québec, are
today calling for a separate account for unemployment insurance,
separate from the government's revenue and expenditure budget.
He seems to have forgotten it at the moment. He is talking about
1988; he should be looking at 1995.
The Minister of Finance has made the unemployed carry a major
portion of his cuts to program expenditures and he is now saying
that, to reach his new deficit reduction targets by 1997-98, he has to
make additional cuts of several billion dollars.
With the Minister of Finance clearly indicating yesterday his
intention to go after old age pensions, are we to understand that, as
of next year, the brunt of the additional cuts will fall on current and
future recipients of old age pensions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, there is a
separate account for unemployment insurance, now employment
insurance. So there already is one. However, even with the separate
account, the auditor general is insisting it be included with our
figures.
(1425)
Second, unemployment insurance premiums have been reduced
by a billion and a quarter dollars, as announced by the Minister of
Human Resources. This is a huge reduction, which will contribute
to job creation.
Third, as regards the old age pensions, I said the exact opposite
to what the member is saying. I said that the statements the Prime
Minister has already made regarding old age pensions will
certainly be foremost in our minds when we draw up the budget.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we put the question to the Minister of Finance and he says
that the unemployment insurance surplus is part of the consolidated
fund; the next day he says it is not. We do not know which way is
up.
I will put the question to him another way. We are giving him his
fourth and fifth chances today. Since his government has just
grabbed the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund and
dramatically limited access to it, will the Minister of Finance
acknowledge that he is preparing to do the same thing to the old age
pensions, that is, in addition to cutting them, he will make benefits
harder to obtain?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is possible to have
a separate account and still have consolidated funds.
I understand the member's problem. He is an economist, and
economists have a hard time understanding accounting. Perhaps
the member for Roberval will explain it to him.
Furthermore, we were very clear on the pension funds. Our aim
is to leave seniors untouched and to protect the system so it will be
there for young people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, innumerable ordinary Canadians, business leaders, think
tanks, economists and the IMF insist that setting interim targets for
the deficit is not enough. They have urged the Minister of Finance
to set targets for the complete elimination of the deficit within this
government's mandate. I am baffled that the finance minister
blinked and missed the easy opportunity to do so.
Only relatively small additional cuts are needed to satisfy these
Canadians. The interim targets he chose increase the uncertainty
about the government's resolve and prevent getting into the virtual
cycle of more growth, even faster deficit elimination and lower
interest rates.
17386
Why has the minister chosen to subject Canadians to essential
surgery but not enough to get rid of the malignant tumour?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way
to answer the hon. member's question is to cite an economist of
great reputation whom I am sure the hon. member knows, Carl
Weinberg from High Frequency Economics.
In referring both to the IMF and to the kind of measures
recommended by the hon. member, he says that the hon. member's
advice is geared toward a country that cannot meet its bills or
obligations, that is facing all kinds of international actions to try to
withdraw money from it. He then goes on to say, showing far
greater confidence than the members of the Reform Party, that
Canada ``is not in that case and therefore should not be subject to
those kinds of measures. I think those measures would succeed in
bringing the deficit down but with catastrophic economic
consequences. I do not think it is warranted to take that kind of
extreme action''. That is his opinion, that is our opinion, and it is an
intelligent opinion.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the many economists and business leaders who
testified in front of the finance committee will know they are stupid
and do not know what they are talking about.
I am somewhat surprised that the minister did not bring up this
strawman comment that to do more would mean slash and burn. I
am shocked that on other occasions the minister has attempted to
portray all deficit cutting as slash and burn.
We know of the minister's love for hyperbole and the risk it
brings, but the minister knows he is knocking a strawman. The
IMF, his own advisers and Reform have offered plans that would
eliminate the deficit by cutting fat and unaffordable transfer
programs. Frank McKenna, Clyde Wells and other Liberal friends
of his have shown how to do it.
(1430)
Why does the minister not follow the consensus advice and
examples available to him and make the cuts needed to preserve
Canada's social safety net and enable Canadians to get back to
work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Clyde
Wells and Frank McKenna would be delighted to be cited by the
hon. member. I now look forward to the finance ministers' meeting
next week.
The measures that we have taken are going to allow us to protect
Canada's social fabric. If one looks at the budget that was brought
in by the Reform Party, there is no doubt about how quickly it
would get the deficit eliminated.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): The members of the Reform
Party applaud, but let us look at what they are applauding. They are
applauding the evisceration of the health care system. They are
applauding the evisceration of old age pensions. They are
applauding the evisceration of the program to help small business
into exports.
What the Reform Party members are applauding are the basic
programs that are going to enable this country to go into the next
century far healthier than any other country in the G-7.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people who came to the finance committee
complained about the terrible consequences of the $4 billion cuts
that took place last year.
What the minister does not want to admit is that because he cut
so little all those cuts were for naught. All $4 billion was eaten up
by increased interest costs. That is the issue.
Furthermore, the finance minister's logic needs some help. The
first premise he presented yesterday: deficit reduction leads to
lower interest rates, more jobs, economic growth and tax cuts.
Premise two, which is implicit in the free-
Mr. Young: No, Mr. Speaker, let him go. That was a good
question.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members, both those putting
questions and those giving answers, if they could condense them. I
would invite the member to please put his question.
Mr. Grubel: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as a lead off questioner I
thought I would get just a tiny bit more.
An hon. member: Even the same as the Bloc would be helpful.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, if lower interest rates create jobs and
lower deficits create jobs, why does the minister not follow his own
logic and go all the way and eliminate the deficit?
Mr. Hermanson: Right on.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
lower deficits lead to lower interest rates and to more jobs, but it is
simply a function of balance. If we go too far, we are going to cause
a great deal more long term damage.
I thought it was expressed really quite well yesterday. The leader
of the Reform Party, the member will remember, made an analogy
to a fiscal drunk running down the highway. That is probably not a
bad analogy to the differences between our two parties. What we
17387
are going to do is sober that drunk up. What the Reform Party does
is run him over.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1435 )
The Speaker: I should tell members we are going to shorten the
questions and I am going to help you.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister explained that there was no
Quebec culture, but rather an English-Canadian and a
French-Canadian culture. Last week, however, the Prime Minister
tabled in this House a motion saying that one of the characteristics
of Quebec's distinct society is its unique culture.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the comments he made
yesterday with his distinct society motion, when there is an obvious
contradiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never said yesterday that there was no Quebec culture. I
said that Quebec culture is not necessarily limited to French, and
that French culture also exists outside Quebec.
We believe so strongly in a Quebec culture that not only do we
talk about it but we also tabled in the House a motion recognizing
it. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is voting against
our distinct society proposal stating that Quebec is a distinct
society by virtue of its French language, unique culture and civil
code. This is a motion I tabled in this House to recognize Quebec
culture, and Bloc members are voting against it.
I also explained that French culture is celebrated in all of
Canada, and I named a number of prominent Canadians of whom
francophones in both Quebec and Canada can be proud. I talked
about Antonine Maillet, Gabrielle Roy, Roch Voisine, Henri
Bergeron, and many others who speak French and have a French
culture, even though not all of them are from Quebec. That is what
the hon. member does not understand.
If she wants to recognize Quebec's unique culture, all she has to
do is to support the motion that will be voted on next Monday in
this House.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, frankly, it sounds like there is a Quebec culture on some
days but not on others. I would like to know if Quebec culture
exists on odd- or even-numbered days. We are stumbling about in
the dark.
Does the obvious contradiction between the Prime Minister's
comments and his motion not confirm that his motion is in fact a
meaningless, empty shell that will not fool Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian House of Commons is voting in favour of a
motion clearly stating that Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of
its French language, culture and civil code. It is the best way of
putting it. And yet Bloc members are set to vote against
it-because they will rise one by one in this House to vote and be
recorded as saying that they do not want to support recognition of
Quebec as a distinct society. They should be ashamed of
themselves.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Minister of Finance does not understand. The whole
point of this exercise of eliminating the deficit and the debt is to
lead the way toward social programs that we can sustain over the
long run and also give people tax relief. That may be hard to
understand if you do not pay taxes in this country, but that is what
we are aiming for.
Why does the minister insist on prolonging the suffering of
Canadians and denying them hope? Why does he do that with this
narrow, inch at a time deficit elimination policy? Why does he
refuse to completely eliminate the deficit and reduce taxes? Why
does he not do his job?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because I have seen
the alternative.
I would ask the members of the Reform Party to take a look at
the consequences of their own budget. It is impossible for the
Reformers to say that what they want to do is protect old age
pensions by reducing the deficit, when their means of getting there
are to virtually eliminate the basic foundation for old pensions.
(1440 )
It is impossible for the Reform Party to say that it wants to
protect health care when it would erase the transfers that go to
protect health care. It is impossible for the Reform Party to say that
it wants to reduce taxes when it would pursue an industrial policy
that would make it impossible for the country to create jobs.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
absolute rubbish. The fact is interest payments on the debt are
undercutting social programs, which is exactly why the
government is cutting unemployment insurance and making all
kinds of other adjustments.
17388
If the Liberals had dealt with this in the first year of their
mandate we would not be in the hole we are in today. The finance
minister has got to start accepting some responsibility. He blew
it right from the beginning.
When can Canadians expect to get some tax relief? The minister
is saying, trust me. It will be sometime in the next millennium,
over the hill and beyond the horizon. When exactly are we going to
get some tax relief in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most important
kind of relief that this country should look to is a reduction in
interest rates.
The member knows that if we were to proceed to a tax decrease
right now that the net result would have an immediate impact on
the budget. It would not lead to lower interest rates and might well
lead to higher interest rates. In fact that is what is happening. That
is what all the commentary is about now in those countries in
Europe that are contemplating a tax decrease.
We are dealing in a very measured and deliberate way with a
huge debt and a huge deficit which this government inherited. It
inherited it from a previous government, the government that most
of those people, the crypto-Tories over there, probably voted for 10
years ago.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. For the past two weeks, the
Liberal members of the heritage committee have objected to the
fact that two federal cultural agencies, namely the Canada Council
and Telefilm Canada, subsidize artists or productions with a bias
towards the sovereignist cause.
Since the Prime Minister skirted the issue yesterday, I am
putting the question to him again today. Does he endorse the
position taken by government members sitting on the heritage
committee, who maintain that granting agencies should now fund
artists according to their political opinions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our policy on the subject is clear. The Canada Council is
an independent agency that grants subsidies based on its own set of
criteria. The fact of the matter is that the Quebec artistic
community has always greatly benefited from the Canada Council,
and everyone in the Quebec arts community is very pleased with
the objectivity displayed by the Canada Council.
Members may not always be happy with the way a subsidy is
granted or used. Freedom of expression is a privilege enjoyed by
every Canadian.
It is like when the Canada Council buys paintings for the
National Gallery; some like it, others do not. But they are at liberty
to do so, and I think that nowhere in the world is the arts
community afforded as much independence as in Canada.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister not agree that there is cause for concern when the
head of the government seeks not only to control the information
provided by a government agency but also to provide political
guidance on the content of cultural productions subsidized by the
Canada Council and by Telefilm Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not see how the hon. member can say something like
that, because the law has not changed. The Canada Council is the
same as it has always been, and our members are doing a very
professional job.
I maintain that members are free to complain when they are
unhappy about something, and they have indeed aired their
complaints on many issues. That is what freedom of speech is all
about. Members who have objections to raise should raise them.
That is what they were elected to do. On the other hand, while it has
to take their objections into account, the Canada Council is free to
act as it sees fit.
(1445)
I will not ask the members not to express discontent.
Government members and opposition members alike are entitled to
their opinions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
through access to information I received an audit from April 1994
that revealed the practice of hiring family members at Natural
Resources Canada.
In one forestry office alone, the auditors counted 115 people in
one year who got their jobs from relatives on the inside of the
department. That was last year. This year a new audit says that
there is still a major problem that the minister has yet to address.
Will the minister initiate a department-wide audit of contracting
in her department to uncover the real extent of the family compact
at NRCan, or will she at least get a family member to look into it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me first point out to the hon. member that the audit
to which he refers is an audit of contracting practices that took
place during fiscal year 1992-93, before this government came to
power.
17389
Let me indicate further that it was this government that
undertook an audit in relation to contracting and management
practices in the Department of Natural Resources. We determined
that those problems existed. We have taken corrective measures
in relation to them.
An audit done in June 1995 indicates that we have corrected the
mistakes of the past. We have put in place management practices
and courses in relation to conflict of interest. I might say to the hon.
member that to the satisfaction of the auditors involved we have
been successful in dealing with the practices that were identified as
unacceptable.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to think that most of the relatives were already hired,
but this year's audit also says that bypassing merit to hire family
members has become an accepted way of doing business in the
department.
It is not acceptable, which is why I asked for the list of contracts
the department had investigated so that we could have a look to see
how deep this mess was within the department.
Incredibly we find the department did not keep such a list or now
it cannot find it. Will the minister undertake to find this list of
contracts and table it in the House so we can see whether the
problem of nepotism extends to her department?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that corrective action
has been taken.
Mr. Abbott: Prove it.
Ms. McLellan: I am quite happy to prove it to the hon. member.
I have a list of measures we have taken in my department to correct
the situation. I will be happy to share it with the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the study commissioned by the CBC on the coverage of
the referendum campaign reveals that the French network gave
essentially the same coverage to the yes and the no sides, whereas
the English network gave almost two thirds of its time to the no
side. Yet, the study concludes that both the French and English
networks were neutral in their coverage.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree with the
conclusion that CBC's English network was neutral in its coverage
of the referendum campaign?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not draw conclusions on studies I have not yet
seen. The CBC's board of directors asked for some reports. I am
told that these reports were submitted to the board. I still have not
received them. I will comment after seeing them.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not want to make a pronouncement.
However, given that today's newspapers mention that the French
network gave 52 per cent of its time coverage to the yes side and 48
per cent to the no side, while the English network gave 62 per cent
of its time coverage to the no side and 38 per cent to the yes side,
could the minister make some enlightening comments on these
figures?
(1450)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know that the CBC's board of directors intends to
follow up on the report. Again, I am reluctant to comment on
figures taken from a newspaper article. I want to get much more
information on the CBC's coverage and on the exact nature of the
report.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
greater Toronto area is home to 4.5 million people. The area has
been disproportionately impacted by the recession and continues to
lag in the recovery, with negative repercussions for the entire
Canadian economy.
The Government of Canada spends millions and millions of
dollars in the GTA often in ways people do not see directly. My
question is for the Minister responsible for the infrastructure
program. Will he tell the House how that one program is
contributing to economic recovery in the greater Toronto area?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in answering the question I am pleased to note in the gallery
opposite a holder of an office that I had the pleasure of holding at
one time. I am pleased to note and welcome the mayor of Toronto,
Her Worship Barbara Hall, to the House.
In the greater Toronto area we have approved over 300
infrastructure projects involving an infusion of some $850 million,
which has created in excess of 11,000 jobs in that area. With the
co-operation of Mayor Hall and the Toronto City Council many of
these projects have been in the downtown Toronto area.
All these projects, just like all projects across the country, have
helped to put Canadians back to work, have helped to strengthen
the infrastructure in our communities and to bring in additional
investment dollars. They have all been done in a co-operative way,
which proves that the federal, provincial and local governments
can work together for the improvement of the quality of life of
Canadians.
17390
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage recently made a number of
appointments to the board of directors of the Museum of
Civilization.
Is he aware that one of the appointments is a senior partner of the
lawyer who was responsible for the election campaign of the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? Yes or no.
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, appointments are made as a result of a very careful
scrutiny of the ability of people to exercise office. This is what was
done in that case, as with any other appointments in my portfolio.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I may
have missed the answer. I was looking for a yes or no. The point is
the scrutiny seems to include Liberal credentials because the
Liberals continue the old-fashioned discredited practice of feeding
their friends lucrative government posts. In so doing they denigrate
our public institutions.
Let me remind the minister that the appearance of conflict of
interest is against the current code of conduct of public office
holders. My question is simple. Did he know this appointment was
against the conflict of interest code?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these appointments are scrutinized from that
viewpoint as well.
As to the notion that Liberals have no capability to fill any
office, the member should remember that the president of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Perrin Beatty who did not sit
with the Liberals in the previous Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
At a meeting of the of the Société de développement du
Saint-Laurent on November 23, the commissioner of the Coast
Guard refused to rule out the possibility that the cost of icebreaking
would be charged directly to the users of the St. Lawrence, which
would mean that Quebec shipowners would have to bear nearly half
of all the new costs charged to shipowners for Coast Guard
services.
How does the minister explain his government's contemplating
making Quebec shipowners pay the cost of icebreaking on the St.
Lawrence, when this service is free in the North?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the hon. member follows the activities of the
Coast Guard very closely and he is no doubt aware that it now
comes under the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
(1455)
However, I wish to assure my hon. colleague that the costs that
will be recovered in all transport sectors are not going to be limited
to those who own ships in the St. Lawrence. Most of the ships
plying the St. Lawrence do not belong to Quebecers, nor to
Canadians, for that matter.
That said, we will be ensuring that, in all sectors, costs incurred
will be recovered from users.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is forcing me to point out that the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was not present in the House, and
that is why I asked him-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, does the minister, being
responsible for marine transportation, realize that, by charging
shipowners using the St. Lawrence the cost of icebreaking, he is
threatening the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence ports, and
particularly the port of Montreal?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member asked his question, he said clearly
that the person in question, the one who made the statement, did
not want to rule out the possibility that all costs would be recovered
for icebreaking operations in the St. Lawrence.
In the coming days, we will announce the future policy and
strategy for the entire marine sector. At that point, we will certainly
have an opportunity to properly discuss a question of potential
concern to everyone. User costs will be discussed and debated.
I would reassure the hon. member and the people directly
affected that no final decision has been made on this yet.
17391
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the House might be surprised to learn that presently
there is no effective way to prevent prisoners from harassing their
victims from inside their jail cells.
One Vancouver jailbird has been leaving up to 16 messages a day
on his victim's answering machine as well as sending letters from
the prison even though the court has told him not to.
I am sure there will be an outpouring of sympathy from the
Minister of Justice, but the Canadian people would like to know
what he will do to stop this harassment and when he will do it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
new policies are being put in place with respect to access to
telephones by prisoners in federal institutions. Work is ongoing
with respect to mailing privileges as well.
Would the hon. member, since he did not give me notice of the
question, confirm that the prisoner in question is in fact in a federal
institution?
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice did not have the opportunity to express
sympathy, but I am pleased to hear at least a partial answer from
the solicitor general.
I will repeat my question. Since the solicitor general indicates
that something is being done, when will he do it, an exact date, and
what exactly will he do?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since the hon. member obviously did not listen to my answer, I
suggest he read Hansard tomorrow and consider whether he wants
to ask the question again.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Presently there
is no effective enforcement for people who misuse our waterways
and endanger the lives of other Canadians. The Contraventions Act,
passed in 1992, would fix this situation but has never been
proclaimed into law.
Will the minister tell the House how he intends to ensure boating
regulations are enforced and Canadian lives are protected on our
lakes and rivers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no member of the House has
worked harder in the cause of facilitating the enforcement of safety
rules on the waterways than the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka. I thank him for his help in that regard.
It was through the work of the hon. member that I met with the
executive of the Muskoka Lakes Association which brought home
to me the urgency of dealing effectively with this matter. As a
result, officials in the federal Department of Justice have worked
with provincial counterparts to put the provincial schemes and
mechanisms for ticketing of offences at the disposal of the federal
government through the federal Contraventions Act.
(1500 )
I am pleased to say that next week I intend to introduce
legislation which will amend the Contraventions Act federally to
enable us to use the provincial mechanisms. This not only allows us
to keep the waterways safer and have effective enforcement but it
also avoids duplication, overlap and needless expense. It serves to
that extent the interests of the people of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know that British Columbia has become
a destination province as of late with up to 92,000 Canadians
moving to the province, many of them paid for by their own
provincial governments, and consequently falling on welfare.
Recognizing that labour mobility is a national issue, would the
Prime Minister give some consideration to examining the
possibility of providing labour mobility grants to the province of
British Columbia to offset some of the costs of 92,000 Canadians
moving into the province each year?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. It allows me an
opportunity to update the House of Commons.
This morning the British Columbia minister of social services,
Joy MacPhail, and the federal Minister of Human Resources
Development met to discuss the issue relating to residency
requirements. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice in this
matter. The British Columbia government is contravening the act,
particularly sections 5 and 7 of the Canada assistance plan.
17392
As to the idea raised by the hon. member, he can rest assured
that ideas such as the one he cited will be part and parcel of
discussions that federal officials will undertake very shortly.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In the past when profits were made, more jobs were created. In
light of record corporate profits in some sectors, the banks
especially, can the minister explain why there are also a record
number of layoffs? Does the minister have any plan to encourage
reinvestment of these profits to create new jobs for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a
question that is really one of the most difficult of the modern
economy which is that because of globalization and because of new
technologies a lot of companies are seen maintaining or increasing
their profits, not as a result of increasing sales but because they are
cutting costs. They are letting people go. Of course this sets in
motion a vicious train of events where one company lays off and
then others have to.
As a result of this, the government has embarked upon a series of
fundamental reforms in its job creation activities. The
unemployment insurance reform announced last week deals
directly with that question as do a number of the measures in terms
of the information highway by the Minister of Industry and of
course the very important activities of my colleague, the Minister
for International Trade.
At the same time the fact is we have to get a rising economy.
That is why when we embark upon deficit reduction we do it in a
balanced way. We do not slash and burn.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in the gallery of two guests: Gregory Rockman, member
of Parliament for the African National Congress and Gerhard
Koomhpof, member of Parliament for the National Party of South
Africa.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would be
appreciated if the Leader of the Government would indicate the
order of business until Christmas.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today and tomorrow are opposition days. Votes arising from these
days and from other business of supply will be taken at the end of
business on Monday, which is when the House will also vote on
Motion No. M-26 which completed debate yesterday.
Our first priority next week is to dispose of report stage and third
reading stage of Bill C-110, the constitutional amendment bill, that
is to say the regional veto bill.
(1505 )
We would also like to refer Bill C-111, the unemployment
insurance bill, to committee before second reading, pursuant to
Standing Order 73(1). The House should take this as notice of our
intention to do this.
On Monday we will probably start with Bill C-111 in the
morning and turn to Bill C-110 in the afternoon, that is to say the
bill on the regional veto.
We would also like to complete before Christmas as many bills
as possible that are now at report stage or third reading stage. There
will be ongoing discussions between the parties in this House for
this purpose.
I am told the Standing Committee on Finance will have an
interim report on budget consultations presented to the House
before the middle of next week. We would like to have the House
consider the report of the finance committee on Thursday and
Friday next week.
The Speaker: I have a point of privilege by the hon. member for
Scarborough Centre. I must ask the hon. member, does this point of
privilege arise from today's question period?
Mr. Cannis: No, Mr. Speaker. It arises from an incident which
occurred this past Tuesday.
The Speaker: Then I would have to receive written notice unless
it occurred today. I would be happy to entertain that as soon as the
hon. member puts the information into my hands.
_____________________________________________
17392
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it should
come as no surprise today that the Bloc Quebecois has decided to
vote against the motion presented by the Reform Party, a motion
that of course aims to prevent and obstruct current negotiations.
17393
It is clear, in our opinion, that a variety of concepts are implicit
in this kind of motion. It is clear that trilateral negotiations
between the federal and provincial governments and the First
Nations must be redefined. The First Nations have consistently
said that the status quo is unacceptable. They are not alone in that
respect. I think that as far as Quebec is concerned, the results of
the last referendum indicated that the status quo was unacceptable
and that the only option is sovereignty and greater autonomy.
Sovereignty will give us that greater autonomy, and we see the
same need for autonomy among the First Nations.
The Reform Party's motion also implies a desire to block
negotiations for strictly political reasons which I will be glad to
enumerate later on. But how could anyone consider putting a stop
to a peaceful and equitable process that will redress the injustice
perpetrated 150 years ago? We are about to begin a negotiating
process, and out of the blue, for purely political reasons, the
Reform Party introduces a motion to block negotiations that are
peaceful and will correct past injustice.
This is totally unacceptable to us, and as I said before, it should
come as no surprise that the Bloc Quebecois intends to vote against
this motion. We should remember that cases involving aboriginal
peoples and aboriginal rights are probably the oldest human rights
issues in Canada. These issues remain unresolved, and this is a
chapter of Canada's history that has been left unfinished. Attempts
are being made to remedy this elsewhere. Attempts are being made
across Canada, and in British Columbia the circumstances seem to
have been ideal for bringing these negotiations to fruition.
Now we have a proposal that would simply terminate these
attempts. The debate on aboriginal rights started only twenty or
thirty years ago and has been pursued openly and with great zeal in
the political and public arena. Unfortunately, this proposal would
simply extinguish those rights, blocking the whole process that led
up to the current situation where we have all parties in a position
negotiate on the same level. This is a proposal we cannot accept.
(1510)
I want to read the motion, because we feel that the Reform Party
is not the only one to blame here. I think the motion reveals the true
colours not only of the Reform Party, but also of the Liberal Party.
The motions reads as follows:
That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral
aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current
provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British
Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition
parties.
I talked with some of my colleagues from British Columbia and I
learned that one of the two major opposition parties in B.C. is the
Reform Party. Of course, my colleagues hastened to tell me that
the national Reform Party does not recognize any provincial
subsidiaries. However, I find it strange that the Reform Party would
put forward a motion supported by an opposition party in B.C.
which happens to have the same name as it does.
We now see the true colours of the Reform Party. But we also see
the true colours of the Liberals. I heard my colleagues talk about
their opposition to this motion. When we listen to the members of
the Liberal government and when we look at the measures they
take, we can see the true nature of these people. We can tell by their
attitude towards the native people.
When I look at everything the Liberal Party has proposed for the
native people and when I see that the B.C. Liberal Party is behind
this motion, the first question I ask myself is why has the Liberal
Party here, in Ottawa, not contacted its brother, the B.C. Liberal
Party, to try to settle this issue.
I think that the current government here, in this House, is hiding
behind the public opinion, which, as we may see later on, might
well be unamenable to this initiative. Why is it that the Liberal
Party and the indian affairs minister have not called the person in
charge of the B.C. Liberal Party, one of the opposition parties in
that province? One has to wonder about that. Especially since the
policies put forward by this government in its famous red book
have not even been implemented yet; we think that the Liberal
government is dragging its feet on this issue.
The famous self-government policy that was denounced by all
aboriginal representatives in Canada is a case in point. This policy
was developed behind closed doors, without consulting aboriginal
leaders and representatives. We now have a proposal that will be
difficult to put in place because it was not approved by aboriginal
representatives.
The same goes for the red book promise to create a land claims
commission. The other day, a British Columbia member tabled a
motion stressing the importance of creating an independent
commission. Once again, the Liberal government is dragging its
feet on this issue. Even with their speeches opposing the Reform
motion before us, we wonder if they are not in fact a little
responsible for what is now happening in British Columbia.
This is a purely political matter. If we look at the motion before
us, we know that an election will be held one year from now. What
does this mean? I see this as a dangerous precedent. It means that
the world stops turning just before an election. The things that have
been put forward, that have been working for a while, must stop
because opposition parties are opposed to them. This is complete
nonsense, in my opinion.
17394
When I say that this is purely political, I mean not only for
opposition parties but also for the party in power in that province,
the NDP, which is going through a very hard time. I think that
only 10 or 12 per cent of people intend to vote for them in the
next election. This process was also held up by the Premier of that
province a while ago, mainly as a result of public opinion because
the public is unfortunately misinformed.
In British Columbia, the issue of negotiations with aboriginal
people has simply been held hostage by this type of political
resolution. I think that such tactics should be condemned.
(1515)
These people have suffered injustices for 150 years. They have
probably been the most patient in agreeing to peaceful
negotiations. Today, we are being asked to stop this process,
something we find totally unacceptable.
I also raised a number of points when the legislative assembly
appeared before us during consideration of the B.C. treaty
commission legislation. I raised them because the B.C.
commission legislation provides that we should educate the people
of that province to dispel the rampant rumours and misconceptions
and to set the record straight. I found out the worst misconception
when I arrived here as native affairs critic. It came from my
Reform colleagues from B.C. who were trying to show me that 125
per cent of the B.C. territory was the subject of land claims.
So I said: ``Does this 125 per cent mean that the native people
would take over all of B.C. and then push the white people into the
sea?'' They then explained to me that this figure was mostly due to
overlap between land claims, that if we plot these claims on a map
of the province, it is clear that their total surface area is bigger than
all of B.C.
I think that the people of B.C. must be told that this is an initial
bargaining position. Some of my colleagues also expressed their
views to the land claims commission last week. They said that
some Quebecers sometimes fear that the map of Quebec will be cut
up and that native people will own 80 per cent of the territory. But I
think that many realize that this is an initial bargaining position. As
the negotiations conducted in Canada in the past few years show, a
native people's initial position may change by the time negotiations
are concluded.
This education work must be done. People also feel that
negotiations are conducted in secrecy. What are the current
headlines in B.C. newspapers such as the Vancouver Sun? Remarks
made by Reformers often exacerbate this kind of paranoia toward
First Nations. And this kind of motion goes exactly along the same
lines. Members from British Columbia say: ``Look, they are going
to take 125 per cent of the land and that will cause a great deal of
uncertainty. Companies invest less in certain regions of B.C. than
others because they are afraid that the land will be taken over by
the aboriginals''.
That is not how bargaining works. In fact, a six-step process was
instituted by the commission, and we should give it a chance to
lead to a conclusion that is to everybody's satisfaction. These are
the fundamentals of bargaining. You start at the beginning and you
end at the finish line, and everyone has to compromise a little along
the way to end up with a satisfactory position.
I think it is important also to mention the contribution of the
Nisga'a nation to the kind of discussions we are holding today.
While legislation was passed last week respecting the British
Columbia Treaty Commission, the Nisga'as were intentionally
excluded from such negotiations, because they have been
discussing vigorously with the government to settle a land claim
and a self-government issue. We must always bear in mind the
historical background and realize, with the help of examples such
as the one I will give the House today, namely the case of the
Nisga'a, that it is refreshing to see that First Nations are able to use
peaceful tools known to everyone, and used in the British
parliamentary system for ages. I am referring here negotiation.
I myself had the pleasure and the privilege to visit the Nisga'a
last summer. They live along the Nass River and they never signed
a treaty with the government. In fact, this is a characteristic of
British Columbia; very few treaties were signed in B.C. That is
why the commission was established: to develop a process to
encourage every First Nation in British Columbia to enter into
agreements with the crown and the province.
(1520)
So, they never signed a treaty. Yet, they represent about 6,000
people and they are pioneers as regards aboriginal negotiations in
Canada. The case of the Nisga'a is a good example of the quest of
Canada's aboriginals for legal recognition of their rights.
Let us review a bit of history here. In 1763, aboriginal titles were
recognized by the proclamation of King George III. Governments
were the only ones allowed to buy Indian land, and could do so only
through treaties. As I said earlier, the first nations of British
Columbia signed only 15 agreements, and 14 of them deal with
Vancouver Island. The Douglas treaty was signed by James
Douglas, of the Hudson's Bay Company.
In 1858, British Columbia became a colony. It joined the
Canadian Confederation in 1871. At the time, the majority of the
province's population was made up of first nation members. Yet,
the first nations agreed to share the land with newcomers. The
result of all this is that, today, these people are to be found in close
to 200 reserves in B.C., while the rest of the land is occupied by
white people who develop its natural resources. The aboriginals
have been left to fend for themselves. This is why it is so important
to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission and give it
17395
time to reach agreements with the first nations. However, the
Reform Party motion would keep us from doing that.
I will move along in time to get to more contemporary events. In
1910, Prime Minister Laurier promised, in Prince Rupert, that the
land issue would be solved. In 1913, the Nisga'a, ever careful when
negotiating, sent a first petition to the Privy Council, in London.
Some years later, in 1927, in response to that initiative, the federal
government prohibited aboriginals from organizing themselves for
the purpose of discussing land issues and claims. The government's
reaction was: ``Listen, there are problems, but we do not want to
discuss them, and we do not want you to discuss them''. The way
things were done at the time is somewhat reminiscent of Reform's
1995 proposal: preventing parties from talking to each other.
I think that what was hardly acceptable in 1927 has become
totally unacceptable in 1995. My B.C. colleagues may be surprised
to learn that the first native member of Parliament in the
Commonwealth was a Nisga'a. The first native member of this
House, Frank Calder, is behind the Calder decision to which I will
come back later.
In 1955, the native lands committee was re-established thanks to
the Nisga'a tribal council. In 1968, the Nisga'a went to court to
have their aboriginal titles recognized. In 1973, there was the Frank
Calder case I referred to earlier.
After over 14 months of deliberations, the Supreme Court of
Canada handed down a divided ruling. Of the six judges who
concluded that the Nisga'a did hold aboriginal land titles, three
ruled that these titles had expired while the other three decided that
they were still valid.
This ruling was important because, in 1972, Pierre Trudeau was
still leading a minority government. The opposition parties during
and after the ruling urged the government to recognize its
obligations and settle the land claims in that province. On August
8, 1973, the current Prime Minister announced that the government
was committed to settling the claims.
In 1976, land claims negotiations started between the Nisga'a
and the federal government. The claims had been filed almost 70
years earlier. And the province entered into negotiations in 1991.
As I indicated last time I spoke on this issue, at third reading of the
bill dealing with the British Columbia Treaty Commission, the
B.C. Indian affairs department set the whole thing in motion.
Why negotiate treaties? So far, the status quo has proven costly
in terms of energy, legal and strategic battles, but also battles in the
streets, on highways and on the reserves. Those who advocate
violence to resolve their problems must not be proven right. We
have here a nation who keeps believing in going the way of
peaceful negotiation. I think we should give them a chance to
complete their quest for peaceful negotiation.
(1525)
The Reform Party is probably motivated by financial
considerations, although the motion does not say so. Perhaps we
could respond to that that current provincial and federal profits on
the land in question are very substantial. I have seen with my own
eyes forest harvesting in British Columbia. Natural resources are
plentiful in B.C., so money is not the issue. It is more a matter of
knowing where the money is going.
Right now, some private interests in British Columbia may be on
the side of the Reform Party, or have that party on their side, and
demand that motions like this one be debated in the House. Maybe
this is the case because the Department of Natural Resources is
currently racing against the clock-and I know because I saw
it-to get, as quickly as possible, natural resources out of lands that
will sooner or later belong to aboriginals. The process is simple: all
the natural resources are taken out of the land. Once that process is
completed, the government will tell aboriginal nations: ``We are
now prepared to negotiate to give you the land and its natural
resources''. But there will be nothing left.
Is this what the Reform Party wants? Why does the Liberal Party
not go further? Why does the federal Indian affairs minister not call
the Liberal opposition party in British Columbia and say: ``Look,
forget about that. It does not make any sense. We have to reach a
settlement with aboriginal people''.
I want to ask the Reform Party-since its members will ask me
some questions in a minute-when would be a good time for the
federal to sign an agreement with the province and the First
Nations. What solutions is the Reform Party contemplating to
conclude land claim negotiations in British Columbia? What does
it think of aboriginal land titles that have been recognized by the
courts?
It seems that, as far as the Reform Party is concerned, there will
never be a good time to sign an agreement. As for us, Bloc
Quebecois members, we feel that the First Nations should not used
as a political pawn. The time has come to put an end to the
injustices. Quebecers have realized that and this is why we set up
model conventions and agreements on land claims. I ask Reform
Party members to do the same, and I also ask Liberal members to
put pressure on their B.C. fellow Liberals, so that they do not get
involved in a scheme that would prevent peaceful negotiation.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with interest, as we
both sit on the aboriginal affairs standing committee.
17396
The member and other members in the House are misreading
our motion. We are saying there should be no final agreement in
the next few months because the next few months is the length
of time that we expect the provincial government that is currently
in place to be there. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking
for everything to be thrown out. We are not building a brick wall.
The member talked about 500-year-old grievances. To me that is
very indicative of how little people not from the western part of
Canada understand about British Columbia and other parts of
western Canada. Five hundred years ago was long before contact
with Europeans and certainly long before any grievance.
As for the statements that were made about negotiating
positions, I concur with the member. That is what negotiating is all
about. All of us in our life enter into all kinds of negotiations.
The B.C. treaty process has been in effect since 1993. It has been
given a chance to work. The member talked about giving it a
chance to work. It has been found lacking. We are asking for some
changes. The public is asking for some changes. This will be
complementary to the process.
(1530 )
I do realize the Nisga'a have been negotiating for 20 years with
the federal government. That is one added rationale why the next
two or three months should not have all the importance attributed
to them. I fail to understand that. To me it reinforces the point we
are trying to make that we should not do a last minute rush on an
agreement that will set a precedent for the 47 other negotiations
going on in British Columbia.
There was a reference in the member's speech to the royal
proclamation. Once again British Columbia is different. The
jurisprudence is that the royal proclamation has no implications or
ramifications for British Columbia because of the time of the royal
proclamation and the age of British Columbia, when it came into
Confederation and so on. It has no ramifications in British
Columbia.
The member talked about British Columbia as a population that
consists of natives and white people. That is so far from reality.
British Columbia is probably the most multicultural, pluralistic
society in North America. I would not be surprised if it was the
most multicultural and pluralistic of almost anywhere other than
some parts of South America.
There is every hue of colour and every culture on earth
represented in British Columbia. That is significant because we are
very used to respecting, working with and living with other
cultures, which is pluralistic. We are trying to create a pluralistic
society, not one divided.
There was more than a suggestion in the member's speech that
we are trying to prevent the parties from coming together. What
nonsense. There was a total misrepresentation of the Calder
decision. I suggest the member read the Calder decision, not
somebody's summary that is a misrepresentation of what that
decision actually was and what it said.
As someone who spent 20 years in the resource industry, the
forest industry in British Columbia, some of the statements made
about the condition of the forests and the logging in the province I
find quite distressing. I do not believe the depth of knowledge is-
The Speaker: My colleague, you have used up half the time for
comments and questions. I will give the hon. member for
Saint-Jean the opportunity to respond.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised several
points. I can tell him that, yes, he is right about the multi-ethnic
society. I myself have seen the high numbers of aboriginal people
in the culturally mixed city of Vancouver.
The aboriginal people are a bit fed up with trying to gain
recognition. They have gained cultural recognition, but when it
comes to business and finance, to recognition of their right to
territorial self-government, to total financial autonomy, the path is
a rougher one.
The motion before us is very clear. It asks the government not to
enter into any binding trilateral agreement. This means that, in the
negotiations with the Nisga'a where we are in the final stages of
negotiation right now, if a conclusion is reached they are being told
not to sign.
Why not? Because there will be elections in a year, in order to
respect the views of British Columbians on this issue as expressed
by both major provincial opposition parties. Clearly, totally
political motives.
(1535)
As I was just saying, and I will repeat it here, it is not acceptable
for aboriginal negotiations to be held hostage, whether the
negotiating process as a whole, or the beginning of the process, or
the signature stage. Everything must proceed as set out in the
British Columbia Treaty Commission. It absolutely must continue.
This past summer I met with the Chilcotin, the Carrier-Sekani
and the Nisga'a, and I have seen the destruction of their forests,
both from the air and on the ground. I feel it is urgent for these
matters to be settled at the fundamental level, so that agreement
may be reached once and for all to remedy this injustice.
It is my feeling that the process currently in place in B.C. is
working very well and will lead to a settlement. The motion before
17397
us is quite simply aimed at slowing down the entire process, and
that is why we are opposed to it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time.
I rise to express my concern and shock at the motion of the hon.
member from North Island-Powell River. He asks us to delay the
land claims process in British Columbia during the final year of the
mandate of the provincial government.
It makes me wonder if he and his colleagues will not be here next
year with a similar motion asking us to delay it for the first year of
the mandate of the next government while it gets itself organized. It
seems to me that in Canada we cannot proceed in that fashion.
The Government of Canada has maintained that providing
justice and equity for aboriginal peoples requires two ingredients,
self-government and a process for making modern day treaties
through comprehensive claims. Canadians have been wrestling
with these issues for years. The Reform Party has used the
self-government issue to fan the flames of fear and apprehension
during the debates over the Charlottetown accord. Now it continues
to stir up controversy in British Columbia through its
misrepresentations of the treaty process.
I heard hon. members opposite make a great deal of the media
reports of the total First Nations claims adding up to 110 percent of
the province of British Columbia. The total should not surprise us.
Why should the claims not overlap one another? The First Nations
have shared the land and its resources for centuries. They have
migrated and tapped the resources of different locales at different
times.
They have been asked as a part of the treaty making process to
describe the geographic area of the First Nation's traditional
territory of British Columbia. They provide a map of the traditional
areas of their ancestors. This map depicts the territory of a nation as
it occupied it historically. These maps are used to provide
negotiators with a general idea of what area of land is under
question. This is simply part of stage one of the process which is
called a statement of intent.
A statement of intent is not a settlement. A claim is not a treaty.
A treaty is the result of negotiations, and those negotiations are just
beginning. The claims are but the starting bargaining position. No
First Nation would expect to receive the entire region described in
its statement of intent. The First Nations do not expect a fee simple
title to the entire province. When two First Nations have
overlapping traditional territories, they will settle the matter as the
negotiations proceed. The federal and provincial governments do
not participate in negotiating an overlap settlement.
Several members from across the floor, members who ought to
know better, have been using the claims to instil fear among British
Columbians. They infer that these opening positions will lead to
lost property for third parties across the province. They ask British
Columbians: ``What will become of your summer cottages? What
will happen to jobs in the mining and forestry sectors? What will
happen to the fisheries?'' They raised these fears without adding
that the treaty process provides for cottage owners and a broad
spectrum of the industries of British Columbia to have a voice in
the process.
(1540)
They neglect to tell the people at town hall meetings or on radio
talk shows the Government of Canada consults with a treaty
negotiations advisory committee representing many of their
interests. They do not tell people no negotiations can proceed until
a regional advisory committee has been created to provide the
views of British Columbians from that part of the province who are
not at the negotiating table.
This pattern of misinformation and fear mongering is typical of
the tactics some members on the other side of the House have used
to score cheap political points. They have often criticized the
government for its dedication to the inherent right of
self-government as a cornerstone of the Government of Canada's
aboriginal policy.
We have said since the beginning, since the red book that
provided our election platform, that we believe the inherent right of
self-government is an existing right within Canada's Constitution.
Hon. members across the floor have often made the case that no
one has defined what self-government means. That argument has
been erected as an obstacle to prevent justice from getting through
to aboriginal communities across the entire country. That argument
speaks to a kind of mean spirited and narrow minded approach that
has thwarted efforts to bring justice to aboriginal issues. It speaks
for the tyranny of the status quo. It speaks for the preservation of
the paternalism of the Indian Act. Is that what Reform members
want to uphold? I like to think not. Do they really want to impede
progress, impede the righting of past wrongs, impede certainty for
the future, impede economic stability, impede job creation?
All Canadians want the claims settled. They want an end to the
uncertainty, an end to ancient wrongs. The negotiations are about
how, not whether, the settlements should be resolved.
We want to make progress. One way we are doing this is by
acknowledging that the inherent right to self-government is an
existing right. We are now negotiating with the First Nations on
how that right is to be implemented.
17398
I would like to remind the House of the six stages that a claim
must go through before a treaty comes into effect. I think hon.
members will observe this is a very thorough process.
In the first step a First Nation files a statement of intent with the
B.C. Treaty Commission. The commission makes sure the
statement is complete and forwards it to the federal and provincial
governments. It is at this stage that the First Nation describes the
geographic area in British Columbia it considers its traditional
territory. Forty-seven statements of intent have been filed. These
represent over 70 per cent of the aboriginal people of British
Columbia. That is progress.
Second, the commission convenes a meeting to prepare for the
negotiations. All three parties exchange information, consider the
criteria, discuss the research they will do to prepare for the
negotiations and identify issues of concern. Each party appoints a
negotiator with a clear mandate. Each party establishes a
ratification procedure, and the parties agree on the substantive and
procedural matters that will be negotiated.
This is the stage at which Canada and the British Columbia
government establish their own mechanisms for consultation with
non-aboriginal interests. One requirement the B.C. Treaty
Commission imposes on the two governments is the establishment
of a regional consultative mechanism to represent thirty party
interests.
When the commission determines that all three parties have met
the criteria for readiness, it confirms they can proceed to stage
three. This is where all three parties negotiate a framework
agreement, a negotiated agenda that identifies the issues to be
negotiated, the goals of the negotiation process, special procedural
arrangements and a timetable for the negotiations.
So far four framework agreements have been signed and another
four initialled by the negotiators. Again, this is progress.
(1545 )
In the fourth stage of the treaty process the parties negotiate an
agreement in principle. These are substantive negotiations and the
parties examine the framework in detail.
Fifth, the principals negotiate to finalize the treaty. Any
remaining technical and legal issues are resolved at this stage.
Then, and only then, the sixth stage is the implementation of the
treaty. Long term implementation plans need to be tailored to
specific agreements.
All commissions agree that significant progress has been made
by the treaty process. The B.C. treaty commission process is
working. It is fair, equitable and open. No one denies that the
negotiations ahead will be tough. There are some very complex
issues to be brought to the table. However, it is time that we settled
these claims so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and
non-aboriginal, can get on with the job of building a prosperous
society in that province, a society where all groups can enjoy the
wealth of resources the province can offer. It will benefit all British
Columbians.
It is time to get on with the job. It is not a time for
fearmongering. It is a time for fairness and certainty. It is certainly
not a time for delaying while we wait for a provincial election
which would create a precedent and would be very much uncalled
for.
I do not represent aboriginal people who have claims that are
hundreds of years old. I represent over 2,000 aboriginal people.
Their treaty was signed in 1923, in modern times. Yesterday I
attended a funeral in my riding of the first woman Indian chief in
Canada. She died at the age of 73. In 1953, when she first became a
chief, she was a young woman and a young mother who was
concerned about these issues. When she died, only this week, she
was still concerned about them. Her mother died two years ago at
the age of 103. Throughout her life she was active in trying to
resolve the problems of the First Nations in my riding.
The native people would like to negotiate. I think all Canadians
would like to negotiate. Every time we have a standoff all
Canadians suffer. I am very concerned that the member would
bring forward such a motion today.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it might
be helpful if the member were to spend a little time in British
Columbia rather than in Peterborough. Then he might have some
comprehension of what is the content of the speech from the
Department of Indian Affairs that he just read to us. He clearly has
no concept of what is going on in British Columbia.
When the member says this is an open process, the people in
British Columbia, who are concerned about this, which is probably
the majority of British Columbians, would ask: What open
process?
I am consistently asked: ``Who is negotiating for us? Who are
they? How were they selected? Where do they meet? When do they
meet? I do now know who they are''. More important, I am also
asked: ``What is their mandate? Who gave them the mandate? How
do we even know what they are negotiating on our behalf?''
I am inclined to agree with the member that if we have a
problem, which we clearly do in this situation or in any situation,
that it is very helpful to have negotiations with people who are
sitting down eyeball to eyeball.
However, what we have in my constituency in British Columbia
is 3 per cent of the people that are represented by people who are
constantly in touch with them, who clearly understand what the
mandate is and, more important, who go back to their people to
report regularly. They also know that they are going to be subject to
a ratification vote at the end of the day. Therefore, they know that
they have to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the people they
17399
represent. The same is absolutely not true of the non-aboriginal
side.
I ask the member if he would care to come to British Columbia
and maybe we could clue him in a little bit.
(1550 )
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I have
relatives in British Columbia who live in Kamloops and I visit
frequently. I know the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley
well. I regularly visit the city of Vancouver. I have visited the Peace
River country. However, I do not pretend to be a resident of British
Columbia. I am a member of the Parliament of Canada and I am
concerned about all Canadians.
The hon. member asked who was negotiating. It is the duty of
members of Parliament to explain these processes. The B.C. treaty
commission process is a good one. It is transparent. There has been
legislation in the House related to it. It is for the Reform members
to explain those matters in detail to the people of their ridings.
I would like to read something and members opposite can guess
where it comes from. Perhaps this comes from Ontario too. I am
proud to be a resident of Ontario, but I try to represent all the
people of Canada. The quotation reads: ``Statements made in the
House of Commons that native people who live in inadequate
reserve housing without running water or basic sewage should
simply move away are naive and racist in nature. Those
uninformed comments made by Reform aboriginal affairs critic
Mike Scott show the true character of his party. Reform members
have become notorious for making offhanded, uninformed
accusations concerning First Nations''. That is by David Neale of
the Victoria Times.
``The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land
claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its
deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless
manipulation of media that seem ignorant-''
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my
understanding that we are not to refer to members by their names,
even when quoting from a document.
The Speaker: The hon. member is absolutely correct. I would
ask the hon. member to wrap up his comments.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to members opposite.
They are absolutely right and I apologize for mentioning the
Reform member by name.
``The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land
claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its
deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless
manipulation of media that seem ignorant of history''.
That quote is not from someone outside the province of British
Columbia. It was written by Stephen Hume of the Vancouver Sun
on April 10, 1995.
The Speaker: On debate, the hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been
looking at my watch and I thought we had at least three minutes left
in the 10-minute question and comment period for the hon.
member for Peterborough.
The Speaker: I should tell the hon. member it was ten minutes
and five minutes. The other ten minutes are going to go to the hon.
member whom I have just recognized.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this undemocratic
motion moved by the hon. member for the Reform Party.
It would seem that the hon. member does not support economic
prosperity for British Columbians, as he is suggesting that we delay
creating treaties that would remove an obstacle which has
hampered economic growth in B.C. for far too long: the uncertainty
over ownership of land and resources. That uncertainty has carried
a very high price.
In 1990 a Price Waterhouse study asked forestry and mining
interests in B.C. about the effects of the uncertainty created by
unresolved land claims.
[Translation]
The study's findings are eloquent. In these two sectors alone, the
study notes a loss of one billion dollars worth of investments: 300
new jobs in jeopardy, 1,500 permanent jobs on hold, and capital
losses totalling $125 million due to uncertainty about the legal
status of land and resources.
(1555)
Since then we continue to pay the price of uncertainty, year after
year. It is the price we pay for letting the situation deteriorate and
for refusing to sit down with our aboriginal partners and discuss
rational solutions to the real problems. That is the price the Reform
Party would like us to keep paying.
We now have a chance to do something, to create jobs and to
stimulate our economic growth. In September, Marlie Beets of the
B.C. Council of Forest Industries had this to say: ``Our members
know that we cannot afford to ignore the issue of treaties. The
forestry industry fully supports the efforts being made to resolve
these problems, even if it is concerned about what these treaties
may contain''.
[English]
The forestry industry of B.C. understands what is involved. It
knows that it cannot function efficiently without clear policies. It
knows aboriginal rights must be defined clearly so that everyone
17400
knows the rules of the game. It knows that the time has come to
realize the potential of the province and to extend the opportunity
for its people. It wants to get on with it.
The proposition is simple. Treaties will provide certainty and
create a better climate for investment and economic growth. This is
a reality which cannot be denied. A clear signal will be sent: B. C.
is open for business.
Treaties will also provide a land base for aboriginal people and
with it a foundation on which to build self-sufficient communities.
It will allow aboriginal people to become involved in a range of
economic activities which in the absence of a land base have been
foreclosed to them.
Commercial activities like mining, forestry and tourism become
far more possible to be pursued by First Nations. The growth of
strong, self-reliant, economically vibrant aboriginal communities
strengthen us all because it will bring positive economic spinovers
into non-aboriginal communities.
For too long the aboriginal people of B.C. have been denied both
their legal rights from the past and their hopes for the future.
[Translation]
For too long they have suffered as a result of high rates of
unemployment, illiteracy, infant mortality and suicide. For too
long we have refused to acknowledge their potential contribution to
Canadian society. This is an attitude that cannot be justified, and it
must stop.
Once rights and obligations have been clearly defined in treaties,
all residents of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal,
will be able to develop the potential of their province and improve
their own circumstances. That is good news for forestry workers
and miners.
It means a broader tax base, since injecting settlement funds will
stimulate the economy and job creation. It also means a reduction
in the social cost of poverty and unemployment in aboriginal
communities. It means an end to litigation and costly court
proceedings and the beginning of co-operation and negotiation.
These historic problems will not disappear at the wave of a
magic wand. As long as they remain unresolved, there will be no
investment, and the jobs that could and should be created will
remain in limbo.
The vicious circle will continue: uncertainty will lead to a
reduction in the number of jobs which in turn will increase social
problems.
[English]
The cycle of poverty and dependency will continue. These issues
simply must be dealt with. We have a choice of how we are going to
do it. We can litigate at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer
knowing that at the end of this long, drawn out and often bitter
process a court is likely to tell us to work out the details ourselves,
something very similar to the negotiation process we have now.
(1600)
Or we could negotiate directly from the outset. Surely it makes
good economic sense to avoid costly court battles, which cast each
party in the role of antagonist, and approach the issues as partners
prepared to give and take in a spirit of trust and mutual respect.
There are real economic benefits in proceeding with treaties in
B.C. but at the end of the day the most important benefit will not be
felt in terms of dollars and cents. It will be felt in the lives of
individuals as they are given the opportunity to contribute further
to the greatness of Canada.
The benefits of holding a job cannot always be measured by a
point on a graph. Having a job is really about hope. It means having
the ability to plan for the future and to realize one's potential as
well as to advance one's family. It means having the pride of
contributing to the overall health of one's community. Is it better to
leave things in a state of confusion or to sit down with our
aboriginal colleagues and establish certainty?
Perhaps it is expecting too much to hope the Reform Party's
vision of Canada is broad enough to include the first peoples or
generous enough to expand the circle of opportunity or far sighted
enough to see the wisdom in finally completing this great
unfinished business of our history. Surely it is not expecting too
much to ask the Reform Party to take a hard headed look at the
economics of treaty negotiations and admit that it makes real sense.
Surely even Reformers can see the awful price we are paying for
uncertainty. Surely even they can see the benefits of negotiation
over litigation. I hope they do see these benefits when it comes
time to vote on this motion and that they join us in denouncing this
short sighted and meanspirited motion.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, other than the partisan ending to the member's speech
virtually everything said is something we subscribe to. As long as
the treaties are done right in terms of content, what the member is
saying is absolutely correct. We do need to define aboriginal rights
and we do need to solve the problems of uncertainty.
There was an earlier reference to the Charlottetown accord. Of
any identifiable ethnic or racial group in Canada, once the voting
was over on the Charlottetown referendum the natives on reserves
more than any other group resoundingly defeated the
Charlottetown accord in the referendum. We need to remember that
because I do not believe that is in the public consciousness. There
are some important reasons why that happened which I am
certainly sensitive to. I am not sure everyone in the House is
sensitive to those reasons.
17401
There is a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory committee.
One of its members was referred to in the previous member's
speech, the member from the council of forest industries. Many
of the members of that treaty negotiation advisory committee and
also some of the members of the regional advisory committees
who were referred to by several speakers are the biggest critics
of the status quo process. It is important to recognize those items.
(1605 )
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question
per se. I think researchers from the hon. member's office are
providing some of the things he wants to put on the record.
With regard to the Charlottetown accord, the population of
British Columbia also rejected the Charlottetown accord. The hon.
member should keep his records straight. I want to make sure there
is no bias in what is put into the record.
I find this motion somewhat petty. I cannot believe that
everywhere we go, in every committee of the House, Reform Party
members always take on democracy, democratic rights. Yet they
are actually saying in this motion that democracy in B.C. is not
alive and well because there is a government that should be calling
an election in one year which was not elected in a democratic
process and cannot assure and assume responsibility for all its
citizens. That is what the motion is implying, that it does not have
the mandate and the responsibility and that it was not elected in a
democracy.
I do not know if they read what they wrote in this motion. It is an
absolute bias. As far as I am concerned it destroys their entire
argument and excuse which they advocate in the House and in
every committee to put forward their petty politics.
The hon. member who put forth this motion states: ``The aim of
these changes would be to give aboriginals more responsibility for
their well-being, the tools to discharge that responsibility and more
accountability for their result''. That is from a press release on
Reform policy for aboriginal equality and accountability.
I am sorry, but we are dealing here with a motion coming from a
member who says one thing one day and another thing another day,
just like his leader.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last night
was an infamous time in Canadian history. The opposition parties
in the Ontario legislature conducted an illegal occupation and sit-in
of the Ontario chamber. This was unconscionable and I plead with
them to consider the example they have set.
I can understand their frustration because being an opposition
member facing a juggernaut of a majority government can be
disappointing, frustrating and disillusioning.
The Reform Party faced that shortsighted stupidity and abuse of
power exercised by the federal Liberal government when it used a
pile-driver to ram through the Yukon Indian land claims and
self-government in June 1994.
Believe it or not, we now have government in Canada based on
race. The federal government has turned over massive sections of
law making in Yukon to aboriginal people. Let me put this in the
most transparent terms. Aboriginal persons can make certain laws
that directly impact non-aboriginal persons, and non-aboriginal
persons have no democratic recourse.
(1610)
In South Africa this was called apartheid when the majority of
blacks were dictated to by the minority of whites. What do we call
it in Canada when the majority of non-aboriginals are dictated to by
the aboriginals?
This is going on in Yukon. The stupidity of the government's
ham fisted legislation is that it has constitutionally removed
freedoms from aboriginal people in Yukon as well. In part of
Canada's Constitution the federal government has delegated law
making to certain Indian nations but in turn those nations do not
have to construct those laws through a democratic process. Those
nations may delegate law making to an individual in the Indian
nation.
Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents in Yukon can now
become subject to certain laws with absolutely no recourse, no
democracy. Dictatorship for Canadians enshrined in the Canadian
Constitution by the government? It is unbelievable.
This is why the Reform Party has raised the issue of the B.C.
treaty negotiations today. B.C. residents, indeed all Canadian
citizens, are about to have an agreement in principle that has been
negotiated behind closed doors which will be rammed down their
throats. It will be an agreement in principle that will be the starting
point for a constitutionalized treaty. If there was ever a time to
protest, to obstruct, to go to the extreme, this is it.
Unlike the financially driven issues in Ontario that are very
serious, the issue of the B.C. treaty process is that the B.C. treaty
and the Nisga'a agreement in principle will explicitly impact
Canadians' democratic freedoms. The process and treaty will
permanently, constitutionally, enshrine some personal rights based
on race.
If we do not respect democratic process and combine our
protests within the democratic process, we have destroyed
democracy. I have asked the MPPs who occupied the Ontario
legislature, what is the difference between the 19 aboriginal
protesters who occupied a Toronto Revenue Canada office last year
or the occupiers at Ipperwash? What is the difference between them
and the occupiers of the Ontario legislature? A lot. If the members
of the provincial parliament, the law makers, will not respect the
law how
17402
can they expect ordinary citizens to respect the law? Without
respect we have anarchy.
However, this is not a one-sided issue. If the government at
Queen's Park or here in Ottawa is bull headed, provocative,
uncaring and insensitive to concerns of citizens, as expressed by
members of the opposition, it shares an important part of the
responsibility for lawless actions.
The Liberals here have such a responsibility. They have a
responsibility to really listen and respond. How can I describe my
rage that they used a pile-driver to smash personal rights and
freedoms of Canadians in Yukon? The Liberals would not entertain
a Reform Party motion that would have subjected the attack on
personal rights and freedoms of Yukon residents to the Canadian
charter of rights.
Reform Party members used every parliamentary tactic in June
1994 available to them to slow the race based, democracy bashing
Yukon acts. It became a choice: break the law ourselves to stop the
Liberals' stupidity or work within the system and respect this
institution in spite of the Liberals' bullheaded stupidity.
For Yukon it is too late but for B.C. it is not. I plead with the
Liberals. Listen, learn and recognize that the Liberal process is not
only out of touch with reality but, most important, will lead to
permanent civil disobedience and racial gridlock.
In my office in Cranbrook I have been approached by aboriginal
people. Members of the Ktunaxa nation tell me their negotiators
are out of touch with them. These Indian people resent and reject
being left on the outside of the negotiating process.
At least these constituents who represent about 3 per cent of the
population in Kootenay East will have a chance to ratify a
negotiated agreement. They will get one person, one vote, but what
about the other 97 per cent? Approximately 70,000 people who will
have to live with the treaty will get two persons, their MP and
MLA, with two votes. Their MP with one vote in the House will be
pitted against members like the member for Peterborough and
members from Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland,
Ontario: one of 295 votes to represent the interests of my 70,000
people.
Do we have democracy when an aboriginal gets a vote but a
non-aboriginal does not? I think not.
(1615 )
I suggest the aboriginal negotiators who may presently be
considered to be out of touch by their aboriginal constituents are
negotiating the aboriginal position with popular ratification of the
final agreement in mind. They clearly understand their negotiations
will be rejected if they do not reflect the wishes of their
constituents.
It is not just an issue of fairness. It is more than enforcing the
principle of equality of all Canadians. It is about a workable
process that will lead to a real solution to a real problem. If we do
not get it right, we will end up with civil disobedience, unrest,
racial friction and a giant, tangled, constitutionalized mess.
I am asked constantly as to who is negotiating for the
non-aboriginal citizen. People come in to my office and want to
know literally who is negotiating for them. They want to know who
the negotiators are, how they are selected, where they meet, when
do they meet and more important, what their mandate is and who
gave it to them. A constituent asked me: ``How will they know
what I will accept? Why do I not have the same rights as the
aboriginal with the ratification vote?'' People tell me: ``If I have
not been part of the process, if my interests have not been explicitly
taken into account, I have no interest in the agreement''.
Let me clearly explain what this means to the Indian affairs
minister and the Liberal backbenchers who are forced to support
him. Let me also explain this to the provincial negotiators. If the
negotiators knew during the treaty negotiations that their process
was going to be subject to popular ratification, they would
negotiate in a substantially different way. They would know that
their bottom line, that the results of the treaty process negotiations
would have to be accepted, in my case by 97 per cent of Kootenay
East residents.
Impossible, the Liberals say: ``We would never get an
agreement''. Well that is precisely the problem. Contrary to the
Liberals' old party assumptions, Canadians will not have
government imposed top down solutions. Let me repeat that
Canadians clearly have shown in everything from the
Charlottetown accord to the cablevision fee increase kerfuffle last
year, that they would not accept those increases and they would not
accept the Charlottetown accord. They will not have their future
dictated by Ottawa politicians. There we have it.
When talking about the B.C. treaty process of the Nisga'a
agreement the facts are the same. If Canadians are not part of the
solution, they will be part of the problem and with a vengeance.
The difference between the problems today and tomorrow are
two. First, non-aboriginal residents of B.C. are scared, anxious and
concerned. They are delaying investment decisions by the
truckload. Their apprehension is magnified by the unknown.
Tomorrow they will be resentful, surly and unco-operative, with
their apprehension replaced by lack of co-operation with the
government and a bad attitude toward the people who have special
position and privilege based on their race. Second, today we have
some flexibility. Tomorrow the decisions will be etched in granite
because they will be constitutionalized for all time.
Do we get the picture? We permanently remove one serious
problem and immediately replace it with a problem 20 times worse.
17403
We will use the finance minister's comment from question
period today. We will use his example of an incapacitated driver
racing down a hill. The Reform motion we have put forward would
slow down the driver, bring him to a stop and hopefully sober him
up. The Liberals will leave the driver racing down the hill until
he crashes.
Will the Liberals listen? Will the B.C. NDP government which is
on its way out take heed? I doubt it. And more the shame because
they are putting the same unconscionable pressure on the Reform
Party that the Ontario government put on its opposition. The
federal Liberals have a responsibility to be reasonable and they are
blowing it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest and I am sorry that the member did not have
an opportunity to speak very much with regard to the motion. He
may have spent a little more time on the partisan aspects of
political life.
The member started off in his debate referring to the situation in
the Ontario provincial legislature. He chastises the opposition
members for taking charge of a situation and in fact exercising their
right to let their views be known in that elected body.
(1620 )
The member then went on to describe a situation which occurred
last June in the aboriginal affairs committee. He said that a piece of
legislation had been rammed through the committee. The hon.
member will well know that the meeting continued all through the
night until six o'clock the next morning. I was at the meeting from
about midnight until 6.00 a.m. filling in for some of my colleagues.
Members of the Reform Party were conducting a filibuster. The
filibuster was basically to ask nuisance and nonsense questions on
virtually every word in the bill. They kept the entire staff
associated with that committee and members of Parliament, about
40 people, tied up in a stuffy room while they asked nuisance
questions. It is precisely the same situation. The Reform Party was
exercising its democratic right. I do not for one moment believe
there was anything wrong with what the Reform members did.
They were doing it because it is part of the democratic process.
The hon. member also referred to his frustration. I am sorry the
member is frustrated with life in a House which has a majority
government. However, we must respect the democratic process.
The fact that the government has a majority is a reflection of the
operation of the democratic process.
The hon. member well knows that when a government is elected
it has a platform which reflects the commitments the party has
made to the people of Canada. ``If you elect us, these are the things
we will do''. When the party platform is put into legislation, it is
incumbent on the members elected to the governing party to follow
the promises they have made.
Does the hon. member not believe that supporting legislation
which reflects the platform of a party during an election is
respecting the democratic process?
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is
only logical and rational that a party when it forms a majority
government would be committed to following through on its
election platform. We have no disagreement with that.
However, we have a very fundamental difference of opinion with
respect to the fact that the Liberal government has used closure
more times than the Brian Mulroney government even thought
about. It is ramming through distinct society. It is ramming through
veto. It rammed through the Indian land claims. I suggest that a
majority government not only has a right to do what it wants to do,
but it has a responsibility to opposition members who are
expressing the deep, heartfelt concerns of their constituents. Those
concerns are falling on deaf ears because of the unslakeable thirst
for power of the government.
There is a tremendous amount of fear, anxiety and concern in
British Columbia that the cabinet has such a weak representation in
British Columbia. There is a tremendous amount of silence on the
part of federal Liberals elected in British Columbia. The
government is running roughshod with its legislation.
The hon. member referred to the filibuster in committee. He is
right; it is legal. I submit to him that the process which the MPPs
undertook in the Ontario legislature because they were so desperate
goes far beyond the whole process of a filibuster.
What I am saying is that we have reached a point of very acute
concern about the heavy handedness of the Liberal Party and in
particular, the NDP government in B.C. which is currently on its
way out. We are concerned that we are going to have something
imposed on the people of British Columbia by people who are
fundamentally out of touch with reality.
(1625 )
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will keep an eye on the clock and I hope you will help me
out because I am not sure how this will go.
I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-107, an act to
establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission and to speak in
favour of our motion to urge the government to not enter into any
binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C.
in the last years of the current provincial government's mandate.
In fact, this bill does not establish the treaty commission, it
continues it and legalizes it. It is just what we need, another legally
entrenched layer of bureaucracy. It is another group of appointees
with their own staff to be paid for by the people of Canada. I
17404
oppose the establishment of this treaty commission in British
Columbia because it is simply not necessary.
In British Columbia we have no treaties. We have a reserve
system. The legal entrenchment of this commission prejudges the
outcome of the land claims negotiations which are presently taking
place in British Columbia.
I can tell you that the people of British Columbia are very
concerned about this treaty negotiation process. Just a few days ago
I hosted in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam an information
evening on aboriginal issues which was attended by over 200
people. They are very concerned that fishing rights and lumbering
rights will be bargained away as part of the settlement process.
They also believe they should be a part of any settlement process.
Mel Smith, the well known, well respected author of Our Home
or Native Land? attended the meeting. He stated that British
Columbia has already done its duty to its native people by setting
up more than 1,600 reserves. He argues that by doing this British
Columbia has discharged any duty it owed to the aboriginal people.
As well, the government could compensate the native people with a
one time cash payment for loss of hunting, trapping and gathering
rights over the lands.
It is our intention to ensure that Canada's native people become
completely self-reliant. We would like to preside over the
dismantling of the department of Indian affairs, thus allowing
aboriginal people to become self-sufficient. This should be the goal
for all of us in this House. Yet what do we hear? A lot of name
calling from the other side. To become self-sufficient, the
aboriginal people do not need a treaty commission.
It is our belief that we should get rid of the Indian Act, giving
aboriginals the same right to property ownership as other citizens.
Aboriginals should be subject to the same constitutional, federal
and provincial laws as the rest of Canadians. They should be
allowed to establish municipal style governments and benefit from
the same programs as the rest of Canadians.
There is no need for this bill, but there is a need to address
aboriginal issues in a timely fashion. I would like to remind
members that we are not suggesting we do away with any type of
negotiation. Having said this, I wish to draw the attention of the
House to certain shortcomings in the bill.
The interpretation section contains a definition of First Nations.
They are described as aboriginal people within their traditional
territory in British Columbia. The definition begs the question of
entitlement to a land base. It can be argued that by the use of the
definition the aboriginal people are shown to have a prima facie
case of a land claims settlement.
Again, clause 5 does the same thing. It states that the purpose of
the commission is to facilitate in British Columbia the negotiation
of treaties. In other words, establish this commission and we are
bound to have the traditions negotiated, whether there is an
entitlement or not. The process has been established.
Clause 5 obligates the commission to allocate funds to allow
First Nations to participate in the process. This will be expensive.
But in addition to it being expensive, it is also exclusionary.
Funding is not provided for third parties, only the aboriginal
people. What about those who oppose the giveaway of British
Columbia lands? I guess they will have to finance these
interventions themselves. I hope they are able to. It is my
understanding that in the borrowing of funds to negotiate there will
be an 80:20 split. In that case, 80 per cent will be repayable; 20 per
cent will be contributed by whom, the federal government, the
provincial government, what part for each one?
Clause 7 of the bill establishes how the commission is to be
appointed. The federal government and the B.C. government each
get to appoint commissions. I do not see anyone who will simply
represent the people of Canada. Are they not important? Are the
members opposite saying they do not count? These appointments,
all appointments to the Commission, should be subject to the
approval of this House.
Clause 18 allows the commission to make necessary bylaws. We
are giving the commission power to establish its own rules of
procedure. At the very least, these bylaws should be tabled in this
House.
(1630 )
Clause 22, the clause which perhaps bothers me more than any
other, states that the parties can amend the agreement at any time.
This is the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement which
underlies this act. It is beyond me how the bill can allow
amendments to the agreement without references to Parliament.
In my last householder I asked the following question: ``Do you
believe that all Canadians should have equal rights and
responsibilities with no special status based on racial or ethnic
origin?'' Ninety-one per cent answered yes. However, in addition
to answering many wrote comments, some of which I should like to
share. I have so many comments that I cannot share them all, but I
will share some of them.
I have not done anything to the comments. I have not changed
their wording. I have not corrected grammar. I have not done
anything to them. These are some of the things the residents of my
riding in British Columbia are saying: ``Anyone born in Canada
should have the same rights and be governed by the same laws.
This is not true now''.
17405
``We all have our own ethnic upbringings but we do not expect
to be treated differently from others. I believe that everyone
regardless of race should work and pay for their property''.
``Governments should put a stop to all the Indian roadblocks. I
do not feel the Indian population should have special rights,
especially Indians who are abusing their position and rights''.
There might be something there with regard to fishing rights. There
has been tremendous abuse of fishing rights in British Columbia.
``We are all Canadians. We should have the same rights and
laws. Practices such as giving natives the right to fish any time for
their food as well as to sell those fish is making racial problems''.
They are. That is a truth. I do not want to sit in the House and be
condemned and called names by members opposite for saying the
truth. I am getting very tired of it.
``Natives should not get tax free anything. They should work like
everyone else. We are suggesting that native people be given a fair
chance to stand on their own two feet. Wouldn't you suggest that is
the right thing to do?''
Regarding self-government, the Indian Act discriminates against
aboriginal people by setting them apart from other Canadians. That
is what Reform believes. I do not see how any member in the
House could disagree with that. Most native people want the same
rights, freedoms, responsibilities and protections of other
Canadians. The Indian Act stifles its subjects from having a
democratic voice in their own affairs and from having
accountability in their own officials.
The inherent right to self-government is an interesting phrase.
What does it mean? When Reform MPs rightly ask what is meant
by self-government, the previous speaker from Peterborough
attacks Reformers for wanting to know the answer. Can we imagine
anyone going into negotiations without knowing what all parties
mean by the terminology that is being discussed? It is absolutely
ridiculous. Instead of the member for Peterborough admitting the
common sense of Reform in asking this question, he attacks
Reform MPs for asking it.
I have been watching government members in the House for
some time now. I wonder what constantly drives them to put down
other elected members of Parliament. Is it because they have no
answers? They started this terrible debt that is climbing up and up
and up. We are trying to deal with it today and they do not have the
answers. Are they trying to take the pressure off themselves? Is it
because to attack means one does not have to deal with the issues?
The member for Madawaska-Victoria called us meanspirited.
She said: ``What about democratic rights? Reformers are always on
about democratic rights''. Yes, we are. We are discussing the
democratic rights of all British Columbians and of all other
Canadians. The treaty process does not involve a few people. It
involves all Canadians. It is time we started to be honest.
The department of Indian affairs has not worked. Can anyone say
it has worked? This process which has been encouraged by this
government and by past Liberal governments has created a group
of Canadians who are dependent on the Canadian government.
Past Canadian governments have created an institutionalized
welfare state for native people. This is not kindness. This is cruelty.
I wonder how many times we have to say that. It is not the
Reformers who are being cruel. The Reformers are saying we
should stop all this now, help people, deal with the issues, deal with
reality and stop calling names because that does not get anybody
anywhere. The House is far above that sort of presentation. It really
distresses me every time I hear it.
(1635)
I spent many years teaching students. I always taught them that
in debate, if they do not have something to say, if they cannot back
it up or say it in a proper manner, they should not bother saying it at
all.
I watch repeatedly in the House people tearing at each other. I
would rather see facts. I would rather hear arguments that are
presented properly. I really am discouraged by it.
This morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development directed most of his remarks to the right of Reform
MPs to raise this issue in the House. Have I missed something
here? Are we not all elected equally? How dare anybody question
the right of Reform MPs to raise this issue in the House? That is
absolutely disgusting.
He proceeded to describe Reformers as aboriginal bashers
because we were making him uncomfortable; that is all I can
suggest. I guess it is the old story: the best defence is an offence. I
have often heard the word racist. It disgusts me too. If members
take the time to look it up in the dictionary they will see that it
means giving special priorities to a certain group. Reformers
repeatedly say that we must all be equal. If we are all equal that is
not racist. Some members should start telling the truth in the
House. The House is far above the petty squabbling I witness day
after day.
Native people soundly defeated the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords. What does that say to members of the
House? It was not suitable to them. Distinct society, as presented,
was not suitable to them.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to correct a few points.
We passed Bill C-107 regarding the B.C. Treaty Commission.
The B.C. Treaty Commission is formed by five people. One is
appointed by the governor. One is appointed by the lieutenant
17406
governor. Two are appointed by the summit. Then the chairperson
is appointed by the three parties I just mentioned.
Truth is always a question of perception. Many times I am very
disturbed by the truth the Reform Party raises. I suppose we are not
on the same wave length and that is why we are on opposing sides
of the House.
I agree to some extent with the member. I am quite distraught
most of the time by what is going on in the House and by the lack of
kindness we see here.
As for the aboriginal people, it is true we should all be equal.
However aboriginal people have been in distress for too long. They
are in a situation where they need help. We must start on an equal
basis in order to be equal. We have to help them first, put them on
an equal basis, and then we can all be equal.
I have two questions for my colleague. She mentioned that in
reply to her householder 91 per cent of the people said that they
wanted equality. How many people answered her householder?
Whenever I ask questions in my householder I always have a very
low response.
Does she feel that the comments of her colleague from Kootenay
West made on the Liberal caucus of British Columbia were actually
kind comments? I take exception to what he said. We have been
working very well in spite of the fact that we are so few. We have
been able to achieve quite a few things.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware that Bill
C-107 was passed. I did not get a chance to speak on it and I very
much wanted to. With 52 MPs on the Reform side, many of us do
not get to speak on the issues we would like to speak on. Since it
impacts directly on this I certainly wanted an opportunity to do so.
No one represents the people. I must insist that all the names the
hon. member mentioned were appointed, as she said, but who is
representing the people of British Columbia? Nobody is.
(1640 )
Aboriginal people have been in distress for too long. Those who
know their Canadian history will realize that not just the aboriginal
people were in distress in the history of the country. They should
know about the Acadians who were torn asunder, who lost family
members, who lost their lands, who were sent all over the world
and had nothing. Nobody paid them anything. No one
re-established them. Nobody did anything. They were good,
worthwhile people.
We also had the Loyalists who were driven out of the United
States to Canada. They had nothing. They had to leave. What did
we do when the Loyalists came to Canada? We did not give them
anything to set up. They had to do it on their own. Today they are
better off having done that. It makes their lives a lot easier. Too bad
we did not do that with the native people.
What about Japanese Canadians? We just took and took. With
these examples I am trying to say to the hon. member that we have
made mistakes. We admit we have made mistakes, but is it not time
to start on an equal basis for everyone? I strongly suggest we
should.
Regarding my householders, I keep track and I have been
running at a 2 per cent to 6 per cent return. I have about 58,000 in
my riding. We do not have them all in at this time because it only
went out and we are waiting. We have had over 1,500 returned, so it
is 91 per cent of the 1,500. That is the best I can tell the member
right now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt-Department of
National Defence; the hon. member for Mackenzie-Canadian
Wheat Board; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-Environmental Protection Act-the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra-Vietnam; the hon. member for Saint
John-National Defence.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to respond to the motion by the hon. member for North
Island-Powell River.
At the outset I must say I find the motion puzzling. No doubt the
hon. member means well, but I do not think he has thought through
the consequences of the motion. If adopted, parliamentary
democracy in Canada will slow down to a crawl. The hon. member
asks us to forgo signing land claim agreements because the people
of British Columbia may be going to the polls soon. His motion
refers to the last year of the current provincial government
mandate.
I wonder how he expects any business to get done in a federal
state, let alone one with ten provinces and two territorial
governments, and soon to be three. In any given year at least one of
these governments may be facing an election. On average two and
one-half of them will be facing an election every year.
It would seem the hon. member wants to paralyse the decision
making process. The convention is that elections are held every
four or five years. How do we know which it will be? Should we
begin clamping down on a government's right to sign agreements
during the third year or the fourth years of its term?
What about the case of minority governments? The pattern in
Canada seems to be that minority governments call an election
after two years in office. This is not a constitutional principle. It is
not even a convention. It is simply a reality of minority
government. If we were apply the hon. member's motion in these
situations, we would not sign any agreements with a minority
government that had been in office for more than one year.
17407
We can imagine the results. A new minority government is
sworn in. The new ministry has a few months to become
accustomed to power and to learn something about the ropes. Just
as it is hitting stride and beginning to get some things
accomplished, other governments in the country say: ``Sorry, we
can't sign any agreements with you. We have to respect the views
of your electorate who may be going to the polls soon. They may
want to change something''.
Yet I hear over and over again from the members of the Reform
Party that government must pay attention to the grassroots. The last
speaker from Mission-Coquitlam made much of this point. What
is their idea of paying attention to the grassroots? The member for
Mission-Coquitlam said that we should read the answers to the
questions she put in householder and that is it.
(1645 )
It is sort of like following the opinion polls, setting up hotlines
so that people can phone in their views. It is town hall meetings and
radio talk shows. I have nothing against any of these practices. I do
them myself. I commend any effort to encourage Canadians to
express their views. We have to understand one thing: taking an
opinion poll or gauging the views of the people who phone in to a
hotline or having a show of hands at a town hall meeting is not the
same as representing the grassroots. The important word is
representing.
This is a representative government. We are all representatives
of the people of this country. The way I try to do it, and I suggest
most of us do, is we get involved, to learn, to listen. We go to
committee meetings, we question witnesses and we study and
debate those issues which are of particular concern or about which
we have some particular expertise.
When I ran in my riding to represent the people, I told them what
I stood for, what the party was going to do and what the issues were
with which the government would deal. We were fortunate enough
to receive a majority of the votes in this country and represent the
majority of the seats. Therefore, the Liberal party in this House is, I
submit, the only truly representative body here. That seems to be
self-evident. We come from all across the country. We represent
every ethnic group in the country, including the aboriginal people.
Therefore, we try to represent what the majority of Canadians think
and feel about this country.
The grassroots is largely made up of people who do not phone in
to hotline shows. They have little inclination to talk to Raife Mair
on the radio. They do not go to town hall meetings. They might not
have a strong opinion one way or another on a particular issue
because they do not know enough about it, that is until they happen
to be asked their opinion by a pollster. If the wrong question is
asked, the wrong answer will be given.
Certainly most people believe all Canadians should have the
same rights. The member for Mission-Coquitlam said that the
Department of Indian Affairs has not worked. By today's standards
and what we know now, it was an ill-conceived plan. It was a way
of integrating another culture and people into ours. We have
learned a lot since those days. I would agree very much with my
colleague that we should do all we can over time to get rid of the
paternalistic attitude of the Indian affairs department.
That does not mean that we can then say that all of us should
have the same rights when we are not starting from the same place.
If we do not understand that the Indian idea of property is different
from ours, that it is culturally different and spiritually different,
then we are never going to solve the problem because they will
never agree.
Let us hear no more of the self-righteousness of the members of
the Reform Party with their claims that they speak for the people.
People elected the hon. member from North Island-Powell River
on October 25, 1993 just as they elected me. They elected him to
represent them. We both speak for the people in our ridings and
people will have an opportunity to judge our performance in the
next federal election.
The people of British Columbia elected the government of
British Columbia and they will have their chance to render their
verdict on that government in the coming months. In the meantime,
we will continue with the job of governing the country and we have
to carry on with the job of negotiating comprehensive claims with
the First Nations of British Columbia. They have waited for 200
years to reach these agreements. Most have never had the
opportunity to sign an agreement outlining their rights.
This is an historic anomaly in Canada. First Nations in all other
provinces and in the territories have treaties, principally because
most of the land unsettled is owned by the Queen in right of Canada
in other provinces and territories.
(1650 )
The only treaties signed exclusively in British Columbia were
concluded before the province joined Confederation in 1871. When
the province joined Confederation, all the unclaimed land, except
where the Indians had been pushed into reserves, was held by the
Queen in right of British Columbia, which is not the same situation
across the rest of the country.
This is where the grassroots beyond the aboriginal community
can have their say. They are not left out of the process. Neither the
Government of Canada nor the Government of British Columbia is
interested, hopefully, in negotiating treaties that would ignore the
17408
interests of non-aboriginal British Columbians, any more than it is
going to ignore the justifiable interests of the aboriginal people.
We do want to get on with the process. We want to remove the
uncertainty. We cannot let the process become derailed because
this government or that one nears the end of its mandate.
The negotiation of a comprehensive claim is a long and
painstaking process. That is how it should be. That is how it has
been. That is how it will be. These are very important negotiations.
They define how people will function over the long term. They set
the parameters for how aboriginal people and their institutions will
relate to the federal and provincial governments.
The simplistic ideas we have heard so far this afternoon from
Reform Party members seem to ignore completely that the Indian
people are a people. They are protected, as we all are, under the
Constitution. They have inalienable rights to self-government and
they have inherent rights in this land. Those are the things we have
to define.
After waiting for more than a century, the First Nations of
British Columbia know the value of patience in making sure that
the negotiations are done right. Perhaps a little of that patience
would not hurt the members down the line.
At the same time, we should not set up artificial barriers by tying
the hands of legislators that must pass the legislation to bring the
treaties into effect. I urge the House to vote against this motion.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this motion has been misread. It depends where you are
coming from sometimes how you choose to read something.
Nowhere in this motion does the Reform Party suggest that
governments cannot sign agreements in the last year of their
mandate.
We are saying that when there is a significant, a major, a costly
and a divisive issue, in the same way that the Mulroney Tories in
the dying days of their government, low in the polls, signed the
EH-101 and the Pearson deals, this is a divisive issue in British
Columbia. It is precedent setting and worth billions of dollars. It is
totally inappropriate for the government in the last year of its
mandate to sign this treaty. In actuality the election is most likely
only months away. It will be in the spring.
I want to make it perfectly clear that this is a basic assumption
that was promoted by the last speaker and it is incorrect. Nowhere
are we saying that, nor is that our intent.
There was a suggestion by the member that only a Liberal
government is qualified to govern and only a Liberal government is
qualified to judge the issues. I find that very difficult, particularly
in the context of British Columbia. That is a stretch of
unimaginable proportions.
The member made some statements about lands and about
treaties. The significant thing in British Columbia is that British
Columbia spent many years after Confederation contributing lands
to the federal government to reserve for native people. That was a
commitment made at the time of Confederation under the Act of
Union. It was an unfulfilled commitment up until 1924. In 1924 the
federal government, by order in council, agreed that the province of
British Columbia had fulfilled its obligations.
(1655)
British Columbia has two-thirds of all the reserves in Canada.
About 18 per cent of registered Indian people in Canada live in
British Columbia. Those reserves contain, within a provincial
context, 14 per cent of all lands reserved for Indians. This is not
insignificant. It is the crux of a very large issue. There is no legal
imperative to negotiate treaties.
We are not saying that treaties should not be negotiated. We are
also interested in removing the uncertainty from the landscape and
from this whole issue. This is an appropriate way to do it. However,
right now is not the time to conclude a final agreement.
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon.
member for North Island-Powell River. I listened to his speech, as
I have listened to them all. I suppose one might answer a question
with another question.
I suggest, in the scheme of things, that two years is scarcely
sufficient time for the B.C. treaty commission to prove its worth, as
the member knows, as he listened as I did to the current head of that
commission. Two years ago the commission started from scratch to
set up a service organization to get the board together and write
some policies. Since it only began in 1993 and we are in 1995, it
has had scarcely two years which was not to negotiate treaties. It
was, as my friend knows, to start the business, develop the
expertise, set up the office and interest the First Nations of B.C. in
coming forward to negotiate. Since a little more than 70 per cent of
the natives in B.C. are involved in the process now, it seems to me
we should give them a little time.
I appreciate the member filling me in with respect to the order in
council in 1924. I am little confused about his numbers because I
believe he said that B.C. had 17 per cent of all reserves in Canada
and then went on to use the figure of 14 per cent. I want to ask him
about that.
I also want to ask the member whether the election in B.C. is a
foregone conclusion. I thought he might bring up the helicopters
and the Pearson airport deal, but if he casts his mind back he will
realize that the Pearson airport deal was signed in the midst of an
election which the government was losing very badly. The
helicopter deal was a statement in the red book and in the platform
of the Liberal Party before it was signed. Again, it was within
months of
17409
the election. I might remind the member that this House had not sat
effectively for about a year and a half before that election.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to speak to this shortsighted motion moved by
the hon. member from the Reform Party.
This undemocratic motion suggests that the views of British
Columbians cannot and are not being respected in the treaty
process. I want to correct this ill-informed impression by providing
the hon. member and his equally ill-informed colleagues with some
facts.
Before doing that, I would like to take exception to something
said by my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam. I know Canadian
history and I strongly believe that the aboriginals, because of their
culture, had much more difficulty becoming part of our society and
they still do.
Mr. Hermanson: Did you write that?
Mrs. Terrana: Yes, I wrote that. They have gone some way but
they have to go further to be equal. Perhaps my choice of words is
incorrect. My hon. colleagues have received a heap of factual
information on the treaty process in British Columbia, but they
seem bent on seeing things that are not there.
(1700)
If they are involved in some science fiction movie, we are not in
Hollywood, and let us get back to reality. We cannot stop all
negotiations for almost one year. What for? Do we want to fool the
First Nations once again? What would we accomplish? The treaty
negotiation process is well under way.
Around ten teams are now at the framework step which is the
fourth step of the process. We are all anxious to see the conclusion
of these negotiations. It is important for all of us because the
uncertainty has been too severe for years and has caused real
hardship in British Columbia.
In B.C. the governments have set up structures to hear, discuss
and solicit the advice of province wide interests. The Reform Party
seems to ignore that advice is being sought. It wants to perpetuate
the fear and concern which we all know exists. The Reform Party
needs to understand that debate and discussion can take place
without some of the hyperbole and rhetoric easily associated with
treaty negotiations.
Let me talk about the consultations. In mid-1993 the federal and
provincial governments formally established and advisory
committee to advise ministers and senior officials on province
wide treaty issues. The treaty negotiation advisory committee is
made up of representatives from 31 organizations in British
Columbia.
Among those organizations are four fishing industry
representatives, five labour union representatives, the B.C.
Wildlife Federation, guides and outfitters, The B.C. Council of
Forestry, the B.C. Trappers Association, outdoor recreational
interests, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and others.
More important, the members come from throughout British
Columbia. They are not all from Vancouver. They come from
Smithers, Terrace, Kamloops, Quesnel, Prince Rupert and
Vancouver Island. Each brings his or her organizational perspective
but also the sense of how their neighbours and communities are
reacting to the treaty negotiation process.
The objective of the treaty negotiation advisory committee,
TNAC, is to ensure that the interests of the members' organizations
are understood and taken into account in the negotiation of modern
day treaties and to contribute to treaty agreements with aboriginal
people which are workable and lasting and have the understanding
and support of British Columbians.
Those are high but necessary objectives. Governments are
committed to not just hearing and understanding their advice but
taking it into account when negotiating.
The federal government not only wants a means by which
negotiations can be effectively conducted but also must seek
effective and efficient advice from third parties whose interests
might be affected by treaty settlement.
TNAC is structured to enable all members to know as much
about the issues that could be negotiated and to notify governments
of potential problems or concerns.
My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, has attended three of TNAC's bi-monthly meetings.
To ensure he maintains a direct relationship to the committee, I
serve as the minister's representative to the committee. We are as a
government directly and closely involved in the discussion and
advice from the TNAC table.
We are all working together, trying to come to an agreement we
can all live with. At times it is difficult but with everybody's
goodwill we will get there and solve a far too longstanding
discrimination.
Because of TNAC things are changing every time we meet. We
are listening. It is not an easy process but we are slowly getting
there and learning to understand each other. Now we all recognize
that 31 members is a large committee and that some issues require
more specific discussion. Hence five sectoral committees were
established. These committees meet monthly and are divided into
lands and forests, fisheries, wildlife, governance and energy mines
petroleum resources. Recently the energy mines committee folded
its work into the governance committee.
An important step in building our understanding of third party
interests was the development of interest papers by each of the five
17410
sectoral committees. I say a step because issues will evolve and be
addressed over the course of negotiations.
Knowing the interests of third parties is a gradual approach but it
has a clear objective. We want treaties that work and address the
interests and needs of all participants in the economy.
(1705 )
In the year and a half I have been on TNAC I saw great
improvement in communication and much better understanding of
these complicated issues and better co-operation. In addition, the
Government of British Columbia with which we are co-operating
very well organizes province wide monthly advisory meetings
which are reaching all British Columbians. It is a shame that such
intolerance is being promoted by some people in B.C. who do not
seem to want to solve the problems.
I will identify a few of the interests common to all parties in the
process. Certainty and economic stability were essential. Effective
local and regional advisory processes were essential. Access to
land base for all economic and non-economic interests was
essential. The continuation of government authority in areas of
resource management was imperative to successfully concluding
practical and affordable land claims settlements.
Both governments have taken these interest papers seriously. As
we work through the development of specific negotiating mandates
the advice TNAC has provided through these papers will be
considered, assessed and integrated wherever possible. Through
the consultation process and eventually through Parliament the
government will be held accountable for how it has used the advice
of third parties.
Now the Reform Party seems obsessed by secrecy even when it
no longer exists. In September 1994 I presented to TNAC the
minister's position on the openness of the consultation process.
The minister accepted the concerns of TNAC members that a
confidentiality restriction overly limited their ability to seek advice
and direction from their colleagues and organizations. Now the
media is invited to all our meetings. That restriction has ended.
TNAC members can and do fully discuss information provided by
governments to TNAC members.
The B.C. Treaty Commission in its annual reports has talked of
the need to consult and for people to know what is going on in the
treaty process. Perception can become reality. It only takes a
willingness to request some written information because material
is available.
The chief commissioner, Alec Robertson, came to the September
1995 TNAC meeting to report to members and hear their concerns
about the treaty process. That is another important link in the treaty
process. At this time 120 bands representing 79 per cent of First
Nations are negotiating.
A couple of weeks ago in Sechelt I met the chief of the Sechelt
Band who cheerfully told me how well his framework agreement
negotiations are going. He expects conclusion by next August. The
Sechelt Band was the fourth to sign a framework agreement, the
first step of the negotiating process. I was in Sechelt in August for
the signing of the agreement and there was a real celebration.
At the centre is the need to negotiate workable, effective and
affordable treaties. Unless those treaties are surrounded and
supported by a strong consultation process which provides for a
frank and open exchange of information, advice and interest, the
objective of publicly supported treaties will be difficult to achieve.
Consultation is important. The government takes the views of
Canadians seriously. We want to ensure our policies and their
implementation are sensitive to the advice and interests of
communities, people and interests which might be affected.
We have to work together, all of us, and through dialogue we can
eventually give our aboriginal people the tools necessary to
become self-sufficient. For too long they were deprived of their
integrity and pride. Their children must be strengthened and the
people of the new generation must be able to find a place in society
that makes them proud of themselves.
I am pleased to have contributed factual information to the
debate today. Consultations are essential to ensuring that
negotiations can be successfully completed. I hope the opposition
will soon join this consultation exercise. We could all come out as
winners.
I conclude with a comment I made in the House on October 19:
This country can simply not afford to lose another generation of aboriginal
people able and willing to make a contribution to this country. The young
aboriginal people of today can be our professionals, our trades people, our
inventors of tomorrow. They represent our past and our future. If we lose them it
will be an incredible waste.
I ask hon. members to vote down this unfair motion brought
forth by the third party.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak in favour of
Reform's motion on the subject of B.C. land claims.
(1710 )
I have been listening to the preprinted, standard run of the mill,
say the right thing style of speeches emanating from members
opposite. Frankly, anyone in touch with the feelings of B.C. can see
straight through the facade of the Liberal political correctness
going on.
The hon. members for Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East
spouted exactly the line we would expect from old line politicians
completely out of touch with reality. I have no doubt whatsoever
that the speeches of any other Liberal B.C. members are equally as
irrelevant. They must have some sort of big sausage machine
upstairs. They turn the handle and crank out all this meaningless
stuff.
17411
Last Tuesday in Vancouver radio talk show host Rafe Mair read
out the names of the six Liberal MPs from B.C. three times. He
emphasized the voters of B.C. have to remember the six names. He
said: ``Remember exactly how out of touch these people are with
the voters of B.C.''.
Even the hon. member for Richmond, who had a meeting in his
riding last Saturday, supposedly to get the feelings of his
constituents on the issues, told his voters he would vote against
their wishes and that he put their interests after the Liberal Party of
Canada. He insulted his own constituents. This is typical of the
attitude we hear on issues such as land claims and unity. If it does
not fit into the Liberal Party agenda, Liberal members are not
interested in hearing what the people have to say.
We can see the same pattern of debate in the motion before us
today. Instead of coming to the House with meaningful speeches
about the concerns of British Columbians, government members
have read from canned speeches prepared by their political masters
who live and work thousands of kilometres away from the
problems of the native land claims of B.C.
Some government members whose ridings are also thousands of
kilometres away from B.C. have claimed or implied that Reform
members are meanspirited or that we have some inappropriate
motive for bringing this motion before the House. That is
balderdash.
Here is some important news for government members. The
Reform member for Beaver River taught and lived on an Indian
reservation before she became an MP. The leader of the Reform
Party worked for Indian bands as a consultant for a number of years
before he was elected. The Reform member for Yorkton-Melville
has taught on an Indian reservation. The Indian affairs critic for the
Reform Party is married to a status Indian.
Mr. Speaker, anytime you hear someone say we are not in touch
with the problems, the injustices or the difficulties with Indian land
claims, please tell them they are wrong. We probably have more
experience and knowledge about the problems than the entire
Liberal caucus, certainly a lot more than the minister.
There are large Indian reservations in my riding. I have lived
there since 1979. I have had plenty of opportunity to listen to and
understand the concerns of both natives and non-natives in my
riding.
A government member earlier today quoted from Mr. Hume, an
editorialist with the Vancouver Sun. He quoted Mr. Hume as if he
were some sort of expert on B.C. opinion. He fell right into a trap.
The people of B.C. watching today will laugh. Mr. Hume does not
represent the ideas of the people of B.C. Mr. Hume has a special
interest of his own and his rantings have no relevance whatsoever
to the opinions of B.C. voters. He regularly criticizes Reform, but
if his rantings had any relevance we would not have 32 Reform
MPs from B.C. He is completely out of touch, just like the
government members.
It would be much more productive if government members
would abandon their politically correct position, their canned
speeches and their closed minds and listened to what we have to
say as the true representatives of B.C.
It is not just us; both opposition parties in B.C. have made it
clear the whole land claims deal is going off the track as B.C.
approaches the next provincial election.
Government members should stop for a moment to say to
themselves: ``Maybe these B.C. MPs are trying to tell us something
important. Maybe I should stop and listen. Maybe I should trust the
majority from B.C. telling me there is something wrong here''.
Maybe they would just say that they should support what we are
trying to do here, which is to prevent a terrible disaster from
happening if things are rushed through on the eve of a provincial
election.
What a treat it would be if government members would abandon
their party lines just for one day and help us with a major problem
in our province. It is a problem which they cannot understand
because they do not have the unique set of circumstances in their
province that we are experiencing in B.C.
Allow me to repeat the text of the motion before us today so that
members can hear again our deep concern for the problems we
have to face. We want the federal government to hold off making
any treaties in haste on the eve of the provincial election because
there is so much uncertainty surrounding the B.C. government.
Everybody has heard of the bingo scandal. The government that is
there right now might make some very unwise decisions. Our
motion really does not call for too much. It just says:
That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral
aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current
provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British
Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition
parties.
That is not too much to ask. I urge hon. members to please
support us this one time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing
Order 81.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
17412
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made on
Wednesday, December 6, 1995, the recorded division stands
deferred until Monday, December 11, 1995 at 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might ask for
some direction from members as to whether the Chair should see
the clock as being 5.30 p.m. and pursue private members' hour, or
suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is my private member's Bill C-337
which is due to come forward at 5.30 p.m., but I see the other
speakers who were scheduled to be here for 5.30 p.m. have not yet
entered the House. Therefore, I would ask the Chair to please
suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.20 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
17412
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-337, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning on
alcoholic beverage containers) be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, beverage alcohol is the only consumer
product in Canada known to cause harm if misused that does not
alert the consumer to this fact.
What are the consequences in Canada due to the misuse of
alcohol? Based on the most recent data available from Health
Canada, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and from the
Addiction Research Foundation, the facts are as follows: 38,261
psychiatric and general hospital admissions; 17,080 cases of
alcohol dependence syndrome; 966 cases of toxic poisoning;
19,163 deaths directly or indirectly caused by alcohol misuse; 10
per cent of all neoplasms or tumours; 5 per cent of all diseases of
the circulatory system; 15 per cent of all diseases of the respiratory
system; 5 per cent of all fetal defects; 45 per cent of all motor
vehicle accidents; 48 per cent of all drivers killed in accidents are
killed as a result of alcohol consumption, which means that 2,000
have been killed and over 10,000 injured in only one year; 40 per
cent of all accidental falls; 30 per cent of accidents due to fire; 30
per cent of all suicides; 60 per cent of all homicides; 50 per cent of
incidents of family violence and one in six divorces are all caused
by alcohol consumption.
It is indeed tragic that one in ten deaths in Canada, or the deaths
of about 19,000 Canadians are from alcohol related causes each
year. All of this is due to the irresponsible use of alcoholic
beverages. It is costing Canada an estimated $15 billion each year
in higher health, social, justice and lost productivity costs, not to
mention the devastating impact on family, friends and society as a
whole.
I know the effect that this can have on a family. My own father
abused alcohol most of his adult life, but we are not afraid of him
anymore. Years ago following one of his violent rages, he lost
touch with reality and is living out the rest of his life in a home. I
have not seen my father for more than 10 years because he no
longer could recognize who I was. Today he has a new family: three
bottles of vodka, one for each meal.
Bill C-337 seeks to require that containers of all alcoholic
beverages sold in Canada display the following message:
Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs a person's ability to
operate machinery or an automobile and may cause health
problems or cause birth defects during pregnancy.
There are many reasons that we should have health warning
labels on alcoholic beverages. The costs and other impacts of the
irresponsible use of alcohol are far too great to ignore. At a time
when all governments are seeking to reduce the costs of health,
social, justice and lost productivity, we need to pursue, and I stress
preventative, rather than remedial strategies. We need to let the
consumers know that health experts recognize the hazards of
alcohol use. We need to inform consumers about the risks of
alcohol use.
Failure to label alcohol when medical drugs, foods, cleaners,
solvents and other dangerous products all carry health warnings
falsely assures consumers that alcoholic beverages are safe at all
times. All levels of governments and the alcoholic beverage
industry itself have a social, moral and societal responsibility to
reduce the misuse of alcohol. Labelling is a reaffirmation in the
ability of consumers to make responsible decisions. Labelling will
17413
also promote consumer consistency and indeed will lead to changes
in drinking behaviour.
(1735 )
Labels in themselves are an integral part of any comprehensive
strategy to promote the responsible use of alcoholic beverages.
Any prevention program would be incomplete without these health
warnings. In the words of Denny Boyd, columnist for the
Vancouver Sun: ``The intended purpose of warning labels on
alcoholic containers is to act as a consumer lighthouse sending a
signal of impending danger''.
Labels represent an efficient way to continually remind
consumers of the need to drink responsibly. As one element of our
overall preventative strategy, it could be implemented quickly and
efficiently with the potential of reaching all consumers and with a
repeated effect.
I will take a moment to talk about fetal alcohol syndrome. All
Canadians are well familiar with the problems associated with
drinking and driving and that is due to the relentless education of
consumers. But there is another problem virtually unknown yet far
more tragic. It is called fetal alcohol syndrome, otherwise known
as FAS.
In 1992 there was a study called ``Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, A
Preventable Tragedy'' produced by the House of Commons
standing committee on health and welfare. The report states:
There is no question that maternal alcohol consumption can have devastating
impacts on the fetus. The basic fact is that when a pregnant woman drinks, her
unborn child drinks also; that is, the alcohol in the mother's bloodstream
circulates through the placenta into the bloodstream of the fetus. It is possible
the blood alcohol level in the fetus will remain at an elevated level for a longer
period than that of the mother because the immature fetal liver metabolizes the
alcohol more slowly.
Research shows that 5 per cent of all fetal defects are due to
alcohol consumption during pregnancy. According to Health
Canada, FAS occurs in about one in 500 live births. Therefore, it is
in fact more prevalent than Down's Syndrome which occurs in
about one in 600 live births. FAS children can reflect the following:
severe neurological disorders, social dysfunction, permanent
behavioural problems, reduced lifespan, restricted brain
development, learning disorders, hyperactivity, mental retardation,
pre and post natal growth retardation, speech and vision
impairment and physical deformities.
In addition to retarded growth, FAS children usually display
facial distortions, including a small head, small close-set eyes,
flattened cheekbones, a very thin upper lip and no groove between
the upper lip and nose.
FAS is estimated to cost $1.5 million during the lifetime of an
FAS child. FAS is estimated to cost Canadians $2.7 billion each
year in terms of increased health, special education and social
services costs.
There is another aspect to this. Fetal alcohol effects or FAE is
very similar to FAS, with the same range of problems in a less
severe form, but without the characteristic facial abnormalities.
FAE occurs two to three times more frequently than does FAS.
With regard to the alcohol industry, there is little dispute in the
medical profession that alcohol consumption during pregnancy can
have harmful effects to the fetus. The message they are trying to get
out is that there is no recommended safe level of alcohol
consumption during pregnancy and that drinking during pregnancy
can cause alcohol related birth defects, including FAS and FAE.
Both these diseases are totally preventable. I want to repeat that,
both FAS and FAE are totally preventable. In the words of the
alcohol beverage industry itself, drinking responsibly could mean
not drinking at all.
As part of my research, I took the opportunity to speak with
representatives of the Association of Canadian Distillers, the
Brewers Association of Canada and the Canadian Wine Institute. I
found that their position was very close.
They all support and promote responsible use of their products,
to their credit. Industry representatives also note that alcohol has
been shown to have health benefits in certain circumstances. I was
given examples of programs they already fund and which they felt
had better value in terms of the effectiveness of warning labels.
They express concern however that warning labels may alarm
pregnant women who may have consumed some alcohol and that
the resulting fear or stress would result in consequential and
negative health problems or even miscarriage.
(1740)
They all held the same view that they did not think that warning
labels would work and that there was no evidence that could prove
that they would work.
Finally, they all specifically stated that they would not
voluntarily comply with any recommendation to have warning
labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. Indeed they said it
would have to be legislated.
The industry's position is clear. It fundamentally rests on the
argument that health warning labels will not work. I believe this
argument is fundamentally flawed primarily because the proof of
effectiveness is indeed in the precedents of Canada, the U.S. and
the entire world. Warning or caution labels directly on the
packaging of products have been used for years for virtually every
potentially harmful product except alcoholic beverages. Research
17414
and long term monitoring have proven the effectiveness time and
time again. That is why this element of every preventative strategy
continues to be used today. Why? Simply because it works.
This is the common sense and practical reasoning. It appears that
the industry insists on empirical evidence which it says does not
exist. In fact the evidence does exist.
In 1988 the U.S. government passed legislation requiring health
warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic
beverages. Implemented in 1989, a series of studies have been
conducted to detect the impacts on knowledge, attitude and
behavioural changes. Although early studies showed little effects,
as the years went by literally dozens of research studies have
started to show progressively improving results. Here are some
examples:
In December 1993 the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in
a report on public attitudes toward alcohol control since the
warning labels were mandated in 1988 said: ``It is concluded that
the label is serving the goal set out for it, to inform the public of the
hazards associated with alcohol consumption''.
In 1993-94 the International Quarterly of Community Health
Education in a report on the awareness and knowledge of alcohol
beverage warning labels among homeless persons stated: ``Age and
level of alcohol consumption were each associated with label
awareness and content familiarity suggesting that alcohol beverage
warning labels may be reaching homeless persons''.
The final example comes from the March 1994 International
Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm. In the
research paper ``Mandated Container Warnings as an Alcohol
Related Harm Reduction Policy'' it finds: ``Within the U.S. results
indicate an association between seeing the label and displaying
behaviours relevant to limited drunk driving. Limited drinking
before driving, 68 per cent, was associated with seeing the label in
the last 12 months; limited driving after drinking was even more
significantly associated''.
The evidence is mounting and very powerful. That is why the
U.S. started to use warning labels in 1989. That is why indeed in
Canada, the Yukon and Northwest Territories started to use warning
labels in 1991. That is why 77.5 per cent of Canadians surveyed by
the Addiction Research Foundation in 1994 said they would
support health warning labels on alcohol beverage containers.
Why? Because Canadians know that warning labels work.
This initiative of having health warning labels on the containers
of alcoholic beverages is not a recent subject in Canada. It was first
raised in 1976 by the then Minister of Health, the hon. Marc
Lalonde. In 1992, as I mentioned earlier the House of Commons
standing committee on health and welfare recommended warning
labels to the government.
How do current legislators feel? On May 23, 1995 the B.C.
Minister of Health wrote the following to the federal Minister of
Health: ``I am writing to you in regards to alcohol warning labels.
This was a topic of our discussion at the provincial, territorial
ministers of health meeting held in Vancouver April 10 and 11,
1995. There was unanimous agreement that warning labels should
be pursued by the federal government''.
(1745)
I repeat, the provincial ministers of health unanimously agreed
that warning labels should be pursued by the federal government.
In addition, the federal Minister of Health has clearly stated her
strong support for health warning labels for the containers of
alcoholic beverages.
The alcoholic beverage industry feels the consumer has the
burden of proof that health warning labels work. I believe the
burden of proof that they do not work must fall on the industry. If it
cannot provide that burden of proof, then today I call on the
industry to discharge its social, moral and business responsibility
and voluntarily comply with this labelling recommendation.
Bill C-337 is the first piece of legislation on warning labels that
has ever reached this point in our legislative system. The bill no
longer belongs to me. It now belongs to all the members of
Parliament.
We cannot afford to miss the opportunity to do the right thing. I
humbly ask for members' support to pass Bill C-337 today at
second reading so that we may more rigorously pursue the facts
through public hearings before the Standing Committee on Health.
In this way, members of Parliament who are not in the cabinet can
once again demonstrate to Canadians that we can and do make a
positive contribution to the well-being of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak in this House to Bill C-337, which amends
the Food and Drugs Act. This bill, tabled by my colleague for
Mississauga South, is aimed at warning pregnant women and the
public at large about the health risks involved in the consumption
of alcohol. It also serves to draw attention to the fact that alcohol
consumption reduces a person's ability to operate machinery or an
automobile.
We agree with the principle behind this bill. It is now
recognized, even by the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages, that
alcohol abuse can lead to a variety of health problems, impair an
individual's faculties and limit their ability to perform certain tasks
requiring concentration.
In recent years, society has recognized the danger of impaired
driving. This awareness has caused lawmakers to strengthen
legislation covering driving while impaired and to provide harsher
17415
penalties for offenders. Governments have run public awareness
campaigns with the participation of the manufacturers and
distributers of alcoholic beverages.
People are also increasingly aware of the risks inherent in the
operation of machinery or equipment following the consumption of
alcohol. Excessive alcohol consumption over long periods may
also cause health problems.
According to the Addiction Research Foundation, alcohol is
involved in 19,000 deaths a year through heart and liver disease,
certain forms of cancer, suicide and traffic or other types of
accidents.
Excessive alcohol consumption also plays a part in vandalism,
acts of violence and family problems. The use of alcohol
consumption as an extenuating circumstance in the courts recently
led to Parliament's legislating against self-inflicted intoxication as
an excuse for illegal behaviour.
This said, we cannot generalize and say that alcohol is
responsible for all of society's ills.
Most of the members of this House doubtless take a drink in
moderation from time to time and enjoy it. It is not the
consumption of alcohol that is dangerous or harmful, it is the abuse
of it.
(1750)
According to recent studies, limited consumption of alcohol may
even be beneficial to certain individuals, particularly those who
may be candidates for coronary or circulatory problems. I am not
trying to say that alcohol consumption is totally beneficial, but I
would like to point out that the alcohol problems we often hear
about are primarily the result of abuse and over consumption.
The sole exception applies to pregnant women. Recent studies
on foetal alcohol syndrome have shown that even moderate
consumption of alcohol may involve risk to the foetus, by altering
the breathing of the foetus and reducing the flow of blood to its
brain.
Negative effects observed after birth include lower birth weight
and delays in the child's physical and mental development.
We have just listed many reasons for warning the public against
the various problems that may be caused by or related to alcohol
consumption. What form should the warning take? Will the bill
before us be a solution or a step in the right direction? Should other
ways be developed as well to warn people about the effects of
alcohol abuse?
Currently there are a number of advertising campaigns aimed at
increasing public awareness. In Quebec, for instance, the campaign
against drinking and driving has been successful to some extent in
reducing the number of automobile accidents related to alcohol
consumption. The Société des alcools du Québec launched a
campaign under the now well known slogan ``La modération a
bien meilleur goût'', a phrase that has become very popular. During
the holiday season, some companies include in their advertising a
warning to their customers to drink with moderation.
In addition to the examples I just mentioned, many other ways to
increase public awareness have been suggested by various
intervenors in the business of selling alcohol. For instance, some
licensed establishments now stock non-alcoholic beverages and list
these on the menu. Some municipalities may consider posting
warnings, in establishments that serve alcohol, against the
potentially harmful effects on the foetus of consumption of alcohol
during pregnancy.
Recently, there has been a trend towards more emphasis on
providing information through health professionals. For instance,
urging physicians who treat pregnant women to stress the harmful
effects of alcohol during pregnancy. Social workers are also being
asked to increase the public's awareness of the potential effects of
drinking alcoholic beverages.
Briefly, we must be aware of the important role of prevention,
education and other forms of social intervention in making the
public aware of problems that may be related to alcohol
consumption.
We should also consider the practical aspect. First of all, we
would have to estimate the additional cost to producers and
distributors and see whether it would penalize smaller producers,
especially the micro-breweries and brewers of local beers which
are a recent development.
It would also be necessary to find out if this measure would
make the industry less competitive or violate international free
trade agreements signed by Canada.
Of course the money aspect should not cause us to forget our
main concern which remains the health of Canadians. However,
before implementing a labelling directive like the one provided in
the bill, we must be certain this kind of measure would be effective.
Of course, as is often the case, where public health is concerned,
it is difficult to argue against the merits of virtue, and that is why
we welcome the bill proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga
South.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in speaking
today on Bill C-337, I would like to start by telling a story about
Johnny. Johnny was a little fellow who was adopted into a family.
This family had enough resources to take on Johnny's
responsibilities. They welcomed him with love and care into their
home. He had come from a family that had some problems, a
broken family.
17416
(1755)
As Johnny grew he was different from the natural children in this
family. His growth was somewhat stunted. He was smaller than the
other kids. They thought perhaps it was heredity. When he was old
enough to start learning things he seemed to fall behind the other
children in the home. He was a very active boy. He had a very
strange habit in that he could climb the door frame right to top of
the door. He got himself into most peculiar spots in the home. He
would climb up on top of the cupboards.
As he got a little older Johnny was hard to control in the sense
that he would run away from home and the family would have the
police out looking for him. He could be gone for three or four hours
and be impossible to find. One day he left home, crawled into a
camper down the laneway and found some matches. He built a little
bonfire in the camper and lit the camper on fire. This was a
neighbour's camper, a most unpopular item.
Johnny loved wildlife. When he was outdoors he was extremely
interested in the frogs, the turtles and the insects. He was really
happy when he was outdoors.
I am going through his life now. As he got older and became a
young teenager it was quite obvious Johnny did not have the mental
capabilities of a normal teen. He was stuck somewhere back in
preschool in terms of his educational capabilities. He became
somewhat aggressive and difficult to handle. He ended up having to
become a ward of the government, a ward of the province in which
he lived. He had to leave the home that had provided him with love
and attention. He had to be looked after by other individuals.
Johnny is now old enough to recognize that he will never hold a
productive job. He will always be a responsibility of the
government, a responsibility of the province, a responsibility of the
individuals who care for him.
It turns out that Johnny's natural mom drank heavily. Johnny was
a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome. His mom had so many
problems that her life was not complete without alcohol so she
drank heavily. Johnny has an incurable problem. His life is
completely affected by that early childhood, the time when he was
in the womb.
Fetal alcohol syndrome is totally preventable. Early
development with alcohol presents birth defects, retardation,
hyperactivity, all the things we saw in Johnny. It is totally
preventable. All we need to do is make certain that young moms
and even older moms when they are pregnant do not drink heavily.
I would like to compare fetal alcohol syndrome to German
measles, rubella. How do we treat German measles? We inoculate
all women who will become pregnant or could become pregnant.
We warn pregnant moms during the first trimester of their
pregnancy not to come in contact with German measles. We do
rubella tests on them to make certain they have immunity to
rubella. We educate and in the instance of rubella we do not have to
legislate.
Is legislation necessary in this instance? Bill C-337 calls for
putting a warning label on all alcoholic beverages, a warning label
that says that consumption of alcoholic beverages can impair a
person's ability to operate machinery or an automobile and may
cause health problems or birth defects during pregnancies. When
should we legislate personal behaviour? When should we legislate
what an individual may do in society? We should legislate when
there is a third party who has no choice. In this case, with foetal
alcohol syndrome, there is a third party with no choice. The infant
in the womb has no choice. Legislation in this instance has merit.
(1800)
I compare this issue to smoking in a public place. In an enclosed
place where others are affected by the smoke of a smoker there is a
place for legislation.
Reformers generally want to have as small a government and the
least intrusive legislation possible. However, in the case of foetal
alcohol syndrome legislation may be warranted.
Is this label the way to go? If I were thinking how best to warn
women most likely to be affected by foetal alcohol syndrome I
would not put a worded label on the bottle, I would put the profile
of a pregnant woman on the bottle with a big red X across it. I
would direct my efforts toward those women most likely to drink
heavily, some of whom are illiterate. In many cases native women
are affected by this problem. Some of them would not understand a
worded label.
How would I implement such a change? I would first say to the
alcoholic beverage companies that legislation would not be
necessary if they would comply voluntarily. There is a strong
public sentiment for good corporate relationships. I challenge those
companies to listen carefully to this debate. Legislation would not
be necessary with the proper labelling for foetal alcohol syndrome
on bottles. They have shown some willingness to comply by their
anti-drinking and driving campaigns. It would be profoundly
reasonable to comply on this campaign.
This bill is some evidence that Parliament can co-operate.
Reform members are quite keen to see health measures of a
preventive nature promoted in Canada. Consequently we will
support this bill to the committee stage at this level quite strongly.
We are supporting it on my behalf because of my wish for little
Johnny to be happy.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the
opportunity to speak to this problem. I am also pleased that all
three parties of the House agree on this issue.
17417
For the last 15 years it has been an issue with which I have been
involved as a physician, as an advocate for my patients and as a
member of the British Columbia Medical Association lobbying to
change public policy.
Canadians from all walks of life in every region have been
concerned over the years about alcohol consumption and especially
about the abuse of alcohol, not only its effects on society but its
effects on the health of individuals. Canadians have always looked
to governments to reduce the risks associated with this drug.
These concerns have taken various forms at different times. In
the 1980s the major concern was drinking and driving.
Governments have acted at the provincial level and at the federal
level to take into consideration this issue. The companies that make
and market alcohol have been fairly responsible with respect to
drinking and driving. Together we have managed to see in this
decade that the issue of drinking and driving has begun to take root
in the minds of the public and in the minds of the young people who
are the most affected.
(1805 )
More recently the major alcohol related concern has shifted to
foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol effect. A parliamentary
committee reviewed this topic in great detail and came down with a
large number of recommendations, not the least of which was
labelling. This was a stakeholder conference. There were three
conferences in a row. At the conference were makers and marketers
of alcohol who basically had a sense of responsibility toward the
issue, although they did not seem interested in going as far as the
labelling issue.
FAS is foetal alcohol syndrome, a medical diagnosis that refers
to a set of alcohol related disabilities associated with the use of
alcohol during pregnancy. It is used to describe a set of physical,
mental and behavioural changes in young children who have been
born with this syndrome.
Exposure of the foetus to alcohol has a great deal of effect
specifically on the foetal brain and brain tissue. It is because of this
that we see foetal alcohol syndrome. Different levels of drinking
can produce foetal alcohol syndrome. Lower levels of drinking can
produce foetal alcohol effect, which is not as full blown a
syndrome in that there are not usually physical disabilities
associated with it, but the behavioural components are clear.
There are some surveys and information now that are leading us
to believe that a lot of people who exhibit anti-social behaviour,
who have behavioural problems in school and who fill many of the
jails in this country have foetal alcohol effect. We can curb this
problem and stop it. It is preventable. One or three in every one
thousand children in industrialized countries has foetal alcohol
syndrome or foetal alcohol effect. This is a terrible issue that we
must deal with.
This is not the only thing I want to talk about because I do not
want people to believe that here we are again hitting on any
particular social enjoyment we all have. Alcohol is not, unlike
tobacco, a dangerous drug if taken according to instructions. We
now know there is a level of hazardous drinking that results in the
acute effects we see in terms of drinking and driving or using
machinery or acts of violence when one is acutely drunk. There is
also a certain level of hazardous drinking if done over a period of
time. It can lead to hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver and some
alcohol induced psychosis in the long term.
We are talking about a drug that has an effect on humans and on
the health status of humans. It is time we did something about it,
specifically because alcohol is such a socially acceptable drug and
specifically because it is a substance we can use appropriately and
enjoy in a way that is not dangerous, except of course with the one
exception, when one is pregnant. A pregnant woman should not
have any alcohol whatsoever.
What we are talking about is a substance we could make safe.
How do we make anything safe? When we buy antihistamines
across the counter there is a warning not to drink alcohol while
taking them; do not operate machinery. On a bottle of Draino there
is a warning not to ingest it internally. We know certain things are
hazardous when used inappropriately.
Alcohol lends itself specifically to labelling because it is a way
we can send a clear message that tells everyone they can use this
substance in a safe way or in an unsafe way, and these are the
unsafe ways. Warnings on products lead to their safe use. That is
what we are talking about.
Health Canada spends a great deal of money on programs for
native people and the Inuit people especially, community based
programs, to support parents and children who have FAS and FAE.
(1810)
We also have lots of programs that deal, as any healthy public
policy should, with education and awareness because public
awareness is the key. We cannot say someone is doing something
wrong when they do not have any knowledge it is wrong. Therefore
public awareness is the key and this is where labelling comes in.
Labelling clearly says do and do not. It gives a clear, defined
parameter within which to work in a safe way to use a substance as
in the case of alcohol. While we see that there are a lot of remedial
services and support programs, and while we are at the moment
increasing awareness and doing education programs in the schools
and in communities, working at all levels, federal governments,
provincial governments and community based groups are all
working hard to stop the abuse of alcohol and the inappropriate use
of alcohol.
17418
We have not used one tool sitting in our little box of tools. Many
people have said this will be expensive. I do not understand why
this will be any more expensive because the alcohol industry, in
order to export alcohol to the United States, must put a label that
warns of the dangers of alcohol because labelling is mandatory
in the United States. Yet we have on one side of a room a whole
lot of bottles sitting there with no labels. People are are busy
sticking labels on them just to send them across the border.
Are the children in the United States any less important than our
children? I say no. This is not a major burden we will be putting on
the alcohol industry. It is an industry that has shown to be very
supportive and very accountable in terms of how it deals with
alcohol.
I am pleased the member brought this to the fore because it is an
opportunity for us to talk about this issue. Doubters say look at
what happened with the tobacco industry. The Supreme Court ruled
we should not ban advertising and sponsorship because we have not
proven it will make a difference to youth. Whenever members talk
to manufacturers and to advertising agencies they always say
package labelling confers a great deal of information about the
product, and that manufacturers use labels to send us many
messages about the image of their product.
If one wants to buy detergent it has to be the kind of detergent
that speaks of grandma using it; a nice clean wash with sea breezes
blowing through it, one that smells good with lemon and lime and
all these things. We always use images to sell our product. Soup
labels convey the down home quality. It is always something hearty
and the sort of thing we were used to in the old days.
We talk about cigarette manufacturers. They have brought this to
a fine art. They are the most expert at turning a product. They talk
about youth and vigour. They show how many friends one can
make if one smokes. They show how socially acceptable one will
be, how great at sport, how wonderful a lifestyle one will gain from
smoking.
What is crucial here is the recognition that in many areas no
distinction can be drawn between the product as conceived by the
maker and the packaging. The product and the packaging are
almost the same. That is why manufacturers are often so very
resistant to labelling or to putting anything on their product that
says the product is not as good as it should be.
I hope everyone here will support the bill. We support it very
strongly at Health Canada. We believe if we are ever to prevent the
preventable diseases that create a great deal of tragedy in our lives,
this is one sure step. We are already half way there. We do it for the
United States. Let us do it for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have the honour to inform
the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill,
to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-12, an act
to amalgamate the Alberta corporation known as the Missionary
Church with the Canada corporation known as the Evangelical
Missionary Church, Canada, West District.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135, the bill is deemed to have been
read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting
of the House.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-337,
and act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning on alcoholic
beverages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1815 )
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that
members seem to be ready for the adjournment debate. Perhaps we
could call it 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17418
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 6, 1995 I asked the Minister of National
Defence a question pertaining to the week of revelations at the
Department of National Defence. During the week of revelations it
had been discovered that senior officials at NDHQ altered docu-
17419
ments. The punishment: the department was instructed to
investigate itself.
Further evidence revealed that Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward
destroyed evidence and obstructed justice. His punishment: he was
promoted.
Yet more evidence showed that Colonel Labbé uttered unlawful
commands. His punishment: he was put in charge of the army staff
college to teach leadership.
In our parliamentary democracy we have what is called
ministerial responsibility. It is the minister's responsibility to know
what is going on in his department and to take responsibility for the
actions of his subordinates.
I pointed this out to the minister. I said that he must have had
these events on file. I asked him why he waited so long to act.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
stood on behalf of the minister. He said that he was disappointed
that I would dare to ask a question pertaining to ministerial
responsibility. Then he told the House something that all Canadians
have known for a long time, that the government was so terribly
open it was opaque.
According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, seventh edition,
opaque means not transmitting light, not transparent, obscure,
obtuse and dull witted. I admire the parliamentary secretary's
honesty. This is one instance where a member of the government
was not obscure. I hope the Liberal whip was easy on him. He has
been unforgiving with other Liberal members of Parliament who
speak their minds.
Being pleased with the parliamentary secretary's openness, I
asked him if the actions revealed that week were considered
examples of good leadership. Sadly the parliamentary secretary
went back to normal Liberal tactics. His answer was obscure. He
said he did not like the tenor of my question and that he personally
had called for the Somalia inquiry while in opposition.
This was all fine and good but he failed to answer the question
that Canadians demanded to be answered. I then informed the
parliamentary secretary that it was the Reform Party that called for
an open inquiry. The parliamentary secretary would have been
satisfied with a cloudy internal investigation. He did not protest the
minister's attempts to make the inquiry opaque.
Canadians are extremely dissatisfied with the mismanagement
of the Minister of National Defence. Whether it is the evidence of
cover-ups or the procurement of the minister's gold plated pens,
Canadians are demanding change. Since our parliamentary system
is based on ministerial responsibility, I asked the minister to resign.
At this point the right hon. Prime Minister intervened. He talked
about his personal support for our soldiers. This was not just
opaque; it was pure balderdash.
The Prime Minister has been in the House for 30 years. Where
was he during unification? Where was he in 1969 when the budget
reduced the army from 45,000 to 25,000 and the militia from
24,000 to 13,500? Where was he during the civilianization of the
armed forces? Where was he when the regimental system was
under assault?
He was a senior official in the Trudeau government on the
military dismantlement team.
(1820 )
Regarding Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward and Colonel Labbé, the
minister had these reports on file with respect to these events. I ask
the parliamentary secretary again why the minister waited so long
before he acted. Does the minister consider the actions of these
senior officials to be examples of good leadership?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is very misguided in his attempts to
discredit the minister and the government.
Certainly members on this side of the House know that the
platform of the third party has been to use specious and irrelevant
petty arguments and half truths for partisan gains which really have
nothing to do with the Canadian forces and the issue at hand.
Let us look at the facts. It was a Liberal government that called
for an inquiry. It was this government that ensured the inquiry
would be public and open. At least the hon. member gave me credit
for asking for it two and a half years ago.
It was this government that encouraged people to come forward
with the information and to go forward to the inquiry. It was this
government that ensured that the Somalia inquiry was provided
with complete and accurate information and that relevant
documents were made available to the commission.
Not all these actions have been easy. We could have been goaded
into precipitous action. I will give one example. Where others may
have been attempted to score political points, we stayed the course
and waited for the Westray Mine decision so that justice would be
done and done properly, without the possibility of it being undone
later because of a technicality.
That is one example. These actions point toward good
leadership, integrity and willingness to get things done. Now is the
time for the commission to do its work and we look forward to its
recommendations.
The Canadian forces have a long and proud heritage which we
are not prepared to throw away, despite the antics from the other
side of the House in the third party. I suggest the third party share
the sentiment of all members on this side of the House, especially
at a time when we have just embarked on a new program, the first
17420
in the history of peacekeeping. I hope they will continue to lend
their support for Canadian forces abroad.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a week ago,
on November 30, I rose in the House to question the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food on a recommendation he had received
from a senior executive officers committee that he had struck
several months ago. It was looking at some of the ideas concerning
ownership of hopper cars, the future role of the wheat board in
allocating cars in the grain handling system in western Canada and
other similar matters.
I tried to make the point with the minister that the
recommendation coming from that group was that farmers would
be asked to pay an extra $1 per tonne to raise money to purchase
between 12,000 and 13,000 hopper cars the federal government
now owns. They have an assessed value of $400 million, but the
proposal is that the railways each take half the cars for a sum of
$100 million which they can raise by imposing an extra fee of a
dollar per tonne on the farm sector for everything farmers ship. In
the end, after having collected the extra money from farmers, the
railways would own the cars.
This seems to be the ultimate bad deal for farmers. If they are
paying for the cars, why do they not end up owning them? This is
something farmers are arguing. They think the senior executive
officers have presented a proposal that is self-serving in the
ultimate. We must remember that at least two of the people on the
senior executive committee represent the two major railroads.
The basic justice of the proposal is something I was arguing. The
minister in his response said he had not made up his mind yet, but I
should remember the senior executive officers recommended that
there be a ceiling placed on freight increases, other than the $1 per
tonne, for 10 years.
I have listened to responses from farmers in western Canada to
this remark. They are very quick to remember that it was a Liberal
government approximately 97 years ago that promised the Crow
rate in perpetuity, and that means forever in anybody's language. It
lasted for 96 or 97 years.
(1825)
The question the farmers have is a very good one. They are
saying if perpetuity lasts 96 and 97 years, how long will 10 years
last? The answer in coffee row is until the next budget.
They will not buy that and I do not see why they should. It is
incumbent on me as a member from out west to remind the minister
that his credibility and the government's credibility on promises
for grain rates and promises into future activities of the government
or any future government is zero after what they have done to the
Crow rate and other things considered to be part of the
constitution, almost, for Canadian farmers. That is not acceptable.
What is acceptable is to put those 13,000 cars under the control
of the wheat board, even if farmers have to pay for them. At least it
would let them know they own them afterward and that their
agency, the board, can control them.
The board does an excellent job of distributing rolling stock. As I
have pointed out, the ownership of rolling stock was thrust on them
because of the railways' refusal in the 1970s when the current
minister was assistant to Otto Lang. The railways simply refused to
buy or rent rolling stock. Farmers and provincial and federal
governments were forced to buy rolling stock to keep Canadian
grain rolling.
As I have said, the board has done an excellent job of using the
rolling stock. It has extremely high turnaround times, meaning that
a car is loaded, delivers its load and is returned to the country
elevator system faster than any other grain cars in the system. I will
give an example using comparable grains. Durum wheat makes 17
turnarounds in a year using wheat board cars, compared to oats
which are operated by the open market and only make 12
turnarounds. This gives an idea of how much more efficiency there
is under the board controlling those cars and of the savings that
result both to farmers and to railroads from that activity.
I recommend the government take very seriously turning these
cars over to farmers. Yes, we will pay for them if we have to, but
they should be left in the control of the wheat board.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a working group
of senior executive officers and farmer representatives in the
western grains industry has arrived at a basic consensus about what
should be done with respect to government owned hopper cars, car
allocation procedures and the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in
transportation.
The report will be discussed at various farm organization
meetings over the winter. Until farmers have had an opportunity to
understand and comment on the recommendations, it would be
premature to make a full or final decision with respect to the
government's response to the report.
The consensus achieved by this group is certainly remarkable in
itself. Only a few years ago many people would have thought it
would be impossible for such a consensus to be reached by such a
divergent group. It is a package involving a balance of tough but
creative compromises and it has to be looked at as a whole, as a
package.
17421
The government will respond to this report in early 1996 and
is proud of its record of consultation with stakeholders. This is
the way we operate and this issue will be treated the same as all
the others.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I have been concerned for some
time that the Liberal government would not do the right thing in
responding to the fine work of the Standing Committee on
Environment on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Since the release of the committee's report last June there have
been numerous media reports about how the government would
respond. There have also been fears expressed that the Minister of
the Environment, who is said to be a supporter of the
recommendations of the committee, is being pushed out of the
decision making picture by the interests of the Minister of Industry
and the Minister of Natural Resources who are said to oppose the
same recommendations. In fact, some officials within the industry
department said openly that the committee's proposals are a threat
to the country's investment climate, costly to implement and
grounded on shaky science.
(1830)
At the same time the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking in
the House of Commons on the government's CEPA response in
relation to concerns raised by the mining industry said: ``At this
point I am willing to go on record that, working together, we will
ensure a regulatory regime that supports the mining industry''.
When we take those comments into account and add to the mix
the fact that the government has blatantly ignored the committee's
request, indeed Parliament's direction, that a response be provided
within 150 days, it is easy to see why concerns about the
government's ultimate intentions remain in the minds of all those
who care about the future of the environmental regulatory process.
Members of Parliament will remember that on November 21 I
criticized the government for failing to table its response. The only
answer I received was that the response would be coming within
two weeks. It is 10 days later and we are still waiting.
It is possible that the Minister of the Environment is having
difficulty getting a favourable response through cabinet. This is the
government's most important environmental decision to date.
Few would argue that the 365 page committee report entitled
``It's About Our Health'' with its 141 recommendations dealing
with virtually every aspect of the federal government's role in the
protection of Canada's environment is not significant.
May I remind members and the public that is listening that the
committee made recommendations for amendments in the areas of
toxic substances assessment and pollution prevention, the
assessment and regulation of biotechnology products, ocean
dumping and coastal zone management, the role of First Nations in
environmental protection, the ecosystem approach to
environmental protection, environmental management within the
federal government, public participation in federal environmental
decision making and federal environmental law enforcement.
In a recent article in the Globe and Mail Paul Muldoon of the
Canadian Environmental Law Association and Mark Winfield of
the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy said:
The federal government's response will be a bell-wether indicator as to
whether it will take its responsibilities regarding toxic substances and other
aspects of environmental protection seriously.
Based on the weight of evidence known to date, the standing committee
recommended that strong action is needed regarding the most toxic substances.
The departments opposing CEPA reform demand absolute proof of harm
prior to any substantive action.
They are willing to roll the dice with the health of Canadians. The Liberal
government must now decide whether it is prepared to do the same.
On October 24, concerned about the comments of the industry
officials mentioned earlier, I asked the Minister of Industry if he
was going to take the advice of those officials or would he welcome
the opportunity to turn Canada into an international leader in green
legislation as detailed in the impressive recommendations of the
environment committee.
I ask that question again tonight, in the hopes that the
government is prepared to confirm its support and indicate to us
when its response to the CEPA report can be expected.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his close interest in the CEPA
review. He worked on the committee during the CEPA review. He
has shown a continuing interest in it throughout the committee's
deliberations and after the report was issued. It is very
commendable that he has brought up this issue so that Canadians
will be aware of the status of the government's response.
I am sorry the response is late. The minister is in Vienna at the
ozone layer convention, which occasioned a further delay.
However, the response will be ready extremely soon.
I can assure my colleague that the response will reflect, very
honourably, on the recommendations and the thrust of the report of
17422
the standing committee and all the principles which have been put
forward by the committee. The main program of the committee, as
suggested in the report, will be reflected in the response.
(1835)
I can assure the member that the Minister of Industry, whose law
promotes sustainable development, is very much on side in
co-operating with the Minister of the Environment to ensure that
the report reflects what is the preoccupation of Canadians toward
sustainable development and the integration of the economy and
the environment, including pollution prevention.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 4, 1995 I rose in the House to request the Minister of
Foreign Affairs to use his good offices for the Government of
Vietnam on behalf of nine religious, academic and cultural leaders
under imprisonment in Vietnam and waiting retrial.
I had this matter brought to my attention by members of our
Vietnamese Canadian community in Vancouver and also in Ottawa
and elsewhere. I had followed up with meetings with the
Vietnamese ambassador in Ottawa, with communications with our
Canadian ambassador in Hanoi and with written representations
through our government and others.
I was happy to be able to inform the House in a statement made
on November 22, 1995 that the Vietnamese government had acted
to release two of the religious and cultural leaders and that they had
already left Vietnam and were now in North America.
Canadian foreign policy in its golden era in the immediate
post-war period developed and applied the skills of quiet
diplomacy, involving patient but firm negotiations and never
resorted to gunboat diplomacy 19th century style, which would
have been beyond our military logistical capacities anyway.
In the contemporary post-cold war era, when trade and
commerce have replaced political military power as the basis of the
world public order system, I would ask the minister how he can
best continue to promote the development of democratic
constitutionalism and the advancement of basic constitutional
rights in our new neighbour countries of the Pacific rim.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the Vietnamese
Canadian community across Canada is very appreciative that the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised this issue not only in the
House of Commons but in other fora.
As the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific stated during question
period, Canada's position and our relationship with Vietnam is one
of supporting engagement rather than isolation. This is in concert
with the rest of the international community. Having a dialogue on
human rights remains an important part of our relationship.
When the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Hanoi in the middle
of November, he raised human rights issues with his Vietnamese
counterpart, Minister Nguyen Manh Cam. The secretary of state
also raised his concerns about human rights in Vietnam during his
visit to that country. Furthermore, he had a lengthy discussion
about human rights with the Vietnam deputy prime minister during
the latter's visit to Canada last year. We also maintain an ongoing
dialogue through our embassy in Hanoi and with the Vietnamese
embassy in Canada.
Our policy is to speak honestly and forthrightly in appropriate
multilateral fora such as the United Nations' third committee,
which deals with questions of human rights.
In his speech on Friday, December 1, Ambassador Bob Fowler
mentioned Canadian concerns related to religious and political
prisoners. In our judgment, maintaining a position of quiet
diplomacy bilaterally while continuing to speak honestly in
multilateral fora is more effective than a confrontational approach.
We are pleased to see that two prisoners have already been
released. I am certain that the hon. member's interventions at the
ambassadorial and other levels went a long way toward this release.
We hope our current policy and the hon. member's skills of quiet
diplomacy will continue to have positive results.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to address a reply to my question from the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. It is
about how the government plans on tendering moving contracts in
the future.
Currently, only the four major Canadian van lines can bid on
moving projects with DND. The others are given a chance to match
the lowest bid. The successful bidder receives a volume bonus.
Work is then farmed out to companies across the country.
(1840)
The government proposed to change this system, so that any
company from any country would be allowed to bid and the lowest
bidder would get all the work. That meant that DND would move
toward a one bidder take all system that would create a monopoly
in the moving business. It would destroy an industry of over 800
companies across this nation and put thousands of people out of
work.
17423
Now the government, thankfully, has changed its mind and is
proposing another plan, where a moving company with the lowest
bid will receive 40 per cent of the government's business. The next
three lowest bidders will receive proportionately less as long as
they match the lowest price.
The government currently works with something called GLAC,
the government list of approved carriers. If you are not on that list,
you are not eligible for government moving contracts. Under the
new proposal, that list would be scrapped.
The hundreds of independently owned and family owned moving
companies that make up the moving industry provide quality
service. They are on that GLAC list. They own the warehouses and
the moving vans. They have invested millions of their own dollars
in infrastructure.
Last week, Randy Hoyt, president of the Hoyt's Group of
Companies from Atlantic Canada, told the public accounts
committee that the volume of government business available to
each of the GLAC carriers has varied according to their track
record. For poor quality, movers are removed from the list or
suspended.
This system is serving Canadian taxpayers well and is good for
government employees and independent movers. Because they
were assured a share of the volume, movers have invested in
facilities and trained staff at locations in Canada where service
would otherwise not be available. Atlantic Canada is a case in
point. There are many towns where these companies have
operations and so the public gets competitive quotes when they
move.
The government's new proposal will destroy this system and the
benefits that go with it. It will also result in thousands of job losses.
Ontario businessman Pat Baird told the public accounts
committee that he wants to bid under the proposed new system. Mr.
Baird has no trucks, no warehouses, no infrastructure. He has two
to three employees and has no financial investment. He made
misleading statements to the committee. He told the committee
that if he wins the bid, he wants to use rail lines to move
government employees. He forgot that we do not have rail lines in
many parts of Atlantic Canada. He said that he has a joint venture
with CN Rail and CN will be building 300 to 400 new 53-foot
containers made up as moving vans. He also said that CN's
investment was going to be $26 million.
I have spoken to CN and according to CN it has a verbal
agreement with Mr. Baird. If the bid is successful it is prepared to
modify, not build new, but modify some old 48-foot containers, not
build new 53-foot ones, as Mr. Baird said, at a cost of $4,000 to
$5,000 each. According to CN, its commitment will only be $1.3
million maximum, not $26 million as Mr. Baird has stated.
These inaccuracies in Mr. Baird's testimony should serve as a
warning. The proposed new tender process should be put on hold. I
appeal to the parliamentary secretary and the minister to review
this matter. It is a serious matter. All I ask is to put it on hold and
look at it because of these discrepancies and inaccuracies.
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the interdepartmental committee on household goods
removal services, which I will call the IDC for short, recently
conducted a review of the household goods removal service
process. It had three goals when it did this.
The first was to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of an
admittedly overregulated arrangement with the industry. The
second was to encourage the entry of new competitors into the
process. Third was to secure greater savings through the
application of economies of scale and consolidation of service.
The committee reviewed the feasibility of using a single
supplier, as the hon. member said, for its moving business. The
committee's evaluation of the concept after meetings with
parliamentarians and others in the business concluded that there
was a potential for saving, but insufficient grounds exist at this
time to introduce a major change in the process. The information
was too soft and the risks were too high.
The committee met with current contractors and other interested
parties to seek industry feedback and to include their views in order
to ensure that the process was open and transparent.
A new approach to acquiring these services has been developed
which represents strong potential for savings, addresses the
concerns of the bureau of competition and moderates the
implementation risks involved.
The basic elements of the changes are: a one year competitive
tender fully accessible by any interested party; the lowest bidder
will receive 40 per cent of total government business, while the
remaining compliant bidders, maximum of three more, would
receive 25 per cent, 20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively; the
lowest bidder's rate would be used; contractors would not have the
right to refuse government moves; contractors rather than the
government would determine the infrastructure requirements; and
exclusivity rules would be rescinded whereby any carrier could
align itself with another carrier, van line or government moves.
These changes will take effect in April 1996.
Finally, I want to assure the hon. member and this House that
this government is committed to fairness in awarding government
contracts while at the same time ensuring that the best possible
value for the Canadian taxpayer exists. I assure her that her
concerns will be taken into consideration.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursu-ant to Standing Order
38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands ajour-ned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)